Appendix A DWR Required Tables/District – Wide Tables
Appendix A includes the tables required by DWR for submission with the District’s Urban Water Management Plan. These tables contain the aggregate data for all of the service areas that the District serves. Table 2-1 Retail Only: Public Water Systems
Volume of Public Water System Public Water System Number of Municipal Water Supplied Number Name Connections 2015 2015
CA0510004 C.C.W.D Sheep Ranch 51 7
CA0510006 C.C.W.D Jenny Lind 3,756 3,071
CA0510005 C.C.W.D. West Point 582 141
CA0510017 CCWD Copper Cove 2,556 1,656 CCWD Ebbetts Pass CA0510016 6,027 1,177 Improvement District Wallace Community CA0510019 103 45 Services District TOTAL 13,075 6,096 NOTES: Table 2-2: Plan Identification
Name of RUWMP or Regional Alliance if Select Only Type of Plan applicable One drop down list
Individual UWMP
Water Supplier is also a member of a RUWMP
Water Supplier is also a member of a Regional Alliance
Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP)
NOTES: Table 2-3: Agency Identification Type of Agency (select one or both) Agency is a wholesaler
Agency is a retailer Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one) UWMP Tables Are in Calendar Years
UWMP Tables Are in Fiscal Years If Using Fiscal Years Provide Month and Date that the Fiscal Year Begins (mm/dd)
Units of Measure Used in UWMP (select from Drop down) Unit AF NOTES: Table 2-4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange The retail supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use in accordance with CWC 10631. Wholesale Water Supplier Name (Add additional rows as needed)
N/A
NOTES: Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected
Population 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040(opt) Served 20,698 22,066 23,173 24,030 24,747 25,183 NOTES: (1) There is a growth moratorium currently in effect in Sheep Ranch; as such, population growth will likely be less than what is shown, until the moratorium is lifted. (2) These projections are from Department of Finance data and are not reflective of projections that are included in the General Plan. Table 4-1: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Actual
2015 Actual
Use Type Level of Treatment Number of Connections Volume (AF) When Delivered
Single Family 12,503 Drinking Water 2,316 Multi-Family 11 Drinking Water 19 Commercial 411 Drinking Water 126 Institutional/Governmental 31 Drinking Water 50 Landscape 106 Drinking Water 153 Landscape 2 Raw Water 494 Agricultural irrigation 9 Raw Water 1,469 Sales/Transfers/Exchanges to 2 Drinking Water 14 other agencies Other -- Drinking Water 8 Losses -- 1,447 TOTAL 6,096 Table 4-2: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Projected
Projected Water Use (AF) Level of Treatment When Use Type Delivered 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Single Family Drinking Water 3,521 4,148 4,709 5,698 7,518 Multi-Family Drinking Water 25 26 27 28 28 Commercial Drinking Water 153 161 167 173 176 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 94 99 102 105 108 Landscape Drinking Water 254 267 278 285 291 Landscape Raw Water 419 440 456 470 478 Groundwater recharge Agricultural irrigation Raw Water 7,017 12,970 18,923 24,876 30,830 Sales/Transfers/Exchanges to other agencies Drinking Water 137 138 139 140 141 Other Drinking Water 9 9 9 9 9 Losses 2,196 2,624 3,011 3,702 4,985 TOTAL 13,825 20,882 27,821 35,486 44,564 Table 4-3 Retail: Total Water Demands (AF)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable and Raw Water 6,096 13,825 20,882 27,821 35,486 44,564 From Tables 4-1 and 4-2 Recycled Water Demand 344 537 669 801 933 1,068 From Table 6-4
TOTAL WATER DEMAND 6,440 14,362 21,551 28,622 36,419 45,632 Table 4-4 Retail: 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting Reporting Period Start Date Volume of Water Loss* (mm/yyyy)
01/2015 1,447 * Taken from the field "Water Losses" (a combination of apparent losses and real losses) from the AWWA worksheet. NOTES: The volume of water lost represents both real and apparent losses in calendar year 2015 and was calculated using the AWWA worksheet. Table 4-5 Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections
Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? No (Refer to Appendix K of UWMP Guidebook)
Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Yes NOTES: Table 5-1 Baselines and Targets Summary Retail Agency or Regional Alliance Only Average Baseline 2015 Interim Confirmed Start Year End Year Baseline Period Target * 2020 Target* GPCD* 10-15 2000 2010 240 216 192 year 5 Year 2004 2008 242 *All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: Table 5-2: 2015 Compliance Retail Agency or Regional Alliance Only Optional Adjustments to 2015 GPCD Enter Did Supplier 2015 "0" for adjustments not used From 2015 GPCD* Achieve Actual Interim Methodology 8 (Adjusted if Targeted 2015 GPCD* Target applicable) Reduction for GPCD* Extraordinary Economic Weather TOTAL Adjusted Events* Adjustment* Normalization* Adjustments* 2015 GPCD* 2015? Y/N
179 216 0 179 179 Yes *All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: Table 6-1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped Supplier does not pump groundwater. The supplier will not complete the table below. Groundwater Type Drop Down List Location or Basin Name 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 May use each category multiple times Add additional rows as needed Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Alluvial Basin 48 18 65 54 45 Subbasin TOTAL 48 18 65 54 45 NOTES: Table 6-2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2015
There is no wastewater collection system. The supplier will not complete the table below. Percentage of 2015 service area covered by wastewater collection system (optional) Percentage of 2015 service area population covered by wastewater collection system (optional) Wastewater Collection Recipient of Collected Wastewater Volume of Wastewater Volume Name of Wastewater Is WWTP Located Is WWTP Operation Name of Wastewater Metered or Treatment Agency Treatment Plant Within UWMP Contracted to a Third Wastewater Collected from Estimated? Receiving Collected Name Area? Party? (optional) Collection Agency UWMP Service Area Drop Down List Wastewater Drop Down List Drop Down List 2015 La Contenta CCWD Metered 147 CCWD Wastewater Yes No Treatment Plant
Copper Cove Wastewater CCWD Metered 177 CCWD Treatment and Yes No Reclamation Plant
City of Angels CCWD Metered 8 City of Angels Wastewater No Yes Treatment Plant
Forest Meadows CCWD Metered 50 CCWD Yes No Wastewater Treatment Plant Douglas Flat/Vallecito CCWD Metered 45 CCWD Wastewater Yes No Treatment Plants Arnold CCWD Metered 76 CCWD Wastewater Yes No Treatment Plant
West Point CCWD Metered 15 CCWD Wastewater Yes No Treatment Plant
Wilseyville Camp CCWD Estimated 1 CCWD Yes No Wastewater Treatment Plant
Wallace CCWD Metered 12 CCWD Wastewater Yes No Treatment Plant
Southworth CCWD Metered 10 CCWD Wastewater No No Treatment Plant
Total Wastewater Collected from Service 541 Area in 2015: NOTES: Table 6-3 Retail: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Within Service Area in 2015 No wastewater is treated or disposed of within the UWMP service area. The supplier will not complete the table below. 2015 volumes Discharge Wastewater Method of Does This Plant Wastewater Discharge Treatment Level Location Discharge ID Disposal Treat Wastewater Discharged Recycled Recycled Treatment Location Wastewater Name or Number Generated Outside Treated Within Outside of Plant Name Description Drop down list Treated Identifier (optional) Drop down list the Service Area? Wastewater Service Area Service Area
Discharged to a dual storage pond system where La Contenta is can be Wastewater utilized for 5B05NC0002 Storage Pond Land disposal No Tertiary 146.7 7.803606925 138.88 0 Treatment application to 1 Plant the La Contenta Golf Course in Valley Springs.
Several Holding Copper Cove Ponds and Wastewater 5B05NP0000 Secondary, Sprayfields sprayfields Land disposal No 177.22 136 0 0 Treatment 1 Disinfected - 23 located Plant adjacent to the WWTP. Saddle Creek Copper Cove Golf Course Wastewater Saddle Creek 5B05NP0000 and adjacent Land disposal No Tertiary 136 0 164 0 Reclamation Golf Course 1 water Plant features
Forest Meadows HOA large holding pond and water feature, where it is stored and applied to the Forest Meadows Forest Forest Golf Course Meadows Meadows and leach 5B05NP0001 Wastewater Golf Course, fields. Land disposal No Tertiary 50.43 9.51409411 40.92 0 4 Treatment and Leach Additionally, Plant Fields permitted for seasonal surface water discharge to the North Fork Hydroelectric Project Collierville Powerhouse Tunnel Surge Shaft. Douglas Flat/ Holding Vallecito ponds and 5B05010700 Wastewater Sprayfields sprayfields Land disposal No Tertiary 44.94385471 44.94385471 0 0 5 Treatment adjacent to Facility the WWTP. 11 percolation Arnold beds (3.3 Percolation Wastewater acres) and 22 5B05100300 Secondary, Beds and Land disposal No 76.14216314 76.14216314 0 0 Treatment acres of 1 Disinfected - 23 Sprayfields Plant sprayfields adjacent to the facility
The discharge is to a recirculating West Point gravel bed Storage Pond Wastewater filter with 5B05200900 Secondary, and Land disposal No 15.07 15.07 0 0 Treatment storage 2 Disinfected - 23 Sprayfields Plant ponds and sprayfields adjacent to the WWTP
Wilseyville Discharge is Camp to a singular Percolation Secondary, Wastewater Pond pond with an 5B052000001 No 1 1 0 0 ponds Undisinfected Treatment aerator Plant (percolation). Wallace Storage Storage Wastewater ponds and Ponds and 5B050107007 Land disposal No Tertiary 11.699 12 0 0 Treatment adjacent Sprayfields Plant sprayfields Southworth Storage Storage Wastewater ponds and Secondary, Ponds and 5B051003004 Land disposal No 9.995 10 0 0 Treatment adjacent Disinfected - 23 Sprayfields Plant sprayfields Total 669 312 344 0 NOTES: Table 6-4 Retail: Current and Projected Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area
Recycled water is not used and is not planned for use within the service area of the supplier. The supplier will not complete the table below. Name of Agency Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water: CCWD Name of Agency Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System: CCWD Supplemental Water Added in 2015 Source of 2015 Supplemental Water
Level of Treatment Beneficial Use Type General Description of 2015 Uses 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (opt) Drop down list
Agricultural irrigation N/A Tertiary 0 91 110 129 148 168 Landscape irrigation (excludes golf courses) N/A Tertiary 0 202 248 294 340 387 Golf course irrigation Golf course irrigation Tertiary 344 244 311 378 445 513 Commercial use Industrial use Geothermal and other energy production Seawater intrusion barrier Recreational impoundment Wetlands or wildlife habitat Groundwater recharge (IPR)* Surface water augmentation (IPR)* Direct potable reuse Other Type of Use Total: 344 537 669 801 933 1,068 *IPR - Indirect Potable Reuse NOTES: Table 6-5 Retail: 2010 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2015 Actual Recycled water was not used in 2010 nor projected for use in 2015. The supplier will not complete the table below.
Use Type 2010 Projection for 2015 2015 Actual Use
Agricultural irrigation 154 0 Landscape irrigation (excludes golf courses) 0 0 Golf course irrigation 1,024 344 Commercial use 0 0 Industrial use 0 0 Geothermal and other energy production 0 0 Seawater intrusion barrier 0 0 Recreational impoundment 0 0 Wetlands or wildlife habitat 0 0 Groundwater recharge (IPR) 0 0 Surface water augmentation (IPR) 0 0 Direct potable reuse 0 0 Other Type of Use 0 0 Total 1,178 344 NOTES: Table 6-6 Retail: Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use
Supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future. Supplier will not complete the table below but will provide narrative explanation.
Provide page location of narrative in UWMP Planned Expected Increase in Name of Action Description Implementation Recycled Water Use Year Will enable use of recycled water for non- Installation of pump golf course landscape application in 2018 55 station property adjacent to Douglas Flat/Vallecito Wastewater Treatment Facility Development is expected in La Contenta Encourage RW and Copper Cove which will potentially be landscape use in Jenny 2020 - 2040 269 able to use recycled water for landscape Lind and Copper Cove irrigation. Development is expected in La Contenta Encourage RW and Copper Cove which will potentially be landscape use in Jenny 2020 - 2040 139 able to use recycled water for landscape Lind and Copper Cove irrigation. Require RW golf course One additional golf course may be built in irrigation in Copper Copper Cove region and will be required to 2020 - 2040 278 Cove irrigate with RW Total 741 NOTES:
Table 6-7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs No expected future water supply projects or programs that provide a quantifiable increase to the agency's water supply. Supplier will not complete the table below. Some or all of the supplier's future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are described in a narrative format.
6-45 Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP Expected Planned Name of Future Joint Project with other agencies? Description Planned for Use Increase in Implementation Projects or Programs (if needed) in Year Type Water Supply to Year Drop Down List Agency Drop Down List (y/n) If Yes, Agency Name This may be a range
Develops necessary conveyance and Vallecto/Douglas permitting requirements WWTP Title 22 No to serve recycled water 2018 All Year Types 30 Recycled Water to customers in vicinity Project of the Vallecito/Douglas Flat WWTP
Restores capacity loss White Pines and due to sedimentation in Blagen Mill Pond No White Pines Lake and the 2020 All Year Types 25 Restoration Project adjacent Blagen Mill Pond.
Planning, permitting and implementation efforts Wilson Dam No to address preferred 2020 All Year Types Unknown alternative for Wilson Lake and Dam
Three projects in the Ebbetts Pass Service Area that replaces Ebbetts Pass approximately 47,000 Distribution Pipeline linear feet of pressurized Replacements (Reach No water mains that have 2019 All Year Types Unknown 3A, Reach 1, Techite reached the end of their Line) usable life or have been identified as being problematic due to leaks.
NOTES: Table 6-8 Retail: Water Supplies — Actual
Water Supply 2015
Drop down list Additional Detail on May use each category multiple times. Water Total Right or Water Supply These are the only water supply categories Actual Volume Quality Safe Yield that will be recognized by the WUEdata online Drop Down List (optional) submittal tool Surface water 65,501 Raw Water 79,167 Recycled Recycled Water 344 344 Water Groundwater 45 Raw Water 45 Total 65,890 79,556 NOTES: Table 6-9 Retail: Water Supplies — Projected Projected Water Supply Water Supply Report To the Extent Practicable Drop down list Additional Detail on 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (opt) May use each category multiple times. Water Supply These are the only water supply Reasonably Total Right or Reasonably Total Right or Reasonably Total Right or Reasonably Total Right or Reasonably Total Right or categories that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool Available Safe Yield Available Safe Yield Available Safe Yield Available Safe Yield Available Safe Yield Volume (optional) Volume (optional) Volume (optional) Volume (optional) Volume (optional) Surface water 109,995 79,167 109,995 79,167 109,995 79,167 109,995 79,167 109,995 79,167 Recycled Water 537 537 669 669 801 801 933 933 1,068 1,068 Groundwater 65 45 65 45 65 45 65 45 65 45 Total 110,597 79,749 110,729 79,881 110,861 80,013 110,993 80,145 111,128 80,280 NOTES: Table 7-1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data Available Supplies if Year Type Repeats Base Year If not using a Quantification of available supplies is not calendar year, compatible with this table and is provided type in the last elsewhere in the UWMP. Year Type year of the fiscal or water year, for Location ______example, water year 1999-2000, Quantification of available supplies is provided use 2000 in this table as either volume only, percent only, or both. Volume Available % of Average Supply Average Year 110,060 100% Single-Dry Year 79,212 72% Multiple-Dry Years 1st Year 85,052 77% Multiple-Dry Years 2nd Year 82,106 75% Multiple-Dry Years 3rd Year 79,212 72% Agency may use multiple versions of Table 7-1 if different water sources have different base years and the supplier chooses to report the base years for each water source separately. If an agency uses multiple versions of Table 7-1, in the "Note" section of each table, state that multiple versions of Table 7-1 are being used and identify the particular water source that is being reported in each table. NOTES: Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 (Opt) Supply totals (autofill from Table 6-9) 110,597 110,729 110,861 110,993 111,128 Demand totals (autofill from Table 4-3) 14,362 21,551 28,622 36,419 45,632 Difference 96,235 89,178 82,239 74,574 65,496 NOTES: includes RW supply and demand Table 7-3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 (Opt) Supply totals 79,749 79,881 80,013 80,145 80,280
Demand totals 14,362 21,551 28,622 36,419 45,632
Difference 65,387 58,330 51,391 43,726 34,648 NOTES: includes RW supply and demand Table 7-4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 (Opt) Supply totals 85,589 85,721 85,853 85,985 86,120
First year Demand totals 14,362 21,551 28,622 36,419 45,632
Difference 71,227 64,170 57,231 49,566 40,488
Supply totals 82,643 82,775 82,907 83,139 83,174
Second year Demand totals 14,362 21,551 28,622 36,419 45,632
Difference 68,281 61,224 54,285 46,720 37,542
Supply totals 79,749 79,881 80,013 80,145 80,280
Third year Demand totals 14,362 21,551 28,622 36,419 45,632
Difference 65,387 58,330 51,391 43,726 34,648 NOTES: includes RW supply and demand. Table 8-1 Retail Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan Complete Both
Percent Supply Stage Reduction1 Water Supply Condition Numerical value as a (Narrative description) percent
Add additional rows as needed 1: Advisory Stage ≤10% Up to a 10% reduction in total District supply (Voluntary Rationing) 2: Alert Stage 11-15% 11-15% reduction in total District supply (Mandatory Rationing)
3: Moderate Stage 16-25% 16-25% reduction in total District supply (Mandatory Rationing)
4: Critical Stage 26-49% 26-49% reduction in total District supply (Mandatory Rationing)
5: Emergency Stage ≥50% 50% or more reduction in total District supply (Mandatory Rationing)
1 One stage in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan must address a water shortage of 50%. NOTES: Table 8-2 Retail Only: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Users Penalty, Charge, or Drop down list Additional Explanation or Reference Stage Other These are the only categories that will be accepted by the (optional) Enforcement? WUEdata online submittal tool Drop Down List Add additional rows as needed Irrigating outdoors during, and within 48 hours after, measureable On-going Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Yes rainfall is prohibited Inspect all irrigation systems, repair leaks and adjust spray heads to On-going Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Yes provide optimum coverage and eliminate avoidable overspray Customers should take responsive action to establish appropriate Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape 1, 2 run-times for landscape irrigation to eliminate water runoff No irrigation extending beyond their properties Request that landscape watering is avoided during the hottest 1, 2 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition No potion of the day Customers must repair controllable water leaks, correct overspray, 2, 3, 4, 5 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Yes or repair excessive landscape watering 3, 4, 5 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Irrigation is prohibited between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Yes
3, 4, 5 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days Yes Customers must take responsive action to establish appropriate run- Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape 3, 4, 5 times for landscape irrigation to eliminate water runoff extending Yes irrigation beyond their properties Golf course irrigation will be restricted to greens and trees if raw 4, 5 Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation Yes water is sole source 5 Landscape - Prohibit all landscape irrigation Yes Golf courses are limited to the use of treated effluent or private well 5 Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation Yes water sources for irrigation CII - Lodging establishment must offer opt out of linen 2, 3, 4, 5 Yes service 2, 3, 4, 5 CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request Yes
Ongoing Pools and Spas - Require covers for pools and spas Yes
All pools, spas, must use recirculating pumps and be maintained leak Ongoing Other water feature or swimming pool restriction Yes free. Dump and fill maintenance practice for pools is prohibited Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water Prohibit non-recirculating water displays or features such as Ongoing Yes features, such as fountains decorative water fountains Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water Prohibit operation of water displays or features such as decorative 4, 5 Yes features, such as fountains water fountains and recreational ponds 4, 5 Other water feature or swimming pool restriction Prohibit filling new or existing pools Yes Ongoing Other - Require automatic shut of hoses Yes All new water connections are prohibited from having single-pass Ongoing Other Yes cooling systems All new conveyor car wash and commercial laundry systems are Ongoing Other Yes prohibited from having non-recirculating washing systems Any use of potable water that results in excessive runoff from the Ongoing Other Yes property and/or gutter flooding is prohibited Limit use of potable water for cleaning driveways, sidewalks, parking Ongoing Other lots, and streets except when necessary to alleviate health and Yes safety hazards Use of water for cleaning driveways, walkways, parking lots and Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard 1, 2 streets is discouraged, except to alleviate immediate safety or No surfaces sanitation hazards. Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions shall be repaired within 72 2, 3, 4, 5 Yes malfunctions in a timely manner hours of being notified by the District Use of water for cleaning driveways, walkways, parking lots and Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard 3, 4, 5 streets is prohibited except to alleviate immediate safety or Yes surfaces sanitation hazards. Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard 4, 5 Yes surfaces Other - Prohibit use of potable water for construction Potable water shall not be used for construction or dust control if 4, 5 Yes and dust control recycled or raw water is reasonably available Request that local fire departments limit training exercises that use 4, 5 Other No water New water service applications will be granted upon the condition that water shall be used only for interior purposes and landscaping 5 Other Yes shall be delayed until the District determines that Stage 5 rationing levels are no longer needed NOTES: Table 8-3 Retail Only: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Consumption Reduction Methods
Consumption Reduction Methods by Water Supplier Additional Explanation or Reference Stage Drop down list (optional) These are the only categories that will be accepted by the WUEdata online submittal tool
Add additional rows as needed Stage 0 Extend public information campaign (Ongoing) Stage 0 Provide customers with a wide variety of (Ongoing) free conservation supplies Provide rebates on plumbing fixtures and Stage 0 devices, offer other incentives and (Ongoing) conservation tools. Identify and repair transmission and Stage 0 distribution system leaks to reduce water (Ongoing) losses. Discontinue non-essential flushing of Stage 3, 4 mains and hydrants. Identify emergency water delivery rate Stage 3, 4, 5 structure Stage 5 Discontinue line flushing Encourage conservation through public All Stages outreach (local media, billing statements, direct mailings) NOTES: Table 8-4 Retail: Minimum Supply Next Three Years
2016 2017 2018 Available Water 85,052 82,106 79,212 Supply NOTES: Table 10-1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties
Notice of Public City Name 60 Day Notice Hearing
Add additional rows as needed City of Angels Camp
Notice of Public County Name 60 Day Notice Drop Down List Hearing
Add additional rows as needed Calaveras County
NOTES: The District conducted additional outreach to stakeholders not listed here.
Appendix B DWR Checklist
Appendix B includes the DWR checklist, which indicates the section in the Urban Water Management Plan that corresponds to each requirement of the California Water Code related to urban water management planning. Checklist Arranged by Water Code Section UWMP CWC UWMP Requirement Subject Guidebook Location Section Location (Optional Column for Agency Use) 10608.20(b) Retail suppliers shall adopt a 2020 water use Baselines and Section 5.7 Section 5.5 target using one of four methods. Targets and App E and Appendix I 10608.20(e) Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily Baselines and Chapter 5 and Chapter 5 per capita water use, urban water use target, Targets App E and interim urban water use target, and Appendix I compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data. 10608.22 Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use Baselines and Section 5.7.2 Section 5.5 reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of Targets base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply is the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100. 10608.24(a) Retail suppliers shall meet their interim Baselines and Section 5.8 Section 5.6 target by December 31, 2015. Targets and App E and Appendix I 1608.24(d)(2) If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance Baselines and Section 5.8.2 N/A GPCD using weather normalization, Targets economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment. 10608.26(a) Retail suppliers shall conduct a public Plan Adoption, Section 10.3 Section hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, Submittal, and 10.3 and economic impact of water use targets. Implementation 10608.36 Wholesale suppliers shall include an Baselines and Section 5.1 N/A assessment of present and proposed future Targets measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions. 10608.40 Retail suppliers shall report on their progress Baselines and Section 5.8 Section 5.6 in meeting their water use targets. The data Targets and App E and shall be reported using a standardized form. Appendix I 10620(b) Every person that becomes an urban water Plan Preparation Section 2.1 Section 2.1 supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier. 10620(d)(2) Coordinate the preparation of its plan with Plan Preparation Section 2.5.2 Section 2.5 other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable. 10620(f) Describe water management tools and Water Supply Section 7.4 Section 7.4 options to maximize resources and minimize Reliability the need to import water from other regions. Assessment 10621(b) Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public Plan Adoption, Section 10.2.1 Section hearing, any city or county within which the Submittal, and 10.2 supplier provides water that the urban water Implementation supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. 10621(d) Each urban water supplier shall update and Plan Adoption, Sections Sections submit its 2015 plan to the department by Submittal, and 10.3.1 and 10.3 and July 1, 2016. Implementation 10.4 10.4 10631(a) Describe the water supplier service area. System Section 3.1 Section 3.2 Description 10631(a) Describe the climate of the service area of System Section 3.3 Section 3.3 the supplier. Description 10631(a) Indicate the current population of the service System Sections 3.4 Section 5.2 area. Description and and 5.4 Baselines and Targets 10631(a) Provide population projections for 2020, System Section 3.4 Section 3.4 2025, 2030, and 2035. Description 10631(a) Describe other demographic factors affecting System Section 3.4 Section 3.4 the supplier’s water management planning. Description 10631(b) Identify and quantify the existing and System Supplies Chapter 6 Section 6.9 planned sources of water available for 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035. 10631(b) Indicate whether groundwater is an existing System Supplies Section 6.2 Section 6.2 or planned source of water available to the supplier. 10631(b)(1) Indicate whether a groundwater System Supplies Section 6.2.2 Section management plan has been adopted by the 6.2.4 water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization. 10631(b)(2) Describe the groundwater basin. System Supplies Section 6.2.1 Section 6.2.4 10631(b)(2) Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated System Supplies Section 6.2.2 N/A and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump. 10631(b)(2) For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether System Supplies Section 6.2.3 Section or not the department has identified the 6.2.4 basin as overdrafted, or projected to become overdrafted. Describe efforts by the supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. 10631(b)(3) Provide a detailed description and analysis System Supplies Section 6.2.4 Section of the location, amount, and sufficiency of 6.2.4 groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years 10631(b)(4) Provide a detailed description and analysis System Supplies Sections 6.2 Section of the amount and location of groundwater and 6.9 6.2.4 and that is projected to be pumped. 6.9 10631(c)(1) Describe the reliability of the water supply Water Supply Section 7.1 Section 7.1 and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic Reliability shortage. Assessment 10631(c)(1) Provide data for an average water year, a Water Supply Section 7.2 Section 7.2 single dry water year, and multiple dry water Reliability years Assessment 10631(c)(2) For any water source that may not be Water Supply Section 7.1 Section 7.1 available at a consistent level of use, Reliability describe plans to supplement or replace that Assessment source. 10631(d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or System Supplies Section 6.7 Section 6.7 transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. 10631(e)(1) Quantify past, current, and projected water System Water Section 4.2 Section 4.1 use, identifying the uses among water use Use and 4.2 sectors. 10631(e)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for System Water Section 4.3 Section 4.3 the most recent 12-month period available. Use 10631(f)(1) Retail suppliers shall provide a description of Demand Sections 9.2 Section 9.1, the nature and extent of each demand Management and 9.3 9.2, and 9.3 management measure implemented over the Measures past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code. 10631(f)(2) Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific Demand Sections 9.1 N/A demand management measures listed in Management and 9.3 code, their distribution system asset Measures management program, and supplier assistance program. 10631(g) Describe the expected future water supply System Supplies Section 6.8 Section 6.8 projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. 10631(i) Describe desalinated water project System Supplies Section 6.6 Section 6.6 opportunities for long-term supply. 10631(j) CUWCC members may submit their 2013- Demand Section 9.5 Section 9.4 2014 CUWCC BMP annual reports in lieu of, Management or in addition to, describing the DMM Measures implementation in their UWMPs. This option is only allowable if the supplier has been found to be in full compliance with the CUWCC MOU. 10631(j) Retail suppliers will include documentation System Supplies Section 2.5.1 Section 2.5 that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) – if any - with water use projections from that source. 10631(j) Wholesale suppliers will include System Supplies Section 2.5.1 N/A documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types. 10631.1(a) Include projected water use needed for lower System Water Section 4.5 Section 4.5 income housing projected in the service area Use of the supplier. 10632(a) and Provide an urban water shortage Water Shortage Section 8.1 Section 8.1 10632(a)(1) contingency analysis that specifies stages of Contingency action and an outline of specific water supply Planning conditions at each stage. 10632(a)(2) Provide an estimate of the minimum water Water Shortage Section 8.9 Section 8.9 supply available during each of the next Contingency three water years based on the driest three- Planning year historic sequence for the agency. 10632(a)(3) Identify actions to be undertaken by the Water Shortage Section 8.8 Section 8.8 urban water supplier in case of a Contingency catastrophic interruption of water supplies. Planning 10632(a)(4) Identify mandatory prohibitions against Water Shortage Section 8.2 Section 8.2 specific water use practices during water Contingency shortages. Planning 10632(a)(5) Specify consumption reduction methods in Water Shortage Section 8.4 Section 8.4 the most restrictive stages. Contingency Planning 10632(a)(6) Indicated penalties or charges for excessive Water Shortage Section 8.3 Section 8.3 use, where applicable. Contingency Planning 10632(a)(7) Provide an analysis of the impacts of each of Water Shortage Section 8.6 Section 8.6 the actions and conditions in the water Contingency shortage contingency analysis on the Planning revenues and expenditures of the urban water supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts. 10632(a)(8) Provide a draft water shortage contingency Water Shortage Section 8.7 Section 8.7 resolution or ordinance. Contingency Planning 10632(a)(9) Indicate a mechanism for determining actual Water Shortage Section 8.5 Section 8.5 reductions in water use pursuant to the water Contingency shortage contingency analysis. Planning 10633 For wastewater and recycled water, System Supplies Section 6.5.1 Section coordinate with local water, wastewater, (Recycled 6.5.1 groundwater, and planning agencies that Water) operate within the supplier's service area. 10633(a) Describe the wastewater collection and System Supplies Section 6.5.2 Section treatment systems in the supplier's service (Recycled 6.5.2 area. Include quantification of the amount of Water) wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal. 10633(b) Describe the quantity of treated wastewater System Supplies Section Section that meets recycled water standards, is (Recycled 6.5.2.2 6.5.2 being discharged, and is otherwise available Water) for use in a recycled water project. 10633(c) Describe the recycled water currently being System Supplies Section 6.5.3 Sections used in the supplier's service area. (Recycled and 6.5.4 6.5.3 and Water) 6.5.4 10633(d) Describe and quantify the potential uses of System Supplies Section 6.5.4 Section recycled water and provide a determination (Recycled 6.5.4 of the technical and economic feasibility of Water) those uses. 10633(e) Describe the projected use of recycled water System Supplies Section 6.5.4 Section within the supplier's service area at the end (Recycled 6.5.4 of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description Water) of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected. 10633(f) Describe the actions which may be taken to System Supplies Section 6.5.5 Section encourage the use of recycled water and the (Recycled 6.5.5 projected results of these actions in terms of Water) acre-feet of recycled water used per year. 10633(g) Provide a plan for optimizing the use of System Supplies Section 6.5.5 Section recycled water in the supplier's service area. (Recycled 6.5.5 Water) 10634 Provide information on the quality of existing Water Supply Section 7.1 Section 7.1 sources of water available to the supplier Reliability and the manner in which water quality Assessment affects water management strategies and supply reliability 10635(a) Assess the water supply reliability during Water Supply Section 7.3 Section 7.3 normal, dry, and multiple dry water years by Reliability comparing the total water supply sources Assessment available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years. 10635(b) Provide supporting documentation that Plan Adoption, Section 10.4.4 Section Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, Submittal, and 10.4 or will be, provided to any city or county Implementation within which it provides water, no later than 60 days after the submission of the plan to DWR. 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Preparation Section 2.5.2 Section 2.5 water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan. 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Sections Sections urban water supplier made the plan available Submittal, and 10.2.2, 10.3, 10.2, 10.3, for public inspection, published notice of the Implementation and 10.5 and 10.5 public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan. 10642 The water supplier is to provide the time and Plan Adoption, Sections Section place of the hearing to any city or county Submittal, and 10.2.1 10.2 within which the supplier provides water. Implementation 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Section 10.3.1 Section plan has been adopted as prepared or Submittal, and 10.3 modified. Implementation 10644(a) Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Section 10.4.3 Section urban water supplier has submitted this Submittal, and 10.4 UWMP to the California State Library. Implementation 10644(a)(1) Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Section 10.4.4 Section urban water supplier has submitted this Submittal, and 10.4 UWMP to any city or county within which the Implementation supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption. 10644(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, Plan Adoption, Sections Section submitted to the department shall be Submittal, and 10.4.1 and 10.4 and submitted electronically. Implementation 10.4.2 10.6 10645 Provide supporting documentation that, not Plan Adoption, Section 10.5 Section later than 30 days after filing a copy of its Submittal, and 10.5 plan with the department, the supplier has or Implementation will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
Appendix C Developing Current and Projected Service Area Population
Appendix C includes the methodology used by the District to develop its current and projected service area population. Appendix C: Developing Current and Projected CCWD Service Area Population
The current permanent population served by the District was estimated using U.S. Census data and the number of residential connections (i.e., single family and multi-family connections) for each service area. Block group information from the 2010 U.S. Census was obtained to quantify total residences, permanent residences, number of people per household, and other information. This Census data from 2010 has been applied to 2015, as the proportion of homes used permanently and the number of people per household are assumed to remain constant. To calculate the appropriate information for the District service area, data for block groups partially or wholly within the District boundaries were multiplied by the percentage of the block group area within the District service area, and these proportional data sets were summed to calculate District-wide data. The percentage of permanent residences was calculated from Census data regarding the total number of residences and the number of vacation residences in each block group, and persons per household data was taken directly from Census data. Table C-1 shows the results of this Census analysis and the average percentage of permanent residences and persons per household for each District service area.
Table C-1: U.S. Census Block Group Analysis
% Permanent Persons per Block Group Residences Household Copper Cove Block Group 1, Census Tract 1.20 83% 2.51 Ebbetts Pass Block Group 1, Census Tract 5.01 49% 2.2 Block Group 2, Census Tract 5.01 76% 2.19 Block Group 1, Census Tract 5.03 29% 2.1 Block Group 2, Census Tract 5.03 36% 2.15 Block Group 3, Census Tract 5.03 52% 2.32 Block Group 1, Census Tract 5.04 27% 2.08 Block Group 2, Census Tract 5.04 18% 2.17 Ebbetts Pass Average 43% 2.17 Jenny Lind Block Group 1, Census Tract 2.10 97% 2.64 Block Group 3, Census Tract 2.10 97% 2.77 Block Group 4, Census Tract 2.10 96% 2.77
C-1
Block Group 1, Census Tract 2.20 97% 2.74 Block Group 2, Census Tract 2.20 97% 2.7 Jenny Lind Average 97% 2.72 Sheep Ranch Block Group 5, Census Tract 3 82% 2.22 Wallace Block Group 2, Census Tract 2.10 95% 2.62 West Point Block Group 1, Census Tract 4 90% 2.24 Block Group 2, Census Tract 4 93% 2.13 Block Group 3, Census Tract 4 79% 2.19 West Point Average 86% 2.19
As Table C-1 shows, many of the District’s service areas have a significant number of non- permanent, or vacation, residences. However, only permanent residents are considered in this analysis, per DWR guidelines. The number of permanent residences was estimated by multiplying the total residential connections by the percentage of permanent residences in each service area. The average number of people per household for each census block group was then multiplied by the calculated number of permanent residences to estimate the permanent residential population served. The current permanent resident population is shown in Table C-3 below, along with the projected populations in each service area. To project the permanent resident population, the District used Department of Finance (DOF) Report P-1 that projects the total population of Calaveras County in five-year increments through 2060. The County-wide five-year population growth rates were applied to each CCWD service area.
Table C-2: Permanent Projected Population by Service Area
Service Area 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Jenny Lind 9,592 10,226 10,739 11,136 11,469 11,671 Sheep Ranch 93 99 104 108 111 113 Ebbetts Pass 5,368 5,723 6,010 6,232 6,418 6,531 Copper Cove 4,416 4,708 4,944 5,127 5,280 5,373 West Point 988 1,053 1,106 1,147 1,181 1,202 Wallace 241 257 270 280 288 293 CCWD Total 20,698 22,066 23,173 24,030 24,747 25,183
C-2
Appendix D 2015 Water Demands by Service Area
Appendix D includes the actual 2015 water demands and number of connections for each of the District’s service areas in Sub‐Region A (Calaveras River) and Sub‐Region B (Stanislaus River). Appendix D: 2015 Water Demands by Service Area
This appendix includes the actual (2015) water demands and number of connections for Sub- Regions A (Calaveras River) and B (Stanislaus River) split out by service area. Chapter 4 elaborates further on the water use in each of these service areas and also includes the water demands for Sub-Region C (Mokelumne River) and D (Groundwater). As described in Chapter 4, the projections used a baseline water use representing the average from 2009-2013 to better represent water conditions water use under normal conditions. Sub-Region A: Calaveras River Table D-1 below shows the number of connections of water use for the Jenny Lind and Sheep Ranch service areas. Summed together, they indicate the total number of connections and total water use for Sub-Region A.
Table D-1: Sub-Region A Demand for Potable and Raw Water by Service Area – Actual (AFY)
Number of Connections Water Use (AF) Level of Use Type Jenny Sheep Jenny Sheep Treatment When Total Volume Lind Ranch Lind Ranch Delivered Single Family Drinking water 3,648 51 3,699 1,060 5 1,065 Multi-Family Drinking water 1 0 1 3 0 3 Commercial Drinking water 61 0 61 28 0 28 Institutional/ Drinking water 13 0 13 20 0 20 Governmental Landscape Drinking water 23 0 23 9 0 9 Landscape Raw water 1 0 1 92 0 92 Agricultural Raw water 9 0 9 1,469 0 1,469 irrigation
Other Drinking water ------3 0 3
Losses1 ------387 2 389 TOTAL 3,756 51 3,807 3,071 7 3,078 NOTES: (1) Water losses by each service area estimated based on percent service area demand of total demand.
Sub-Region B: Stanislaus River Table D-2 below shows the number of connections of water use for the Ebbetts Pass and Copper Cove service areas. Summed together, they indicate the total number of connections and total water use for Sub-Region B.
D-1
Table D-2: Sub-Region B Demand for Potable and Raw Water by Service Area – Actual (AFY)
Number of Connections Water Use (AF) Level of Use Type Ebbetts Copper Ebbetts Copper Treatment When Total Volume Pass Cove Pass Cove Delivered Single Family Drinking water 5,770 2,410 8,180 526 606 1,132 Multi-Family Drinking water 10 0 10 16 0 16 Commercial Drinking water 209 93 302 56 35 91 Institutional/ Drinking water 3 5 8 21 6 27 Governmental Landscape Drinking water 33 47 80 60 84 144 Landscape Raw water 0 1 1 0 402 402 Sales/Transfers/ Exchanges to Drinking water 2 0 2 14 0 14 other agencies
Other Drinking water ------1 3 4
Losses1 ------482 520 1,002 TOTAL 6,027 2,556 8,583 1,177 1,656 2,832 NOTES: (1) Water losses by each service area estimated based on percent service area demand of total demand.
D-2
Appendix E Historical Connections Demand Projections‐Approach 1
Appendix E shows the tabulated results of the demand projections determined by historical connection growth projections for the District and individual service areas by use type. Appendix E: Historical Connections Growth Demand Projections – Approach 1
Appendix D shows the tabulated results of the historical connection growth projections (approach 1) for the District and individual service areas by use type. As described in Chapter 4, the projections use a baseline water use representing the average from 2009-2013 to better represent water use under normal conditions. District-Wide Table E-1 below shows projected District-wide demands for potable and raw water by use type using Approach 1: Historical Connections Growth.
Table E-1: District-Wide Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (AFY) (Approach 1)
Level of Projected Water Use (AF) Baseline Treatment Use Type Water When Use (AF) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered
Single Family Drinking water 3,302 3,334 3,817 4,274 5,183 6,964
Multi-Family Drinking water 23 24 24 24 25 25
Commercial Drinking water 144 146 147 149 151 152
Institutional/ Drinking water 89 89 90 91 92 93 Governmental
Landscape Drinking water 239 240 242 244 246 246
Landscape Raw water 393 395 397 399 402 404
Agricultural Raw water 1,063 7,017 12,970 18,923 24,876 30,830 irrigation
Sales/Transfers / Exchanges to Drinking water 135 136 136 136 137 137 other agencies
Other Drinking water 9 9 9 9 9 9
Losses1 -- 2,060 2,081 2,416 2,736 3,377 4,636 TOTAL 7,457 13,471 20,248 26,985 34,498 43,496
NOTES: (1) Calculated using the AWWA Methodology (see Appendix I)
E-1
Sub-Region A: Calaveras River Table E-2 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within Sub- Region A using Approach 1: Historical Connections Growth.
Table E-2: Sub-Region A Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (AFY) (Approach 1)
Level of Projected Water Use (AF) Baseline Treatment Use Type Water When Use (AF) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered
Single Family Drinking water 1,522 1,540 1,557 1,574 1,592 1,609
Multi-Family Drinking water 3 3 3 3 3 3
Commercial Drinking water 33 33 33 34 34 34 Institutional/ Drinking water Governmental 39 39 39 40 40 41
Landscape Drinking water 16 16 16 17 17 17
Landscape Raw water 102 103 104 105 107 108 Agricultural Raw water irrigation 1,063 1,704 2,345 2,985 3,626 4,267
Other Drinking water 6 6 6 6 6 6
Losses1 -- 559 565 571 577 584 590
TOTAL 3,343 4,009 4,674 5,341 6,009 6,675 NOTES: (1) Calculated using the AWWA Methodology (see Appendix I)
E-2
Jenny Lind Service Area Table E-3 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within the Jenny Lind service area using Approach 1: Historical Connections Growth.
Table E-3: Jenny Lind Service Area Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (AFY) (Approach 1)
Level of Projected Water Use (AF) Baseline Treatment Use Type Water When Use (AF) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered
Single Family Drinking water 1,515 1,532 1,549 1,566 1,584 1,601
Multi-Family Drinking water 3 3 3 3 3 3
Commercial Drinking water 1,518 1,535 1,552 1,569 1,587 1,604 Institutional/ Drinking water Governmental 33 33 33 34 34 34
Landscape Drinking water 39 39 39 40 40 41
Landscape Raw water 16 16 16 17 17 17 Agricultural Raw water irrigation 102 103 104 105 107 108
Other Drinking water 1,063 1,704 2,345 2,985 3,626 4,267
Losses1 -- 6 6 6 6 6 6
TOTAL 3,333 3,998 4,663 5,330 5,998 6,664 NOTES: (1) Water losses are calculated by assuming that the portion of service areas’ losses are proportionate to the service area’s portion of the total demand.
E-3
Sheep Ranch Service Area Table E-4 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within the Sheep Ranch service area using Approach 1: Historical Connections Growth.
Table E-4: Sheep Ranch Service Area Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (AFY) (Approach 1)
Level of Baseline Projected Water Use (AF) Treatment Water Use Type When Use 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered (AF)
Single Family Drinking water 7 8 8 8 8 8
Losses1 -- 3 3 3 3 3 3
TOTAL 10 11 11 11 11 11
NOTES: (1) Water losses are calculated by assuming that the portion of service areas’ losses are proportionate to the service area’s portion of the total demand.
E-4
Sub-Region B: Stanislaus River Table E-5 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within Sub- Region B using Approach 1: Historical Connections Growth.
Since agricultural demand was calculated for the entire sub-region, as described in more detail in Chapter 4, it was not separated by individual service areas and was therefore assumed to occur entirely within the Ebbetts Pass service area, though that doesn’t mean that agricultural development will not occur within the Copper Cove service area in the future.
Table E-5: Sub-Region B Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (AFY) (Approach 1)
Level of Baseline Projected Water Use (AF) Treatment Water Use Type When Use 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered (AF)
Single Family Drinking water 1,618 1,631 2,094 2,533 3,422 5,185
Multi-Family Drinking water 20 21 21 21 22 22
Commercial Drinking water 104 106 107 108 110 111
Institutional/ 43 43 44 44 45 45 Drinking water Governmental
Landscape Drinking water 223 224 226 227 229 229
Landscape Raw water 291 292 293 294 295 296
Agricultural Raw water 0 5,313 10,625 15,938 21,250 26,563
Sales/Transfers 135 136 136 136 137 137 /Exchanges to Drinking water other agencies
Other Drinking water 3 3 3 3 3 3
Losses1 -- 1,424 1,438 1,767 2,080 2,713 3,965
TOTAL 3,861 9,207 15,316 21,384 28,226 36,556
NOTES: (1) Calculated using the AWWA Methodology (see Appendix I)
E-5
Ebbetts Pass Service Area Table E-6 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within the Ebbetts Pass service area using Approach 1: Historical Connections Growth.
Table E-6: Ebbetts Pass Service Area Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (AFY) (Approach 1)
Level of Baseline Projected Water Use (AF) Treatment Water Use Type When Use 2020 2025 2030 2035 2020 Delivered (AF)
Single Family Drinking water 762 773 1,233 1,669 2,555 4,316
Multi-Family Drinking water 20 21 21 21 22 22
Commercial Drinking water 94 96 97 98 100 101
Institutional/ Drinking water 34 34 35 35 36 36 Governmental
Landscape Drinking water 62 63 64 65 66 66
Agricultural Raw water 0 5,313 10,625 15,938 21,250 26,563
Sales/Transfers /Exchanges to Drinking water 135 136 136 136 137 137 other agencies
Losses1 -- 689 700 1,027 1,338 1,969 3,218
TOTAL 1,796 7,136 13,238 19,300 26,135 34,459
NOTES: (1) Water losses are calculated by assuming that the portion of service areas’ losses are proportionate to the service area’s portion of the total demand.
E-6
Copper Cove Service Area Table E-7 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within the Copper Cove service area using Approach 1: Historical Connections Growth.
Table E-7: Copper Cove Service Area Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (AFY) (Approach 1)
Level of Baseline Projected Water Use (AF) Treatment Water Use Type When Use 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered (AF)
Single Family Drinking water 856 858 861 864 867 869
Commercial Drinking water 10 10 10 10 10 10
Institutional/ Drinking water 9 9 9 9 9 9 Governmental
Landscape Drinking water 161 161 162 162 163 163
Landscape Raw water 291 292 293 294 295 296
Other Drinking water 3 3 3 3 3 3
Losses1 -- 735 738 740 742 744 747
TOTAL 2,065 2,071 2,078 2,084 2,091 2,097
NOTES: (1) Water losses are calculated by assuming that the portion of service areas’ losses are proportionate to the service area’s portion of the total demand.
E-7
Sub-Region C: Mokelumne River Table E-8 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within Sub- Region C using Approach 1: Historical Connections Growth.
Table E-8: Sub-Region C Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (AFY) (Approach 1)
Level of Baseline Projected Water Use (AF) Treatment Water Use Type When Use 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered (AF)
Single Family Drinking water 112 113 115 116 117 118
Commercial Drinking water 6 6 6 6 6 6
Institutional/ Drinking water 7 7 7 7 7 7 Governmental
Losses1 -- 69 70 70 71 72 73
TOTAL 194 196 198 200 202 204
NOTES: (1) Calculated using the AWWA Methodology (see Appendix I)
Sub-Region D: Groundwater Table E-9 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within Sub- Region D using Approach 1: Historical Connections Growth.
Table E-9: Sub-Region D Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (AFY) (Approach 1)
Baseline Projected Water Use (AF) Level of Water Use Type Treatment When Use Delivered 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (AF)
Single Family Drinking water 50 50 51 51 52 52
Commercial Drinking water 1 1 1 1 1 1
Losses1 -- 8 8 8 8 8 8
TOTAL 59 59 60 60 61 61
NOTES: (1) Calculated using the AWWA Methodology (see Appendix I)
E-8
Appendix F Land Use Demand Projections – Approach 2
Appendix F details the methodology for developing District demand projections using a land‐use based approach.
Appendix F: Land Use Demand Projections – Approach 2
Introduction This memorandum details the methodology for developing District demand projections using a land-use based approach. Future land use in Calaveras County was collected from multiple approved planning documents:
• Calaveras County General Plan (1996) • Arnold Community Plan (1998) • Avery – Hathaway Pines Community Plan (1998) • Ebbetts Pass Highway Special Plan (1988) • Rancho Calaveras Special Plan (1999) • Staff report on the Calaveras Country Club (Saddle Creek) Development (in reference to the Calaveras Country Club Specific Plan) • Valley Springs Community Area General Plan (1974) GIS shapefiles for the land use in each of the above planning regions were obtained directly from the Calaveras County GIS department.
Lane use GIS shapefiles for all of the planning documents above were merged into one layer and then clipped by the geographic boundary of CCWD’s water service areas. The area of each unique land use type was calculated and exported into Microsoft Excel for further analysis.
A two-part approach was used for calculating total water demand based on projected land use areas. Water use in residential land use types was calculated by multiplying the number of expected residents based on land use type by per capita consumption. Non-residential, non- agricultural water use was calculated using an area-based water demand factor. Each method is described further below.
Methodology: Residential Land Uses Table F-1 shows a breakdown of the unique residential land use types in each planning area as well as the allowable dwelling unit density according to each respective planning document. The maximum allowable density differs based on whether there is public sewer service vs public or private septic system. The master land use layer was also re-clipped by the geographic boundary of CCWD’s wastewater service areas to determine the split between residential land uses located within a sewer system’s boundary (20%) versus a public septic system (1%). Any land uses not captured within CCWD’s wastewater service boundaries were assumed to be on private septic (79%).
F-1
Table F-1 – Residential Land Use Allowable Density
Sewer Septic Planning Area Max Max (CP=Community Plan, Land Use Type Density Density SP=Special Plan) (Dwelling (Dwelling Units/acre) Units/acre)
Arnold_CP COMMERCIAL and/or MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 6
Arnold_CP FOREST 0.05 0.05
Arnold_CP MIXED USE 2 0.5
MIXED USE - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Arnold_CP 4.36 1 COMBINING DISTRICT
Arnold_CP MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 6
Arnold_CP RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 1
Arnold_CP SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 4.36 1
AveryHathaway_CP MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 6
AveryHathaway_CP RURAL RESIDENTIAL (5 ACRE DENSITY) 1 1
AveryHathaway_CP SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2 1
Ebbetts_Pass_SP SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 3 1
Rancho_Calaveras_SP RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE DENSITY 1 1
Rancho_Calaveras_SP RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRE DENSITY 3 3
Valley_Springs_CP MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 6
General Plan Area Copper Cove/Poker Flat Community Center 4.8 1.2
General Plan Area Copperopolis Community Center 4.8 1.2
General Plan Area Dorrington Community Center 4.8 1.2
General Plan Area Forest Meadows Community Center 4.8 1.2
General Plan Area Future Single Family Residential 20 0.05 0.05
General Plan Area Future Single Family Residential 5 0.2 0.2
General Plan Area La Contenta Community Center 4.8 1.2
General Plan Area Residential Center 2 1
General Plan Area Residential Center - 2 2 1
F-2
Sewer Septic Planning Area Max Max (CP=Community Plan, Land Use Type Density Density SP=Special Plan) (Dwelling (Dwelling Units/acre) Units/acre)
General Plan Area Sheep Ranch Community Center 4.8 1.2
General Plan Area Wallace Community Center 4.8 1.2
General Plan Area West Point Community Center 4.8 1.2
Saddle Creek’s Specific Plan was unavailable online, but a 2014 staff report identified that 1,650 residential lots were expected. This value was used in lieu of calculating the number of units based on a dwelling unit density multiplied by acreage.
For the large blocks of Community Centers in the General Plan, it was assumed the development will occur according to guidelines written in the 1996 General Plan: with 60% single family and 10% multi-family development. Dwelling units per acre in the Community Centers were calculated as shown in Table F-2.
Table F-2 – Calculation of Allowable Dwelling Units in Community Centers
District Actual District Actual Sewer Max Septic Max % % Max Density on Max Density on Development Development Density Sewer Density Septic (DUs/acre) (DUs/acre) (DUs/acre) (DUs/acre)
Single Family 6 60% 3.6 1 60% 0.6
Multi-Family 12 10% 1.2 6 10% 0.6
TOTAL 4.8 1.2
Average consumption from 2009-2013 was used as a baseline for future projection. A residential gallons per capita-day (R-GPCD) value was calculated for each water service area, as shown in Table F-3.
F-3
Table F-3 – Calculation of R-GPCD
Recommended Population from SBX7-7 Methodology (includes full-time residents and part-time residents reduced by a demand factor) Year Jenny Sheep West Copper Cove Ebbetts Pass Wallace Lind Ranch Point
2009 4860 6833 9711 89 1080 --
2010 4912 6772 9704 89 1063 --
2015 4742 6792 9651 95 1004 243
Interpolate to find 2011-2013 recommended population
2011 4878 6776 9694 90 1051 --
2012 4844 6780 9683 92 1040 --
2013 4810 6784 9673 93 1028 243
Average 2009- 4861 6789 9693 91 1052 243 2013 Population
Average Residential Consumption 2009- 856 783 1518 7 112 50 2013 (AFY)
R-GPCD (2009- 0.176 0.115 0.156 0.082 0.107 0.205 2013) (AFY/capita)
R-GPCD (2009- 2013) 157 103 140 73 95 183 (gal/capita/day)
2010 Capita per 2.51 2.16 2.71 2.22 2.18 2.62 Dwelling Unit
Total residential land use demands at build-out are summarized in Table F-4 and were calculated for each water system as follows:
(Area on District Sewer) * (Dwelling units per acre density) * (Capita per dwelling unit) * (R-GPCD)
F-4
Table F-4 – Summary of Residential Water Demands at Build-Out
Sum of Residential Water Service Water Area Demand (AF)
Copper Cove 3,719
Ebbetts Pass 2,881
Jenny Lind 5,896
Sheep Ranch 33
Wallace 528
West Point 485
TOTAL 13,543
Methodology: Non-Residential, Non-Agricultural Land Uses For non-residential, non-agricultural land uses, an area-based water demand factor was calculated based on real CCWD data. Total water consumption by account for 2009-2013 was matched by Assessor’s Parcel Number to the area of the particular parcel as matched with a county parcel layer. The 47 non-residential account types were reclassified into four categories as shown in Table F-5: Commercial, Commercial Office, Irrigation, or Public Service. Several account types were ignored because they were either residential, temporary, wholesale, or not pertaining to a particular land use type.
Table F-5 – Account Type Reclassification
Account Type Definition Reclassification Code
C Commercial Accounts/Generic Commercial
COM Commercial Accounts/Generic Commercial
COM - STORE Commercial Accounts/Generic Commercial
COM-AR Auto Repair Shop/Auto Parts Store Commercial
COM-BAR Bars (w/Restrooms) Commercial
COM-BREW Brewery Commercial
Commercial COM-BUS Businesses Office
COM-CW Car Washes Commercial
F-5
Account Type Definition Reclassification Code
Commercial COM-DENT Dentist Office
COM-DET Detector Meter (Fire Flow requirements) IGNORE
COM-DM Detector Meters IGNORE
COM-GAS Gas Stations Commercial
COM-GAS/GROC Gas Station/Grocery Store Commercial
COM-GOLF Golf Courses IGNORE
COM-GROC Grocery Stores Commercial
COM-HARD Hardware Stores/Home Improvement Commercial
COM-HOA Homeowners Association Commercial
COM-HOT Hotels/Motels/Lodges Commercial
COM-INST Schools/Colleges/Education Public Service
COM-IRR Irrigation - Commercial Irrigation
COM-LM Laundromats Commercial
COM-LND Landscape Irrigation
COM-MM Master Meter IGNORE
Commercial COM-MO Medical Office Office
COM-OTHER Commercial Accounts/Generic Commercial
Commercial COM-RE Real Estate Office
COM-RES Restaurants Commercial
COM-REST Restaurants Commercial
COM-RS Retail Shops Commercial
COM-RV RV Parks Commercial
COM-RV PARK RV Parks Commercial
COM-UT Utility Companies - Telephone/Electric Commercial
COM-VL Vacant Lots IGNORE
F-6
Account Type Definition Reclassification Code
C-REST Restaurants Commercial
D Detector Meter (Fire) IGNORE
INST Schools/Colleges/Education Public Service
IRR Irrigation - Commercial Irrigation
IRRIGATION Irrigation - Commercial Irrigation
L Landscape Irrigation
L/P Landscape/Pool Irrigation
LND Landscape Irrigation
MF Multifamily IGNORE
TEMP 05/05/09 IGNORE
TEMP 11/24/07 IGNORE
TEMP EXP 8/6/13 IGNORE
TEMP-012407 IGNORE
WHS Wholesale IGNORE
Total consumption for the selected accounts was divided by total area to calculate a water demand factor, as shown in Table F-6.
Table F-6 – Area-Based Water Demand Factor Calculation
Water Total Total Account Type Number of Demand Consumption Area Reclassification Accounts Factor (AF) (Acres) (AF/ac)
Commercial 131 154 433 0.36
Commercial Office 21 12 15 0.81
Public Service 45 101 243 0.42
Irrigation 53 319 350 0.91
Note that three parcels were removed from the total consumption and total area in Table F-6. There were three parcels (two “Schools/Colleges/Education” and one “Commercial – Other”) that were determined to be very large (skewed area up) and have a low water consumption (skewed consumption down) which resulted in a very low area-based water demand factor Public Service
F-7
(Institutional) and General Commercial. These parcels were located on or outside the boundary of the water service area and were removed from the calculation of an area-based water demand factor.
The Community Centers, according to the 1996 General Plan guidelines, were assumed to have 15% commercial land use cover. Land use types with a reclassification of “IGNORE” were assumed to not have any water demands. See Table F-7 for the land use type assignments and adjusted water demand factors.
Table F-7 – Adjusted Area-Based Water Demand Factors for Non-Residential Land Uses
Adjusted Weighting for Water Community Land Use Type Reclassification Demand Centers or Factor Other (AF/ac)
COMMERCIAL Commercial 100% 0.356
Assumed to be COMMERCIAL and/or MULTI-FAMILY 100% Multi-Family 0% 0.000 RESIDENTIAL Residential
COMMERCIAL RECREATION 50% Commercial 50% 0.178
Copper Cove/Poker Flat Community Center Commercial 15% 0.053
Copperopolis Community Center Commercial 15% 0.053
Dorrington Community Center Commercial 15% 0.053
FOREST IGNORE 0% 0.000
Forest Meadows Community Center Commercial 15% 0.053
INDUSTRIAL Commercial 100% 0.356
La Contenta Community Center Commercial 15% 0.053
Lake IGNORE 0% 0.000
MANUFACTURING Commercial 100% 0.356
50% MIXED USE commercial/50% 50% 0.178 residential
Assumed to be MIXED USE - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 100% Single Family 0% 0.000 COMBINING DISTRICT Residential
Natural Resource / Open Space IGNORE 0% 0.000
F-8
PARK Irrigation 100% 0.912
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE Commercial Office 100% 0.814
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES Commercial Office 100% 0.814
PUBLIC SERVICE Public Service 100% 0.418
50% Irrigation, RECREATION 25% commercial, 100% 0.545 25% no consumption
RESOURCE PRODUCTION (USFS LAND) 40 IGNORE 0% 0.000 ACRE DENSITY
RESOURCE PRODUCTION 40 ACRE DENSITY IGNORE 0% 0.000
Right of Way IGNORE 0% 0.000
Sheep Ranch Community Center Commercial 15% 0.053
Timberlands/Mineral Resource 2A/Dam IGNORE 0% 0.000 Inundation
Wallace Community Center Commercial 15% 0.053
West Point Community Center Commercial 15% 0.053
Wildlife Habitat/Botanical Areas IGNORE 0% 0.000
A summary of total non-residential water demands at build-out are included in Table E-8.
Table F-8 - Summary of Non-Residential Water Demands at Build Out
Sum of Non-Residential Water Service Area Water Demand (AF)
Copper Cove 312
Ebbetts Pass 454
Jenny Lind 110
Sheep Ranch 2
Wallace 6
West Point 13
TOTAL 896
F-9
Interpolating from Build-Out, Incorporating Water Losses, and Adding Agricultural Demands It was assumed that the water demands from residential and non-residential, non-agricultural areas correspond to a build out at 2100. Since the UWMP projects to 2040, the water use was interpolated linearly from 2015 to 2100 to determine interim expected water demands from 2020- 2040.
While 2015 was used as the “current” year for interpolation purposes, it should be noted that 2009- 2013 average demands were used as a baseline demand in 2015. See Table F-9 below for a summary of the land use demand projections for CCWD as well as some final assumptions described in the table notes.
Water Losses were calculated based on a percentage of demand consistent with the percentage of losses calculated for the 2015 Water Loss Audit. Raw water, agricultural, and wholesale water demands were not included in the calculation of water losses.
Agricultural demands were calculated separately based on projections for future agricultural land in Sub-Regions A and B. The same agricultural demand projections were applied to all three demand bracket approaches. A description of these demand projections can be found in Chapter 4 of the CCWD UWMP 2015.
F-10
Table F-9 – Total Land Use Demands
Non-Residential, Non- Residential Land Use Based Agricultural Agricultural Land Use Based Water Losses4 Total Demands (AF) Demands (AF) Total Year Demands (AF) District- Sub-Region Sub-Region Sub-Region Sub-Region Sub-Region Wide A B1 C D A2 B3 C D A B A B C D A B C D 2015 (2009-2013 1,525 1,774 112 50 196 663 13 1 1,063 0 558 1,425 69 8 3,342 3,862 194 59 7,456 baseline) 2020 1,784 2,058 134 78 191 669 13 2 1,704 5,313 681 1,837 81 12 4,359 9,876 228 91 14,555 2025 2,043 2,792 156 106 186 676 13 2 2,345 10,625 769 2,361 93 16 5,342 16,453 262 124 22,181 2030 2,302 3,501 178 134 181 682 13 2 2,985 15,938 856 2,868 105 20 6,324 22,988 296 156 29,764 2035 2,561 4,659 200 162 176 688 13 2 3,626 21,250 944 3,693 117 24 7,307 30,291 330 189 38,116 2040 2,820 6,693 222 190 171 694 13 3 4,267 26,563 1,031 5,139 129 28 8,290 39,089 364 222 47,964 NOTES: (1) Sub-Region B baseline values include 135 AF of wholesale consumption which was assumed to be 100% residential; (2) Non-Residential, Non-Agricultural Demands for Sub-Region A are shown as decreasing. Demands from future commercial, industrial, and irrigation land use types in the Jenny Lind Service area were found to be lower than the baseline non-residential demands; (3) 3,500 AF residential demand was added in 2040 to Sub-Region B, starting with a ramp-up in 2025; this was added because the land area for this demand is not captured within the current water service area boundary; (4) Water Losses were calculated based on a percentage of demand consistent with the percentage of losses calculated for the 2015 Water Loss Audit. Raw water, agricultural, and wholesale water demands were not included in the calculation of water losses.
F-11
Appendix G Department of Finance Population Projections – Approach 3
Appendix G shows the demand projections for the District’s service areas in Sub‐Region A and Sub‐Region B using Department of Finance population projections. Appendix G: Department of Finance Population Projections (Approach 3) by Service Area
Appendix F shows the demand projections by service area for Sub-Regions A and B using Approach 3: Department of Finance (DOF) Population Projections. As described in Chapter 4, the projections used a baseline water use representing the average from 2009-2013 to better represent water conditions water use under normal conditions. As described in the text, agricultural demands were calculated using a study conducted by Provost & Pritchard in 2011 that investigated potential future agricultural development in the County. Sub-Region A: Calaveras River Jenny Lind Service Area Table G-1 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within the Jenny Lind service area using Approach 3: DOF Population Projections.
Table G-1: Jenny Lind Service Area Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (Approach 3)
Level of Projected Water Use (AF) Treatment Use Type When 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered Drinking Single Family 1,615 1,696 1,759 1,811 1,843 Water Drinking Multi-Family 3 3 3 3 3 Water Drinking Commercial 35 36 38 39 40 Water Institutional/ Drinking 41 43 45 46 47 Governmental Water Drinking Landscape 17 18 19 19 19 Water Landscape Raw Water 109 114 118 122 124 Agricultural Raw Water 1,704 2,345 2,985 3,626 4,267 irrigation Drinking Other 6 6 6 6 6 water Losses -- 592 622 645 664 675 TOTAL 4,122 4,883 5,618 6,336 7,024
G-1
NOTES: Water losses by each service area estimated based on percent service area demand of total demand.
Sheep Ranch Service Area Table G-2 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within the Sheep Ranch service area using Approach 3: DOF Population Projections.
Table G-2: Sheep Ranch Service Area Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (Approach 3)
Level of Projected Water Use (AF) Treatment Use Type When 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered Drinking Single Family 8 8 8 8 8 Water Losses -- 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 11 11 11 11 11 NOTES: Water losses by each service area estimated based on percent service area demand of total demand.
G-2
Sub-Region B: Stanislaus River Ebbetts Pass Service Area Table G-3 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within the Ebbetts Pass service area using Approach 3: DOF Population Projections.
Since agricultural demand was determined for the entire sub-region, it is only shown in the Ebbetts Pass service area, although agricultural development may also spread to the Copper Cove service area in the future.
Table G-3: Ebbetts Pass Service Area Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (Approach 3)
Level of Projected Water Use (AF) Treatment Use Type When 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered Drinking Single Family 813 1,304 1,760 2,662 4,428 Water Drinking Multi-Family 22 23 24 25 25 Water Drinking Commercial 101 106 110 113 115 Water Institutional/ Drinking 36 38 39 41 41 Governmental Water Drinking Landscape 66 69 72 74 76 Water Agricultural Raw Water 5,313 10,625 15,938 21,250 26,563 irrigation Sales/Transfers/ Drinking Exchanges to 137 138 139 140 141 Water other agencies Losses -- 736 1,091 1,421 2,065 3,320 TOTAL 7,224 13,394 19,503 26,370 34,709 NOTES: Water losses by each service area estimated based on percent service area demand of total demand.
G-3
Copper Cove Service Area Table G-4 below shows projected demands for potable and raw water by use type within the Copper Cove service area using Approach 3: DOF Population Projections.
Table G-4: Copper Cove Service Area Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected (Approach 3)
Level of Projected Water Use (AF) Treatment Use Type When 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Delivered Drinking Single Family 912 958 994 1,023 1,041 Water Drinking Commercial 10 11 11 12 12 Water Institutional/ Drinking 9 10 10 10 11 Governmental Water Drinking Landscape 171 180 187 192 196 Water Landscape Raw Water 310 326 338 348 354 Drinking Other 3 3 3 3 3 Water Losses -- 784 823 853 879 894
TOTAL 2,199 2,311 2,396 2,467 2,511
NOTES: Water losses by each service area estimated based on percent service area demand of total demand.
G-4
Appendix H Blue Lake Springs Agreement
Appendix H includes the resolution passed by the District’s Board of Directors to sell wholesale treated water to Blue Lake Springs Mutual Water Company.
Appendix I AWWA Water Loss Audit
Appendix I provides the District’s American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Loss Audit.
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Draft Data Tracking Report
Prepared by:
9 May 2016
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Overview of Methodology ...... 1-1 Chapter 2 Water Supplied ...... 2-1 2.1 CCWD Water Supply System and System Input Volume ...... 2-1 2.2 Water Imported ...... 2-2 2.3 Water Exported ...... 2-2 2.4 Meter Accuracy and Supply Adjustments ...... 2-2 2.4.1 Meter Accuracy and Calibration ...... 2-2 2.4.2 Adjustments Due to Change in Storage ...... 2-3 2.5 Summary of Water Supplied ...... 2-3 Chapter 3 Authorized Consumption ...... 3-1 3.1 Billed Metered Consumption ...... 3-1 3.2 Unbilled Metered Consumption ...... 3-2 3.3 Billed Unmetered Consumption ...... 3-2 3.4 Unbilled Unmetered Consumption ...... 3-2 3.6 Summary of Authorized Consumption ...... 3-3 Chapter 4 Apparent Losses ...... 4-1 4.1 Customer Meter Inaccuracies ...... 4-1 4.2 Unauthorized Consumption ...... 4-2 4.3 Systematic Data Handling Errors ...... 4-3 4.4 Summary of Apparent Loss Volumes ...... 4-3 Chapter 5 Real Losses ...... 5-1 Chapter 6 Water Balance & Water Loss Performance Indicators ...... 6-1 6.1 Water Balance Results ...... 6-1 6.2 Water Loss Performance Indicators ...... 6-3
May 2016 i
List of Tables Table 1 – Water Service Areas Contained in Each Supply Sub-Region 1-1 Table 2 – Water from Own Sources 2-2 Table 3 – Master Production Meter Accuracy Adjustments 2-3 Table 4 – Export Meter Accuracy Adjustments 2-3 Table 5 – Water Supplied Summary 2-4 Table 6 – Billed Metered Consumption by Sub-Region 3-2 Table 7 – Authorized Consumption Summary 3-3 Table 8 – Calculation of Meter Population Accuracy Based on Age 4-2 Table 9 – Apparent Losses from Customer Meter Inaccuracies by Sub-Region 4-2 Table 10 – Summary of Apparent Losses 4-3 Table 11 – Top-Down Calculation of Real Losses 5-1 Table 12 – Water Loss Performance Indicators 6-4 Table 13 – Data Validity Score Assessment for AWWA Water Audit Software A
List of Figures Figure 1 – AWWA Water Balance Diagram 1-1 Figure 2 – Position of Water Supplied in the Water Balance 2-1 Figure 3 – Breakdown of Authorized Consumption in the Water Balance 3-1 Figure 4 – Breakdown of Apparent Losses in the Water Balance 4-1 Figure 5 – Position of Real Losses Within the Water Balance (highlighted) 5-1 Figure 6 – CCWD Sub-Region A 2015 Water Balance from AWWA Free Water Audit Software 6-1 Figure 7 – CCWD Sub-Region B 2015 Water Balance from AWWA Free Water Audit Software 6-2 Figure 8 – CCWD Sub-Region C 2015 Water Balance from AWWA Free Water Audit Software 6-2 Figure 9 – CCWD Sub-Region D 2015 Water Balance from AWWA Free Water Audit Software 6-3
Appendices Appendix A - AWWA Data Validity Assessment
May 2016 ii
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 1 Overview of Methodology DRAFT
Chapter 1 Overview of Methodology The water balance methodology developed by the International Water Association (IWA) and approved by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) was applied to account for all water entering and leaving the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) potable water distribution system during the water audit period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. CCWD has six geographically distinct water service areas which supply water using four distinct water supply sources. For the purposes of the 2015 UWMP, CCWD is conducting all analyses separately for each of the four water supply source regions (“sub- region”), as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Water Service Areas Contained in Each Supply Sub-Region Sub-Region Water Supply Source Water Service Area Jenny Lind/Valley Springs A Calaveras River Sheep Ranch Copper Cove/Copperopolis B Stanislaus River Ebbetts Pass C Mokelumne River West Point D Groundwater Wallace
The water audit consists of identifying, validating, and categorizing all of the volumes of water in the system to calculate the components of the water balance. A visual representation of all the components in the water audit is shown in Figure 1. All water entering the system goes to one of two places: authorized consumption or losses. The water balance method for conducting a water audit quantifies all water volumes as authorized consumption or losses, whether through measurement or estimation, such that no water is unaccounted for. Throughout the rest of this document, the industry-preferred term, “non- revenue water,”1 will refer to the combination of apparent losses, real losses, and unbilled authorized consumption.
Figure 1 – AWWA Water Balance Diagram Billed Metered Revenue Billed Authorized Billed Unmetered Water Consumption Unbilled Metered Unbilled Water Unbilled Unmetered Non- Supplied Unauthorized Consumption Apparent Revenue Customer Meter Inaccuracies Water Losses Losses Water Data Handling Errors Real Losses
1 M36 Manual of Water Supply Practices: Water Audits and Loss Control Programs. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association (AWWA), 2009. May 2016 1-1
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 1 Overview of Methodology DRAFT
The steps for calculating the water balance are as follows: 1) Sum the volume of water entering the distribution system (Water Supplied). 2) Subtract all billed and unbilled water usage by customers (Authorized Consumption). 3) The remainder is classified as Water Losses, consisting of two parts: a. Apparent Losses – non-physical losses of water that can be calculated directly or estimated: i. customer metering inaccuracies ii. systematic data handling errors iii. unauthorized consumption (water theft) b. Real Losses – physical losses such as leaks, breaks, and overflows which are determined mathematically from what remains after Authorized Consumption and Apparent Losses have been subtracted from the Water Supplied.
May 2016 1-2
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 2 Water Supplied DRAFT
Chapter 2 Water Supplied Water supplied, which is a measure of how much water enters the distribution system, can be calculated from System Input Volume, which consists of two inputs: Water from own sources: the volume of water input to a system from the water supplier’s own sources, corrected for known errors. Water imported: the volume of bulk transfers from other water agencies or distributors. Any water exported from the distribution system across operational boundaries is subtracted from the System Input Volume to provide a final value for Water Supplied: Water Supplied = System Input Volume – Water Exported System Input Volume = Water Imported + Water from own sources Water Supplied = Water Imported + Water from own sources – Water Exported The Water Supplied value calculated in this Chapter is highlighted in the visual representation of the water balance in Figure 2. Water Supplied provides the core value from which all other calculated values are subtracted to determine Real Losses.
Figure 2 – Position of Water Supplied in the Water Balance Billed Metered Revenue Billed Authorized Billed Unmetered Water Consumption Unbilled Metered Unbilled Water Unbilled Unmetered Non- Supplied Unauthorized Consumption Apparent Revenue Customer Meter Inaccuracies Water Losses Losses Water Data Handling Errors Real Losses
2.1 CCWD Water Supply System and System Input Volume Table 2 shows the total Volume from Own Sources for each Sub-Region, calculated based on the treatment volume for each water treatment plant in the six water supply regions.
May 2016 2-1
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 2 Water Supplied DRAFT
Table 2 – Water from Own Sources
Volume Total Volume by Treatment Plant (Water Service Area) Sub-Region Treated (AF) Sub-Region (AF) 1,512 Jenny Lind A 1,521 9 Sheep Ranch 1,353 Ebbetts Pass B 2,427 1,073 Copper Cove/Copperopolis 147 West Point C 147 45 Wallace D 45 Total Water from Own Sources 4,139A Table 2 Notes: A. Summed using unrounded values 2.2 Water Imported CCWD did not import any water from outside the system boundaries in 2015. 2.3 Water Exported CCWD exported 29 AF of treated water to two wholesale customers (Snowshoe Springs and Blue Lake Springs) in Sub-Region B. 2.4 Meter Accuracy and Supply Adjustments 2.4.1 Meter Accuracy and Calibration CCWD’s production meters at water treatment plants are calibrated once per year by SCADA instrumentation electricians. Percent accuracy is not recorded during these annual calibrations. CCWD believes its production meters tend to under-register. For the purposes of this water audit, a percent accuracy of 99% was applied to all production meters (i.e. 1% under-registration). CCWD has indicated that it will be a priority in the coming years to improve the understanding of production meter accuracy. Table 3 displays results of the master meter accuracy adjustments. A negative volume indicates meter under-registration (and will be added as a positive number to the total volume) while a positive volume indicates meter over-registration (and will be subtracted from the total volume).
May 2016 2-2
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 2 Water Supplied DRAFT
Table 3 – Master Production Meter Accuracy Adjustments Adjustment Meter Water Treatment Plant Volume Accuracy (AF) Jenny Lind 99% -15 Sheep Ranch 99% >-1 Ebbetts Pass 99% -14 Copper Cove/Copperopolis 99% -11 West Point 99% >-1 Wallace 99% 0 Net Adjustment to Water from Own Sources -42A Table 3 Notes: A. Summed using unrounded values
Table 4 shows the accuracy adjustments for the two export meters for wholesale customers (which are both in Sub-Region B). Meter accuracy was estimated based on the date of last meter replacement.
Table 4 – Export Meter Accuracy Adjustments Date of last Estimated Meter Sub- Service Wholesale Consumption meter Meter % Error Region Area Customer (AF) change-out Accuracy (AF) Ebbetts Snowshoe Springs 19 Jan 2010 100% 0 B Pass Blue Lake Springs 10 Aug 1976 95% -0.5 SUM 29 -0.5
2.4.2 Adjustments Due to Change in Storage CCWD has about 30 AF of storage tanks but it was decided that the long-term change in storage is insignificant for the purposes of the water audit. 2.5 Summary of Water Supplied Total Water Supplied is shown for each Sub-Region along with the calculation order in Table 5. Sign changes for accuracy adjustments are per the standard method for the AWWA model tracking.
May 2016 2-3
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 2 Water Supplied DRAFT
Table 5 – Water Supplied Summary
Volume by Sub-Region (AF) Calculation Total Component Order (AF) A B C D
1 Water from own sources 1,521 2,427 147 45 4,139A Adjustment for accuracy – 2 -15 -25 -1 0 -42A production meters 3 Water Imported 0 0 0 0 0
4 Water Exported 0 29 0 0 29 Adjustment for accuracy – 5 0 -0.5 0 0 -0.5 export meters Adjustment for Change in 6 0 0 0 0 0 Storage (1 - 2) + 3 - Total Water Supplied 1,536 2,422 148 46 4,152A (4 - 5) + 6 Table 5 Notes: A. Summed using unrounded values
May 2016 2-4
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 3 Authorized Consumption DRAFT
Chapter 3 Authorized Consumption Authorized consumption is defined as any water delivered for consumptive purposes that are authorized or approved by the water utility. This includes everything from residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal consumption to firefighting, flushing of mains, street cleaning, etc. It can be any combination of billed or unbilled and metered or unmetered water consumption. The components of Authorized Consumption are highlighted in the visual representation of the water balance in Figure 3.
Figure 3 – Breakdown of Authorized Consumption in the Water Balance Billed Metered Revenue Billed Authorized Billed Unmetered Water Consumption Unbilled Metered Unbilled Water Unbilled Unmetered Non- Supplied Unauthorized Consumption Apparent Revenue Customer Meter Inaccuracies Water Losses Losses Water Data Handling Errors Real Losses
3.1 Billed Metered Consumption CCWD has two alternating bi-monthly billing cycles which together cover all six water service areas. Billed metered consumption for all customer accounts in 2015 was summarized by water service area by CCWD. CCWD summed consumption from normal retail accounts as well as accounts that closed during the billing period but had partial consumption during the billing period. For billing cycles that covered portions of the months before and after calendar year 2015, the consumption values for these overlapping periods were adjusted to reflect the proportion of days of the billing period contained within the audit period. For example, if a billing period covered December 16, 2014 through February 15, 2015 (15 days before audit period, 45 days during audit period), the consumption value for that period would be multiplied by: (45 days in audit period / 60 total days in the billing period) = 0.75 Separately, CCWD has metered hydrant fill stations where users, typically contractors, can access treated water. This is also a billed consumption (but tracked outside of the standard billing system) and was added as a separate item to the sum of billed metered consumption. Additionally, CCWD has a Lancha Plana Emergency Well Program where non-CCWD customers are given access to a secured (metered) fill station to access treated water to haul to their homes. While these are not direct CCWD customers, they are citizens of Calaveras County and the consumption is billed and metered. It was added as a separate item to the sum of billed metered consumption since it is tracked outside of the billing system.
May 2016 3-1
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 3 Authorized Consumption DRAFT
Table 6 – Billed Metered Consumption by Sub-Region
Hydrant Lancha Plana Retail Total Sub- Meters/Fill Emergency Service Area Consumption Consumption Region Stations Well Program (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) Jenny Lind 1,120 0.4 2.1 A 1,128 Sheep Ranch 5 0.0 0.0 Copper Cove / 731 2.7 0.3 B Copperopolis 1,414 Ebbetts Pass 680 0.8 0.0 C West Point 90 0.9 0.2 91 D Wallace Lake Estates 39 0.0 0.0 39 Total 2,6465 4.7 2.6 2,672
3.2 Unbilled Metered Consumption CCWD reports that there are no water service accounts that are metered but do not pay a bill. 3.3 Billed Unmetered Consumption CCWD reports that there are no water service accounts that are unmetered and billed on the basis of estimated consumption. 3.4 Unbilled Unmetered Consumption Unbilled, unmetered authorized consumption is the volume of water that is estimated to be taken from the system without a meter for which no bill is issued. Typical uses include fire hydrant usage, hydrant flushing, disinfection flushing, street sweeper tank fill-ups, and more. Due to the ongoing drought, CCWD identified that there was very limited flushing of water lines in all service areas. Jenny Lind (Sub-Region A) had one necessary flushing event that is estimated to have involved 4.67 AF. CCWD also identified that a number of fire events required the use of unmetered hydrant usage, but the volume of water consumed was not tracked accurately. In the absence of any equations to estimate fire hydrant consumption or other forms of unbilled unmetered consumption, the default AWWA-recommended percentage was used, or 1.25% of Water Supplied. Unbilled Unmetered Consumption calculated out to 19 AF in Sub-Region A, 30 AF in Sub-Region B, and 1 AF in Sub-Region D. The Butte Fire began September 9, 2015 and burned 70,868 acres. CCWD identified that many unmetered hydrant meters were open and running in Sub-Region C for putting out hot spots and other fire suppression efforts. No specific values were available to build estimates for water consumption used for fire suppression, but since the water use is suspected to be significant, the default percentage of 1.25% has been raised to 5% for Sub-Region C. Unbilled Unmetered Consumption calculated to 7 AF in Sub- Region C.
May 2016 3-2
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 3 Authorized Consumption DRAFT
3.5 Summary of Authorized Consumption The total Authorized Consumption is summed by Sub-Region in Table 7 based on all sources of billed, unbilled, metered, and unmetered potable water consumption.
Table 7 – Authorized Consumption Summary
Volume by Sub-Region (AF) Total Component (AF) A B C D
Billed Metered 1,128 1,414 91 39 2,672
Billed Unmetered 0 0 0 0 0
Unbilled Metered 0 0 0 0 0
Unbilled Unmetered 19 30 7 1 57 Total Authorized 1,147 1,444 98 40 2,729 Consumption
May 2016 3-3
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 4 Apparent Losses DRAFT
Chapter 4 Apparent Losses Apparent Losses are a subset of total Water Losses and are defined as nonphysical losses that occur when water is delivered to a customer but is not measured or recorded accurately. For billed metered customers, this often results in under-billing and a revenue loss for the utility. Apparent losses have three components: Customer Meter Inaccuracies – affected by physical accuracy of meters, the appropriate sizing of the meter to the customer’s consumption profile, and the appropriate type of meter to best record variations in flow. Unauthorized Consumption – potentially can involve illegal connections, tampering with meter equipment, misuse of fire hydrants, etc. Data Handling Errors – can consist of data transfer errors (equipment failure, data entry/tracking errors, etc.), data analysis errors, or policy and procedure shortcomings. These components of Apparent Losses are highlighted in Figure 4.
Figure 4 – Breakdown of Apparent Losses in the Water Balance Billed Metered Revenue Billed Authorized Billed Unmetered Water Consumption Unbilled Metered Unbilled Water Unbilled Unmetered Non- Supplied Customer Meter Inaccuracies Apparent Revenue Unauthorized Consumption Water Losses Losses Water Data Handling Errors Real Losses
4.1 Customer Meter Inaccuracies CCWD does not have an ongoing meter accuracy testing program or a meter replacement program based on age or volume of throughput. Table 8 shows a breakdown of the age of customer meters and a calculation of an estimated total meter population accuracy based on age class. The meter accuracy for each meter age class was estimated.
May 2016 4-1
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 4 Apparent Losses DRAFT
Table 8 – Calculation of Meter Population Accuracy Based on Age Percent of Count Assumed Average Total Installation Period of Percent Age Meter Meters Accuracy Population After 1/1/2010 3 1,882 14% 100.0% 1/1/2000 - 10 3,917 30% 99.0% 12/31/2009 1/1/1990 - 21 4,403 34% 98.5% 12/31/1999 Before 12/31/1989 26+ 2,800 22% 95.0% Weighted Average for Entire Meter Population 98.1%
As an example for Sub-Region A, the calculation of Apparent Losses from customer meter inaccuracies: 푇표푡푎푙 푀푒푡푒푟푒푑 퐴푢푡ℎ표푟𝑖푧푒푑 퐶표푛푠푢푚푝푡𝑖표푛 푇표푡푎푙 푀푒푡푒푟푒푑 퐴푝푝푎푟푒푛푡 퐿표푠푠푒푠 = − ( ) 푀푒푡푒푟 푃푒푟푐푒푛푡 퐴푐푐푢푟푎푐푦 퐴푢푡ℎ표푟𝑖푧푒푑 퐶표푛푠푢푚푝푡𝑖표푛
1,128 퐴퐹 = − (1,128 퐴퐹) = 22 퐴퐹 98.1%
Table 9 – Apparent Losses from Customer Meter Inaccuracies by Sub-Region
Volume by Sub-Region (AF) Total Component (AF) A B C D Metered Authorized 1,128 1,444 91 39 2,648 Consumption Average Percent Accuracy 98.1% 98.1% 98.1% 98.1% - Apparent Losses from Customer 22 27 2 1 51A Meter Inaccuracies Table 9 Notes: A. Summed using unrounded values. 4.2 Unauthorized Consumption In water distribution systems, Unauthorized Consumption includes water taken against the policies of the water utility, such as: Illegal connections Misuse of fire hydrants and fire-fighting systems (which are unmetered) Buried, vandalized, or bypassed meters
May 2016 4-2
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 4 Apparent Losses DRAFT
Tampering with meter reading equipment The AWWA M36 Manual recommends assuming a default value of 0.25% of the Water Supplied as the volume of Unauthorized Consumption, which has been found to be representative for water audits compiled worldwide. In most systems, Unauthorized Consumption is not measured and can be difficult to estimate accurately due to insufficient data. For CCWD, the volume of Unauthorized Consumption is estimated to be 4 AF in Sub-Region A, 6 AF in Sub- Region B, <1 AF in Sub-Region C, and <1 AF in Sub-Region D. 4.3 Systematic Data Handling Errors Systematic Data Handling Errors pertain to the inherent errors in the processes used to transmit, archive, and report customer consumption totals as derived from the meter population. The AWWA M36 Manual default value for Systematic Data Handling error is 0.25% of Billed Metered Consumption. For CCWD, this comes to 3 AF in Sub-Region A, 4 AF in Sub-Region B, <1 AF in Sub-Region C, and <1 AF in Sub-Region D. 4.4 Summary of Apparent Loss Volumes Total Apparent Losses are summed in Table 10 by Sub-Region based on the three main sources: customer metering inaccuracies, unauthorized consumption, and systematic data handling errors.
Table 10 – Summary of Apparent Losses
Volume by Sub-Region (AF) Total Component (AF) A B C D
Customer Metering Inaccuracies 22 27 2 1 52
Unauthorized Consumption 4 6 <1 <1 10
Systematic Data Handling Errors 3 4 <1 <1 7
Total Apparent Losses 28 37 2 1 69
May 2016 4-3
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 5 Real Losses DRAFT
Chapter 5 Real Losses Real Losses were calculated through the deductive process used by the water balance method, highlighted in the visual representation of the water balance in Figure 5. Real losses consist of all the physical losses of water from the distribution system, including all breaks and leaks from water mains, customer service connection pipes, joints, fittings, leaking reservoir walls, and reservoir/tank overflows. Real Loss volume depends on the condition of the system infrastructure, system pressures, break frequencies, flow rates, and the duration of individual failures.
Figure 5 – Position of Real Losses Within the Water Balance (highlighted) Billed Metered Revenue Billed Authorized Billed Unmetered Water Consumption Unbilled Metered Unbilled Water Unbilled Unmetered Non- Supplied Unauthorized Consumption Apparent Revenue Customer Meter Inaccuracies Water Losses Losses Water Data Handling Errors Real Losses
The water balance method calculates Real Losses by subtracting the Apparent Losses from the total Water Losses volume. Real Losses for 2015 are shown by Sub-Region in Table 11 below.
Table 11 – Top-Down Calculation of Real Losses
Volume by Sub-Region (AF) Total Component (AF) A B C D
1 Water Supplied 1,536 2,422 148 46 4,152
2 Authorized Consumption 1,147 1,444 98 40 2,729
3 = 1 – 2 Water Losses 389 978 50 6 1,423
4 Apparent Losses 28 37 2 1 69A
5 = 3 - 4 Real Losses 360 941 48 5 1,354
Table 11 Notes: A. Calculated using unrounded values.
May 2016 5-1
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 6 Water Balance & Water Loss Performance Indicators DRAFT
Chapter 6 Water Balance & Water Loss Performance Indicators 6.1 Water Balance Results The AWWA Water Balance is the first step in identifying opportunities for water loss reduction. The preceding sections describe all of the inputs and calculations used to construct the water balance. The 2015 water balance for CCWD is shown below for each Sub-Region as an output from the AWWA Free Water Audit software.
Figure 6 – CCWD Sub-Region A 2015 Water Balance from AWWA Free Water Audit Software (Volumes in AF) Billed Metered Revenue Billed 1,128 Water 1,128 Billed Unmetered 1,128 Authorized 0 Consumption Unbilled Metered 1,147 Unbilled 0 19 Unbilled Unmetered Water 19 Supplied Unauthorized Consumption 1,536 Non- 4 Revenue Apparent Customer Meter Inaccuracies Water Losses Water Losses 22 408 28 389 Data Handling Errors 3 Real Losses 360
May 2016 6-1
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 6 Water Balance & Water Loss Performance Indicators DRAFT
Figure 7 – CCWD Sub-Region B 2015 Water Balance from AWWA Free Water Audit Software (Volumes in AF) Billed Metered Revenue Billed 1,414 Water 1,414 Billed Unmetered 1,414 Authorized 0 Consumption Unbilled Metered 1,444 Unbilled 0 30 Unbilled Unmetered Water 30 Supplied Unauthorized Consumption 2,422 Non- 6 Revenue Apparent Customer Meter Inaccuracies Water Losses Water Losses 27 1,008 37 978 Data Handling Errors 4 Real Losses 941
Figure 8 – CCWD Sub-Region C 2015 Water Balance from AWWA Free Water Audit Software (Volumes in AF) Billed Metered Revenue Billed 91 Water 91 Billed Unmetered 91 Authorized 0 Consumption Unbilled Metered 98 Unbilled 0 7 Unbilled Unmetered Water 7 Supplied Unauthorized Consumption 148 Non- <1 Revenue Apparent Customer Meter Inaccuracies Water Losses Water Losses 2 57 2 50 Data Handling Errors <1 Real Losses 48
May 2016 6-2
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 6 Water Balance & Water Loss Performance Indicators DRAFT
Figure 9 – CCWD Sub-Region D 2015 Water Balance from AWWA Free Water Audit Software (Volumes in AF) Billed Metered Revenue Billed 39 Water 39 Billed Unmetered 39 Authorized 0 Consumption Unbilled Metered 40 Unbilled 0 1 Unbilled Unmetered Water 1 Supplied Unauthorized Consumption 46 Non- <1 Revenue Apparent Customer Meter Inaccuracies Water Losses Water Losses 1 6 1 6 Data Handling Errors <1 Real Losses 5
6.2 Water Loss Performance Indicators The AWWA Free Water Audit outputs a number of standardized performance indicators that are useful for comparing from year-to-year as well as utility-to-utility, shown below for CCWD in 2015 in Table 12.
May 2016 6-3
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 6 Water Balance & Water Loss Performance Indicators DRAFT
Table 12 – Water Loss Performance Indicators
Value (by Sub-Region) Performance Units Indicators A B C D Non-Revenue Water as Percent by Volume 26.6% 41.6% 38.8% 13.9% - of Water Supplied Non-Revenue Water as Percent by Cost of 4.3% 8.7% 7.2% 1.9% - Operating SystemA Annual cost of $7,790 $10,222 $509 $280 2015 dollars Apparent Losses Variable Production Rate, $137,703 $359,507 $18,221 $1,831 Annual cost of Real 2015 dollars Losses Retail Rate, $98,926 $261,190 $10,358 $1,388 2015 dollars Apparent Losses per Service Connection 6.73 3.95 3.69 8.38 Gallons/connection/day per Day Real Losses per Service Connection 85.45 101.03 N/AB 41.55 Gallons/connection/day per DayB Real Losses per Service Connection 1.37 1.62 N/AB 0.66 Gallons/connection/day/psi per day per psi pressure Real Losses per Length of Mile of N/A N/A 2,215.36B N/A Gallons/mile/day Main per Day
Current Annual Real 360 941 48 5 AF Losses (CARL) Unavoidable Annual 84 176 N/AC N/AC AF Real Losses (UARL) Infrastructure Leakage Index 4.27 5.33 N/AC N/AC - (ILI = CARL/UARL) Table 12 footnotes: A. The water loss audit software defaults to valuing unbilled consumption at the production rate, but this performance indicator was manually calculated using the retail rate as directed by the AWWA M36 Manual. B. Real Losses per Service Connection is not valid for systems with less than 32 service connections per mile of pipeline. For Sub-Region C, the valid performance indicator is Real Losses per length of mile of main per day May 2016 6-4
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 6 Water Balance & Water Loss Performance Indicators DRAFT
C. The UARL calculation has not been proven as fully valid for very small or low pressure water distribution systems. Sub-Regions C and D were flagged by the model as being too small for these performance indicators. Non-Revenue Water as percent by volume of Water Supplied – Quantifies the volumetric impact of Non- Revenue Water, including Real Losses, Apparent Losses, and Unbilled Authorized Consumption. This is useful in high-level water supply management, but it can be misleading to use it as a measure of operational efficiency because it does not provide information about specific level of Real Losses or Apparent Losses. Any metric that uses the volume of Water Supplied (which changes year-to-year) should be interpreted with some caution. Non-Revenue Water cost as percent of cost of operating system – Quantifies the financial impact of Non- Revenue Water compared to the cost of operating the water system. Cost of operating the water system in FY 14-15 was $8,231,221, provided from the CCWD July 30, 2015 Independent Auditor’s Report and Financial Statements pg 11. Non-Revenue Water is valued by: (Volume of Unbilled Authorized Consumption) * (Retail Rate) + (Volume of Apparent Losses) * (Retail Rate) + (Real Losses) * (Production Rate) Annual Cost of Apparent Losses – Calculated by multiplying the volume of Apparent Losses by the average variable retail cost of water. This was calculated for each sub-region by summing the total variable charges paid by customers for water beyond the flat cap of 1,000 CF and then dividing by the total water delivered to that region. This comes out to be a relatively low value because CCWD allows for 1,000 CF of consumption per billing cycle before beginning to charge variable rates for consumption. Annual Cost of Real Losses – Calculated by multiplying the volume of Real Losses by the variable production cost which was calculated to be $382/AF for FY 14-15. This was based on summing the FY14- 15 audited financial statement expenses for: Repairs Materials and Supplies, Utility Service, Purchased Power, and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses. These summed costs were divided by the Total Water from Own Sources corrected for Meter Error. This is just an estimate that will be improved upon by CCWD in the coming years. Apparent Losses per Service Connection per Day – Useful basic metric that can be compared against the average daily consumption per customer. Real Losses per Service Connection per Day – Best of the simple “traditional” performance indicators for analyzing leak management performance, and especially reliable for utilities with dense (32+) service connections per mile, useful for target setting but with limited use for comparisons between systems. Real Losses per Mile of Main per Day – Used when a system has fewer than 32 service connections per mile of pipeline. Real Losses per Service Connection per Day per PSI – Similar to the above performance indicator, but takes into account average system pressure; useful for comparing between utilities with different operating pressures. Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) – The actual volume of leakage during the audit period (Reported Breaks + Unreported Breaks + Background Losses) Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) – A theoretical reference value representing the technical low limit of leakage that could be achieved if all of today’s best technology could be successfully applied. It is based on the distribution systems key characteristics, such as length of water mains, number of service
May 2016 6-5
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 Chapter 6 Water Balance & Water Loss Performance Indicators DRAFT connections, and pressure. It takes into account measured frequencies, flow rates and durations of background losses, reported and unreported leaks. The equation used for UARL is based on leakage data gathered from well-maintained and managed systems internationally:
푈퐴푅퐿 (𝑔푎푙/푑푎푦) = (5.4 ∗ 퐿푚 + 0.15 ∗ 푁푐 + 7.5 ∗ 퐿푐) ∗ 푃 Where:
Lm = length of water mains (miles)
Nc = Number of service connections
Lc = Total length of private pipe (miles): Nc * average distance from curb stop to customer meter P = average pressure in the system (psi) The UARL has not been proven fully valid for systems that are small (e.g. fewer miles of mains and a small number of service connections) or operate at a low pressure. Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) – Equal to CARL / UARL, a ratio that indicates how well a distribution system controls Real Losses, taking into account system condition characteristics. An ILI of 1.0 indicates that the current volume of Real Losses approximates the technical minimum. This is the best indicator for comparisons between systems.
May 2016 6-6
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 2015 Appendix A – AWWA Data Validity Assessment DRAFT
Appendix A - AWWA Data Validity Assessment
The validity of the data has been graded in accordance with the “Grading Matrix” for each component of the AWWA Free Water Audit Software. Table 13 provides the data validity score and the rationale behind each scoring. It is important to note that the AWWA Grading Matrix was designed to be useable by any utility and thus does not perfectly match the conditions for any single utility. Therefore, there is a degree of subjectivity inherent in the Data Validity Assessment. A Water Resources Foundation and EPA report (2015) titled “Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity” found that water audits with implausible results tended to grade their data validity notably higher than utilities that submitted audits with realistic data. This highlights the fact that good data and its validation is an important component of providing realistic results that feed recommendations and decision-making. The final CCWD data validity score is 61 out of a 100 (provided by the AWWA software).
Table 13 – Data Validity Score Assessment for AWWA Water Audit Software Grad- Suggestions for Improvement Category Rationale for Current Grading ing According to Scoring System Water Supplied
Volume from own All water treatment plants are metered and Have easier access to meter 8 sources tested annually. calibration results % accuracy
Water imported n/a No imports n/a While wholesale customers are metered, Water exported 5 meter testing/calibration is very occasional, if Calibrate/test export meters. ever. Volume from own Production data logged electronically and Record % accuracy from meter sources - master 5 reviewed regularly. Accuracy testing not test results and incorporate meter and supply incorporated into results. into production data. error adjustment Water imported - master meter and n/a No imports n/a supply error adjustment
Water exported - master meter and No daily log of export meter reads, no ongoing supply error 1 Calibrate/test export meters. meter maintenance or calibration. adjustment
May 2016 A
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 2015 Appendix A – AWWA Data Validity Assessment DRAFT
Grad- Suggestions for Improvement Category Rationale for Current Grading ing According to Scoring System Authorized Consumption
Most customer use volume-based billing; good Implement a stronger meter meter records but limited meter replacement Billed metered 7 replacement policy and meter policy based on age. Records are calibration/testing. computerized.
Billed unmetered n/a No billed, unmetered consumption. n/a
Unbilled metered n/a No unbilled, metered consumption. n/a
Create a method to better Default value was used (except for Sub-Region estimate unbilled unmetered Unbilled unmetered 5 C which got a 6) uses such as line flushing, firefighting, etc. Apparent Losses
Unauthorized 5 Default value was used. n/a consumption
Limited meter accuracy testing – mostly Customer metering Improve meter accuracy 3 focused on replacing aging meters. Electronic inaccuracies testing program. recordkeeping of meters is present.
Systematic data Default value was used. 5 n/a handling errors
May 2016 B
CCWD Water Loss Audit 2015 2015 Appendix A – AWWA Data Validity Assessment DRAFT
Grad- Suggestions for Improvement Category Rationale for Current Grading ing According to Scoring System System Data
See model for list of Electronic recordkeeping and asset Length of mains 8 requirements and suggested management are present. improvements.
Number of active and inactive service Number of active See model for list of connections provided by CCWD, thought to be AND inactive service 7 requirements and suggested known relatively well with small amount of connections improvements. error.
Average length of Customer meter location varies because this is See model for list of customer service 4 a rural county. Estimates were made for requirements and suggested line average service line length. improvements.
Separate systems are present in rural county. See model for list of Average operating 4 Estimates were made for average pressure in requirements and suggested pressure each system. improvements.
Cost Data
Total annual cost of Audited financial statements provided this operating water 9 n/a value. system
Most of customer consumption is billed using See model for list of Customer retail unit 3 a flat rate, with usage beyond a cap charged requirements and suggested cost using a variable rate. improvements.
Implement separate tracking Reasonably maintained, but incomplete, Variable production of operations costs to 2 paper or electronic accounting to roughly cost calculate more accurate estimate basic operations cost. variable production cost.
May 2016 C
5 AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 American Water Works Association Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
This spreadsheet-based water audit tool is designed to help quantify and track water losses associated with water distribution systems and identify areas for improved efficiency and cost recovery. It provides a "top-down" summary water audit format, and is not meant to take the place of a full-scale, comprehensive water audit format. Auditors are strongly encouraged to refer to the most current edition of AWWA M36 Manual for Water Audits for detailed guidance on the water auditing process and targetting loss reduction levels
The spreadsheet contains several separate worksheets. Sheets can be accessed using the tabs towards the bottom of the screen, or by clicking the buttons below.
Please begin by providing the following information The following guidance will help you complete the Audit
Name of Contact Person: Peter Martin All audit data are entered on the Reporting Worksheet Email Address: [email protected] Value can be entered by user Telephone | Ext.: 209-754-3094 Value calculated based on input data Name of City / Utility: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region A These cells contain recommended default values City/Town/Municipality: Calaveras County
State / Province: California (CA) Use of Option Pcnt: Value: Country: USA (Radio) Buttons: 0.25% Year: 2015 Calendar Year
Start Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format Select the default percentage To enter a value, choose this button and enter a End Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format by choosing the option button on the left value in the cell to the right Audit Preparation Date: 4/8/2016 Volume Reporting Units: Acre-feet PWSID / Other ID: The following worksheets are available by clicking the buttons below or selecting the tabs along the bottom of the page
Instructions Reporting Worksheet Comments Performance Water Balance Dashboard Enter the required data Indicators The current sheet. Enter comments to The values entered in A graphical summary of Enter contact on this worksheet to explain how values Review the the Reporting the water balance and performance indicators information and basic calculate the water were calculated or to Worksheet are used to Non‐Revenue Water balance and data grading document data sources to evaluate the results audit details (year, of the audit populate the Water components units etc) Balance
Grading Matrix Service Connection Definitions Loss Control Example Audits Acknowledgements Planning Presents the possible Diagram Use this sheet to Reporting Worksheet Acknowledgements for Use this sheet to the AWWA Free Water grading options for Diagrams depicting understand the terms and Performance used in the audit interpret the results of Audit Software v5.0 each input component possible customer service the audit validity score Indicators examples process of the audit connection line and performance are shown for two configurations indicators validated audits
If you have questions or comments regarding the software please contact us via email at: [email protected]
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Instructions 1 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. Reporting Worksheet Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
? Click to access definition Water Audit Report for: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region A + Click to add a comment Reporting Year: 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED <------Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ------> Pcnt: Value: Volume from own sources: + ? 8 1,520.554 acre-ft/yr + ? 5 -1.00% acre-ft/yr Water imported: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr+ ? acre-ft/yr Water exported: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr+ ? acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED: 1,535.913 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Click here: ? Billed metered: + ? 7 1,127.846 acre-ft/yr for help using option Billed unmetered: + ? n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr buttons below Unbilled metered: + ? n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr Pcnt: Value: Unbilled unmetered:+ ? 19.199 acre-ft/yr 1.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Use buttons to select ? AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 1,147.045 acre-ft/yr percentage of water supplied OR value WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 388.868 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value: Unauthorized consumption:+ ? 3.840 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Customer metering inaccuracies: + ? 3 21.727 acre-ft/yr 1.89% acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors:+ ? 2.820 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Apparent Losses: ? 28.386 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: ? 360.482 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES: 388.868 acre-ft/yr
NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER: ? 408.067 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: + ? 8 104.5 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections: + ? 7 3,766 Service connection density:? 36 conn./mile main
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? No (length of service line, beyond the property Average length of customer service line: + ? 4 14.0 ft boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Average operating pressure: + ? 4 62.5 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: + ? 9 $3,484,298 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): + ? 3 $0.63 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): + ? 2 $382.00 $/acre-ft Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses Retail costs are less than (or equal to) production costs; please review and correct if necessary
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: *** YOUR SCORE IS: 61 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: 1: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses) 2: Volume from own sources 3: Customer metering inaccuracies
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 2 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. System Attributes and Performance Indicators Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
Water Audit Report for: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region A Reporting Year: 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 61 out of 100 *** System Attributes: Apparent Losses: 28.386 acre-ft/yr + Real Losses: 360.482 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses: 388.868 acre-ft/yr
? Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): 84.39 acre-ft/yr Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $7,790 Annual cost of Real Losses: $98,926 Valued at Customer Retail Unit Cost Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton Performance Indicators: Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 26.6% Financial: Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 3.2% Real Losses valued at Customer Retail Unit Cost
Apparent Losses per service connection per day:6.73gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day: 85.45 gallons/connection/day Operational Efficiency: Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 1.37 gallons/connection/day/psi
From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 360.48 acre-feet/year
? Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]: 4.27
* This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Performance Indicators 3 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. User Comments Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. Use this worksheet to add comments or notes to explain how an input value was calculated, or to document the sources of the information used. Please see water loss audit appendix in 2015 UWMP for description of all data used in the model.
General Comment:
Audit Item Comment
Volume from own sources:
Vol. from own sources: Master meter error adjustment:
Water imported:
Water imported: master meter error adjustment:
Water exported:
Water exported: master meter error adjustment:
Billed metered:
Billed unmetered:
Unbilled metered:
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 4 Audit Item Comment
Unbilled unmetered:
Unauthorized consumption:
Customer metering inaccuracies:
Systematic data handling errors:
Length of mains:
Number of active AND inactive service connections:
Average length of customer service line:
Average operating pressure:
Total annual cost of operating water system:
Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):
Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 5 5 AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 American Water Works Association Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
This spreadsheet-based water audit tool is designed to help quantify and track water losses associated with water distribution systems and identify areas for improved efficiency and cost recovery. It provides a "top-down" summary water audit format, and is not meant to take the place of a full-scale, comprehensive water audit format. Auditors are strongly encouraged to refer to the most current edition of AWWA M36 Manual for Water Audits for detailed guidance on the water auditing process and targetting loss reduction levels
The spreadsheet contains several separate worksheets. Sheets can be accessed using the tabs towards the bottom of the screen, or by clicking the buttons below.
Please begin by providing the following information The following guidance will help you complete the Audit
Name of Contact Person: Peter Martin All audit data are entered on the Reporting Worksheet Email Address: [email protected] Value can be entered by user Telephone | Ext.: 209-754-3094 Value calculated based on input data Name of City / Utility: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region B These cells contain recommended default values City/Town/Municipality: Calaveras County
State / Province: California (CA) Use of Option Pcnt: Value: Country: USA (Radio) Buttons: 0.25% Year: 2015 Calendar Year
Start Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format Select the default percentage To enter a value, choose this button and enter a End Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format by choosing the option button on the left value in the cell to the right Audit Preparation Date: 4/8/2016 Volume Reporting Units: Acre-feet PWSID / Other ID: The following worksheets are available by clicking the buttons below or selecting the tabs along the bottom of the page
Instructions Reporting Worksheet Comments Performance Water Balance Dashboard Enter the required data Indicators The current sheet. Enter comments to The values entered in A graphical summary of Enter contact on this worksheet to explain how values Review the the Reporting the water balance and performance indicators information and basic calculate the water were calculated or to Worksheet are used to Non‐Revenue Water balance and data grading document data sources to evaluate the results audit details (year, of the audit populate the Water components units etc) Balance
Grading Matrix Service Connection Definitions Loss Control Example Audits Acknowledgements Planning Presents the possible Diagram Use this sheet to Reporting Worksheet Acknowledgements for Use this sheet to the AWWA Free Water grading options for Diagrams depicting understand the terms and Performance used in the audit interpret the results of Audit Software v5.0 each input component possible customer service the audit validity score Indicators examples process of the audit connection line and performance are shown for two configurations indicators validated audits
If you have questions or comments regarding the software please contact us via email at: [email protected]
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Instructions 1 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. Reporting Worksheet Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
? Click to access definition Water Audit Report for: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region B + Click to add a comment Reporting Year: 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED <------Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ------> Pcnt: Value: Volume from own sources: + ? 8 2,426.907 acre-ft/yr + ? 5 -1.00% acre-ft/yr Water imported: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr+ ? acre-ft/yr Water exported: + ? 5 28.585 acre-ft/yr + ? 1 -0.518 acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED: 2,422.318 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Click here: ? Billed metered: + ? 7 1,414.083 acre-ft/yr for help using option Billed unmetered: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr buttons below Unbilled metered: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr Pcnt: Value: Unbilled unmetered:+ ? 30.279 acre-ft/yr 1.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Use buttons to select ? AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 1,444.362 acre-ft/yr percentage of water supplied OR value WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 977.957 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value: Unauthorized consumption:+ ? 6.056 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Customer metering inaccuracies: + ? 3 27.241 acre-ft/yr 1.89% acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors:+ ? 3.535 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Apparent Losses: ? 36.832 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: ? 941.125 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES: 977.957 acre-ft/yr
NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER: ? 1,008.236 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: + ? 8 195.0 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections: + ? 7 8,316 Service connection density:? 43 conn./mile main
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? No (length of service line, beyond the property Average length of customer service line: + ? 4 18.5 ft boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Average operating pressure: + ? 4 62.5 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: + ? 9 $4,344,491 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): + ? 3 $0.64 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): + ? 2 $382.00 $/acre-ft Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses Retail costs are less than (or equal to) production costs; please review and correct if necessary
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: *** YOUR SCORE IS: 60 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: 1: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses) 2: Volume from own sources 3: Customer metering inaccuracies
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 2 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. System Attributes and Performance Indicators Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
Water Audit Report for: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region B Reporting Year: 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 60 out of 100 *** System Attributes: Apparent Losses: 36.832 acre-ft/yr + Real Losses: 941.125 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses: 977.957 acre-ft/yr
? Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): 176.49 acre-ft/yr Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $10,222 Annual cost of Real Losses: $359,507 Valued at Variable Production Cost Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton Performance Indicators: Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 41.6% Financial: Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 8.8% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost
Apparent Losses per service connection per day:3.95gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day: 101.03 gallons/connection/day Operational Efficiency: Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 1.62 gallons/connection/day/psi
From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 941.12 acre-feet/year
? Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]: 5.33
* This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Performance Indicators 3 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. User Comments Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. Use this worksheet to add comments or notes to explain how an input value was calculated, or to document the sources of the information used. Please see water loss audit appendix in 2015 UWMP for description of all data used in the model.
General Comment:
Audit Item Comment
Volume from own sources:
Vol. from own sources: Master meter error adjustment:
Water imported:
Water imported: master meter error adjustment:
Water exported:
Water exported: master meter error adjustment:
Billed metered:
Billed unmetered:
Unbilled metered:
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 4 Audit Item Comment
Unbilled unmetered:
Unauthorized consumption:
Customer metering inaccuracies:
Systematic data handling errors:
Length of mains:
Number of active AND inactive service connections:
Average length of customer service line:
Average operating pressure:
Total annual cost of operating water system:
Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):
Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 5 5 AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 American Water Works Association Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
This spreadsheet-based water audit tool is designed to help quantify and track water losses associated with water distribution systems and identify areas for improved efficiency and cost recovery. It provides a "top-down" summary water audit format, and is not meant to take the place of a full-scale, comprehensive water audit format. Auditors are strongly encouraged to refer to the most current edition of AWWA M36 Manual for Water Audits for detailed guidance on the water auditing process and targetting loss reduction levels
The spreadsheet contains several separate worksheets. Sheets can be accessed using the tabs towards the bottom of the screen, or by clicking the buttons below.
Please begin by providing the following information The following guidance will help you complete the Audit
Name of Contact Person: Peter Martin All audit data are entered on the Reporting Worksheet Email Address: [email protected] Value can be entered by user Telephone | Ext.: 209-754-3094 Value calculated based on input data Name of City / Utility: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region C These cells contain recommended default values City/Town/Municipality: Calaveras County
State / Province: California (CA) Use of Option Pcnt: Value: Country: USA (Radio) Buttons: 0.25% Year: 2015 Calendar Year
Start Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format Select the default percentage To enter a value, choose this button and enter a End Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format by choosing the option button on the left value in the cell to the right Audit Preparation Date: 4/8/2016 Volume Reporting Units: Acre-feet PWSID / Other ID: The following worksheets are available by clicking the buttons below or selecting the tabs along the bottom of the page
Instructions Reporting Worksheet Comments Performance Water Balance Dashboard Enter the required data Indicators The current sheet. Enter comments to The values entered in A graphical summary of Enter contact on this worksheet to explain how values Review the the Reporting the water balance and performance indicators information and basic calculate the water were calculated or to Worksheet are used to Non‐Revenue Water balance and data grading document data sources to evaluate the results audit details (year, of the audit populate the Water components units etc) Balance
Grading Matrix Service Connection Definitions Loss Control Example Audits Acknowledgements Planning Presents the possible Diagram Use this sheet to Reporting Worksheet Acknowledgements for Use this sheet to the AWWA Free Water grading options for Diagrams depicting understand the terms and Performance used in the audit interpret the results of Audit Software v5.0 each input component possible customer service the audit validity score Indicators examples process of the audit connection line and performance are shown for two configurations indicators validated audits
If you have questions or comments regarding the software please contact us via email at: [email protected]
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Instructions 1 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. Reporting Worksheet Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
? Click to access definition Water Audit Report for: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region C + Click to add a comment Reporting Year: 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED <------Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ------> Pcnt: Value: Volume from own sources: + ? 8 146.671 acre-ft/yr + ? 5 -1.00% acre-ft/yr Water imported: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr+ ? acre-ft/yr Water exported: + ? 5 acre-ft/yr+ ? acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED: 148.153 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Click here: ? Billed metered: + ? 7 90.702 acre-ft/yr for help using option Billed unmetered: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr buttons below Unbilled metered: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr Pcnt: Value: Unbilled unmetered: + ? 6 7.408 acre-ft/yr 1.25% 7.408 acre-ft/yr Unbilled Unmetered volume entered is greater than the recommended default value Use buttons to select ? AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 98.109 acre-ft/yr percentage of water supplied OR value WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 50.044 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value: Unauthorized consumption:+ ? 0.370 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Enter a positive value, otherwise a default percentage of 0.25% is applied and a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Customer metering inaccuracies: + ? 3 1.747 acre-ft/yr 1.89% acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors:+ ? 0.227 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Apparent Losses: ? 2.344 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: ? 47.699 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES: 50.044 acre-ft/yr
NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER: ? 57.451 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: + ? 8 19.2 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections: + ? 7 567 Service connection density:? 29 conn./mile main
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? No (length of service line, beyond the property Average length of customer service line: + ? 4 20.0 ft boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Average operating pressure: + ? 4 62.5 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: + ? 9 $280,728 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): + ? 3 $0.50 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): + ? 2 $382.00 $/acre-ft Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses Retail costs are less than (or equal to) production costs; please review and correct if necessary
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: *** YOUR SCORE IS: 61 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: 1: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses) 2: Volume from own sources 3: Customer metering inaccuracies
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 2 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. System Attributes and Performance Indicators Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
Water Audit Report for: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region C Reporting Year: 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 61 out of 100 *** System Attributes: Apparent Losses: 2.344 acre-ft/yr + Real Losses: 47.699 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses: 50.044 acre-ft/yr
? Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): See limits in definition acre-ft/yr Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $509 Annual cost of Real Losses: $18,221 Valued at Variable Production Cost Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton Performance Indicators: Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 38.8% Financial: Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 7.7% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost
Apparent Losses per service connection per day:3.69gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day:N/A gallons/connection/day Operational Efficiency: Real Losses per length of main per day*: 2,215.36 gallons/mile/day Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: N/A gallons/connection/day/psi
From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 47.70 acre-feet/year
? Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:
* This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Performance Indicators 3 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. User Comments Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. Use this worksheet to add comments or notes to explain how an input value was calculated, or to document the sources of the information used. Please see water loss audit appendix in 2015 UWMP for description of all data used in the model.
General Comment:
Audit Item Comment
Volume from own sources:
Vol. from own sources: Master meter error adjustment:
Water imported:
Water imported: master meter error adjustment:
Water exported:
Water exported: master meter error adjustment:
Billed metered:
Billed unmetered:
Unbilled metered:
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 4 Audit Item Comment
Unbilled unmetered:
Unauthorized consumption:
Customer metering inaccuracies:
Systematic data handling errors:
Length of mains:
Number of active AND inactive service connections:
Average length of customer service line:
Average operating pressure:
Total annual cost of operating water system:
Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):
Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 5 5 AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 American Water Works Association Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
This spreadsheet-based water audit tool is designed to help quantify and track water losses associated with water distribution systems and identify areas for improved efficiency and cost recovery. It provides a "top-down" summary water audit format, and is not meant to take the place of a full-scale, comprehensive water audit format. Auditors are strongly encouraged to refer to the most current edition of AWWA M36 Manual for Water Audits for detailed guidance on the water auditing process and targetting loss reduction levels
The spreadsheet contains several separate worksheets. Sheets can be accessed using the tabs towards the bottom of the screen, or by clicking the buttons below.
Please begin by providing the following information The following guidance will help you complete the Audit
Name of Contact Person: Peter Martin All audit data are entered on the Reporting Worksheet Email Address: [email protected] Value can be entered by user Telephone | Ext.: 209-754-3094 Value calculated based on input data Name of City / Utility: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region D These cells contain recommended default values City/Town/Municipality: Calaveras County
State / Province: California (CA) Use of Option Pcnt: Value: Country: USA (Radio) Buttons: 0.25% Year: 2015 Calendar Year
Start Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format Select the default percentage To enter a value, choose this button and enter a End Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format by choosing the option button on the left value in the cell to the right Audit Preparation Date: 4/8/2016 Volume Reporting Units: Acre-feet PWSID / Other ID: The following worksheets are available by clicking the buttons below or selecting the tabs along the bottom of the page
Instructions Reporting Worksheet Comments Performance Water Balance Dashboard Enter the required data Indicators The current sheet. Enter comments to The values entered in A graphical summary of Enter contact on this worksheet to explain how values Review the the Reporting the water balance and performance indicators information and basic calculate the water were calculated or to Worksheet are used to Non‐Revenue Water balance and data grading document data sources to evaluate the results audit details (year, of the audit populate the Water components units etc) Balance
Grading Matrix Service Connection Definitions Loss Control Example Audits Acknowledgements Planning Presents the possible Diagram Use this sheet to Reporting Worksheet Acknowledgements for Use this sheet to the AWWA Free Water grading options for Diagrams depicting understand the terms and Performance used in the audit interpret the results of Audit Software v5.0 each input component possible customer service the audit validity score Indicators examples process of the audit connection line and performance are shown for two configurations indicators validated audits
If you have questions or comments regarding the software please contact us via email at: [email protected]
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Instructions 1 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. Reporting Worksheet Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
? Click to access definition Water Audit Report for: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region D + Click to add a comment Reporting Year: 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED <------Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ------> Pcnt: Value: Volume from own sources: + ? 8 45.076 acre-ft/yr + ? 5 -1.00% acre-ft/yr Water imported: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr+ ? acre-ft/yr Water exported: + ? 5 acre-ft/yr+ ? acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED: 45.531 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Click here: ? Billed metered: + ? 7 39.201 acre-ft/yr for help using option Billed unmetered: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr buttons below Unbilled metered: + ? n/a acre-ft/yr Pcnt: Value: Unbilled unmetered:+ ? 0.569 acre-ft/yr 1.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Use buttons to select ? AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 39.770 acre-ft/yr percentage of water supplied OR value WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 5.761 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value: Unauthorized consumption:+ ? 0.114 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Customer metering inaccuracies: + ? 3 0.755 acre-ft/yr 1.89% acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors:+ ? 0.098 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Apparent Losses: ? 0.967 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: ? 4.794 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES: 5.761 acre-ft/yr
NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER: ? 6.330 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: + ? 8 2.9 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections: + ? 7 103 Service connection density:? 36 conn./mile main
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? No (length of service line, beyond the property Average length of customer service line: + ? 4 20.0 ft boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Average operating pressure: + ? 4 62.5 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: + ? 9 $121,705 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): + ? 3 $0.66 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): + ? 2 $382.00 $/acre-ft Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses Retail costs are less than (or equal to) production costs; please review and correct if necessary
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: *** YOUR SCORE IS: 61 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: 1: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses) 2: Volume from own sources 3: Customer metering inaccuracies
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 2 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. System Attributes and Performance Indicators Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
Water Audit Report for: Calaveras County Water District - Sub-Region D Reporting Year: 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 61 out of 100 *** System Attributes: Apparent Losses: 0.967 acre-ft/yr + Real Losses: 4.794 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses: 5.761 acre-ft/yr
? Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): See limits in definition acre-ft/yr Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $280 Annual cost of Real Losses: $1,831 Valued at Variable Production Cost Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton Performance Indicators: Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 13.9% Financial: Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 1.9% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost
Apparent Losses per service connection per day:8.38gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day: 41.55 gallons/connection/day Operational Efficiency: Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 0.66 gallons/connection/day/psi
From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 4.79 acre-feet/year
? Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:
* This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Performance Indicators 3 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. User Comments Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved. Use this worksheet to add comments or notes to explain how an input value was calculated, or to document the sources of the information used. Please see water loss audit appendix in 2015 UWMP for description of all data used in the model.
General Comment:
Audit Item Comment
Volume from own sources:
Vol. from own sources: Master meter error adjustment:
Water imported:
Water imported: master meter error adjustment:
Water exported:
Water exported: master meter error adjustment:
Billed metered:
Billed unmetered:
Unbilled metered:
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 4 Audit Item Comment
Unbilled unmetered:
Unauthorized consumption:
Customer metering inaccuracies:
Systematic data handling errors:
Length of mains:
Number of active AND inactive service connections:
Average length of customer service line:
Average operating pressure:
Total annual cost of operating water system:
Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):
Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 5
Appendix J SB X7‐7 Verification Form
Appendix J includes the required tables for compliance with SB X7‐7 reporting, including the District’s 2020 target and compliance with the 2015 interim target. SB X7-7 Table 0: Units of Measure Used in UWMP* (select one from the drop down list) Acre Feet *The unit of measure must be consistent with Table 2-3 NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 2: Method for Population Estimates Method Used to Determine Population (may check more than one) 1. Department of Finance (DOF) DOF Table E-8 (1990 - 2000) and (2000-2010) and DOF Table E-5 (2011 - 2015) when available
2. Persons-per-Connection Method
3. DWR Population Tool
4. Other DWR recommends pre-review NOTES: Method approved by Gwen Huff and Peter Brostrom on June 17, 2016. SB X7-7 Table-1: Baseline Period Ranges Baseline Parameter Value Units 2008 total water deliveries 4,390 Acre Feet 2008 total volume of delivered recycled water 217 Acre Feet 10- to 15-year 2008 recycled water as a percent of total deliveries 4.94% Percent baseline period Number of years in baseline period1, 2 10 Years Year beginning baseline period range 2000 Year ending baseline period range3 2009 Number of years in baseline period 5 Years 5-year Year beginning baseline period range 2004 baseline period Year ending baseline period range4 2008 1 If the 2008 recycled water percent is less than 10 percent, then the first baseline period is a continuous 10-year period. If the amount of recycled water delivered in 2008 is 10 percent or greater, the first baseline period is a continuous 10- to 15-year period. 2 The Water Code requires that the baseline period is between 10 and 15 years. However, DWR recognizes that some water suppliers may not have the minimum 10 years of baseline data.
3 The ending year must be between December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2010.
4 The ending year must be between December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2010. NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 3: Service Area Population Year Population 10 to 15 Year Baseline Population Year 1 2000 15,989 Year 2 2001 16,475 Year 3 2002 17,190 Year 4 2003 18,004 Year 5 2004 19,041 Year 6 2005 20,021 Year 7 2006 20,983 Year 8 2007 20,436 Year 9 2008 20,821 Year 10 2009 20,726 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 5 Year Baseline Population Year 1 2004 19,041 Year 2 2005 20,021 Year 3 2006 20,983 Year 4 2007 20,436 Year 5 2008 20,821 2015 Compliance Year Population 2015 20,698 NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 4: Annual Gross Water Use * Deductions Volume Into Indirect Distribution Recycled Process Water System Change in Water Annual Baseline Year Water This column will This column will Exported Dist. System Delivered for remain blank Gross Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 remain blank This column will Water Storage Agricultural until SB X7-7 Water Use until SB X7-7 remain blank Table 4-D is Table 4-A is (+/-) until SB X7-7 Use completed. Table 4-B is completed. completed. 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Gross Water Use Year 1 2000 4,207 - - 4,207 Year 2 2001 4,652 - - 4,652 Year 3 2002 4,651 - - 4,651 Year 4 2003 4,548 - - 4,548 Year 5 2004 5,293 - - 5,293 Year 6 2005 5,145 - - 5,145 Year 7 2006 5,485 - - 5,485 Year 8 2007 5,833 - - 5,833 Year 9 2008 5,728 - - 5,728 Year 10 2009 5,370 - - 5,370 Year 11 0 - - - - Year 12 0 - - - - Year 13 0 - - - - Year 14 0 - - - - Year 15 0 - - - - 10 - 15 year baseline average gross water use 5,091 5 Year Baseline - Gross Water Use Year 1 2004 5,293 - - 5,293 Year 2 2005 5,145 - - 5,145 Year 3 2006 5,485 - - 5,485 Year 4 2007 5,833 - - 5,833 Year 5 2008 5,728 - - 5,728 5 year baseline average gross water use 5,497 2015 Compliance Year - Gross Water Use 2015 4,139 - - - 4,139 * NOTE that the units of measure must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in Table 2-3 NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 4-A: Volume Entering the Distribution System(s) Complete one table for each source.
Name of Source Stanislaus River This water source is: The supplier's own water source A purchased or imported source Corrected Volume Meter Error Volume Baseline Year Entering Adjustment* Entering Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Distribution Optional Distribution System (+/-) System 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System Year 1 2000 2545 2,545 Year 2 2001 2863 2,863 Year 3 2002 2757 2,757 Year 4 2003 2600 2,600 Year 5 2004 3045 3,045 Year 6 2005 2873 2,873 Year 7 2006 3102 3,102 Year 8 2007 3358 3,358 Year 9 2008 3300 3,300 Year 10 2009 3109 3,109 Year 11 0 - Year 12 0 - Year 13 0 - Year 14 0 - Year 15 0 - 5 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System Year 1 2004 3,045 3,045 Year 2 2005 2,873 2,873 Year 3 2006 3,102 3,102 Year 4 2007 3,358 3,358 Year 5 2008 3,300 3,300 2015 Compliance Year - Water into Distribution System 2015 2,427 2,427 * Meter Error Adjustment - See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document NOTES:
SB X7-7 Table 4-A: Volume Entering the Distribution Name of Source Calaveras River This water source is: The supplier's own water source A purchased or imported source Corrected Volume Meter Error Volume Baseline Year Entering Adjustment* Entering Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Distribution Optional Distribution System (+/-) System 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System Year 1 2000 1473 1,473 Year 2 2001 1583 1,583 Year 3 2002 1712 1,712 Year 4 2003 1774 1,774 Year 5 2004 2059 2,059 Year 6 2005 2094 2,094 Year 7 2006 2200 2,200 Year 8 2007 2292 2,292 Year 9 2008 2251 2,251 Year 10 2009 2085 2,085 Year 11 - 0 Year 12 - 0 Year 13 - 0 Year 14 - 0 Year 15 - 0 5 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System Year 1 2004 2059 2,059 Year 2 2005 2094 2,094 Year 3 2006 2200 2,200 Year 4 2007 2292 2,292 Year 5 2008 2251 2,251 2015 Compliance Year - Water into Distribution System 2015 1,521 1,521 * Meter Error Adjustment - See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document NOTES:
SB X7-7 Table 4-A: Volume Entering the Distribution Name of Source Mokelumne River This water source is: The supplier's own water source A purchased or imported source Corrected Volume Meter Error Volume Baseline Year Entering Adjustment* Entering Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Distribution Optional Distribution System (+/-) System 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System Year 1 2000 189 189 Year 2 2001 206 206 Year 3 2002 181 181 Year 4 2003 174 174 Year 5 2004 189 189 Year 6 2005 178 178 Year 7 2006 183 183 Year 8 2007 183 183 Year 9 2008 176 176 Year 10 2009 176 176 Year 11 - 0 Year 12 - 0 Year 13 - 0 Year 14 - 0 Year 15 - 0 5 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System Year 1 2004 189 189 Year 2 2005 178 178 Year 3 2006 183 183 Year 4 2007 183 183 Year 5 2008 176 176 2015 Compliance Year - Water into Distribution System 2015 147 147 * Meter Error Adjustment - See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document
NOTES:
SB X7-7 Table 4-A: Volume Entering the Distribution Name of Source Groundwater This water source is: The supplier's own water source A purchased or imported source Corrected Volume Meter Error Volume Baseline Year Entering Adjustment* Entering Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Distribution Optional Distribution System (+/-) System 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System Year 1 2000 0 0 Year 2 2001 0 0 Year 3 2002 0 0 Year 4 2003 0 0 Year 5 2004 0 0 Year 6 2005 0 0 Year 7 2006 0 0 Year 8 2007 0 0 Year 9 2008 0 0 Year 10 2009 0 0 Year 11 - 0 Year 12 - 0 Year 13 - 0 Year 14 - 0 Year 15 - 0 5 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System Year 1 2004 0 0 Year 2 2005 0 0 Year 3 2006 0 0 Year 4 2007 0 0 Year 5 2008 0 0 2015 Compliance Year - Water into Distribution System 2015 45 45 * Meter Error Adjustment - See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document
NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 5: Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD) Service Area Annual Gross Daily Per Baseline Year Population Water Use Capita Water Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Fm SB X7-7 Fm SB X7-7 Use (GPCD) Table 3 Table 4 10 to 15 Year Baseline GPCD Year 1 2000 15,989 4,207 235 Year 2 2001 16,475 4,652 252 Year 3 2002 17,190 4,651 242 Year 4 2003 18,004 4,548 226 Year 5 2004 19,041 5,293 248 Year 6 2005 20,021 5,145 229 Year 7 2006 20,983 5,485 233 Year 8 2007 20,436 5,833 255 Year 9 2008 20,821 5,728 246 Year 10 2009 20,726 5,370 231 10-15 Year Average Baseline GPCD 240 5 Year Baseline GPCD Service Area Gross Water Use Daily Per Baseline Year Population Fm SB X7-7 Capita Water Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Fm SB X7-7 Table 4 Use Table 3 Year 1 2004 19,041 5,293 248 Year 2 2005 20,021 5,145 229 Year 3 2006 20,983 5,485 233 Year 4 2007 20,436 5,833 255 Year 5 2008 20,821 5,728 246 5 Year Average Baseline GPCD 242 2015 Compliance Year GPCD 2015 20,698 4,139 179 NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 6: Gallons per Capita per Day Summary From Table SB X7-7 Table 5 10-15 Year Baseline GPCD 240 5 Year Baseline GPCD 242 2015 Compliance Year GPCD 179 NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 7: 2020 Target Method Select Only One Target Method Supporting Documentation Method 1 SB X7-7 Table 7A SB X7-7 Tables 7B, 7C, and 7D Method 2 Contact DWR for these tables Method 3 SB X7-7 Table 7-E Method 4 Method 4 Calculator NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 7-A: Target Method 1 20% Reduction
10-15 Year Baseline 2020 Target GPCD GPCD
240 192 NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 7-F: Confirm Minimum Reduction for 2020 Target 5 Year Baseline GPCD Maximum 2020 Calculated Confirmed From SB X7-7 Target1 2020 Target2 2020 Target Table 5 242 230 192 192 1 Maximum 2020 Target is 95% of the 5 Year Baseline GPCD 2 2020 Target is calculated based on the selected Target Method, see SB X7-7 Table 7 and corresponding tables for agency's calculated target. NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 8: 2015 Interim Target GPCD Confirmed 10-15 year 2020 Target Baseline GPCD 2015 Interim Fm SB X7-7 Fm SB X7-7 Target GPCD Table 7-F Table 5 192 240 216 NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 9: 2015 Compliance Optional Adjustments (in GPCD) Enter "0" if Adjustment Not Used Did Supplier 2015 GPCD Achieve Actual 2015 2015 Interim TOTAL Adjusted 2015 (Adjusted if Targeted GPCD Target GPCD Extraordinary Weather Economic Adjustments GPCD applicable) Reduction for Events Normalization Adjustment 2015?
From From From 179 216 Methodology 8 Methodology 8 Methodology - 179 179 YES (Optional) (Optional) 8 (Optional)
NOTES:
Appendix K Determining Historical Service Area Population
Appendix K includes the methodology used to calculate the District’s current and historical service area population for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with SBX 7‐7. Technical Memorandum Calaveras County Water District 2015 UWMP
Subject: Population for SBX7-7 Calculations Prepared For: Peter Martin, CCWD CC: Gwen Huff, Department of Water Resources Prepared by: RMC Water and Environment Date: June 17, 2016 Reference: 0669-001
This memorandum describes the methodology used to calculate the historical and current population served by Calaveras County Water District (District). This population is used for the purpose of calculating the District’s baseline and target gallons per capita per day (GPCD) of water use for SB X7-7 compliance demonstrated in its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
1 Background The 2015 UWMP Guidelines (Guidelines) require that populations be determined using 2000 and 2010 data from the U.S. Census. The Guidelines recommend several methodologies for calculating service area population, including Department of Finance (DOF) data for cities and Census designated places or DWR’s Population Tool. These methods are not appropriate for the District, as its service area does not match up closely with a city or census-designated place(s), and the DWR Population Tool does not adequately capture the District’s rural population. Direct analysis of population using U.S. Census data is infeasible, as many of the District’s service areas are much smaller than Census blocks or do not align well with Census blocks. Thus, an analysis attempting to allocate population to the District’s service areas using partial census blocks yields inaccurate population counts. As a result, the District has elected to use an alternate method to calculate population, using a methodology that is similar to the Persons-per- Connection method described in the Guidelines and is based on 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data. This method was used in the District’s 2010 UWMP using 2000 Census and has been updated with 2010 Census data.
2 Methodology 2.1 U.S. Census Data Analysis A map of the District’s service area was combined with the 2000 and 2010 Census tract and block group maps to create a list of the block groups falling completely or partially within the service area. The Guidelines generally require the use of U.S. Census data to be at the block level. However, block groups were used for this analysis as the type of data used (persons per household and number of permanent residences) are not available at the block level. Block group information from the 2000 and 2010 Census was obtained to quantify total residences, permanent residences, number of people per household, and other information. To calculate the appropriate information for the District service area, data for block groups partially or wholly within the District boundaries were multiplied by the percentage of the block group area within the District service area, and these proportional data sets were summed to calculate District-wide data. Table 2-1 shows all of the block groups that are entirely or partially served by the
June 2016 1
Calaveras County Water District 2015 UWMP Population for SBX7-7 Calculations
District, with the corresponding data used for this analysis. The percentage of the Census block group served by CCWD was determined through GIS analysis, the percentage of permanent residences was calculated from Census data regarding the total number of residences and the number of permanent residences in each block group, and persons per household data was taken directly from Census data. Table 2-1: 2010 U.S. Census Block Group Data
% of Block Persons CCWD Group Served % Permanent per Block Group ID Service Area by CCWD Residences Household Block Group 1, Census Tract 1.20 Copper Cove 4% 73% 2.51 Block Group 1, Census Tract 2.10 Jenny Lind 6% 97% 2.64 Block Group 2, Census Tract 2.10 Wallace 2% 95% 2.62 Block Group 3, Census Tract 2.10 Jenny Lind 16% 97% 2.77 Block Group 4, Census Tract 2.10 Jenny Lind 3% 96% 2.77 Block Group 1, Census Tract 2.20 Jenny Lind 96% 97% 2.74 Block Group 2, Census Tract 2.20 Jenny Lind 4% 97% 2.70 Sheep Ranch, Block Group 5, Census Tract 3 Ebbetts Pass 1% 82% 2.22 Block Group 1, Census Tract 4 West Point 4% 90% 2.24 Block Group 2, Census Tract 4 West Point 47% 93% 2.13 Block Group 3, Census Tract 4 West Point 3% 79% 2.19 Block Group 1, Census Tract 5.01 Ebbetts Pass 16% 49% 2.20 Block Group 2, Census Tract 5.01 Ebbetts Pass 24% 76% 2.19 Block Group 1, Census Tract 5.03 Ebbetts Pass 15% 29% 2.10 Block Group 2, Census Tract 5.03 Ebbetts Pass 100% 36% 2.15 Block Group 3, Census Tract 5.03 Ebbetts Pass 80% 52% 2.32 Block Group 1, Census Tract 5.04 Ebbetts Pass 16% 27% 2.08 Block Group 2, Census Tract 5.04 Ebbetts Pass 1% 18% 2.17
A similar method was employed in the 2010 UWMP to derive the same set of data from the 2000 U.S. Census. In this analysis, data was linearly interpolated between 2000 and 2010 to determine the percentage of permanent residences and the persons per household for each year used in the analysis. Table 2-2 summarizes the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data.
June 2016 2
Calaveras County Water District 2015 UWMP Population for SBX7-7 Calculations
Table 2-2: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census Data Summary
Service Area % Permanent Residences Persons per Household 2000 2010 2000 2010 Copper Cove 62% 73% 2.61 2.51 Jenny Lind 98% 97% 2.81 2.71 Ebbets Pass 46% 43% 2.28 2.16 West Point 90% 86% 2.47 2.18 Sheep Ranch 89% 82% 1.93 2.22 Wallacea N/A 95% N/A 2.62 a. Values for Wallace are N/A for 2000 because this area was not part of the District’s service area at that time.
2.2 Population Calculation As Table 2-2 shows, many of the District’s service areas have a significant number of non-permanent residences, or vacation homes. However, these non-permanent residents are not considered in the analysis. Per DWR guidelines, only permanent residents are considered for SBX7-7 population analysis. 2.2.1 Permanent Resident Population The District has chosen to use the total number of residential accounts for this analysis, as single family and multi-family connection and demand data was not separated historically. Additionally, multi-family connections account for a very small portion of total residential connections (less than 0.1%), so combining the residential connection types is not expected to produce an inaccurate GPCD. Permanent residence accounts were estimated by multiplying the total residential connections by the average permanent residence value. The average number of people per household for each census block group was then multiplied by the calculated number of permanent residence connections to estimate the permanent residential population served. This permanent resident population served is the population used in the District’s SBX7-7 analysis.
3 Results The years 2000 through 2009 serve as the baseline period for the District’s SBX7-7 analysis. The District’s service area permanent resident population for this baseline period and for 2015 are shown in Table 3-1. The full analysis described herein for each service area can be found in Appendix A of this Technical Memorandum.
June 2016 3
Calaveras County Water District 2015 UWMP Population for SBX7-7 Calculations
Table 3-1: CCWD Service Area Residential Accounts and Population
All Permanent Permanent Residential Resident Resident Year Accounts Accounts Population 2000 9,679 6,264 15,989 2001 9,962 6,473 16,475 2002 10,360 6,771 17,190 2003 10,790 7,104 18,004 2004 11,347 7,527 19,041 2005 11,913 7,936 20,021 2006 12,476 8,342 20,983 2007 12,126 8,150 20,436 2008 12,476 8,349 20,821 2009 12,506 8,352 20,726 2015 12,514 8,371 20,698
June 2016 4
Calaveras County Water District 2015 UWMP Population for SBX7-7 Calculations
Appendix A: Population Calculation for CCWD’s Service Areas
June 2016 5
Calaveras County Water District
20x2020 Compliance Plan
Customer Characteristics
District-Wide Perm Res. Perm Res. Supply Perm. Res. Perm. Res. Perm Res. gpcd gpcd (Mgal) All Accts Accts. Pop gpcd 10-yr avg 5-yr avg 2000 1370.876 9,679 6,264 15,989 235 2001 1515.911 9,962 6,473 16,475 252 2002 1515.472 10,360 6,771 17,190 242 2003 1482.071 10,790 7,104 18,004 226 2004 1724.705 11,347 7,527 19,041 248 2005 1676.666 11,913 7,936 20,021 229 2006 1787.488 12,476 8,342 20,983 233 2007 1900.612 12,126 8,150 20,436 255 238 2008 1866.366 12,476 8,349 20,821 246 242 2009 1749.713 12,506 8,352 20,726 231 240 239 2010 1604.491 12,534 8,378 20,704 212 237 235 2015 1348.765 12,514 8,371 20,698 179 Calaveras County Water District
20x2020 Compliance Plan % perm. Res. cap per house Customer Characteristics 2000 2010 2000 2010 0.62 0.73 2.61 2.51 Copper Cove Perm Res. Supply % Perm Perm. Res. Cap Per Perm. Res. Perm Res. gpcd (Mgal) All Accts Res Accts. House Pop gpcd 10-yr avg 2000 312.78 1,504 0.62 932 2.61 2,434 352 2001 313.252 1,599 0.63 1,009 2.60 2,623 327 2002 326.833 1,717 0.64 1,102 2.59 2,855 314 2003 311.618 1,835 0.65 1,198 2.58 3,091 276 2004 367.842 1,997 0.66 1,326 2.57 3,408 296 2005 397.451 2,182 0.68 1,473 2.56 3,770 289 2006 438.704 2,446 0.69 1,678 2.55 4,279 281 2007 479.632 2,449 0.70 1,707 2.54 4,336 303 2008 482.216 2,446 0.71 1,732 2.53 4,381 302 2009 452.785 2,488 0.72 1,789 2.52 4,508 275 301 2010 416.605 2,496 0.73 1,822 2.51 4,573 250 291 2015 349.778 2,410 0.73 1,759 2.51 4,416 217
Population TM Appendix A_No Seasonal.xlsx 6/18/2016 Calaveras County Water District
20x2020 Compliance Plan % perm. Res. cap per house Customer Characteristics 2000 2010 2000 2010 0.98 0.97 2.81 2.71 Jenny Lind Perm Res. Supply % Perm Perm. Res. Cap Per Perm. Res. Perm Res. gpcd (Mgal) All Accts Res Accts. House Pop gpcd 10-yr avg 2000 475.945 2,547 0.98 2,496 2.81 7,014 186 2001 511.746 2,666 0.98 2,610 2.80 7,308 192 2002 553.344 2,844 0.98 2,781 2.79 7,760 195 2003 573.855 3,061 0.98 2,991 2.78 8,314 189 2004 665.629 3,318 0.98 3,238 2.77 8,970 203 2005 678.308 3,528 0.98 3,440 2.76 9,494 196 2006 713.291 3,698 0.97 3,602 2.75 9,905 197 2007 743.131 3,624 0.97 3,526 2.74 9,662 211 2008 730.145 3,698 0.97 3,594 2.73 9,813 204 2009 676.158 3,655 0.97 3,549 2.72 9,653 192 197 2010 596.333 3,669 0.97 3,559 2.71 9,645 169 195 2015 492.591 3,649 0.97 3,540 2.71 9,592 141
Population TM Appendix A_No Seasonal.xlsx 6/18/2016 Calaveras County Water District
20x2020 Compliance Plan % perm. Res. cap per house Customer Characteristics 2000 2010 2000 2010 0.46 0.43 2.28 2.16 Ebbetts Pass Perm Res. Supply % Perm Perm. Res. Cap per Perm. Res. Perm Res. gpcd (Mgal) Accts Res Accts. House Pop gpcd 10-yr avg 2000 516.387 5,066 0.46 2,330 2.28 5,313 266 2001 619.806 5,124 0.46 2,342 2.27 5,311 320 2002 571.587 5,217 0.45 2,369 2.26 5,343 293 2003 535.538 5,304 0.45 2,392 2.24 5,368 273 2004 624.377 5,433 0.45 2,434 2.23 5,433 315 2005 538.776 5,596 0.45 2,490 2.22 5,528 267 2006 572.12 5,722 0.44 2,529 2.21 5,584 281 2007 614.677 5,449 0.44 2,392 2.20 5,253 321 2008 593.122 5,722 0.44 2,495 2.18 5,449 298 2009 560.219 5,758 0.43 2,493 2.17 5,415 283 292 2010 536.678 5,763 0.43 2,478 2.16 5,353 275 293 2015 441.032 5,780 0.43 2,485 2.16 5,368 225
Population TM Appendix A_No Seasonal.xlsx 6/18/2016 Calaveras County Water District
20x2020 Compliance Plan % perm. Res. cap per house Customer Characteristics 2000 2010 2000 2010 0.9 0.86 2.47 2.18 West Point Perm Res. Supply % Perm Perm. Res. Cap per Perm. Res. Perm Res. gpcd (Mgal) Accts Res Accts. House Pop gpcd 10-yr avg 2000 61.685 519 0.9 467 2.47 1,154 146 2001 66.982 527 0.90 472 2.44 1,153 159 2002 59.051 532 0.89 475 2.41 1,145 141 2003 56.817 540 0.89 480 2.38 1,143 136 2004 61.654 549 0.88 485 2.35 1,142 148 2005 58.132 557 0.88 490 2.33 1,140 140 2006 59.65 560 0.88 491 2.30 1,126 145 2007 59.485 556 0.87 485 2.27 1,099 148 2008 57.395 560 0.87 486 2.24 1,088 145 2009 57.306 557 0.86 481 2.21 1,063 148 146 2010 51.666 558 0.86 480 2.18 1,046 135 145 2015 47.793 527 0.86 453 2.18 988 133
Population TM Appendix A_No Seasonal.xlsx 6/18/2016 Calaveras County Water District
20x2020 Compliance Plan % perm. Res. cap per house Customer Characteristics 2000 2010 2000 2010 0.89 0.82 1.93 2.22 Sheep Ranch Perm Res. Supply % Perm Perm. Res. Cap Per Perm. Res. Perm Res. gpcd (Mgal) Accts Res Accts. House Pop gpcd 10-yr avg 2000 4.079 43 0.89 38 1.93 74 151 2001 4.125 46 0.88 41 1.96 80 141 2002 4.657 50 0.88 44 1.99 87 147 2003 4.243 50 0.87 43 2.02 88 132 2004 5.203 50 0.86 43 2.05 88 162 2005 3.999 50 0.86 43 2.08 89 123 2006 3.723 50 0.85 42 2.10 89 115 2007 3.687 48 0.84 40 2.13 86 117 2008 3.488 50 0.83 42 2.16 90 106 2009 3.245 48 0.83 40 2.19 87 102 130 2010 3.209 48 0.82 39 2.22 87 101 125 2015 2.883 51 0.82 42 2.22 93 85
Population TM Appendix A_No Seasonal.xlsx 6/18/2016 Calaveras County Water District
20x2020 Compliance Plan % perm. Res. cap per house Customer Characteristics 2000 2010 2000 2010 N/A 0.95 N/A 2.62 Wallace Perm Res. Supply % Perm Perm. Res. Cap Per Perm. Res. Perm Res. gpcd (Mgal) Accts Res Accts. House Pop gpcd 10-yr avg 2015 14.688 97 0.95 92 2.62 241 167 N/A Updated Factor Summary % Permanent Service Area Residents Cap. Per House 2000 2010 2000 2010 Cooper Cove 62% 73% 2.61 2.51 Jenny Lind 98% 97% 2.81 2.71 Ebbets Pass 46% 43% 2.28 2.16 West Point 90% 86% 2.47 2.18 Sheep Ranch 89% 82% 1.93 2.22 Wallace 95% 2.62
Appendix L Water Waste Ordinance No. 2010‐02
Appendix L includes the District’s ordinance to prohibit water waste.
Appendix M Water Shortage Contingency Planning Ordinance
Appendix M includes the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan ordinance.
Appendix N 2012 Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix N includes the District’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Plan aims to protect public health and safety, reduce risk and vulnerability from potential hazards, and to maintain service levels. Calaveras County Water District Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
August 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards. The Calaveras County Water District developed this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update to make the County and its residents less vulnerable to future hazard events. This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 so that the District would be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs.
The District followed a planning process prescribed by FEMA, which began with the formation of a hazard mitigation planning committee (HMPC) comprised of key District and County representatives, and other regional stakeholders. The HMPC conducted a risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to the District, assessed the District’s vulnerability to these hazards, and examined the capabilities in place to mitigate them. The District is vulnerable to several hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Floods, wildfires, and severe weather are among the hazards that can have a significant impact on the County.
Based on the risk assessment, the HMPC identified goals and objectives for reducing the District’s vulnerability to hazards. The goals and objectives of this multi-hazard mitigation plan are:
Goal 1 Provide protection of life and public health and safety
Objective 1.1 Maintain adequate flows in water system for fire protection. Objective 1.2 Improve capacity of critical sewer infrastructure to accommodate peak events. Objective 1.3 Continue emergency water supply planning during periods of drought and water shortage.
Goal 2 Reduce risk and vulnerability to existing and future facilities from hazards
Objective 2.1 Protect critical facilities from hazard impacts. Objective 2.2 Implement mitigation measures for facilities vulnerable to flooding. Objective 2.3 Reduce the vulnerability of facilities identified in fire hazard areas. Objective 2.4 Update and improve risk assessment data and maps. Objective 2.5 Integrate natural hazards mitigation into future facilities planning.
Goal 3 Maintain current service levels and prevent loss of services
Objective 3.1 Protect critical lifeline utilities from hazard impacts. Objective 3.2 Enhance and improve interconnections with regional water suppliers to prevent loss of service during drought and other emergencies. Objective 3.3 Improve and protect water supply storage capacity.
Calaveras County Water District i Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 Objective 3.4 Improve redundancy at critical facilities. Objective 3.5 Increase backup capacities post-disaster to service the community until complete services are restored.
Goal 4 Improve education, awareness, coordination, and communication with District staff, first responders, emergency management planners, public and other stakeholders
Objective 4.1 Educate public on responsible water use and conservation measures. Objective 4.2 Foster partnerships with other water and sewer providers locally and regionally. Objective 4.3 Improve emergency planning relative to vulnerable special populations. Objective 4.4 Improve coordination with other County departments and agencies, such as public health, related to natural hazard planning. Objective 4.5 Maintain and enhance participation in multi-agency groups, such as the Multi- Agency Coordinating Group, related to natural hazards and emergencies. Objective 4.6 Coordinate with other agencies for disaster training exercises. Objective 4.7 Increase use of shared resources. Objective 4.8 Make better use of technology.
To meet these identified goals, the plan recommends 21 mitigation actions, which are summarized in the table that follows. This plan has been formally adopted by the District and will be updated every five years at a minimum.
Table ES.1. Calaveras County Water District Mitigation Actions
Addresses Addresses New Action/ Hazard Current Future Mitigation Action 2006 Action Addressed Priority Development Development 1. Dam Failure Emergency New Action Dam Failure L X X Planning 2. Review and Update Drought New Action Drought H X Plan 3. Implement Other Facility New Action Flood H X X Flood Mitigation Projects 4. Retrofit Manhole Covers New Action Flood H X X 5. Improve grading and New Action Flood H X drainage of Wastewater Effluent Storage Ponds 6. Enhance On-Site New Action Wildfire H X Coordination with Cal-Fire during Fire Events 7. Construct Fire Resistant New Action Wildfire M X Electrical Control Panels
Calaveras County Water District ii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 Addresses Addresses New Action/ Hazard Current Future Mitigation Action 2006 Action Addressed Priority Development Development 8. Increase District Owned New Action Severe H X Snow Removal Equipment Weather: and/or Snow Plows that can Winter be attached to the District’s Storms and Truck Fleet. Extreme Cold 9. Remaining Redwood Storage New action Wildfire H X X Tanks 10. Jenny Lind Water Treatment 2006 Flood H X Plant Flood Protection (was Provide flood protection for Jenny Lind water treatment plant and La Contenta main sewage lift station) 11. Big Trees South Zone, 2006 Wildfire H X X Redwood Potable Water Storage Tanks, Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Project (Big Trees Tanks #1, #3 and 60K) (was titled Replace redwood water storage tanks with steel tanks) 12. Work with Calaveras County 2006 Multi-hazard H X X on County General Plan update to integrate natural hazards mitigation measures in new development planning 13. Implement recommendations 2006 Flood H X X in service area master plans related to critical sewer facilities 14. Implement pipeline 2006 Wildfire H X X improvements identified in water master plans to provide adequate fire flows 15. Create and maintain wildfire 2006 Wildfire M X X defensible spaces around facilities identified as in high fire hazard areas 16. Evaluate the need for 2006 Multi-hazard M X X improved redundancy at critical facilities 17. Review and update a tiered 2006 Drought L X X rate structure to encourage responsible water use 18. Update the National Pollutant 2006 Flood L X Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for wastewater facilities as required
Calaveras County Water District iii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 Addresses Addresses New Action/ Hazard Current Future Mitigation Action 2006 Action Addressed Priority Development Development 19. Identify and incorporate 2006 Drought L X X strategies for increasing water storage capacity to mitigate impacts of drought and other emergencies in an updated CCWD County Water Master Plan 20. Develop mutual aid 2006 Multi-hazard L X X agreements with other water providers and county agencies for support during emergencies
Calaveras County Water District iv Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapters
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1.1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1.1 1.2 Background and Scope ...... 1.1 1.3 District Profile ...... 1.2 1.3.1 History and Organization ...... 1.4 1.3.2 Topography ...... 1.5 1.3.3 Economy ...... 1.5 1.4 Plan Organization...... 1.5
2 WHAT’S NEW ...... 2.1 2.1 What’s New in the Plan Update ...... 2.1 2.2 2006 LHMP Mitigation Strategy Status and Successes ...... 2.2
3 PLANNING PROCESS ...... 3.1 3.1 The 10-Step Planning Process ...... 3.2 3.1.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources ...... 3.3 3.1.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks ...... 3.11 3.1.3 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan ...... 3.11 3.1.4 Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress ...... 3.11
4 RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 4.1 4.1 Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards ...... 4.3 4.1.1 Methodology and Results ...... 4.3 4.1.2 Disaster Declaration History ...... 4.6 4.2 Hazard Profiles...... 4.8 4.2.1 Severe Weather: General ...... 4.9 4.2.2 Severe Weather: Extreme Heat ...... 4.11 4.2.3 Severe Weather: Heavy Rain and Storms ...... 4.16 4.2.4 Severe Weather: Tornado ...... 4.21 4.2.5 Severe Weather: Wind ...... 4.23 4.2.6 Severe Weather: Winter Storms and Extreme Cold ...... 4.27 4.2.7 Avalanche ...... 4.34 4.2.8 Dam Failure ...... 4.34 4.2.9 Drought and Water Shortage ...... 4.42 4.2.10 Earthquake ...... 4.49 4.2.11 Flood: 100-/500-year and Flood: Localized Stormwater Flooding ...... 4.59 4.2.12 Levee Failure ...... 4.66 4.2.13 Soil Hazards: Erosion ...... 4.68 4.2.14 Soil Hazards: Expansive Soils ...... 4.70
Calaveras County Water District v Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
4.2.15 Soil Hazards: Landslides and Debris Flows ...... 4.72 4.2.16 Soil Hazards: Subsidence ...... 4.73 4.2.17 Volcanoes ...... 4.76 4.2.18 Wildfires ...... 4.82 4.2.19 Natural Hazard Summary ...... 4.89 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4.91 4.3.1 Calaveras County Water District’s Vulnerability and Assets at Risk.....4.92 4.3.2 Calaveras County Water District Vulnerability to Specific Hazards ....4.102 4.4 Capability Assessment ...... 4.127 4.4.1 CCWD’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities ...... 4.128 4.4.2 CCWD’s Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities ...... 4.139 4.4.3 CCWD’s Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities ...... 4.140 4.4.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships ...... 4.140 4.4.5 Other Mitigation Efforts ...... 4.140
5 MITIGATION STRATEGY ...... 5.1 5.1 Mitigation Strategy: Overview ...... 5.1 5.2 Goals and Objectives ...... 5.2 5.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions ...... 5.5 5.31 Prioritization Process ...... 5.6 5.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 5.8
6 PLAN ADOPTION ...... 6.1
7 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 7.1 7.1 Implementation ...... 7.1 7.1.1 Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Implementation and Maintenance ...... 7.2 7.2 Maintenance ...... 7.2 7.2.1 Maintenance Schedule ...... 7.2 7.2.2 Maintenance Evaluation Process ...... 7.3 7.2.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ...... 7.3 7.2.4 Continued Public Involvement ...... 7.4
Appendices
Appendix A: Planning Process Appendix B: References Appendix C: Mitigation Strategy Appendix D: Adoption Resolution Appendix E: Wildfire History
Calaveras County Water District vi Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) prepared this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update to the 2006 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved Calaveras County Water District Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of this plan update is to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the District from the effects of hazard events. This plan demonstrates the community’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This plan was also developed to ensure the District’s continued eligibility for certain federal disaster assistance: specifically, grant funds available through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA). 1.2 Background and Scope
Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses incurred by insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be reduced or even eliminated.
Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” The results of a three-year, congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4 in avoided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council 2005).
Natural hazards mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to human life and property from hazards. Natural hazards mitigation planning is the process through which natural hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts of those hazards are determined, mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies that would lessen the impacts are determined, prioritized, and implemented. This plan documents the Calaveras County Water District’s (CCWD) natural hazards mitigation planning process, identifies natural hazards and risks within Calaveras County, and identifies the CCWD’s hazard mitigation strategy to make the water district less vulnerable and more disaster resistant and
Calaveras County Water District 1.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
sustainable. Information in this plan can be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and local land use decisions.
The four goals of the CCWD’s 2006 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are to:
1) Reduce risk to existing facilities from natural hazards 2) Prevent loss of services 3) Protect public health and safety 4) Improve education, coordination, and communication with stakeholders and the public
This is a single-jurisdictional plan that covers the water district only. Because the CCWD’s boundaries are contiguous with Calaveras County boundaries, the planning area is considered Calaveras County. The CCWD Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee chose to address only natural hazards in this document; man-made hazards are better addressed in their emergency response and related plans.
This plan update was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. (Hereafter, these requirements and regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) or DMA 2000.) While the act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288). This planning effort also follows FEMA’s 2008 Plan Preparation Guidance. Because the CCWD is subject to many kinds of hazards, access to these programs is vital.
Information in this plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for local land use policy in the future. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to communities and their residents by protecting critical community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruptions. The CCWD has been affected by hazards in the past and is thus committed to reducing future impacts from hazard events and maintaining eligibility for mitigation-related federal funding.
1.3 District Profile
The Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) includes all of Calaveras County in the central Sierra Nevada foothills in the northeastern portion of California. The CCWD’s boundaries encompass approximately 640,000 acres of land ranging from the San Joaquin Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountains. See Figure 1.1.
Calaveras County Water District 1.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 1.1. CCWD Base Map
Calaveras County Water District 1.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
1.3.1 History and Organization
The CCWD is a public, nonprofit agency that has operated continuously since 1947. It is a political subdivision of the State of California and is not part of, or under the control of, Calaveras County. As a special district, the CCWD’s powers include provision of public water service, water supply development and planning, wastewater treatment and disposal, and recycling. The CCWD County Water Master Plan (2010) describes the CCWD’s responsibilities as follows:
The District has broad general powers over the use of water within its boundaries, including the right of eminent domain, authority to acquire, control, distribute, store, spread, sink, treat, purify, reclaim, process and salvage any water for beneficial use, to provide sewer service, to sell treated or untreated water, to acquire or construct hydroelectric facilities and sell the power and energy produced to public agencies or public utilities engaged in the distribution of power, to contract with the United States, other political subdivisions, public subdivisions, public utilities, or other persons, and, subject to Article XIIIA of the State constitution, to levy taxes and improvements.
The CCWD’s service area is coincidental with Calaveras County’s boundaries. It is the only water district within Calaveras County, although there are a number of other water service providers. It is the largest public water purveyor in the county in terms of service area, number of customers served, and amount of water delivered. The CCWD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors that is elected by qualified voters in the district to four-year terms. The district currently provides water service to approximately 33,000 municipal and residential/commercial customers through the following five independent water systems located throughout the county:
Ebbetts Pass Copper Cove Jenny Lind West Point Sheep Ranch
The CCWD provides water and/or wastewater service to approximately 71 percent of the residents of Calaveras County.
Calaveras County encompasses an area of 657,920 acres, approximately 1,028 square miles, of land ranging from the San Joaquin Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It is a rural area with many small communities, some of which are rapidly urbanizing along its western border. San Andreas, the County seat, is approximately 100 miles east of San Francisco and 60 miles southeast of Sacramento. The City of Angels Camp is the only incorporated community in Calaveras County.
Calaveras County Water District 1.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
1.3.2 Topography
Topography varies from ranch land to foothills in the western and southern portions of the county to high mountainous areas typical of the Sierra Nevada in the northern and eastern portions. Elevations range from 200 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the northwestern region of the County to a peak of 8,170 msl above Corral Hollow near Alpine County. Warm, dry summers and temperate winters prevail in the western foothills, with temperatures ranging from the middle 30s°F to the high 90s°F, occasionally exceeding 100°F during the summer. Mild summers and cold winters characterize the mountainous eastern region with temperatures ranging from the low 20s°F to the middle 80s°F. Annual precipitation generally increases with altitude and occurs in the form of rain or snow depending upon the elevation.
1.3.3 Economy
Economic development of the region originally occurred due to historic placer mining mainly in the mining district above Highway 49. In more recent years, asbestos, gold, industrial minerals, limestone, and sand and gravel have been the most active segments of the mineral industry. Tourism and recreation, forest products, mineral resources, and agricultural products comprise significant elements of the area’s economic base. As a result, a variety of land uses are found within CCWD’s service area, including residential, forested, industrial, agricultural, and recreational land uses. In the foothills, much of the land is used for cattle ranching, while orchards, vineyards, and row crops are grown at lower elevations. 1.4 Plan Organization
The CCWD Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update is organized as follows:
Executive Summary and Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2: What’s New Chapter 3: Planning Process Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Chapter 5: Mitigation Strategy Chapter 6: Plan Adoption Chapter 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance Appendices
Calaveras County Water District 1.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 2 WHAT’S NEW
Requirements §201.6(d)(3): A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval within 5 years in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding.
The 2006 Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan contained a risk assessment of identified hazards for the CCWD and a mitigation strategy to address the risk and vulnerability from these hazards. Since approval of the plan by FEMA, progress has been made by CCWD on implementation of the mitigation strategy. This section of the plan provides an overview of the approach to updating the plan, identifies new analyses and information included in this plan update, and highlights key mitigation successes.
2.1 What’s New in the Plan Update
This LHMP update involved a comprehensive review and update of each section of the 2006 plan and includes an assessment of the success of the District in evaluating, monitoring and implementing the mitigation strategy outlined in the initial plan. In fact, based in part on the issuance of the new 2008 FEMA Plan Preparation Guidance, the 2006 plan has been reorganized and updated. Only the information and data still valid from the 2006 plan was carried forward as applicable into this LHMP update.
Also to be noted, Section 7.0 Implementation and Maintenance of this plan update identifies key requirements for updating future plans:
Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation; Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective; Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective; Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked; Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks; Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities; Incorporate growth and development-related changes to inventories; and Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization.
These requirements and others as detailed throughout this plan were also addressed during this plan update process.
As part of its 2006 mitigation strategy, the CCWD recognized that certain data, if available, would enhance the analyses presented in the risk assessment and utilized in the development of the mitigation strategy. This new data and associated analysis provided valuable input for the development of the mitigation strategy presented in Section 5.0 of this plan.
Calaveras County Water District 2.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
New information and analyses contained in this plan update includes the following:
A new assessment of hazards affecting the CCWD was completed resulting in the inclusion of two additional hazards: avalanche and localized stormwater flooding. In addition, wind was treated in the update as its own hazard. As well, all soil hazards (erosion, expansive soils, landslide and debris flows, and subsidence) were profiled individually in this update instead of being grouped together. And in alignment with the State of California 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the drought hazard was expanded to include water shortage. An entire rework of the risk assessment for each identified hazard. This included reworking the hazard profile and adding new hazard event occurrences; redoing the entire vulnerability analysis to add items identified below and updating the vulnerability assessment based on more recent hazard and risk data. The CCWD facilities list was updated to reflect all facilities, including the many smaller facilities such as lift stations. Replacement values were added on a facility by facility basis and all identified facilities were mapped into GIS to use in the hazard vulnerability analysis. This enhancement doubled the number of mapped facilities used in the analysis. An expansion of the flood hazard analysis to include an analysis of the 500-year flood and an analysis of the localized/stormwater flooding problems affecting the planning area. Recently developed DFIRMs for Calaveras County were used for this analysis. Also included in this section is an inventory of levees within the planning area as required by recent FEMA DMA guidance. The dam inventory and mapping was updated based on recent (2012) data from the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Dam Safety. This updated data included the new hazard classifications for identified dams. 2010 Census data was used for population and related analysis. Updated CCWD master plans were used to update CCWD facility and service data. An enhanced vulnerability assessment which provides an analysis of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures to two priority mapped hazards: flood and wildfire.
2.2 2006 Mitigation Strategy Status and Successes
The CCWD has been successful in implementing actions identified in the 2006 LHMP mitigation strategy, thus, working diligently towards their meeting their 2006 goals of:
Reduce risk to existing facilities from natural hazards Prevent loss of services Protect public health and safety Improve education, coordination, and communication with stakeholders and the public
Calaveras County Water District 2.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Mitigation Success Stories
Mitigation action #14 of this LHMP update is actually being carried out during the creation of this plan. The West Point/Bummerville/Wilseyville Distribution System is being upgraded. The District identified zones of inadequate flow in the distribution system. These low flows have a detrimental effect on fire suppression. The District was able to acquire Prop 84 and USDA funding for the distribution system upgrades.
Mitigation action #10 of the 2006 LHMP – The District has been approved for funding for the Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant Flood Protection. This was identified in the 2006 LHMP and due to the District’s efforts of developing their first LHMP, they were able to obtain the funding to make this happen. The result of this action will make the Jenny Lind facility much more resistant to flooding.
In 2004 the Pattison Complex fire destroyed the District’s Redwood Storage Tank. The District was able to replace it with an elevated steel tank. This reduces the District’s risk to wildfire to one of its critical facilities – its storage tanks.
The District also installed standby generators at most of their satellite facilities, pump stations and sewer lift stations. Emergency Action Plans have also been created.
Past Mitigation Action Update
The 2006 mitigation strategy contained 17 separate mitigation actions benefiting one or more communities within the CCWD. Of these 17 actions, 4 have been completed, 11 are ongoing., and 2 have not yet been started due to a variety of reasons such as changes in priorities, lack of funding, or changes to the projects themselves. Because many of these projects are implemented on an annual or other continuous basis and some of the projects have yet to be funded or have otherwise not been initiated, 12 of the 2006 projects have been identified for inclusion in this plan update. 5 of the remaining projects were determined not to be viable projects due to a variety of reasons resulting in a lack of priority. Table 2.1 provides a status summary of the mitigation action projects from the 2006 MHMP. Following the table are detailed descriptions of the status of each project.
Table 2.1. CCWD 2006 MHMP Action Status Update
Project in Not Yet 2012 Action Complete Ongoing Started Update 1. Provide flood protection for Jenny Lind water treatment plant X Y and La Contenta main sewage lift station 2. Replace redwood water storage tanks with steel tanks X Y 3. Work with Calaveras County on County General Plan update X Y to integrate natural hazards mitigation measures in new development planning
Calaveras County Water District 2.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Project in Not Yet 2012 Action Complete Ongoing Started Update 4. Promote best management practices, such as low impact X N development techniques, in new development to reduce runoff and urban flooding 5. Implement recommendations in service area master plans X Y related to critical sewer facilities 6. Implement pipeline improvements identified in water master X Y plans to provide adequate fire flows 7. Coordinate with the County as the new Reverse 9-11 program X N is put into operation 8. Create and maintain wildfire defensible spaces around X Y facilities identified as in high fire hazard areas 9. Create a disaster recovery plan X Y 10. Expand the existing water reuse and recycling program X N 11. Develop and adopt a sewer lateral inspection program to X N minimize inflow and infiltration 12. Evaluate the need for improved redundancy at critical X Y facilities 13. Develop and adopt a tiered rate structure to encourage X Y responsible water use 14. Hire coordinator to develop and implement a public outreach X N and water conservation program 15. Apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System X Y (NPDES) permits for wastewater facilities 16. Identify and incorporate strategies for increasing water X Y storage capacity to mitigate impacts of drought and other emergencies in an updated CCWD County Water Master Plan 17. Develop mutual aid agreements with other water providers X Y and county agencies for support during emergencies
1. Provide flood protection for Jenny Lind water treatment plant and La Contenta main sewage lift station
Progress to date: Extended the grant until 2013 for JLWTP due to the District not having matching funds. Design is complete. Separated LaContenta Sewage Lift Station (aka Huckleberry Liftstation) from Jenny Lind project and will address that as a separate item.
2. Replace redwood water storage tanks with steel tanks
Progress to date: We have one redwood tank being replaced with Prop 84 DWR Grant. The District has submitted a grant application to replace 60K, Big Trees 1 & 3’s Redwood tanks, and is waiting to hear if funding was granted.
Calaveras County Water District 2.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
3. Work with Calaveras County on County General Plan update to integrate natural hazards mitigation measures in new development planning
Progress to date: This project is ongoing and the District will review and implement as new development occurs.
4. Promote best management practices, such as low impact development techniques, in new development to reduce runoff and urban flooding
Progress to date: This item is generally addressed by the County and is not necessarily something the District is involved in.
5. Implement recommendations in service area master plans related to critical sewer facilities
Progress to date: The District’s has rehabilitated a number of its sewer lift stations, including moving and updating electrical, SCADA, and standby generators.
6. Implement pipeline improvements identified in water master plans to provide adequate fire flows
Progress to date: Ongoing – installed water system improvements, including pipeline to the Dalee/Cassidy area to mitigate failing wells and add fire hydrants for fire suppression. The District looped the Hwy 26 system to improve flow rates in the Jenny Lind area. Improved distribution to historic Copperopolis and extended water and fire service to Copperopolis Elementary School. The District received Prop 84/USDA/and DWR fund to replace the downtown distribution system in West Point, and to install leak detection equipment and fix water leaks in the West Point system. Construct should be completed by the end of 2012.
7. Coordinate with the County as the new Reverse 911 program is put into operation
Progress to date: Completed
8. Create and maintain wildfire defensible spaces around facilities identified as in high fire hazard areas
Progress to date: Ongoing – Annual brush removal program implemented through coordination with CAL FIRE and the Department of Corrections.
9. Create a disaster recovery plan
Progress to date: Emergency Action Plans (EAP’s) have been developed. Update as needed.
Calaveras County Water District 2.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
10. Expand the existing water reuse and recycling program
Progress to date: The District maximized its water reuse and recycling program at its plants, but is expanding the capability of reuse with the Douglas Flat/Vallecito Wastewater Treatment Plant Project which is currently under construction. The project is currently under construction and will create Title 22 capability, recycled water.
11. Develop and adopt a sewer lateral inspection program to minimize inflow and infiltration
Progress to date: Completed in 2008 and updated every 5 years as required.
12. Evaluate the need for improved redundancy at critical facilities
Progress to date: This project is ongoing. The District currently has redundant electrical control systems and generators. The District also installed two clearwells at West Point Water Treatment Plant so that when one clearwell is down for repairs, the District can still provide water service. We need a secondary filter at the West Point Water Treatment Plant in case there is a problem with the current filter. Otherwise the District will have no other way of treating water should this filter go down for an extended period of time.
13. Develop and adopt a tiered rate structure to encourage responsible water use
Progress to date: Implemented tiered rates with the adoption of a new five year rate plan in May of 2007.
14. Hire coordinator to develop and implement a public outreach and water conservation program
Progress to date: Deferred hiring full time coordinator due to budgetary restraints. Current staff handles public outreach and water conservation on an as-needed basis.
15. Apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for wastewater facilities
Progress to date: Ongoing
16. Identify and incorporate strategies for increasing water storage capacity to mitigate impacts of drought and other emergencies in an updated CCWD County Water Master Plan
Progress to date: Work to replace leaking redwood tanks is ongoing. Received DWR Prop 84 planning grant for the Conjunctive Use “Moke Wise” project, which spans across multiple county lines for groundwater recharge to prevent overdraft.
Calaveras County Water District 2.6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
17. Develop mutual aid agreements with other water providers and county agencies for support during emergencies
Progress to date: Ongoing. The District has agreements with other County agencies for mutual aid in both water and wastewater. Additionally, the District participates in two Integrated Regional Water Management groups: the Mokelumne-Amador-Calaveral (MAC); and the Tuolumne-Stanislaus.
Calaveras County Water District 2.7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 3 PLANNING PROCESS
Requirements §201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
[The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
The Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) recognized the need and importance of the update process for their local hazard mitigation plan and initiated its development, using their own funds, CCWD contracted with AMEC Earth and Environmental (AMEC) to facilitate and develop the plan. Jeanine Foster, a professional planner with AMEC, was the project manager and lead planner in charge of overseeing the planning process and the development of this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update. The AMEC team’s role was to:
Assist in establishing the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) as defined by the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA); Meet the DMA requirements as established by federal regulations and following FEMA’s planning guidance; Support objectives under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Flood Mitigation Assistance program; Facilitate the entire planning process; Identify the data requirements that HMPC participants could provide and conduct the research and documentation necessary to augment that data, Assist in facilitating the public input process; Produce the draft and final plan documents; and Coordinate with the California Emergency Management Agency (CAL EMA) and FEMA Region IX plan reviews.
Calaveras County Water District 3.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
3.1 The 10-Step Planning Process
AMEC established the planning process for updating the CCWD LHMP using the DMA planning requirements and FEMA’s associated guidance. This guidance is structured around a four-phase process:
1) Organize Resources; 2) Assess Risks; 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan; and 4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress.
Into this process, AMEC integrated a more detailed 10-step planning process used for FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance programs. Thus, the modified 10-step process used for this plan meets the requirements of six major programs: FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; Pre-Disaster Mitigation program; Community Rating System; Flood Mitigation Assistance Program; Severe Repetitive Loss program; and new flood control projects authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Table 3.1 shows how the modified 10-step process fits into FEMA’s four-phase process. The sections that follow describe each planning step in more detail.
Table 3.1. Mitigation Planning Processes Used to Develop the CCWD LHMP
DMA Process Modified CRS Process 1) Organize Resources 201.6(c)(1) 1) Organize to Prepare the Plan 201.6(b)(1) 2) Involve the Public 201.6(b)(2) and (3) 3) Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies 2) Assess Risks 201.6(c)(2)(i) 4) Assess the Hazard 201.6(c)(2)(ii) 5) Assess the Problem 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan 201.6(c)(3)(i) 6) Set Goals 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 7) Review Possible Activities 201.6(c)(3)(iii) 8) Draft an Action Plan 4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress 201.6(c)(5) 9) Adopt the Plan 201.6(c)(4) 10) Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan
This LHMP update involved a comprehensive review and update of each section of the 2006 plan and includes an assessment of the success of the District in evaluating, monitoring and implementing the mitigation strategy outlined in the initial plan. The process followed to update
Calaveras County Water District 3.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
the plan is detailed in the above table and the sections that follow and is the same process that was used to prepare the 2006 plan. As part of this plan update, all sections of the plan were reviewed and updated to reflect new data, processes, and resulting mitigation strategies. In fact, based in part on the issuance of the new 2008 FEMA Plan Preparation Guidance, the 2006 plan has been reorganized and updated. Only the information and data still valid from the 2006 plan was carried forward as applicable into this LHMP update.
3.1.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources
Planning Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort
With CCWD’s commitment to participate in the DMA planning process, AMEC worked with the District to establish the framework and organization for development of the plan. Organizational efforts were initiated with the District to inform and educate the plan participants of the purpose and need for updating the 2006 hazard mitigation plan. An initial meeting was held with District representatives and key community and agency stakeholders to discuss the organizational aspects of this plan update process. Invitations to this kickoff meeting were extended to key CCWD departments, representatives from Calaveras County and the City of Angles Camp, as well as to other federal, state, and local stakeholders, including representatives from the public, that might have an interest in participating in the planning process. HMPC members of the 2006 plan were used as a starting point for the invite list, with additional invitations extended as appropriate throughout the planning process. The list of initial invitees is included in Appendix A.
The HMPC was established as a result of organizational meetings and other plan coordination efforts. The HMPC, comprising key District, County, and other agency and stakeholder representatives with an interest in hazard mitigation, developed the plan with leadership from the CCWD and facilitation by AMEC. . The following participated on the HMPC:
Calaveras County Water District
Director of Financial Planning Information System Administrator District Associate Civil Engineer Executive Assistant/Board Secretary Utilities Department Administrator Director of Support Services
Calaveras County
Calaveras County GIS Calaveras County Sherriff’s Office/Office of Emergency Services
Calaveras County Water District 3.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Other Government and Stakeholder Representatives:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cal FIRE
A list of participating HMPC representatives is also included in Appendix A. This list includes all HMPC members that attended one or more HMPC meetings detailed in Table 3.2. The District also utilized the support of many other staff in order to collect and provide requested data and to conduct timely reviews of the draft documents. These names are also included on the HMPC list. The above list of HMPC members also includes several other government and stakeholder representatives that contributed to the planning process. Specific participants from these other agencies are also identified in Appendix A.
The planning process officially began with a kick-off meeting held in the CCWD main office in San Andreas, on March 23, 2012. The meeting covered the scope of work and an introduction to the DMA requirements. The District was provided with a Data Collection Guide, which included worksheets to facilitate the collection of information necessary to support development of the plan. Using FEMA guidance, AMEC designed these worksheets to capture information on past hazard events, identify hazards of concern to participating jurisdictions, quantify values at risk to identified hazards, inventory existing capabilities, and record possible mitigation actions. Copies of AMEC’s Data Collection Guide for this project are included in Appendix A. To facilitate input from other HMPC members, an additional worksheet was developed to capture hazard events since the 2006 plan. Because this is a plan update, another worksheet was developed, the Mitigation Action Status Summary Worksheet, to capture information on the current status of mitigation action items included in the 2006 plan. These worksheets are also included in Appendix A. The District and HMPC members completed and returned the worksheets to AMEC for incorporation into the plan document.
During the planning process, the HMPC communicated through face-to-face meetings, email, telephone conversations, a file transfer protocol (ftp) website (an internal planning team website), and through a District developed webpage dedicated to the plan development process. This later website was developed to provide information to the HMPC, the public and all other stakeholders on the LHMP Update. Draft documents were also posted on this website so that the HMPC members and the public could easily access and review them. The LHMP website can be accessed at: http://www.ccwd.org/ftp/ccwd_ftp_hmp.html.
The HMPC met formally two times during the planning process (March 23, 2012-July 17, 2012). The purposes of these meetings are described in Table 3.2. Agendas for each of the meetings are included in Appendix A.
Calaveras County Water District 3.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 3.2. HMPC Meetings
Meeting Meeting Type Meeting Topic Date(s) Meeting Location(s) HMPC #1 1) Introduction to DMA and the planning process March 23, CCWD Board Room Kick-off Meeting 2) Overview of current LHMP; 2012 3) Organize Resources: the role of the HMPC, planning for public involvement, coordinating with other agencies/stakeholders 4) Introduction to Hazard Identification HMPC #2 1) Risk assessment overview and work session July 17, CCWD Board Room 2) Mitigation Action Status Summary (2006 LHMP); 2012 3) Development of mitigation goals and objectives; 4) Identification and prioritization of mitigation actions
In addition to the formal planning team meetings, District staff met numerous times as a group over the planning period to provide information, discuss project direction, review and provide input on plan draft, and to strategize and develop mitigation actions for the plan update.
Planning Step 2: Involve the Public
Early discussions with the CCWD established the initial plan for public involvement. At the planning team kick-off meeting, the HMPC discussed additional strategies for public involvement and agreed to an approach using established public information mechanisms and resources within the community. Public involvement activities for this plan update included information distributed during the community’s spring Garden Show, a public meeting held prior during the plan drafting stage, and the collection of public and stakeholder comments on the draft plan which was posted on the County website. Information provided to the public included an overview of the mitigation status and successes resulting from implementation of the 2005 plan as well as information on the processes, new risk assessment data, and proposed mitigation strategies for the plan update.
Where appropriate, stakeholder and public comments and recommendations were incorporated into the final plan, including the sections that address mitigation goals and strategies. All press releases and website postings are on file with the CCWD. Public meetings were advertised to maximize outreach efforts to both targeted groups and to the public at large. Advertisement mechanisms for these meetings and for involvement in the overall LHMP development process include:
Providing press releases to local newspapers and radio station (see Figure 3.1 for an example of a press release and Figure 3.2 for a public invitation) Posting meeting announcements on the CCWD website Personal phone calls
The plan is available online on the CCWD website (see Figure 3.3) at:
Calaveras County Water District 3.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
http://www.ccwd.org/publications/pub_multihazardmitigation.html
Table 3.3. Schedule of Public and Stakeholder Meetings
Meeting Topic Meeting Date Meeting Locations Presentation of Draft LHMP August 28, 2012 CCWD Board Room
Figure 3.1. Example of Press Releases Used to Involve the Public
Calaveras County Water District 3.6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 3.2. Public Invitation
Calaveras County Water District 3.7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 3.3. CCWD Hazard Mitigation Plan Webpage
Planning Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies
Early in the planning process, the HMPC determined that data collection, mitigation strategy development, and plan approval would be greatly enhanced by inviting other local, state and federal agencies and organizations to participate in the process. Based on their involvement in
Calaveras County Water District 3.8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
hazard mitigation planning, their landowner status within District Boundaries, and/or their interest as a neighboring jurisdiction, representatives from the following groups were invited to participate on the HMPC:
CCWD Staff CCWD Board of Directors Calaveras County Planning Department Calaveras County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office and Emergency Services Cal FIRE Utica Power Authority American Red Cross US Corps of Engineers
Coordination with key agencies, organizations, and advisory groups throughout the planning process allowed the HMPC to review common problems, development policies, and mitigation strategies as well as identifying any conflicts or inconsistencies with regional mitigation policies, plans, programs and regulations. As part of the public review and comment period for the draft plan, key agencies and neighborhood associations were again specifically solicited to provide any final input to the draft plan document. This input was solicited both through membership on the LHMP committee and by direct emails to key groups and associations to review and comment on the plan
The HMPC also used technical data, reports, and studies from the following agencies and groups:
CAL EMA CAL FIRE California Department of Finance California Department of Water California Geological Survey California Highway Patrol California Register of Historic Places FEMA Invasive Species Council of California Library of Congress National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association National Performance of Dams Program National Register of Historic Places National Resource Conservation Service National Response Center National Weather Service
Calaveras County Water District 3.9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Bureau of Land Management United States Department of Agriculture United States Drought Impact Reporter United States Farm Service Agency United States Forestry Service United States Geological Survey Western Regional Climate Center
Appendix B References provides a detailed list of references used in the preparation of this plan update. Specific references relied on in the development of this plan are also sourced throughout the document as appropriate.
Several opportunities were provided for the groups listed above to participate in the planning process. At the beginning of the planning process, invitations were extended to these groups to actively participate on the HMPC. Specific participants from these groups are detailed in Appendix A. Others assisted in the process by providing data directly as requested in the Data Collection Guide or through data contained on their websites or as maintained by their offices. Further as part of the public outreach process, all groups were invited to attend the public meeting and to review and comment on the plan prior to submittal to CAL EMA and FEMA.
Other Community Planning Efforts and Hazard Mitigation Activities
Coordination with other community planning efforts is also paramount to the success of this plan. Hazard mitigation planning involves identifying existing policies, tools, and actions that will reduce a community’s risk and vulnerability to hazards. Integrating existing planning efforts and mitigation policies and action strategies into this plan establishes a credible and comprehensive plan that ties into and supports other community programs. The development of this plan incorporated information from the following existing plans, studies, reports, and initiatives as well as other relevant data from neighboring communities and other jurisdictions.
Calaveras County General Plan Calaveras County General Plan Environmental Impact Report Calaveras County Emergency Operations Plan Calaveras County Evacuation Plan Calaveras County Hazard Mitigation Plan California State Hazard Mitigation Plan California State Drought Contingency Plan
Calaveras County Water District 3.10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
3.1.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks
Planning Steps 4 and 5: Identify the Hazards and Assess the Risks
AMEC led the HMPC in an exhaustive research effort to identify, document, and profile all the hazards that have, or could have, an impact the planning area. Data collection worksheets were developed and used in this effort to aid in determining hazards and vulnerabilities and where the risk varies across the planning area. Geographic information systems (GIS) were used to display, analyze, and quantify hazards and vulnerabilities. The HMPC also conducted a capability assessment to review and document the District’s current capabilities to mitigate risk from and vulnerability to hazards. By collecting information about existing District programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and emergency plans, the HMPC could assess those activities and measures already in place that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and vulnerabilities identified. A more detailed description of the risk assessment process, methodologies, and results are included in Chapter 4 Risk Assessment.
3.1.3 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan
Planning Steps 6 and 7: Set Goals and Review Possible Activities
AMEC facilitated brainstorming and discussion sessions with the HMPC that described the purpose and process of developing planning goals and objectives, a comprehensive range of mitigation alternatives, and a method of selecting and defending recommended mitigation actions using a series of selection criteria. This information is included in Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy. Additional documentation on the process the HMPC used to develop the goals and strategy is in Appendix C.
Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan
Based on input from the HMPC regarding the draft risk assessment and the goals and activities identified in Planning Steps 6 and 7, AMEC produced a complete first draft of the plan. This complete draft HMPC and agency comments were integrated into the second public review draft, which was advertised and distributed to collect public input and comments. AMEC integrated comments and issues from the public, as appropriate, along with additional internal review comments and produced a final draft for the CAL EMA and FEMA Region IX to review and approve, contingent upon final adoption by the governing boards of each participating jurisdiction.
3.1.4 Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Planning Step 9: Adopt the Plan
In order to secure buy-in and officially implement the plan, the plan was adopted by the District Board of Directors using the sample resolution contained in Appendix D.
Calaveras County Water District 3.11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Planning Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan
The true worth of any mitigation plan is in the effectiveness of its implementation. Up to this point in the planning process, all of the HMPC’s efforts have been directed at researching data, coordinating input from participating entities, and developing appropriate mitigation actions. Each recommended action includes key descriptors, such as a lead manager and possible funding sources, to help initiate implementation. An overall implementation strategy is described in Chapter 7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance.
Finally, there are numerous organizations within or bordering the CCWD whose goals and interests interface with hazard mitigation. Coordination with these other planning efforts, as addressed in Planning Step 3, is paramount to the ongoing success of this plan and mitigation in the District and is addressed further in Chapter 7. A plan update and maintenance schedule and a strategy for continued public involvement are also included in Chapter 7.
Implementation and Maintenance Process: 2006
The 2006 CCWD Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan included a process for implementation and maintenance. This process as set forth in the 2006 plan was generally followed with some variation as further described.
The maintenance process called for an annual review by the CCWD Hazard Mitigation Coordinating Committee, with a 5-year written update to be submitted to Cal EMA and FEMA Region IX. Although a formal Mitigation Coordinating Committee (MCC) was not established, and an annual review was not conducted in a formalized process, the eight objectives of the MCC were accomplished through various other venues and means. These eight objectives are as follows:
Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants Pursue the implementation of high priority, low or no cost recommended actions Keep the concept of mitigation in the forefront of district decision-making by identifying plan recommendations when other community goals, plans, and activities overlap, influence, or directly affect increased community vulnerability Maintain vigilant monitoring of multi-objective, cost-share opportunities to assist the community in implementing the plan’s recommended actions Meet annually to monitor the implementation and updating of the plan Report on plan progress and recommended changes to the Board of Directors Inform and solicit input from the public
Following the 2006 plan adoption by the Board of Directors, the reviews and coordination were conducted on a more informal basis through emails, telephone conversations, and through attendance at various District, stakeholder, and other agency meetings. CCWD made a
Calaveras County Water District 3.12 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
commitment to plan implementation through their collaboration with other local, state, and federal mitigation partners. For example, the District worked with the County as the new Reverse 911 program was put into place. They also worked closely with County OES and others during severe weather events to ensure continued operation of facilities and services.
Their focus on implementation and maintenance of their 2006 plan is evident in that of the 17 mitigation actions included in the 2006 mitigation strategy, 4 have been completed and 11 are ongoing. Chapter 2 provides more detail on the implementation of their 2006 mitigation strategy.
Calaveras County Water District 3.13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 4 RISK ASSESSMENT
Requirement §201.6(c)(2): [The plan shall include] A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
As defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), risk is a combination of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. It is the impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community and refers to the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage.
The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure of lives, property, and infrastructure to these hazards. The process allows for a better understanding of a jurisdiction’s potential risk to natural hazards and provides a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future hazard events.
This risk assessment followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2, 2002), which breaks the assessment down to a four-step process:
1) Identify Hazards; 2) Profile Hazard Events; 3) Inventory Assets; and 4) Estimate Losses.
Data collected through this process has been incorporated into the following sections of this chapter: Section 4.1: Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards identifies the natural hazards that threaten the planning area and describes why some hazards have been omitted from further consideration. Section 4.2: Hazard Profiles discusses the threat to the planning area and describes previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. Section 4.3: Vulnerability Assessment assesses the planning areas’ exposure to natural hazards; considering assets at risk, critical facilities, and future development trends. Section 4.4: Capability Assessment inventories existing mitigation activities and policies, regulations, and plans that pertain to mitigation and can affect net vulnerability.
This risk assessment covers the entire geographical extent of the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) jurisdictional area, often referred to in this document as the CCWD planning area.
This MHMP update involved a comprehensive review and update of each section of the 2006 risk assessment. As part of the risk assessment update, new data was used, where available, and
Calaveras County Water District 4.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
new analyses were conducted. Refinements, changes, and new methodologies used in the development of this risk assessment update are summarized in Chapter 2 What’s New and detailed in this Risk Assessment portion of the plan.
Calaveras County Water District 4.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
4.1 Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
The CCWD HMPC conducted a hazard identification study to determine the hazards that threaten the planning area. This section details the methodology and results of this effort.
4.1.1 Methodology and Results
Using existing natural hazards data and input gained through planning meetings, the HMPC agreed upon a list of natural hazards that could affect the CCWD. Hazards data from the California Emergency Management Agency (CAL EMA), FEMA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Spatial Hazards Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS), and many other sources were examined to assess the significance of these hazards to the planning area. Significance of each identified hazard was measured in general terms and focused on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, which includes deaths and injuries, as well as property and economic damage. The natural hazards evaluated as part of this plan include those that have occurred historically and/or have the potential to cause significant human and/or monetary losses in the future.
The following hazards in Table 4.1, listed alphabetically were identified and investigated for this plan update. As a starting point, the updated 2010 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan was consulted to evaluate the applicability of new hazards of concern to the State to the planning area. Building upon this effort, hazards from the past plan were also identified, and comments explain how hazards were updated from the previous plan. All hazards from the 2006 plan were profiled in this plan, and additional hazards were added. This is shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Hazard Identification and Comparison
2011 Hazards 2006 Hazards Comment Avalanche – New hazard Dam Failure Dam Failure Similar analysis was performed Drought and Water Shortage Drought Similar analysis was performed Earthquake Earthquake Similar analysis was performed Flood: 100/500 year Flood Greater analysis was performed. DFIRM was used for flood zones. Flood: Localized stormwater flooding - New hazard Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Similar analysis was performed Severe Weather: Heavy Rain, Severe Weather: Heavy Rains, Wind was removed and included as Thunderstorms, Lightning, Hail Thunderstorms, Wind, Lightning, and its own hazard Hail Severe Weather: Tornadoes Tornadoes Similar analysis was performed
Calaveras County Water District 4.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
2011 Hazards 2006 Hazards Comment Severe Weather: Wind Severe Weather: Heavy Rains, Wind was profiled separate from Thunderstorms, Wind, Lightning, and thunderstorms & heavy rain in this Hail plan Severe Weather: Winter Storms and Severe Weather: Winter Storms and Similar analysis was performed Extreme Cold Extreme Cold Soil Hazards: Erosion Landslides, Debris Flows, and Other Soil hazards are profiled individually Soil Hazards in this plan Soil Hazards: Expansive Soils Landslides, Debris Flows, and Other Soil hazards are profiled individually Soil Hazards in this plan Soil Hazards: Landslide and Debris Landslides, Debris Flows, and Other Soil hazards are profiled individually Flow Soil Hazards in this plan Soil Hazards: Subsidence Landslides, Debris Flows, and Other Soil hazards are profiled individually Soil Hazards in this plan Volcano Volcanoes Similar analysis was performed Wildfire Wildfires Newer data set used for fire severity
The worksheet below was completed by the HMPC to identify, profile, and rate the significance of identified hazards. Only the more significant (or priority) hazards have a more detailed hazard profile and are analyzed further in Section 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment. Table 4.25 in Section 4.2.19 Natural Hazards Summary gives more detail about these significant hazards.
Calaveras County Water District 4.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.2. CCWD Hazard Identification Worksheet
Geographic Probability of Magnitude/ Hazard Extent Future Occurrences Severity Significance Avalanche Limited Unlikely Negligible Low Dam Failure Significant Unlikely Critical Medium Drought and Water Shortage Significant Likely Critical Medium Earthquake Significant Unlikely Critical Low Flood 100/500 year Significant Occasional Critical Medium Flood: Localized Stormwater Flooding Extensive Highly Likely Critical High Levee Failure Limited Unlikely Negligible Low Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Significant Highly Likely Limited Low Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Catastrophic Highly Likely Critical High Severe Weather: Tornadoes Limited Occasional Negligible Low Severe Weather: Winter Storms and Extreme Cold Significant Highly Likely Critical High Severe Weather: Wind Limited Highly Likely Limited Medium Soil Hazard: Erosion Limited Highly Likely Limited Low Soil Hazard: Expansive Soils Limited Likely Limited Low Soil Hazards: Landslides and Debris Limited Likely Limited Low Flows Soil Hazard: Subsidence Limited Occasional Limited Low Volcano Extensive Unlikely Critical Low Wildfire Significant Likely Critical High Geographic Extent Significance Limited: Less than 10% of planning area Low: minimal potential impact Significant: 10-50% of planning area Medium: moderate potential impact Extensive: 50-100% of planning area High: widespread potential impact
Magnitude/Severity Probability of Future Occurrences Catastrophic—More than 50 percent of property severely Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of occurrence in damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than 30 days; and/or next year, or happens every year. multiple deaths Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of Critical—25-50 percent of property severely damaged; occurrence in next year, or has a recurrence shutdown of facilities for at least two weeks; and/or injuries interval of 10 years or less. and/or illnesses result in permanent disability Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance of Limited—10-25 percent of property severely damaged; occurrence in the next year, or has a recurrence shutdown of facilities for more than a week; and/or interval of 11 to 100 years. injuries/illnesses treatable do not result in permanent disability Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of occurrence in Negligible—Less than 10 percent of property severely next 100 years, or has a recurrence interval of damaged, shutdown of facilities and services for less than 24 greater than every 100 years. hours; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid Source: AMEC Data Collection Guide
Calaveras County Water District 4.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
4.1.2 Disaster Declaration History
One method to identify hazards based upon past occurrence is to look at what events triggered federal and/or state disaster declarations within the planning area. Disaster declarations are granted when the severity and magnitude of the event’s impact surpass the ability of the local government to respond and recover. Disaster assistance is supplemental and sequential. When the local government’s capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of state assistance. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local and state government’s capacity is exceeded, a federal disaster declaration may be issued allowing for the provision of federal disaster assistance.
Calaveras County has experience 11 federal and 14 state declarations since 1950. 4 of the federal declarations and 8 of the state declarations were associated with flood events. Of the 7 remaining federal declarations, 3 were related to fire, 2 were related to severe storm, and 2 were related to severe storms and flooding. Of the 6 remaining state disasters, 3 were related to fire, 2 were related to drought, and one was related to severe storm. There have been 16 USDA Secretarial Disaster Designations in Calaveras County related to agricultural losses from natural hazards. A summation of federal and state disaster declarations is shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3. Calaveras County Federal and State Disaster Declaration History
Hazard Disaster Disaster State Federal # of # of Type Name Number Declaration Declaration Deaths Injuries Costs Flood Floods CDO 50-01 11/21/50 – 9 – $32.2 million Flood Floods DR-47 12/22/55 12/23/55 74 – $200.0 million Flood Storm/Flood DR-82 04/02/58 04/04/58 13 several $24.0 million Damage Flood 1969 Storms DR-253 02/08/69 01/26/69 47 161 $300.0 million Drought Drought N/A 02/09/76 – – – $2.7 billion Flood 1980 April 80-01 – 4/1/1980 – – – – Storms 80-25 Flood Heavy Rains DC 82-03 4/1/1982 – – – – and Flooding Severe Storms DR-758 02/20/86 02/18/86 13 67 $407.5 million Storm Fire Wildfire N/A 07/21/88 – – – – Fire Fountain DR-958 08/02/92 08/29/92 – 8 $54.0 million Severe Late Winter DR-1044 – 01/10/95 17 – $1.1 billion Storm/ Storms Flood Flood 1997 DR-1155 1/2/97- 1/4/1997 8 – $194 million January 1/31/97 Flood Flood January – 01/03/97 – 8 – $1.8 billion 1997 Floods
Calaveras County Water District 4.6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Hazard Disaster Disaster State Federal # of # of Type Name Number Declaration Declaration Deaths Injuries Costs Flood El Nino DR-1203 – 02/02/98 17 – $550.0 million Fire Wildfire – 09/10/01 – – – $6.7 million Fire Calaveras FM-2540 – 8/8/2004 – – $4.6 million Complex Fire Pattison Fire FM-2553 – 9/4/2004 – – $3.6 million Severe Severe DR-1646 – 06/05/06 – – – Storm/ Storms, Flood Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides Drought Central - 6/12/2008 – – – – Valley Drought Source: Cal EMA, PERI
Calaveras County Water District 4.7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
4.2 Hazard Profiles
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the…location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
The hazards identified in Section 4.1 Hazard Identification Natural Hazards, are profiled individually in this section. In general, information provided by planning team members is integrated into this section with information from other data sources. These profiles set the stage for Section 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment, where the vulnerability is quantified for each of the priority hazards.
Each hazard is profiled in the following format:
• Hazard/Problem Description—This section gives a description of the hazard and associated issues followed by details on the hazard specific to the CCWD. Where known, this includes information on the hazard extent, seasonal patterns, speed of onset/duration, and magnitude and/or any secondary effects. • Past Occurrences—This section contains information on historical incidents, including impacts where known. The extent or location of the hazard within or near the CCWD is also included here. Historical incident worksheets were used to capture information from participating jurisdictions on past occurrences. • Frequency/Likelihood of Future Occurrence—The frequency of past events is used in this section to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Where possible, frequency was calculated based on existing data. It was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years on record and multiplying by 100. This gives the percent chance of the event happening in any given year (e.g., three droughts over a 30-year period equates to a 10 percent chance of a experiencing a drought in any given year). The likelihood of future occurrences is categorized into one of the following classifications: − Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or happens every year − Likely—Between 10 and 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less − Occasional—Between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years − Unlikely—Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.
Section 4.2.19 Natural Hazards Summary provides an initial assessment of the profiles and assigns a level of significance or priority to each hazard. Those hazards determined to be of medium or high significance were characterized as priority hazards that required further
Calaveras County Water District 4.8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
evaluation in Section 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment. Those hazards that occur infrequently or have little or no impact on the planning area were determined to be of low significance and not considered a priority hazard. Significance was determined based on the hazard profile, focusing on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, including deaths/injuries and property, crop, and economic damage. This assessment was used by the HMPC to prioritize those hazards of greatest significance to the planning area, enabling the CCWD to focus resources where they are most needed.
The following sections provide profiles of the natural hazards that the HMPC identified in Section 4.1 Hazard Identification. Given that most disasters affect the planning area are directly or indirectly related to severe weather events, severe weather hazards begins this section, and the individual hazard profiles following alphabetically.
4.2.1 Severe Weather: General
Severe weather is generally any destructive weather event, but usually occurs in the CCWD and Calaveras County as localized storms that bring heavy rain, hail, lightning, and sometimes strong winds.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has been tracking severe weather since 1950. Their Storm Events Database contains data on the following: all weather events from 1993 to current (except from 6/1993-7/1993); and additional data from the Storm Prediction Center, which includes tornadoes (1950-1992), thunderstorm winds (1955-1992), and hail (1955-1992). This database contains 11 severe weather events that occurred in Calaveras County between January 1, 1950, and January 31, 2012. Table 4.4 summarizes these events.
Table 4.4. NCDC Severe Weather Reports for Calaveras County, 1950-January 2012*
Property Type # of Events Deaths Injuries Damage Crop Damage Flash Flood 1 0 0 $20,000 $0 Hail 1 0 0 $1,000 $0 Heavy Rain 5 0 0 $0 $ Lightning 1 0 0 $0 $0 Tornado 1 0 0 $0 $0 Wildfire 2 0 0 $290,000 $0 Total 11 0 0 $311,000.00 $0.00 Source: NCDC *Note: Losses reflect totals for all impacted areas, which may include multiple counties
The HMPC supplemented NCDC data with data from SHELDUS (Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States). SHELDUS is a county-level data set for the United States that tracks 18 types of natural hazard events along with associated property and crop
Calaveras County Water District 4.9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
losses, injuries, and fatalities for the period 1960-2008. Produced by the Hazards Research Lab at the University of South Carolina, this database combines information from several sources (including the NCDC). The database includes every loss causing and/or deadly event between 1960 through 1979 and from 1995 onward. Between 1980 and 1995, SHELDUS reflects only events that caused at least one fatality or more than $50,000 in property or crop damages. For events that covered multiple counties, the dollar losses, deaths, and injuries were equally divided among the affected counties (e.g., if four counties were affected, then a quarter of the dollar losses, injuries, and deaths were attributed to each county). From 1995 to 2010 all events that were reported by the NCDC with a specific dollar amount are included in SHELDUS.
SHELDUS contains information of 104 severe weather events that occurred in Calaveras County between 1960 and 2010. These events are shown and summarized in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5. SHELDUS Severe Weather Report for Calaveras County 1960-2010
# of Property Type Events Injuries Deaths Damage Crop Damage Flooding 7 0 0.17 $473,337.66 $709,090.91 Flooding - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm 1 0 0 $86,206.90 $0 Flooding - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - 1 0 0 $0 $11,241,379.31 Wind Flooding - Wind - Winter Weather 1 0 0 $1,315.79 $0 Flooding - Winter Weather 2 0 0 $20,718.82 $0 Fog 3 0.5 0.5 $160,000 $0 Hail - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 1 0.02 0.03 $86.21 $0 - Winter Weather Heat 3 1.23 0.2 $0 $14,705.88 Landslide – Winter Weather 1 0 0 $2,778.78 $0 Lightning 3 0 0 $1,250.01 $0 Lightning - Severe Storm/Thunder Storm 2 0 0 $261.36 $113.64 Lightning - Wind - Winter Weather 1 0 0 $14.71 $14,705.88 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm 12 0.23 0.98 $892,323.87 $18,814.66 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm – Wind 9 0.5 0.52 $129,466.67 $1,257.18 Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind - 4 0.07 0.6 $1,690,435.14 $175,287.36 Winter Weather Severe Storm/Thunder Storm - Winter 1 0 0 $1,470.59 $0 Weather Wildfire 2 0.11 0 $290,000 $0 Wind 22 0.5 0.27 $1,167,970.91 $7,201.09 Wind - Winter Weather 2 0.43 0.07 $2,988.72 $0 Winter Weather 26 2.76 0.29 $233,547.91 $8,905,032.50 Total 104 6.35 3.63 $5,154,174.05 $21,087,588.41 Source: SHELDUS
Calaveras County Water District 4.10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
*Events may have occurred over multiple counties, so damage may represent only a fraction of the total event damage and may be not specific to Calaveras County 1The HMPC noted that this event covered many areas in California. Actual wildfire damages in the County were minimal.
The NCDC and SHELDUS tables above summarize severe weather events that occurred in Calaveras County. Only a few of the events actually resulted in state and federal disaster declarations. It is further interesting to note that different data sources capture different events during the same time period, and often display different information specific to the same events. While the HMPC recognizes these inconsistencies, they see the value this data provides in depicting the County’s big picture hazard environment.
As previously mentioned, most all of Calaveras County’s state and federal disaster declarations have been a result of severe weather. For this plan, severe weather is discussed in the following subsections:
• Extreme Heat • Heavy Rains and Storms • Tornado • Wind • Winter Storms and Extreme Cold
4.2.2 Severe Weather: Extreme Heat
Hazard/Problem Description
According to information provided by FEMA, extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover 10 degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. Heat kills by taxing the human body beyond its abilities. In a normal year, about 175 Americans succumb to the demands of summer heat. According to the National Weather Service (NWS), among natural hazards, only the cold of winter—not lightning, hurricanes, tornados, floods, or earthquakes—takes a greater toll. In the 40-year period from 1936 through 1975, nearly 20,000 people were killed in the United States by the effects of heat and solar radiation. In the heat wave of 1980, more than 1,250 people died.
Heat disorders generally have to do with a reduction or collapse of the body’s ability to shed heat by circulatory changes and sweating or a chemical (salt) imbalance caused by too much sweating. When heat gain exceeds the level the body can remove, or when the body cannot compensate for fluids and salt lost through perspiration, the temperature of the body’s inner core begins to rise and heat-related illness may develop. Elderly persons, small children, chronic invalids, those on certain medications or drugs, and persons with weight and alcohol problems are particularly susceptible to heat reactions, especially during heat waves in areas where moderate climate usually prevails.
Heat emergencies are often slower to develop, taking several days of continuous, oppressive heat before a significant or quantifiable impact is seen. Heat waves do not strike victims
Calaveras County Water District 4.11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
immediately, but rather their cumulative effects slowly take the lives of vulnerable populations. Heat waves do not cause damage or elicit the immediate response of floods, fires, earthquakes, or other more “typical” disaster scenarios. While heat waves are obviously less dramatic, they are potentially more deadly. According to the 2010 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the worst single heat wave event in California occurred in Southern California in 1955, when an eight-day heat wave resulted in 946 deaths.
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show average and extreme temperatures from the Camp Pardee weather station in the northwest part of the county and the Calaveras Big Trees weather station in the southeast part of the County. The highest temperature on record at Camp Pardee is 115°F recorded on July 26, 1931. On average, there were 85.5 days annually with a high temperature at or above 90°F; more than half of these occurred in July and August. At Camp Pardee, temperatures of 102°F or above are on record for every month May through October.
At the Calaveras Big Trees station, the highest recorded temperature on record is 107°F on July 27, 1933. On average, there are 11.4 days annually that are above 90°F; most occurring in July and August.
Figure 4.1. Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes, Camp Pardee, 1926 to 2011
Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
Calaveras County Water District 4.12 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.2. Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes, Calaveras Big Trees, 1948-2005
Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
In July 2006, the National Weather Service Forecast Station in Sacramento reported 11 consecutive days of temperatures over 100°F. In Stockton, California, approximately 30 miles from Calaveras County, temperatures reached 115°F on July 23, 2006. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) declared 16 California counties, including Calaveras, as primary natural disaster areas due to the record-setting heat wave that occurred July 1-31, 2006. The declaration made farmers in the county eligible for low-interest emergency loans from USDA’s Farm Service Agency.
Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 show the Heat Index (HI) as a function of heat and relative humidity. The Heat Index describes how hot the heat‐humidity combination makes it feel. As relative humidity increases, the air seems warmer than it actually is because the body is less able to cool itself via evaporation of perspiration. As the HI rises, so do health risks.
• When the HI is 90°F, heat exhaustion is possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity. • When it is 90°‐105°F, heat exhaustion is probable with the possibility of sunstroke or heat cramps with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity. • When it is 105°‐129°F, sunstroke, heat cramps or heat exhaustion is likely, and heatstroke is possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity. • When it is 130°F and higher, heatstroke and sunstroke are extremely likely with continued exposure. Physical activity and prolonged exposure to the heat increase the risks.
Calaveras County Water District 4.13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.3. Heat Index
Source: National Weather Service Note: Since HI values were devised for shady, light wind conditions, exposure to full sunshine can increase HI values by up to 15°F. Also, strong winds, particularly with very hot, dry air, can be extremely hazardous.
Figure 4.4. Possible Heat Disorders by Heat Index Level
Source: National Weather Service
The NWS has in place a system to initiate alert procedures (advisories or warnings) when the Heat Index is expected to have a significant impact on public safety. The expected severity of the heat determines whether advisories or warnings are issued. A common guideline for the issuance of excessive heat alerts is when the maximum daytime high is expected to equal or exceed 105°F and a nighttime minimum high of 80°F or above is expected for two or more consecutive days. The NWS office in Sacramento can issue the following heat-related advisory as conditions warrant.
Calaveras County Water District 4.14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
• Excessive Heat Outlook: are issued when the potential exists for an excessive heat event in the next 3-7 days. An Outlook provides information to Heat Index forecast map for the contiguous United States those who need considerable lead time to prepare for the event, such as public utilities, emergency management and public health officials. • Excessive Heat Watch: is issued when conditions are favorable for an excessive heat event in the next 12 to 48 hours. A Watch is used when the risk of a heat wave has increased, but its occurrence and timing is still uncertain. A Watch provides enough lead time so those who need to prepare can do so, such as cities that have excessive heat event mitigation plans. • Excessive Heat Warning/Advisory: are issued when an excessive heat event is expected in the next 36 hours. These products are issued when an excessive heat event is occurring, is imminent, or has a very high probability of occurring. The warning is used for conditions posing a threat to life or property. An advisory is for less serious conditions that cause significant discomfort or inconvenience and, if caution is not taken, could lead to a threat to life and/or property.
Climate Change and Extreme Heat
The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS), citing a California Energy Commission study, states that “over the past 15 years, heat waves have claimed more lives in California than all other declared disaster events combined.” This study shows that California is getting warmer, leading to an increased frequency, magnitude, and duration of heat waves. These factors may lead to increased mortality from excessive heat.
Figure 4.5. California Historical and Projected Temperature Increases - 1961 to 2099
Source: Dan Cayan; California Climate Adaptation Strategy
As temperatures increase, California and Calaveras County will face increased risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke, heat exhaustion, heart attack, stroke and respiratory distress caused by
Calaveras County Water District 4.15 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
extreme heat. According to the CAS report and the 2010 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan, by 2100, hotter temperatures are expected throughout the state, with projected increases of 3-5.5°F (under a lower emissions scenario) to 8-10.5°F (under a higher emissions scenario). These changes could lead to an increase in deaths related to extreme heat in Calaveras County.
Past Occurrences
The NCDC data shows no extreme heat incidents for Calaveras County since 1993. SHELDUS shows three events that affected the County and the District since 1960. These are shown in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6. SHELDUS Extreme Heat Events in Calaveras County 1960 to 2010
Hazard Hazard End Hazard Property Crop Begin Date Date Type Injuries Fatalities Damage Damage Remarks 6/13/1961 6/17/1961 Heat 0 0 $0.00 $14,705.88 Heat 8/13/1992 8/20/1992 Heat 1.03 0 $0.00 $0.00 Heat Wave 5/14/2008 5/14/2008 Heat 0.2 0.2 $0.00 $0.00 Heat Totals 1.23 0.2 $0.00 $14,705.88 Source: SHELDUS
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Highly Likely— Although not documented in the NCDC and SHELDUS databases, extreme heat events occur annually in Calaveras County. Extreme heat is less likely in eastern portions of the county at higher elevations, than in the western portion. Temperatures at or above 90°F are common most summer days in the western part of the County. Electrical systems in District facilities can be vulnerable to extreme heat events.
4.2.3 Severe Weather: Heavy Rain and Storms
Hazard/Problem Description
Storms in Calaveras County are generally characterized by heavy rain often accompanied by strong winds and sometimes lightning and hail. Approximately 10 percent of the thunderstorms that occur each year in the United States are classified as severe. A thunderstorm is classified as severe when it contains one or more of the following phenomena: hail that is three-quarters of an inch or greater, winds in excess of 50 knots (57.5 mph), or a tornado. Heavy precipitation in Calaveras County falls mainly in the fall, winter, and spring months.
Hail is formed when water droplets freeze and thaw as they are thrown high into the upper atmosphere by the violent internal forces of thunderstorms. Hail is sometimes associated with severe storms within Calaveras County. Hailstones are usually less than two inches in diameter and can fall at speeds of 120 miles per hour (mph). Severe hailstorms can be quite destructive, causing damage to roofs, buildings, automobiles, vegetation, and crops.
Calaveras County Water District 4.16 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Lightning is defined as any and all of the various forms of visible electrical discharge caused by thunderstorms. Thunderstorms and lightning are usually (but not always) accompanied by rain. Cloud-to-ground lightning can kill or injure people by direct or indirect means. Objects can be struck directly, which may result in an explosion, burn, or total destruction. Or, damage may be indirect, when the current passes through or near an object, which generally results in less damage.
High winds, often accompanying severe thunderstorms, can cause significant property and crop damage, threaten public safety, and have adverse economic impacts from business closures and power loss. Winds in Calaveras County are typically straight-line winds. Straight-line winds are generally any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation (i.e., is not a tornado). These winds can overturn mobile homes, tear roofs off of houses, topple trees, snap power lines, shatter windows, and sandblast paint from cars. Other associated hazards include utility outages, arcing power lines, debris blocking streets, dust storms, and an occasional structure fire.
Tornadoes (see Section 4.2.4 Tornado) and funnel clouds can also occur during these types of storms.
Past Occurrences
Heavy rains and severe storms occur in the planning area primarily during the late fall, winter, and spring (i.e., November through April). Damaging winds often accompany winter storm systems moving through the area.
According to the HMPC, short-term, heavy storms can cause both widespread flooding as well as extensive localized drainage issues. With the increased growth of the area, the lack of adequate drainage systems has become an increasingly important issue. In addition to the flooding that often occurs during these storms, strong winds, when combined with saturated ground conditions, can down very mature trees.
Information from the Camp Pardee and the Calaveras Big Trees weather stations in Calaveras County are summarized below. Figures 4.9 and Figure 4.9 show average and extreme precipitation from the Camp Pardee weather station in the northwest part of the county and the Calaveras Big Trees weather station in the southeast part of the county.
Camp Pardee Weather Station, Period of Record 1926 to 2011
Average annual precipitation at the Camp Pardee Station is 54.3 inches per year. The highest recorded annual precipitation is 21.5 inches in 1983. The lowest recorded annual precipitation was 7.2 inches in 1976.
Calaveras County Water District 4.17 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.6. Camp Pardee Monthly Average Total Precipitation
Source: Western Regional Climate Center
Figure 4.7. Camp Pardee Daily Precipitation Average and Extremes
Source: Western Regional Climate Center
Calaveras County Water District 4.18 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras Big Trees Weather Station, Period of Record 1929 to 2011
Average annual precipitation at the Calaveras Big Trees Station is 54.3 inches per year. The highest recorded annual precipitation is 109.1 inches in 1983. The lowest recorded annual precipitation was 22.06 inches in 1976.
Figure 4.8. Calaveras Big Trees Monthly Average Total Precipitation
Source: Western Regional Climate Center
Calaveras County Water District 4.19 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.9. Calaveras Big Trees Daily Precipitation Average and Extremes
Source: Western Regional Climate Center
Although heavy rains are a frequent occurrence, thunderstorms, lightning, and hail in Calaveras County are fewer in number and usually occur in the late fall or in the spring. Specific events were detailed by the NCDC database (see Table 4.7) and the SHELDUS database (see Table 4.8).
Table 4.7. NCDC Incidences of Hail, Heavy Rain, and Lightning in Calaveras County from 1993 – February 2012
Hail Heavy Rain Lightning 1 5 1 Source: NCDC
Table 4.8. SHELDUS Incidences of Hail, Heavy Rain, and Lightning in Calaveras County from 1969 – December 2010
Hail Heavy Rain Lightning 1 11 6 Source: SHELDUS
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Highly Likely – Severe weather, including heavy rain, thunderstorms, hail, lightning, and wind is a well-documented occurrence that will continue to occur in Calaveras County.
Calaveras County Water District 4.20 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
4.2.4 Severe Weather: Tornado
Tornadoes are another severe weather hazard that may occur in Calaveras County, primarily during the rainy season in the late fall and early spring. Tornadoes form when cool, dry air sits on top of warm, moist air. Tornadoes are rotating columns of air marked by a funnel-shaped downward extension of a cumulonimbus cloud whirling at destructive speeds of up to 300 mph, usually accompanying a thunderstorm. Tornadoes are the most powerful storms that exist. They can have the same pressure differential across a path only 300 yards wide or less as 300 mile wide hurricanes. Figure 4.10 illustrates the potential impact and damage from a tornado.
Figure 4.10. Potential Impact and Damage from a Tornado
Source: FEMA: Building Performance Assessment: Oklahoma and Kansas Tornadoes
Prior to February 1, 2007, tornado intensity was measured by the Fujita (F) scale. This scale was revised and is now the Enhanced Fujita scale. Both scales are sets of wind estimates (not measurements) based on damage. The new scale provides more damage indicators (28) and associated degrees of damage, allowing for more detailed analysis and better correlation between damage and wind speed. It is also more precise because it takes into account the materials affected and the construction of structures damaged by a tornado. Table 4.9 shows the wind speeds associated with the original Fujita scale ratings and the damage that could result at different levels of intensity. Table 4.10 shows the wind speeds associated with the Enhanced Fujita Scale ratings.
Calaveras County Water District 4.21 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.9. Original Fujita Scale
Fujita Fujita Scale Wind (F) Scale Estimate (mph) Typical Damage F0 < 73 Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; branches broken off trees; shallow- rooted trees pushed over; sign boards damaged. F1 73-112 Moderate damage. Peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos blown off roads. F2 113-157 Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars overturned; large trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles generated; cars lifted off ground. F3 158-206 Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; heavy cars lifted off the ground and thrown. F4 207-260 Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown away some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. F5 261-318 Incredible damage. Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and swept away; automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters (109 yards); trees debarked; incredible phenomena will occur. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center, www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f-scale.html
Table 4.10. Enhanced Fujita Scale
Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale Enhanced Fujita Scale Wind Estimate (mph) EF0 65-85 EF1 86-110 EF2 111-135 EF3 136-165 EF4 166-200 EF5 Over 200 Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center, www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html
Tornadoes can cause damage to property and loss of life. While most tornado damage is caused by violent winds, the majority of injuries and deaths generally result from flying debris. Property damage can include damage to buildings, fallen trees and power lines, broken gas lines, broken sewer and water mains, and the outbreak of fires. Agricultural crops and industries may also be damaged or destroyed. Access roads and streets may be blocked by debris, delaying necessary emergency response.
According to the National Weather Service Sacramento Office, compared to the area east of the Rocky Mountains, tornado occurrence over the western United States is much less frequent. However, climatological studies reveal certain subregions throughout the west where there is a significant increase in tornado occurrence. Two of the regions are in California: the Los Angeles area, and the Central Valley of California comprising the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. Comparative climatological studies show that most California tornadoes are relatively weak (F0 or F1 intensity) and have relatively short path lengths, with median values 0.62 miles (1.0 km)
Calaveras County Water District 4.22 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
long and 43 yards (39.3 m) wide compared to 4 miles (6.4 km) long and 170 yards (155.4 m) for Iowa tornadoes. Also, the vast majority of California tornadoes occur during the cool season and primarily between 1 PM and 3 PM local time.
Past Occurrences
One tornado was recorded in Calaveras County near Angels Camp during the period from 1950- 2006. It occurred on July 29, 1980 and rated an F0 on the Fujita Scale, which is the lowest rating and is given to tornadoes with wind speeds of 40-72 mph. No property or crop damages, injuries, or deaths were reported.
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Occasional—One tornado occurred in Calaveras County over 62 years (1950-2011) of record keeping which equates to one tornado every 62 years, on average, and a 1.6 percent chance of a tornado occurring in any given year. The actual risk to the CCWD is dependent on the nature and location of any given tornado.
4.2.5 Severe Weather: Wind
Hazard/Problem Description
In Calaveras County, high winds, sometimes accompanying severe thunderstorms but often not, can cause significant property and crop damage, threaten public safety, and have adverse economic impacts from business closures and power loss. Windstorms in Calaveras County are typically straight-line winds. Straight-line winds are generally any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation (i.e., is not a tornado). It is these winds, which can exceed 100 mph, which represent the most common type of severe weather and are responsible for most wind damage related to thunderstorms.
While not as common in Calaveras County, other types of winds include funnel clouds, tornadoes, and dust devils. A funnel cloud is made up of condensed water droplets associated with a rotating column of air that extends from the base of a cloud but does not reach the ground. Like straight-line winds, they are usually associated with thunderstorms. If a funnel cloud touches the ground it becomes a tornado. Tornadoes can reach speeds of up to 300 mph and are the most powerful storms that exist. Unlike funnel clouds and tornadoes, dust devils are not associated with thunderstorms. They form under clear skies in which the sun has strongly heated the ground and are usually harmless, but at times they can be large enough to threaten people and property.
Severe windstorms are usually forecast 8-24 hours in advance and sometimes longer. The typical duration of windstorms is approximately 8-36 hours and peak winds are usually sustained for less than 8-12 hours.
Calaveras County Water District 4.23 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.11 depicts wind zones for the United States. The map denotes that portions of Calaveras County fall into the Special Wind Region.
Figure 4.11. Wind Zones in the United States
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Past Occurrences
According to the NCDC, most high wind events occur between November and March. Although summer winds are a frequent occurrence, with afternoon winds of 10 to 20 mph being common, it is the winds experienced during the winter storms that result in the most wind-related damage. Severe wind events create the most problem when trees fall on power lines, knocking out power and often making it difficult to reach District facilities. Based on SHELDUS data from 1960 to 2010, Calaveras County has experienced numerous high wind events. A description of major high wind events in Calaveras County is shown in Table 4.11.
Calaveras County Water District 4.24 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.11. SHELDUS Events with High Winds in Calaveras County 1960 to 2010
Hazard Hazard Hazard Type Property Begin Date End Date Combo Injuries Fatalities Damage Crop Damage Remarks 3/1/1995 3/31/1995 Flooding - 0 0 $0.00 $11,241,379.31 Flood, Rain, Severe Winds Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 12/10/1992 12/11/1992 Flooding - 0 0 $1,315.79 $0.00 Winter Wind - Winter Storm, High Weather Wind, Flash Flood 3/2/1962 3/6/1962 Hail - Severe 0.02 0.03 $86.21 $0.00 Wind, Rain, Storm/Thunder Snow, Storm - Wind - Glaze, and Winter Hail Weather 4/22/1961 4/24/1961 Lightning - 0 0 $14.71 $14,705.88 Frost, Wind, Wind - Winter Lightning Weather 2/1/1960 2/1/1960 Severe 0.03 0.09 $1,470.59 $0.00 Wind, Rain Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 2/7/1960 2/9/1960 Severe 0.06 0.06 $10,416.67 $10.42 Rain, Wind Storm/Thunder Storm - Wind 2/7/1962 2/26/1962 Severe 0.26 0.35 $86,206.90 $0.00 Wind and Storm/Thunder Rain Storm - Wind 10/11/1963 10/11/1963 Severe 0 0 $14.71 $14.71 Rain and Storm/Thunder Wind Storm - Wind 12/28/1965 12/30/1965 Severe 0 0 $862.07 $0.00 Rain and Storm/Thunder Wind Storm - Wind 1/20/1967 1/31/1967 Severe 0.07 0.02 $8,620.69 $86.21 Rain and Storm/Thunder Wind Storm - Wind 1/8/1970 1/26/1970 Severe 0 0 $10,416.70 $0.00 Rain and Storm/Thunder Wind Storm - Wind 1/9/1980 1/13/1980 Severe 0 0 $1,041.67 $1,041.67 High Storm/Thunder Winds/Heavy Storm - Wind Rain 2/26/1983 2/27/1983 Severe 0.08 0 $10,416.67 $104.17 Heavy Rain, Storm/Thunder Wind Storm - Wind 3/12/1967 3/13/1967 Severe 0 0 $862.07 $0.00 Snow, Wind, Storm/Thunder Rain Storm - Wind - Winter Weather
Calaveras County Water District 4.25 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Hazard Hazard Hazard Type Property Begin Date End Date Combo Injuries Fatalities Damage Crop Damage Remarks 12/12/1967 12/15/1967 Severe 0 0.03 $8,620.69 $8,620.69 Wind, Rain, Storm/Thunder Snow, and Storm - Wind - Cold Winter Weather 2/20/1969 2/25/1969 Severe 0.07 0.57 $1,666,666.67 $166,666.67 Wind, Rain, Storm/Thunder Snow Storm - Wind - Winter Weather 12/23/1979 12/24/1979 Severe 0 0 $14,285.71 $0.00 Rain, Snow, Storm/Thunder Wind Storm - Wind - Winter Weather 10/9/1960 10/9/1960 Wind 0.02 0.03 $86.21 $0.00 Wind 10/16/1960 10/16/1960 Wind 0 0 $1,136.36 $0.00 Wind 3/16/1961 3/17/1961 Wind 0 0 $862.09 $0.00 Wind 10/7/1961 10/8/1961 Wind 0 0.03 $862.07 $0.00 Wind 10/28/1961 10/29/1961 Wind 0 0 $113.64 $0.00 Wind 9/16/1965 9/17/1965 Wind 0 0 $14,705.88 $1,470.59 North Wind 1/15/1966 1/17/1966 Wind 0 0.05 $11,363.64 $113.64 High Wind 12/22/1982 12/22/1982 Wind 0.21 0.06 $1,041,666.67 $104.17 Wind 1/26/1984 1/27/1984 Wind 0.13 0.07 $3,333.33 $333.33 Wind 2/2/1984 2/2/1984 Wind 0.07 0 $357.14 $0.00 High Wind 8/26/1984 8/26/1984 Wind 0.07 0 $357.14 $357.14 High Winds 10/15/1984 10/15/1984 Wind 0 0 $5,555.56 $0.00 Wind 2/17/1988 2/17/1988 Wind 0 0.03 $8,620.69 $0.00 Wind 2/7/1998 2/7/1998 Wind 0 0 $17,647.06 $0.00 High Wind 6/16/1998 6/16/1998 Wind 0 0 $1,000.00 $0.00 High Wind 10/16/1998 10/16/1998 Wind 0 0 $9,090.91 $0.00 High Wind 11/7/1998 11/7/1998 Wind 0 0 $41,176.47 $0.00 High Wind 4/3/1999 4/3/1999 Wind 0 0 $1,333.33 $2,600.00 High Wind 4/22/1999 4/23/1999 Wind 0 0 $1,538.46 $0.00 High Wind 2/11/2000 2/14/2000 Wind 0 0 $555.56 $2,222.22 High Wind 10/21/2000 10/23/2000 Wind 0 0 $1,739.13 $0.00 High Wind 1/4/2008 1/4/2008 Wind 0 0 $4,869.57 $0.00 High Wind 12/3/1983 12/4/1983 Wind - Winter 0.43 0.07 $357.14 $0.00 Heavy Snow, Weather Wind 12/8/1992 12/9/1992 Wind - Winter 0 0 $2,631.58 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm, High Wind Total 1.52 1.49 $2,992,278.15 $11,439,830.82 Source: SHELDUS
Calaveras County Water District 4.26 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Highly Likely—High wind events occur annually in the District.
4.2.6 Severe Weather: Winter Storms and Extreme Cold
Extreme cold often accompanies snow and winter storms or is left in its wake. It is most likely to occur in the winter months of December, January, and February. Prolonged exposure to the cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and can become life-threatening. Infants and the elderly are most susceptible. Pipes may freeze and burst in homes or buildings that are poorly insulated or without heat. Extreme cold can disrupt or impair communications facilities. Extreme cold can also affect the crops grown in Calaveras County.
In 2001, the NWS implemented an updated Wind Chill Temperature index, which is reproduced below. This index was developed to describe the relative discomfort/danger resulting from the combination of wind and temperature. Wind chill is based on the rate of heat loss from exposed skin caused by wind and cold. As the wind increases, it draws heat from the body, driving down skin temperature and eventually the internal body temperature.
Figure 4.12. Wind Chill Temperature Chart
Source: National Weather Service
Information from the two representative weather stations introduced in Section 4.2.2 is summarized below and in Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14.
Calaveras County Water District 4.27 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
In Calaveras County, monthly average minimum temperatures from November through April range from the upper 30s to the upper 50s. The lowest temperature on record at Camp Pardee is 17°F recorded on December 12, 1932. On average, there were 11.3 days annually with a low temperature below 32°F; more than half of these occurred in December and January. At Camp Pardee, temperatures of 32°F or below are on record for every month October through April.
At the Calaveras Big Trees station, the lowest recorded temperature on record is -4°F on February 3, 1932. On average, there are 11.7 days annually that are below 32°F; most occurring in December and January.
Figure 4.13. Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes, Camp Pardee, 1926 to 2011
Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
Calaveras County Water District 4.28 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.14. Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes, Calaveras Big Trees, 1948-2005
Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
Snow accounts for much of the precipitation in the higher elevations in the eastern part of Calaveras County. Snowfall in the Sierra Nevada Mountains increases with elevation. The lower foothills rarely receive any measurable snow. Middle elevations receive a mix of snow and rain during the winter. Above 6,000 feet, the majority of precipitation falls as snow. It is not unusual, in some locations, to have ten feet of snow on the ground for extended periods. Figure 4.15 shows the average annual snow accumulation in Calaveras County.
Calaveras County Water District 4.29 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.15. Average Annual Snow Accumulation in Calaveras County
Source: Calaveras County GIS, www.co.calaveras.ca.us/comaps.asp
Climate Change and Freeze
Freezing spells are likely to become less frequent in California as climate temperatures increase; if emissions increase, freezing events could occur only once per decade in large portion of the state by the second half of the 21st century. According to a California Natural Resources Report in 2009, it was determined that while fewer freezing spells would decrease cold related health effects, too few freezes could lead to increased incidence of disease as vectors and pathogens do not die off.
Calaveras County Water District 4.30 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Past Occurrences
The NCDC data shows no extreme cold incidents for Calaveras County since 1993. Based on SHELDUS data from 1960 to 2010, Calaveras County has experienced numerous winter weather (including snow and freeze) events. A description of major winter weather and freeze events in Calaveras County is shown in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12. SHELDUS Winter Weather Events for Calaveras County 1960 to 2010
Hazard Hazard Hazard End Type Property Crop Begin Date Date Combo Injuries Fatalities Damage Damage Remarks 1/20/1962 1/21/1962 Winter 0.86 0.12 $8,620.69 $0.00 WINTER Weather STORM 4/27/1970 4/29/1970 Winter 0 0 $0.00 $11,627.91 FREEZE Weather 1/27/1981 1/29/1981 Winter 0 0 $1,041.67 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 12/22/1982 12/22/1982 Winter 1 0 $2,941.18 $0.00 Snow Weather 1/26/1983 1/26/1983 Winter 0.09 0 $4,545.45 $0.00 Snow Weather 11/23/1983 11/23/1983 Winter 0.14 0 $357.14 $0.00 Snow Weather 12/23/1983 12/24/1983 Winter 0.07 0 $357.14 $0.00 Heavy Snow Weather 2/5/1989 2/5/1989 Winter 0 0 $0.00 $128,205.13 Record Cold Weather 2/15/1990 2/17/1990 Winter 0 0 $2,631.58 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 2/15/1990 2/15/1990 Winter 0 0 $0.00 $3,333.33 Freeze Weather 12/20/1990 12/25/1990 Winter 0 0.05 $86,206.90 $8,620,689.66 Cold Wave Weather 2/5/1992 2/16/1992 Winter 0.22 0.05 $0.00 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 2/9/1992 2/11/1992 Winter 0 0 $892.86 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 12/6/1992 12/7/1992 Winter 0.13 0 $1,562.50 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 Winter 0 0 $3,846.15 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 12/31/1992 1/1/1993 Winter 0 0 $27,777.78 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 2/17/1993 2/21/1993 Winter 0.11 0 $2,631.58 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 12/11/1993 12/11/1993 Winter 0 0 $3,448.28 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm
Calaveras County Water District 4.31 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Hazard Hazard Hazard End Type Property Crop Begin Date Date Combo Injuries Fatalities Damage Damage Remarks 1/23/1994 1/24/1994 Winter 0 0 $1,851.85 $0.00 Heavy Snow Weather 2/6/1994 2/8/1994 Winter 0 0 $3,333.33 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 2/16/1994 2/21/1994 Winter 0 0 $1,282.05 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 12/20/1996 12/20/1996 Winter 0.14 0.07 $0.00 $0.00 Heavy Snow Weather 12/5/1998 12/6/1998 Winter 0 0 $20,000.00 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 12/19/1998 12/29/1998 Winter 0 0 $0.00 $141,176.47 Extreme Weather Cold 4/8/2005 4/10/2005 Winter 0 0 $3,076.92 $0.00 Winter Weather Storm 1/14/2007 1/15/2007 Winter 0 0 $57,142.86 $0.00 Frost/Freeze Weather Total 2.76 0.29 $233,547.91 $8,905,032.50 Source: SHELDUS
Figure 4.16 shows disaster declarations due to freeze in the County. The greatest concentrations are in the Central Valley. The disaster declaration for Calaveras County was issued in 1969.
Calaveras County Water District 4.32 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.16. State and Federal Declared Freeze Disasters from 1950 to 2009
Source: CalEMA
Calaveras County Water District 4.33 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Likely—26 winter weather and freeze events occurred in Calaveras County over 60 years (1960- 2010) of record keeping which equates to one event every 2.3 years, on average, and a 52 percent chance of extreme cold occurring in any given year.
4.2.7 Avalanche
Hazard/Problem Description
Avalanches occur when loading of new snow increases stress at a rate faster than strength develops, and the slope fails. Critical stresses develop more quickly on steeper slopes and where deposition of wind-transported snow is common. The vast majority of avalanches occur during or shortly after storms. This hazard generally affects a small number of people, such as snowboarders, skiers, and hikers, who venture into backcountry areas during or after winter storms. Roads and highway closures, damaged structures, and destruction of forests are also a direct result of avalanches. The combination of steep slopes, abundant snow, weather, snowpack, and an impetus to cause movement creates avalanches. Areas prone to avalanche hazards include hard to access areas deep in the backcountry. Avalanche hazards exist in eastern Calaveras County where combinations of the above criteria occur.
Past Occurrences
Historically, avalanches occur in California between the months of December and March, following snowstorms. Although avalanches have occurred on slopes of many angles, they most often occur on slopes ranging between 30 degrees and 45 degrees. Therefore ski resorts, residences, roads, businesses, and other structures and activities in these areas are vulnerable.
The NCDC and SHELDUS show no past occurrences of avalanche in the County. The HMPC noted that no avalanches have affected the District.
Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Unlikely – there have been no previous occurrences of avalanche in the District.
4.2.8 Dam Failure
Hazard/Problem Description
Dams are manmade structures built for a variety of uses including flood protection, power generation, agriculture, water supply, and recreation. When dams are constructed for flood protection, they are usually engineered to withstand a flood with a computed risk of occurrence. For example, a dam may be designed to contain a flood at a location on a stream that has a certain probability of occurring in any one year. If prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding
Calaveras County Water District 4.34 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
occur that exceed the design requirements, that structure may be overtopped and fail. Overtopping is the primary cause of earthen dam failure in the United States.
Dam failures can also result from any one or a combination of the following causes:
• Earthquake; • Inadequate spillway capacity resulting in excess overtopping flows; • Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage, or piping or rodent activity; • Improper design; • Improper maintenance; • Negligent operation; and/or • Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway.
Water released by a failed dam generates tremendous energy and can cause a flood that is catastrophic to life and property. A catastrophic dam failure could challenge local response capabilities and require evacuations to save lives. Impacts to life safety will depend on the warning time and the resources available to notify and evacuate the public. Major loss of life could result as well as potentially catastrophic effects to roads, bridges, and homes. Electric generating facilities and transmission lines could also be damaged and affect life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard area. Associated water supply, water quality and health concerns could also be an issue. Factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are the amount of water impounded; the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream; and the speed of failure.
In general, there are three types of dams: concrete arch or hydraulic fill, earth and rockfill, and concrete gravity. Each type of dam has different failure characteristics. A concrete arch or hydraulic fill dam can fail almost instantaneously; the flood wave builds up rapidly to a peak then gradually declines. An earth-rockfill dam fails gradually due to erosion of the breach; a flood wave will build gradually to a peak and then decline until the reservoir is empty. And, a concrete gravity dam can fail instantaneously or gradually with a corresponding buildup and decline of the flood wave.
Dams and reservoirs have been built throughout California to supply water for agriculture and domestic use, to allow for flood control, as a source of hydroelectric power, and to serve as recreational facilities. The storage capacities of these reservoirs range from a few thousand acre feet to five million acre-feet. The water from these reservoirs eventually makes its way to the Pacific Ocean by way of several river systems.
The California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams assigns hazard ratings to large dams within the State. The following two factors are considered when assigning hazard ratings: existing land use and land use controls (zoning) downstream of the dam. Dams are classified in three categories that identify the potential hazard to life and property:
Calaveras County Water District 4.35 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
• High hazard indicates that a failure would most probably result in the loss of life • Significant hazard indicates that a failure could result in appreciable property damage • Low hazard indicates that failure would result in only minimal property damage and loss of life is unlikely
Dam locations of high, significant, and low hazard dams in or near Calaveras County are shown in Figure 4.17. Details of high, significant, and low hazard dams inside the County are shown in Table 4.13.
Calaveras County Water District 4.36 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.17. Dams in or Near Calaveras County
Calaveras County Water District 4.37 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.13. High (H), Significant (S), and Low (L) Hazard Dams in Calaveras County
Nearest Capacity Name of Hazard City/ Population (acre- Dam Dam Class Mapped Stream Distance At Risk feet) Height Dam Owner Calaveras H Mapped Sfk – > 1000 112,500 186 Oakdale So Cement Calaveras San Joaquin Id River Chatom H Not Indian – > 1000 3,100 83 Meridian Gold Vinyards # 1 mapped Creek Company Flotation H Mapped Tr – > 1000 – – – Tails Littlejohns Cr Fly-In-Acres H Mapped Moran Avery 100 - 1000 – 30 Robert J Creek 4 miles Matteoli,Et Al Goodwin H Mapped Stanislaus Knights Ferry 100 - 1000 – – – Rv 4 miles Jeff Davis H Mapped Tr Wet Glencoe 10 - 100 – – – Gulch Crk 2.5 miles La Contenta H Mapped Tr Rancho 100 - 1000 68,400 205 Tri-Dam Cosgrove Calaveras Project - Spring 1.5 miles Operator Lcrmf H Mapped Tr Clover – > 1000 2,760 33 Calaveras PU Creek District Lcrmf-Pwrp H Mapped Offstream – > 1000 2,100 233 Calaveras County Water District Leach Site 1 H Not Tr Coyote – > 1000 1,800 114 Calaveras PU mapped Creek District Leach Site 2 H Not Tr Coyote – > 1000 1,700 98 Calaveras PU mapped Creek District Matteoli H Not Tr – > 1000 54 67 Utica Power mapped Calaveritas Authority Crk McKays H Mapped N Fk Melones > 1000 630 53 M-24 Ranch Point Stanislaus 22 miles Association Diversion R Melones H Mapped Stanislaus – > 1000 93 19 Patricia Rv Mccarty Middle Fork H Mapped Mfk Wilseyville 10 - 100 90 29 Ryan Voorhees Mokelumne 4 miles R Mountain H Mapped Clover – > 1000 10,900 47 Rock Creek King Creek Water District Murphys H Mapped Tr Angels Murphys 100 - 1000 1,715 44 Meridian Gold Afterbay Creek 0.1 miles Company Murphys H Mapped Tr Angels Murphys 100 - 1000 724 41 Oak Canyon Forebay Creek 1 mile Ranch, LLC
Calaveras County Water District 4.38 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Nearest Capacity Name of Hazard City/ Population (acre- Dam Dam Class Mapped Stream Distance At Risk feet) Height Dam Owner New Hogan H Mapped Calaveras – > 1000 410 29 Wallace River Community Services District New H Mapped Stanislaus – > 1000 262 35 Calaveras Melones Rv County Water District Redhawk H Mapped Nfk San Andreas 100 - 1000 250 25 Robert & Lynn Lake Calaveras 15 miles Wilson Riv Tulloch H Mapped Stanislaus Knights Ferry 100 - 1000 124 35 Lake Mont Rv 5.5 miles Pines Homeowners Andrew S Mapped Seasonal Murphys 10 - 100 2,400,000 578 U S Bureau Of Cademartori Stream 1 mile Reclamation Cherokee S Mapped Cherokee San Andreas 10 - 100 128 126 Carson Hill Creek 10 miles Gold Mining Corp Copper Cove S Mapped Tr Knights Ferry 10 - 100 57 14 Genstar Littlejohns 8 miles Cement Cr Company Copperopolis S Mapped Penney Copperopolis 10 - 100 47 35 Meridian Gold Creek 0.5 miles Company Ferrario S Mapped Tr Bear Wallace 10 - 100 – – – Creek 3.5 miles Flowers S Mapped Little Johns Oakdale 10 - 100 – 35 Gay Callan Cr 26 miles Forest S Mapped Angels Murphys 10 - 100 – – – Meadows Creek 1.5 miles Hein S Mapped Tr Bear Wallace 10 - 100 – – – Creek 4 miles Holman S Mapped Tr Angels – 0 – – – Creek Hunters S Mapped Mill Creek Hathaway 10 - 100 – – – Pines 0.5 miles Murphys S Mapped Offstream Arab 10 - 100 630 44 Calvin C Wastewater 6 miles Berger/Barbara G Berger Pine Peak S Mapped Tr Nfk Valley 1 - 10 253 57 Utica Power No 4 Calaveras Sprinds Authority 10 miles Ross S Mapped French Angels City 1 - 10 225 33 Jon & Angelita Gulch Cr 4 miles Janofsky Salt Springs S Mapped Rock Creek Milton 10 - 100 205 42 Calaveras Valley 5 miles County Water District
Calaveras County Water District 4.39 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Nearest Capacity Name of Hazard City/ Population (acre- Dam Dam Class Mapped Stream Distance At Risk feet) Height Dam Owner Skyrocket S Mapped Littlejohn Telegraph 1 - 10 150 70 Sutton Creek City Enterprises 5 miles Stevenot S Mapped Tr Carson Angels City 10 - 100 145 16 Naki Inc. Creek 3 miles Tanner S Mapped Cowell Sheep 10 - 100 140 24 Murphys Creek Ranch Sanitation Dist 6 miles Wallace S Mapped Tr Bear Wallace 10 - 100 117 60 Sierra Golf Creek 0.3 miles Management White Pines S Mapped San Fourth 10 - 100 73 45 The Mariner Antonio Crossing Group Creek 22 miles Bevanda L Mapped Tr Bellota 10 - 100 317,000 210 Corps Of Calaveras 11 miles Engineers Rv Christensen L Mapped Steele Fourth 1 - 10 64 20 Meridian Gold No. 1 Creek Crossing Company 4 miles Emery L Mapped Mckinneys Calaveras 10 - 100 38 52 East Bay Mu Creek 2.3 miles District McCarty L Mapped Tr Johnny Copperopolis 10 - 100 40 42 Utica Power Creek 4.5 miles Authority Mokelumne L Mapped Tr Scottsville 1 - 10 69 33 Rancho Hill Mokelumne 4 miles Campana, LLC Rv Reid L Mapped Esperanza Jesus Maria 1 - 10 250 101 City Of Angels Creek 11 miles Copperopolis Not Not – – > 1000 43 67 Carson Hill Tailing identified mapped Gold Mining Corp Lewallen C Not Not – – > 1000 500 101 Tri-Dam identified mapped Project - Operator Lewallen D Not Not – – > 1000 172 43 Calaveras identified mapped County Water District Maskus Not Not – – > 1000 58 41 Blue Lakes identified mapped Springs Homeowners Stull Not Not – – > 1000 142 80 Union Public identified mapped Utility District Wilson Not Not – – > 1000 60 36 Calaveras identified mapped County Water District Cherokee Not Not – – > 1000 391 45 Meridian Gold identified mapped Company
Calaveras County Water District 4.40 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Nearest Capacity Name of Hazard City/ Population (acre- Dam Dam Class Mapped Stream Distance At Risk feet) Height Dam Owner Mine Run Not Mapped Mine Run – > 1000 70 32 Raymond J identified Creek Vernazza Moosehead Not Not – – > 1000 52 52 Mokelumne Hill Debris identified mapped Sanit Dist Source: Cal EMA
There are dams located outside of Calaveras County that may potentially affect the County. Details of high and significant hazard dams outside the County that may affect the County are shown in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14. High and Significant Hazard Dams That May Affect Calaveras County
Near Name Hazard County Name Owner River City EAP Beardsley H Tuolumne South San Middle Fork Stanislaus Sonora Y Joaquin and Oak River Donnells H Tuolumne South San Middle Fork Stanislaus Sonora Y Joaquin and Oak River Lyons H Tuolumne Pacific Gas and South Fork Stanislaus Long Y Electric River Barn New Spicer H Tuolumne Calaveras Co Highland Creek Big Y Meadow Water Distri Meadow Reba H Alpine Lake Alpine Tr Bloods Creek Lombardi Y Water Company Salt Springs H Amador/ Pacific Gas And North Fork Mokelumne Pioneer Y Calaveras Electric River Tabeaud H Amador Pacific Gas And South Fork Jackson Jackson Y Electric Creek - TR Alpine Auxiliary S Alpine Northern Silver Creek Bear Y No. 2 California Power Valley Alpine Auxiliary S Alpine Northern Silver Creek Bear Y No. 3 California Power Valley Alpine Auxiliary S Alpine Northern Silver Creek Bear Y No. 4 California Power Valley Alpine Main S Alpine Northern Silver Creek Bear Y California Power Valley Bear River S Amador Pac Gas And Bear River Y Electric Co Leland Meadows S Tuolumne Leland Meadows Leland Creek Cow Y Water Dist Creek Lower Bear S Amador Pacific Gas And Bear River Pioneer Y Electric New Spicer S Tuolumne Calaveras Highland Creek Arnold Y Meadow County Water Di Tiger Cr S Amador Pac Gas And Tiger Creek Clements Y Regulator Electric Co
Calaveras County Water District 4.41 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Near Name Hazard County Name Owner River City EAP Upper Bear S Amador Pacific Gas And Bear River Pioneer Y Electric Upper Blue Lake S Alpine Pacific Gas And Blue Creek Kirkwood Y Electric Utica Auxiliary No. S Alpine/ Northern North Fork Stanislaus - Bear Y 2 Tuolumne California Power Tr Valley Utica Auxiliary No. S Alpine/ Northern North Fork Stanislaus - Bear Y 3 Tuolumne California Power Tr Valley Utica Auxiliary No. S Alpine/ Northern North Fork Stanislaus - Bear Y 4 Tuolumne California Power Tr Valley Utica Auxiliary No. S Alpine/ Northern North Fork Stanislaus - Bear Y 5 Tuolumne California Power Tr Valley Utica Main S Alpine/ Northern North Fork Stanislaus - Bear Y Tuolumne California Power Tr Valley Source: Cal EMA
Previous Occurrences
There is a history of dam failure in Calaveras County. In 1895, the Angels Dam collapsed, resulting in one fatality. The cause cited for the failure was flooding that undermined the poorly constructed dam foundation. In 1997, the Don Pedro Dam in neighboring Tuolumne County overtopped, resulting in flooding across a 300 square-mile area that included parts of Calaveras County. Also, in April of 2006, flooding caused significant damage and threat of failure to a small dam at Peachtree Pond near Valley Springs.
Probability of Future Occurrence
Occasional—With only a single previous occurrence, probability of future occurrence is difficult to accurately estimate for dam failure. Because dam failure is a manmade hazard, the methodology for calculating probability based on past occurrences does not necessarily reflect the actual risk of future occurrence. Another way to estimate future occurrence is to consider the probability of other hazards that are considered causes or contributing factors of dam failure. These include flooding and earthquake, which are classified as likely and unlikely respectively.
4.2.9 Drought and Water Shortage
Hazard/Problem Description
Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends.
Calaveras County Water District 4.42 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Drought is a complex issue involving (see Figure 4.18) many factors—it occurs when a normal amount of moisture is not available to satisfy an area’s usual water-consuming activities. Drought can often be defined regionally based on its effects:
• Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below average water supply. • Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet the needs of the state’s crops and other agricultural operations such as livestock. • Hydrological drought is defined as deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is generally measured as streamflow, snowpack, and as lake, reservoir, and groundwater levels. • Socioeconomic drought occurs when a drought impacts health, well-being, and quality of life, or when a drought starts to have an adverse economic impact on a region.
Figure 4.18. Causes and Impacts of Drought
Source: National Drought Mitigation Center
Calaveras County Water District 4.43 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Drought in the United States is monitored by the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). A major component of this portal is the U.S. Drought Monitor. The Drought Monitor concept was developed jointly by the NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, the NDMC, and the USDA’s Joint Agricultural Weather Facility in the late 1990s as a process that synthesizes multiple indices, outlooks and local impacts, into an assessment that best represents current drought conditions. The final outcome of each Drought Monitor is a consensus of federal, state, and academic scientists who are intimately familiar with the conditions in their respective regions. A snapshot of the drought conditions in California and the planning area can be found in Figure 4.19.
Figure 4.19. Current Drought Status in Calaveras County
Source: US Drought Monitor
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) says the following about drought:
One dry year does not normally constitute a drought in California. California’s extensive system of water supply infrastructure—its reservoirs, groundwater basins, and inter-regional conveyance facilities—mitigates the effect of short-term dry periods for most water users. Defining when a drought begins is a function of
Calaveras County Water District 4.44 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
drought impacts to water users. Hydrologic conditions constituting a drought for water users in one location may not constitute a drought for water users elsewhere, or for water users having a different water supply. Individual water suppliers may use criteria such as rainfall/runoff, amount of water in storage, or expected supply from a water wholesaler to define their water supply conditions.
The drought issue in California is further compounded by water rights. Water is a commodity possessed under a variety of legal doctrines. The prioritization of water rights between farming and federally protected fish habitats in California is part of this issue.
Drought impacts are wide-reaching and may be economic, environmental, and/or societal. The most significant impacts associated with drought in the planning area are those related to water intensive activities such as agriculture, wildfire protection, municipal usage, commerce, tourism, recreation, and wildlife preservation. Also, during a drought, allocations go down, which results in reduced water availability. Voluntary conservation measures are typically implemented during extended droughts. A reduction of electric power generation and water quality deterioration are also potential problems. Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making an area more susceptible to flooding.
Drought can have secondary impacts. For example, drought is a major determinant of wildfire hazard, in that it creates greater propensity for fire starts and larger, more prolonged conflagrations fueled by excessively dry vegetation, along with reduced water supply for firefighting purposes. Drought is also an economic hazard. Significant economic impacts on California’s agriculture industry can occur as a result of short‐ and long‐term drought conditions; these include hardships to farmers, farm workers, packers, and shippers of agricultural products. In some cases, droughts can also cause significant increases in food prices to the consumer due to shortages.
Past Occurrences
Historically, California has experienced multiple severe droughts. According to the DWR, droughts exceeding three years are relatively rare in Northern California, the source of much of the State’s developed water supply. The 1929-34 drought established the criteria commonly used in designing storage capacity and yield of large northern California reservoirs. Table 4.15 compares the 1929-34 drought in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys to the 1976-77, 1987- 92, and 2007-09 droughts (California’s most recent multi-year drought). The driest single year of California’s measured hydrologic record was 1977. Figure 4.20 depicts California’s Multi- Year Historical Dry Periods, 1850-2000.
Calaveras County Water District 4.45 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.15. Severity of Extreme Droughts in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys
Sacramento Valley Runoff San Joaquin Valley Runoff Drought Period (maf*/yr) (percent Average 1901-96) (maf*/yr) (percent Average 1906-96) 1929-34 9.8 55 3.3 57 1976-77 6.6 37 1.5 26 1987-92 10.0 56 2.8 47 2007-09 11.2 64 3.7 3. Source: California’s Drought of 2007-2009, An Overview. State of California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/drought/docs/DroughtReport2010.pdf *maf=million acre feet
Figure 4.20. California’s Multi-Year Historical Dry Periods, 1850-2000
Source: California Department of Water Resources, www.water.ca.gov/ Notes: Dry periods prior to 1900 estimated from limited data; covers dry periods of statewide or major regional extent
According to the State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan, Calaveras County has experienced two droughts that resulted in a state disaster declaration. This can be seen in Figure 4.21. As of the writing of this plan, a drought declaration from November of 2011 to March of 2012 was pending.
Calaveras County Water District 4.46 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.21. Declared Drought Disasters in Calaveras County
Calaveras County Water District 4.47 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Water Shortage
Figure 4.22 illustrates several indicators commonly used to evaluate water conditions in California. The percent of average values are determined by measurements made in each of the ten major hydrologic regions. The chart describes water conditions in California between 1996 and 2007. The chart illustrates the cyclical nature of weather patterns in California. Snow pack and precipitation increased between 1996 and 1997, began decreasing in 1998, and began to show signs of recovery in 2002, increased in 2005, and decreased sharply in 2007.
Figure 4.22. Water Supply Conditions, 1996 to 2007
Source: 2010 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Drought
Likely—Historical drought data for Calaveras County indicate there have been 4 significant droughts in the last 83 years. This equates to a drought every 20.7 years on average or a 4.8 percent chance of a drought in any given year.
Water Shortage
Likely— Recent historical data for water shortage indicates that Calaveras County is at risk to both short and prolonged periods of water shortage. Based on this it is likely that water shortages will affect the District and the County.
Calaveras County Water District 4.48 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
4.2.10 Earthquake
Hazard/Problem Description
An earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth’s outer layer push the sides of the fault together. Stress builds up, and the rocks slip suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel through the earth’s crust and cause the shaking that is felt during an earthquake. The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. An earthquake’s magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimals (e.g., 6.8). Seismologists have developed several magnitude scales. One of the first was the Richter Scale, developed in 1932 by the late Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology. The Richter Magnitude Scale is used to quantify the magnitude or strength of the seismic energy released by an earthquake. Another measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface (see Table 4.16). Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes.
Table 4.16. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale
MMI Felt Intensity I Not felt except by a very few people under special conditions. Detected mostly by instruments. II Felt by a few people, especially those on upper floors of buildings. Suspended objects may swing. III Felt noticeably indoors. Standing automobiles may rock slightly. IV Felt by many people indoors; by a few outdoors. At night, some people are awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors rattle. V Felt by nearly everyone. Many people are awakened. Some dishes and windows are broken. Unstable objects are overturned. VI Felt by everyone. Many people become frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture is moved. Some plaster falls. VII Most people are alarmed and run outside. Damage is negligible in buildings of good construction, considerable in buildings of poor construction. VIII Damage is slight in specially designed structures, considerable in ordinary buildings, and great in poorly built structures. Heavy furniture is overturned. IX Damage is considerable in specially designed buildings. Buildings shift from their foundations and partly collapse. Underground pipes are broken. X Some well-built wooden structures are destroyed. Most masonry structures are destroyed. The ground is badly cracked. Considerable landslides occur on steep slopes. XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Rails are bent. Broad fissures appear in the ground. XII Virtually total destruction. Waves are seen on the ground surface. Objects are thrown in the air.
Source: Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, FEMA 1997
California is seismically active because it sits on the boundary between two of the earth’s tectonic plates. Most of the state ‐ everything east of the San Andreas Fault ‐ is on the North American Plate. The cities of Monterey, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego are on the
Calaveras County Water District 4.49 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Pacific Plate, which is constantly moving northwest past the North American Plate. The relative rate of movement is about two inches per year. The San Andreas Fault is considered the boundary between the two plates, although some of the motion is taken up on faults as far away as central Utah.
Earthquake Hazards
Earthquakes can cause structural damage, injury, and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks, such as water, power, gas, communication, and transportation. Earthquakes may also cause collateral emergencies including dam and levee failures, seiches, hazmat incidents, fires, avalanches, and landslides. The degree of damage depends on many interrelated factors. Among these are: the magnitude, focal depth, distance from the causative fault, source mechanism, duration of shaking, high rock accelerations, type of surface deposits or bedrock, degree of consolidation of surface deposits, presence of high groundwater, topography, and the design, type, and quality of building construction. This section briefly discusses issues related to types of seismic hazards.
Ground Shaking
Groundshaking is motion that occurs as a result of energy released during faulting. The damage or collapse of buildings and other structures caused by groundshaking is among the most serious seismic hazards. Damage to structures from this vibration, or groundshaking, is caused by the transmission of earthquake vibrations from the ground to the structure. The intensity of shaking and its potential impact on buildings is determined by the physical characteristics of the underlying soil and rock, building materials and workmanship, earthquake magnitude and location of epicenter, and the character and duration of ground motion. Much of the County is located on alluvium which increases the amplitude of the earthquake wave. Ground motion lasts longer and waves are amplified on loose, water-saturated materials than on solid rock. As a result, structures located on alluvium typically suffer greater damage than those located on solid rock.
Seismic Structural Safety
Older buildings constructed before building codes were established, and even newer buildings constructed before earthquake-resistance provisions were included in the codes, are the most likely to be damaged during an earthquake. Buildings one or two stories high of wood-frame construction are considered to be the most structurally resistant to earthquake damage. Older masonry buildings without seismic reinforcement (unreinforced masonry) are the most susceptible to the type of structural failure that causes injury or death.
The susceptibility of a structure to damage from ground shaking is also related to the underlying foundation material. A foundation of rock or very firm material can intensify short-period motions which affect low-rise buildings more than tall, flexible ones. A deep layer of water- logged soft alluvium can cushion low-rise buildings, but it can also accentuate the motion in tall
Calaveras County Water District 4.50 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
buildings. The amplified motion resulting from softer alluvial soils can also severely damage older masonry buildings.
Other potentially dangerous conditions include, but are not limited to: building architectural features that are not firmly anchored, such as parapets and cornices; roadways, including column and pile bents and abutments for bridges and overcrossings; and above-ground storage tanks and their mounting devices. Such features could be damaged or destroyed during strong or sustained ground shaking.
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a process whereby soil is temporarily transformed to a fluid form during intense and prolonged ground shaking
Settlement
Settlement can occur in poorly consolidated soils during ground shaking. During settlement, the soil materials are physically rearranged by the shaking to result in a less stable alignment of the individual minerals. Settlement of sufficient magnitude to cause significant structural damage is normally associated with rapidly deposited alluvial soils or improperly founded or poorly compacted fill. These areas are known to undergo extensive settling with the addition of irrigation water, but evidence due to ground shaking is not available.
Other Hazards
Earthquakes can also cause seiches, landslides, and dam failures. A seiche is a periodic oscillation of a body of water resulting from seismic shaking or other factors that could cause flooding. Earthquakes may cause landslides (discussed in Section 4.2.12), particularly during the wet season, in areas of high water or saturated soils. Finally, earthquakes can cause dams to fail (see Section 4.2.7 Dam Failure).
Faults
A fault is defined as “a fracture or fracture zone in the earth’s crust along which there has been displacement of the sides relative to one another.” For the purpose of planning there are two types of faults, active and inactive. Active faults have experienced displacement in historic time, suggesting that future displacement may be expected. Inactive faults show no evidence of movement in recent geologic time, suggesting that these faults are dormant.
Two types of fault movement represent possible hazards to structures in the immediate vicinity of the fault: fault creep and sudden fault displacement. Fault creep, a slow movement of one side of a fault relative to the other, can cause cracking and buckling of sidewalks and foundations even without perceptible ground shaking. Sudden fault displacement occurs during an earthquake event and may result in the collapse of buildings or other structures that are found
Calaveras County Water District 4.51 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
along the fault zone when fault displacement exceeds an inch or two. The only protection against damage caused directly by fault displacement is to prohibit construction in the fault zone.
Calaveras County is in the Sierra Block, an area of historically low seismic activity that is within Seismic Risk Zone 3 and roughly 100 miles east of the seismically active San Francisco Bay area. Identified locations of potential fault activity are near Valley Springs, Mokelumme Hill, and Copperopolis. These faults are part of the Melones-Bear Mountain-Foothills Fault System, which crosses the western portion of the county, but the level of seismic activity associated with this system is unknown.
Potential active faults in the Valley Springs/Mokelumne Hill area are the following:
• Youngs Creek • Waters Peak • Poorman Gulch • Haupt Creek
Potentially active faults in the Copperopolis area are the following:
• Bowie Flat • Green Springs Run • Rawhide Flat East • Rawhide Flat West
The closest major fault is the Sierra Frontal Fault System along the eastern edge of the Sierra Nevada Range, which includes the Carson Valley fault, located 25 miles northeast of the county. More distant faults located generally to the south across the Central Valley region with the potential to cause ground shaking include the Ortigalita fault, Central Valley Coast Range blind thrust fault, Calaveras fault (Hollister vicinity), Greenville fault, and San Andreas fault.
Figure 4.23 below shows the location of faults and groundshaking potential for the region that includes Calaveras County.
Calaveras County Water District 4.52 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.23. Groundshaking and Active Faults in the District
Calaveras County Water District 4.53 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Past Occurrences
There has never been a state disaster declaration (Figure 4.24) for an earthquake in Calaveras County or in any of the surrounding counties, and there is no record of damaging earthquakes. However, the Calaveras County General Plan (1996) does note that ground shaking has been felt in the past, notably during the Mono Lake earthquake in October 1990.
Calaveras County Water District 4.54 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.24. State and Federal Declared Earthquake Disasters
Source: Cal EMA
Calaveras County Water District 4.55 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
In addition, the USGS Earthquake Database contains data on earthquakes in the Calaveras County area. Table 4.17 shows the approximate distances earthquakes can be felt away from the epicenter. According to the table, a magnitude 5.0 earthquake could be felt up to 90 miles away. The USGS database was searched for magnitude 5.0 or greater on the Richter Scale within 90 miles of the City of Angels Camp in Calaveras County. These results are shown in Table 4.18. No specific damage reports within the County were available.
Table 4.17. Approximate Relationships between Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity
Maximum Expected Intensity Richter Scale Magnitude (MM)* Distance Felt (miles) 2.0 - 2.9 I – II 0 3.0 - 3.9 II – III 10 4.0 - 4.9 IV – V 50 5.0 - 5.9 VI – VII 90 6.0 - 6.9 VII – VIII 135 7.0 - 7.9 IX – X 240 8.0 - 8.9 XI – XII 365 *Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Source: United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Intensity Zonation and Quaternary Deposits, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 9093, 1977.
Table 4.18. Magnitude 5.0 Earthquakes within 90 Miles of Calaveras County*
Date Magnitude Distance from Calaveras County 9/4/1978 5.2 62 miles 8/6/1979 5.7 78 miles 10/7/1979 5.2 63 miles 1/24/1980 5.8 68 miles 1/27/1980 5.8 67 miles 11/28/1980 5.2 82 miles 1/71983 5.4 88 miles 4/24/1984 6.2 79 miles 1/241985 5.3 90 miles 3/311986 5.7 72 miles 6/13/1988 5.4 79 miles 10/24/1990 5.7 72 miles 1/16/1993 5.3 84 miles 9/12/1994 6.1 68 miles 9/12/1994 5.4 60 miles 12/22/1995 5.2 69 miles 12/23/1995 5.2 71 miles 12/28/1995 5.5 70 miles
Calaveras County Water District 4.56 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Date Magnitude Distance from Calaveras County 10/31/2007 5.6 78 miles Source: USGS *Search dates 1973- March 30, 2012
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Occasional – The State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ranks the earthquake hazard for the majority of Calaveras County at its lowest earthquake risk. The California Geological Survey’s probabilistic seismic assessment for Calaveras County estimates that peak ground acceleration could reach or exceed 0.1 to 0.2 g (intensity value I on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, see Table 4.16) with a 0.21 percent chance of being exceeded each year. Thus, based on patterns of previous occurrences, probability of ground shaking is occasional, with a 1- 10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year. The probability of a large, damaging earthquake is unlikely, with less than a 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years. In sum, the likelihood of future occurrence of minor earthquakes is occasional, and the likelihood of future occurrence of major earthquake is unlikely.
In 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS) released the time‐dependent version of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF II) model. These were the first statewide peer reviewed forecasts and Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) ground motion prediction efforts undertaken. The UCERF II results have helped to reduce the uncertainty in estimated 30‐year probabilities of strong ground motions in California. The UCERF map is shown in Figure 4.25 and indicates that Calaveras County has a lower risk of earthquake occurrence, which coincides with the likelihood of future occurrence rating of occasional.
Calaveras County Water District 4.57 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.25. Probability of Earthquake Magnitudes Occurring in 30 Year Time Frame
Source: United States Geological Survey Open File Report 2007‐1437
Calaveras County Water District 4.58 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
4.2.11 Flood: 100-/500-year and Flood: Localized Stormwater Flooding
Hazard/Problem Description
100-/500-year Flood
Floods are among the most costly natural disasters in terms of human hardship and economic loss nationwide. There are three types of flood events in the Calaveras County area: riverine, flash, and urban stormwater. Regardless of the type of flood, the cause is often the result of severe weather and excessive rainfall, either in the flood area or upstream.
• Riverine flooding is the most common type of flood event and occurs when a watercourse exceeds its “bank-full” capacity. Riverine flooding generally occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall that is combined with already saturated soils from previous rain events. The duration of riverine floods may vary from a few hours to many days. Factors that directly affect the amount of flood runoff include precipitation amount, intensity and distribution, the amount of soil moisture, seasonal variation in vegetation, snow depth, and water-resistance of the surface due to urbanization. The warning time associated with slow rise floods assists in life and property protection. • The term “flash flood” describes localized floods of great volume and short duration. In contrast to riverine flooding, this type of flood usually results from a heavy rainfall on a relatively small drainage area. Precipitation of this sort usually occurs in the winter and spring. Flash floods often require immediate evacuation within the hour. • Urban flood events have increased as land has been converted from fields or woodlands to roads and parking lots and lost its ability to absorb rainfall. Urbanization increases runoff by two to six times that of natural terrain.
Other types of floods include general rain floods, thunderstorm floods, snowmelt and rain on snow floods, dam failure floods, and local drainage floods. This last type of flooding is discussed in greater detail in the discussion of localized stormwater flooding below.
The area adjacent to a river channel is the floodplain. Floodplains are illustrated on inundation maps, which show areas of potential flooding and water depths. In its common usage, the floodplain most often refers to that area that is inundated by the 100-year flood, the flood that has a one percent chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded. The 100-year flood is the national minimum standard to which communities regulate their floodplains through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The potential for flooding can change and increase through various land use changes and changes to land surface, resulting in a change to the floodplain. Environmental changes can create localized flooding problems in and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining natural drainage channels. These changes are most often created by human activity.
Calaveras County Water District 4.59 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Major Sources of Flooding
California is divided into 10 hydrologic regions, and the CCWD is in the San Joaquin region, which encompasses the middle portion of the Central Valley bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Coast Range, the divide between the American and Consumnes river watersheds, and the divide between the San Joaquin and Kings river watersheds. Although predominantly agricultural, this region has experienced increased urbanization in recent years and is subject to flooding from winter storm events and snowmelt.
In Calaveras County, flooding may occur from heavy rainfall on saturated soils, rapid snowmelt, or a combination of these factors. Riverine flooding along the main channels of the Mokelumne and Stanislaus Rivers, mid-elevation tributaries of the Mokelumne, and the upper reaches of the Calaveras usually results from heavy snowmelt in combination with heavy rainfall. In the western portion of the county, the sources of flooding are heavy rainfall associated with repeated winter storms and a saturated soil mantle. Summer thunderstorms can also lead to flooding (Calaveras County General Plan 1996). Flooding sources that could affect the District are shown in Table 4.19.
Table 4.19. Major Sources of Flooding in the Calaveras County Water District
Service Area FEMA Flood Zone Flooding Sources Copper Cove/Copperopolis Zone A Stanislaus River, unnamed tributaries Ebbetts Pass Zones A, Zone AE Big Trees Creek, Mill Creek, Moran Creek San Antonio Creek, San Domingo Creek, unnamed tributaries Jenny Lind Zones A, Zone AE Calaveras River, Cosgrove Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Valley Creek, unnamed tributaries Sheep Ranch Zone A Unnamed tributaries West Point Zone A Middle Fork Mokelumne River, unnamed tributaries Source: FEMA
Floodplain Mapping
FEMA established standards for floodplain mapping studies as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP makes flood insurance available to property owners in participating communities adopting FEMA-approved local floodplain studies, maps, and regulations. Floodplain studies that may be approved by FEMA include federally funded studies; studies developed by state, city, and regional public agencies; and technical studies generated by private interests as part of property annexation and land development efforts. Such studies may include entire stream reaches or limited stream sections depending on the nature and scope of a study. A general overview of floodplain mapping and associated products is provided in the following paragraphs.
Calaveras County Water District 4.60 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
The FIS develops flood-risk data for various areas of the community that will be used to establish flood insurance rates and to assist the community in its efforts to promote sound floodplain management. The current Calaveras County FISs are dated December 17, 2010.
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM)
As part of its Map Modernization program, FEMA is converting paper FIRMS to digital FIRMs, DFIRMS. These digital maps:
• Incorporate the latest updates (LOMRs and LOMAs); • Utilize community supplied data; • Verify the currency of the floodplains and refit them to community supplied basemaps; • Upgrade the FIRMs to a GIS database format to set the stage for future updates and to enable support for GIS analyses and other digital applications; and • Solicit community participation.
DFIRMs for Calaveras County were released December 17, 2010 and are used for this plan’s flood hazard analysis. This is shown in Figure 4.26.
NFIP Insured Structures
Since the Calaveras County Water District is not a jurisdiction or community subject to the NFIP. It is recognized that NFIP structure fall within the District boundaries, but that responsibility for enforcing NFIP rules and regulations falls to the County or incorporated communities that these structures fall in. Strategies for NFIP compliance of these structures is addressed within the mitigation plans of the County and incorporated communities.
Calaveras County Water District 4.61 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.26. Calaveras County DFIRM Flood Zones
Calaveras County Water District 4.62 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Department of Water Resource (DWR) Floodplain Mapping
Also to be considered when evaluating the flood risks in Butte County are various floodplain maps developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for various areas throughout California, including Calaveras County.
DWR Best Available Maps
The Best Available Maps were developed pursuant to Senate Bill 5 which requires DWR to develop preliminary maps for the 100- and 200-year floodplains located within the Sacramento- San Joaquin Valley watershed. These maps were developed by DWR to better reflect the most accurate information about the flooding potential in a community and were designed to provide a better understanding of the true risk of flooding to public safety and property. SB 5 requires that these preliminary maps be provided as best available information on flood protection to cities and counties in the watershed for: 1) areas protected by State-Federal project levees, and 2) areas outside the protection of project levees.
The new maps, compiled using information from state, local and federal agencies, have no regulatory status for floodplain development and are for information only. They do not replace existing FEMA regulatory floodplain maps (i.e., FIRMs and DFIRMs) and therefore do not make any changes in federal flood insurance requirements for homes and businesses. However, city and county governments will be able to use the maps to identify areas that warrant further study and to help make informed floodplain management and land use decisions. The floodplains shown on these maps delineate areas with potential exposure to flooding for two different storm events: one with storm flows that have a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any year (100-year) and one with storm flows that have a 0.5 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any year (200-year).
These advisory maps will help communities begin early planning activities to meet SB 5 requirements calling for a minimum of 200-year protection for new development in urban and urbanizing areas. These “best available” floodplain maps can be accessed online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/best_available_maps.
DWR Awareness Floodplain Maps
The Flood Awareness Maps, developed under the Flood Awareness Mapping Project, are designed to identify all pertinent flood hazard areas by 2015 for areas that are not mapped under the FEMA NFIP and to provide the community and residents an additional tool in understanding potential flood hazards currently not mapped as a regulated floodplain. The awareness maps identify the 100-year flood hazard areas using approximate assessment procedures. The floodplains are shown on these maps simply as flood prone areas without specific depths and other flood hazard data.
Calaveras County Water District 4.63 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
The Flood Awareness Maps can be accessed online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/awareness_floodplain_maps/calaveras/.
Levee Flood Protection Zones (LFPZ) Maps
LFPZ maps represent floodplain areas protected by Central Valley State-Federal Project Levees. Under Water Code Section 9110(b), “LFPZ” means the area, as determined by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board or DWR, that is protected by a project levee. These maps were developed based on the best available information as required by Assembly Bill 156. This Bill requires DWR to prepare LFPZ maps to identify the areas where flood levels would be more than three feet deep if a project levee were to fail. DWR delineated the LFPZs by estimating the maximum area that may be flooded if a project levee fails with flows at maximum capacity that may reasonably be conveyed. DWR is using information from several sources, including FEMA floodplain maps, FEMA Q3 data, USACE’s 2002 Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study, and local project levee studies. Using this data, DWR is implementing a multi-year program to evaluate and delineate detailed floodplains for areas protected by project levees. This effort includes new topography, hydrology, hydraulic models, and floodplain maps. This information will be used to update the initial LFPZ maps. LPFZ maps can be accessed at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/levee_protection_zones/LFPZ_maps.cfm.
Localized Stormwater Flooding
Localized, stormwater flooding also occurs throughout the County. Urban storm drainpipes and pump station have a finite capacity. When rainfall exceeds this capacity, or the system is clogged, water accumulates in the street until it reaches a level of overland release. This type of flooding may occur when intense storms occur over areas of development.
According to the County, numerous parcels and roads throughout the County not included in the FEMA 100- and 500-year floodplains are subject to flooding in heavy rains. In addition to flooding, damage to these areas during heavy storms includes pavement deterioration, washouts, mudslides, debris areas, and downed trees. The frequency and type of damage or flooding that occurs varies from year to year, depending on the quantity of runoff.
The Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant (which was pointed out in the previous LHMP of 2006) and all our Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Ponds are at risk to localized flooding.
Past Occurrences
This section deals with past occurrences of both 100-/500-year flooding and localized flooding. The state and federal declarations for storms and flooding were in 1950, 1955, 1958, 1969, 1980, 1982, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2006.
Based on SHELDUS data from 1960 to 2010, Calaveras County has experienced numerous flood events. A description of flood events in Calaveras County is shown in Table 4.12.
Calaveras County Water District 4.64 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.20. SHELDUS Flooding Events for Calaveras County 1960 to 2010
Hazard Hazard Hazard Type Property Begin Date End Date Combo Injuries Fatalities Damage Crop Damage Remarks
2/17/1986 2/18/1986 Flooding 0 0 $50,000.00 $0.00 Flash Flooding 12/22/1996 12/23/1996 Flooding 0 0 $2,000.00 $0.00 Floods 2/2/1998 2/28/1998 Flooding 0 0 $390,909.09 $709,090.91 Flood 2/3/1998 2/21/1998 Flooding 0 0.17 $0.00 $0.00 Flood 2/9/1999 2/9/1999 Flooding 0 0 $20,000.00 $0.00 Floods 1/23/2000 1/24/2000 Flooding 0 0 $4,000.00 $0.00 Flood 2/11/2000 2/14/2000 Flooding 0 0 $6,428.57 $0.00 Flood 1/16/1973 1/16/1973 Flooding - 0 0 $86,206.90 $0.00 Heavy Severe Rains, Storm/Thunder Floods Storm 3/1/1995 3/31/1995 Flooding - 0 0 $0.00 $11,241,379.31 Flood, Severe Rain, Storm/Thunder Winds Storm - Wind 12/10/1992 12/11/1992 Flooding - 0 0 $1,315.79 $0.00 Winter Wind - Winter Storm, Weather High Wind, Flash Flood 2/11/1992 2/13/1992 Flooding - 0 0 $11,627.91 $0.00 Winter Winter Storm, Weather Flash Flood 2/14/1992 2/16/1992 Flooding - 0 0 $9,090.91 $0.00 Winter Winter Storm, Weather Flash Flood Total 0 0.17 $581,579.17 $11,950,470.22 Source:: SHELDUS
Details on recent floods from the NCDC are provided below:
• January 1997 floods: Heavy rains caused a mudslide along Highway 4 in Calaveras County and led to overtopping of Don Pedro Dam in Tuolumne County, resulting in 300 square miles of land flooded and 23,000 homes and 2,000 businesses damaged or destroyed. • January 12, 1998 – Heavy rains from a strong Pacific storm caused widespread but minor flooding across the Sacramento and Northern San Joaquin Valleys and nearby foothills. Hundreds of traffic accidents occurred on the highways and city streets throughout the region. • February 9, 1999 flash flood: A flash flood near Valley Springs in Calaveras County occurred when Cosgrove Creek left its banks and flooded four homes and a low-lying golf
Calaveras County Water District 4.65 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
course. The flood threatened sewage treatment ponds, temporarily closed Highway 26, and caused $20,000 in property damage. • January 10, 2001 - Automated rain gages throughout Tuolumne and Calaveras counties commonly measured two to three inches of rain in 24 hours. The Gianelli gage measured 3.36 inches. • April 2006 floods: In June 2006, FEMA designated 17 counties in northern California eligible for public assistance for severe storms and flooding, including Calaveras County. From April 2-6, 2006, Calaveras received 6.8 inches of rain, 168 percent the average amount for the month of April (National Weather Service 2006). Approximately 35 acres of farmland, several homes, and a mobile home park were flooded and many people evacuated. The flood also overflowed sewage treatment plants.
According to the HMPC, Cosgrove Creek floods every few years. This occurs most often when significant periods of rain are followed by thunderstorms. However, the 2006 flooding occurred after several days of steady rain. Many homes and a highway are in the creek’s floodplain.
Likelihood of Future Occurrence
100-500-year Flood
Occasional— The term “100-year flood” is misleading. It is not the flood that will occur once every 100 years. Rather, it is the flood elevation (or depth) that has a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. Thus, the 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. In short, the 100-year flood is the flood that has a one percent chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded.
Localized Stormwater Flooding
Highly Likely—With respect to the localized, stormwater flood issues, the potential for flooding may increase as storm water is channelized due to land development. Such changes can create localized flooding problems in and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining natural drainage channels. Urban storm drainage systems have a finite capacity. When rainfall exceeds this capacity or systems clog, water accumulates in the street until it reaches a level of overland release. With increasing urbanization of the Calaveras County planning area, combined with older infrastructure, this type of flooding will continue to occur during heavy rains.
4.2.12 Levee Failure
Hazard/Problem Description
A levee is a raised area that runs along the banks of a river or canal. Levees reinforce the banks and help prevent flooding. By confining the flow, levees can also increase the speed of the water. Levees can be natural or man-made. A natural levee is formed when sediment settles on the river bank, raising the level of the land around the river. To construct a man-made levee,
Calaveras County Water District 4.66 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
workers pile dirt or concrete along the river banks, creating an embankment. This embankment is flat at the top, and slopes at an angle down to the water. For added strength, sandbags are sometimes placed over dirt embankments.
Levees provide strong flood protection, but they are not failsafe. Levees are designed to protect against a specific flood level and could be overtopped during severe weather events. Levees reduce, not eliminate, the risk to individuals and structure behind them. Overtopping failure occurs when the flood water level rises above the crest of a levee. The representation of the failure modes and the evaluation of the probability of levee failures for each mode are discussed in the remaining sections.
Figure 4.27. Flooding from Levee Overtopping
Source: Levees In History: The Levee Challenge. Dr. Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., P.E., Ph.D., Water Policy Collaborative, University of Maryland, Visiting Scholar, USACE, IWR. http://www.floods.org/ace-files/leveesafety/lss_levee_history_galloway.ppt
In the December 16, 2010 Flood Insurance Study it was noted that no protecting levees exist within Calaveras County. The National Levee Database also noted that there are no protecting levees existing within the County. The FIS did note the following about the Cosgrove Creek Levee:
Grading Plans for the Cosgrove Creek project were designed to meet the Project Study criteria. The first phase constructed a levee along Cosgrove Creek to provide flood protection. Permits and Streambed Alterations were based on construction of the actual levee. The second phase of construction performed was to mass grade the subdivision site surrounding the levee. Essentially, the mass grading filled all of the area behind the levee, in affect keying to the levee and making the project a “fill” project for lot flood protection rather than a “levee” project for lot flood protection.
Past Occurrences
There have been no past occurrences of levee failure.
Calaveras County Water District 4.67 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Unlikely – Given that there are no levees protecting areas of the County, levee failure is unlikely.
4.2.13 Soil Hazards: Erosion
Hazard/Problem Description
Soil erosion is the process whereby soil materials are worn away and transported to another area either by wind or water. Rates of erosion can vary depending on the soil material and structure, placement, and the general level of human activity. Soil containing high amounts of sand and silt can be easily eroded while clay soils are less susceptible. Calaveras County contains a wide range of soils that have varying levels of susceptibility to erosion, ranging from slight to extremely high.
Table 4.21 identifies the soil groups with moderate to high erosion hazard. The erosion potential map shown on Figure 4.28 identifies the areas with soils and slope characteristics that have high and moderate erosion potential.
Table 4.21. Soils Groups With Moderate To High Erosion Potential
Soils Group Description Group 6 Acid, rocky, or stony soil over slate rock. Erosion hazard is moderate to severe. Group 7 Moderately course, acid soils over weathered granite. Natural drainage is good. Erosion hazard is moderate to high. Group 8 Moderately deep, well-drained, acid soils. Natural drainage is good, but erosion hazard is moderate to high. Group 9 Rocky outcroppings, where the soil mantle is less than 2 inches thick. Erosion hazard is very high. Source: Crawford Multari & Starr, 1993.
Calaveras County Water District 4.68 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.28. Erosion Potential in Calaveras County
Calaveras County Water District 4.69 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Past Occurrences
Erosion is an ongoing problem that continually happens in Calaveras County. Much of the total land area of Calaveras County has soils classified as highly susceptible to erosion. These areas were identified based on characteristics of relatively low soil stability and steepness of slope. During heavy storms, erosion leads to turbidity and can silt up raw water diversions for the District’s water treatment plants.
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Highly Likely—Given the large area of the County at risk to erosion, and the constant wind and water erosion throughout the County, the likelihood of future occurrences is highly likely. Currently the only effects are water quality due to erosion into the reservoirs and silting up the raw water intakes.
4.2.14 Soil Hazards: Expansive Soils
Hazard/Problem Description
Expansive soils are characterized by a high clay content, which swells with increased moisture content and contracts during dry periods. This change in volume, usually associated with seasonal changes, can damage building foundations, roads, and concrete pavement. On slopes, it can bury or break utility lines. Expansive soil types are also known to be associated with landslide risk and rockfall, as increased volume of expansive soil layers on slopes can create ground shifts and down-slope movement of materials. Onset of soil expansion tends to follow the seasons, with expansion occurring in the wetter months of the year and contraction over the summer. In regard to warning time, maps showing the location of expansive soils are available to guide future building and development on the potential presence of this hazard.
The specific soil groups with moderate to high shrink-swell potential are listed in Table 4.22. The location of each soils group can be found on Figure 4.29.
Table 4.22. Soils Groups With Moderate To High Shrink-Swell Potential
Soils Group Description Group 1 Very deep alluvial soils, moderately good drainage and slight to moderate erosion hazard. Shrink- swell behavior is moderate. Group 2 Shallow, well-drained gravelly soils with finer subsoils, good natural drainage and a slight to moderate erosion hazard. Shrink-swell behavior is moderate. Group 5 Deep to shallow, well-drained, slightly acid, and rocky soils. Drainage is good with slight to moderate erosion hazard. Shrink-swell behavior is high. Group 6 Acid, rocky, or stony soil over slate rock. Erosion hazard is moderate to severe. Shrink-swell behavior is moderate. Source: Crawford Multari & Starr, 1993.
Calaveras County Water District 4.70 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.29. Soil Types in Calaveras County
Source: Calaveras County General Plan 1993
Calaveras County Water District 4.71 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
In general, expansive soils are most likely to occur in the central part of the county north of Mountain Ranch.
Past Occurrences
The HMPC reported that expansive soils have caused problems to building foundations and roads in the County but no specific data on past damages was known
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Likely—Based on the number of vulnerable structures and infrastructure that are located in areas known for having expansive soils, it is likely that this hazard will continue to occur in the future. Although this hazard is widespread across the County, it is unlikely to cause loss of life. The HMPC had little information concerning this hazard and past impacts besides it causing some damage to shallow building foundations and pavement. Certain standard building practices can be used to mitigate damage caused by expansive soils.
4.2.15 Soil Hazards: Landslides and Debris Flows
Hazard/Problem Description
A landslide is a general term for a variety of mass-movement processes that generate a down- slope movement of mud, soil, rock, and/or vegetation. For the purposes of this plan, the term landslide includes mudslides, debris flows, and rockfalls that tend to occur suddenly, whereas erosion is a similar process that tends to occur on smaller scales and more gradually.
Natural conditions that contribute to landslide and erosion are the following:
• Degree of slope • Water (heavy rain, river flows, or wave action) • Unconsolidated soil or soft rock and sediments • Lack of vegetation (no stabilizing root structure) • Previous wildfires and other forest disturbances • Road building, excavation and grading • Earthquake
In addition, many human activities tend to make the earth materials less stable and, thus, increase the chance of ground movement. Human activities contribute to soil instability through grading of steep slopes or overloading them with artificial fill, by extensive irrigation, construction of impermeable surfaces, excessive groundwater withdrawal, and removal of stabilizing vegetation.
Another hazard related to landslide and erosion is the fall of a detached mass of rock from a cliff or down a very steep slope (rockfall). Weathering and decomposition of geological materials produce conditions favorable to rockfalls. Other causes include ice wedging, root growth, or
Calaveras County Water District 4.72 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
ground shaking (earthquake). Destructive landslides and rockfalls usually occur very suddenly with little or no warning time and are short in duration. A more gradual phenomenon is erosion, which can occur over periods of years and is generally viewed as a long-term problem as differentiated from other more sudden and catastrophic natural hazards.
Based on analysis of areas with both highly erosive soils and steep slopes, locations near Jenny Lind and Ebbetts Pass are at greatest risk from landslide and erosion impacts. The western edge of New Hogan Reservoir and southwest of Ebbetts Pass contain significant areas of soils classified as having severe erosion potential, which could lead to possible landslide. Another known area of elevated risk of land movement is near Murphys above McKays Reservoir.
Areas with slopes greater than 50 percent have extreme susceptibility to landslide and erosion. Areas of particular concern are those that include high elevations and steep ravines and gulches associated with river and stream channels. Generally, areas of steeper slopes and increased landslide/erosion risk are located in the more mountainous eastern portion of the county. Over two percent of the total land area of Calaveras County (14,574 acres) has soils classified as highly susceptible to landslide. These areas were identified based on characteristics of relatively low soil stability and steepness of slope. These are shown on Figure 4.28 in the Section 4.2.13 Erosion.
Previous Occurrences
A landslide was a factor in the most recent federal disaster declaration for Calaveras County in 2006. No details were available from the NCDC, SHELDUS, or from the HMPC. Also, a large mudslide occurred in the Stanislaus National Forest near Highway 4 in January 1997. Known as the Sourgrass Slide, no damage occurred to District facilities. Other landslide incidents of varying degrees of magnitude tend to occur in places throughout the county several times in a given year, but in most cases do not cause significant damage or public safety risk.
Probability of Future Occurrences
Likely—Landslides in the form of debris flow, or mudslides, have occurred in the past in Calaveras County. Rockfalls and landslides occur more frequently in spring months, when high levels of precipitation and runoff combine with saturated soils and/or repeated freezing and thawing, which leads to general slope instability. Landslides often can occur as a result of other hazard events, such as floods, wildfires, or earthquakes.
4.2.16 Soil Hazards: Subsidence
Hazard/Problem Description
Subsidence is the sinking of the land over manmade or natural underground voids. Subsidence can result in serious structural damage to buildings, roads, irrigation ditches, underground utilities, and pipelines. It can disrupt and alter the flow of surface or underground water.
Calaveras County Water District 4.73 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Weight, including surface developments such as roads, reservoirs, and buildings and manmade vibrations from such activities as blasting or heavy truck or train traffic can accelerate the natural processes of subsidence. Fluctuations in the level of underground water caused by pumping or by injecting fluids into the earth can initiate sinking to fill the empty space previously occupied by water or soluble minerals. The consequences of improper use of land subject to ground subsidence can be excessive economic losses, including the high costs of repair and maintenance for buildings, irrigation works, highways, utilities, and other structures. This results in direct economic losses to citizens as well as indirect economic losses through increased taxes and decreased property values.
In the County, land subsidence can occur in areas where development takes place above or near abandoned mines. These mine locations are shown in Figure 4.30.
Calaveras County Water District 4.74 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.30. Mine Locations in the County
Calaveras County Water District 4.75 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Past Occurrences
Records of previous subsidence occurrences are difficult to track, as there are no coordinating or monitoring agencies for this hazard. No previous occurrences were recorded by members of the planning team.
Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Occasional—Calculating the probability of future occurrence of subsidence is difficult given the limited information regarding past events. The planning area does contain abandoned mines. It is usually very difficult to accurately predict the exact location or time of any future subsidence from this cause because of the many variables. Given this, the probability of future occurrence is occasional.
4.2.17 Volcanoes
Hazard/Problem Description
The California State Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies volcanoes as one of the hazards that can adversely impact the State. However, there have been few losses in California from volcanic eruptions. Of the approximately 20 volcanoes in the State, only a few are active and pose a threat. Of these, Long Valley Caldera and Lassen Peak are the closest to Calaveras County. The Long Valley area is considered to be an active volcanic region of California and includes features such as the Mono-Inyo Craters, Long Valley Caldera, and numerous active and potential faults. Figure 4.31 shows volcanoes in or near California and the location of the Lassen Peak and the Long Valley area relative to Calaveras County.
Calaveras County Water District 4.76 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.31. Active Volcanoes in California and in the Calaveras County Area
Source: 2010 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan
Calaveras County Water District 4.77 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Steam blasts commonly produce large pits or craters. Explosive eruptions, which may create fiery flows of hot ash (pyroclastic flows), are usually followed by the pushing up of a lava dome. Some less violent eruptions only produce lava flows.
Populations living near volcanoes are most vulnerable to volcanic eruptions and lava flows, although volcanic ash can travel and affect populations many miles away and cause problems for aviation. The USGS notes specific characteristics of volcanic ash. Volcanic ash is composed of small jagged pieces of rocks, minerals, and volcanic glass the size of sand and silt, as shown in Figure 4.32. Very small ash particles can be less than 0.001 millimeters across. Volcanic ash is not the product of combustion, like the soft fluffy material created by burning wood, leaves, or paper. Volcanic ash is hard, does not dissolve in water, is extremely abrasive and mildly corrosive, and conducts electricity when wet.
Figure 4.32. Ash Particle from 1980 Mt. St Helens Eruption Magnified 200 Times
Source: US Geological Survey: Volcanic Ash: Effect & Mitigation Strategies. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/properties.html.
Volcanic ash is formed during explosive volcanic eruptions. Explosive eruptions occur when gases dissolved in molten rock (magma) expand and escape violently into the air, and also when water is heated by magma and abruptly flashes into steam. The force of the escaping gas violently shatters solid rocks. Expanding gas also shreds magma and blasts it into the air, where it solidifies into fragments of volcanic rock and glass. Once in the air, wind can blow the tiny ash particles tens to thousands of miles away from the volcano. Figure 4.33 is a volcanic hazard’s ash dispersion map for the Long Valley Caldera, which could possible affect Calaveras County.
Calaveras County Water District 4.78 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.33. Volcanic Hazards Ash Dispersion Map for the Long Valley Caldera
Source: US Geological Survey
Calaveras County Water District 4.79 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
As shown in the inset on the lower right side of Figure 4.33, the average grain-size of rock fragments and volcanic ash erupted from an exploding volcanic vent varies greatly among different eruptions and during a single explosive eruption that lasts hours to days. Heavier, large-sized rock fragments typically fall back to the ground on or close to the volcano and progressively smaller and lighter fragments are blown farther from the volcano by wind. Volcanic ash, the smallest particles (2 mm in diameter or smaller), can travel hundreds to thousands of kilometers downwind from a volcano depending on wind speed, volume of ash erupted, and height of the eruption column.
The size of ash particles that fall to the ground generally decreases exponentially with increasing distance from a volcano. Also, the range in grain size of volcanic ash typically diminishes downwind from a volcano (becoming progressively smaller). At specific locations, however, the distribution of ash particle sizes can vary widely. Based on Figure 4.33, the US Geological Survey estimated that ash of up to 2" or more could fall in areas of Calaveras County.
Past Occurrences
During the past 1,000 years there have been at least 12 volcanic eruptions in the Long Valley area. This activity is likely to continue long into the future. The Long Valley Caldera and Mono‐Inyo Craters volcanic chain has a long history of geologic activity that includes both earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes in the Mono-Inyo Craters volcanic chain have erupted often over the past 40,000 years. As shown in Figure 4.34, over the past 5,000 years, small to moderate eruptions have occurred at various sites along the Mono-Inyo Craters volcanic chain at intervals ranging from 250 to 700 years.
Calaveras County Water District 4.80 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.34. Volcanic Activity in the Mono-Inyo Craters Volcano Chain in the Past 5,000 Years
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs073-97/eruptions.html
As recently as 1980 four large earthquakes (greater than magnitude 6 on the Richter Scale) and numerous relatively shallow earthquakes occurred in the area. Since then, earthquakes and
Calaveras County Water District 4.81 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
associated uplift and deformation in the Mammoth Lakes Caldera have continued. Because such activities are common precursors of volcanic eruptions, the U.S. Geological Survey closely monitors the unrest in the region. There are no records of past impacts from volcanic eruptions to the planning area.
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
Unlikely—According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the pattern of volcanic activity over the past 5,000 years suggests that the next eruption in the Long Valley area will most likely happen somewhere along the Mono-Inyo volcanic chain. However, the probability of such an eruption occurring in any given year is less than 1 percent. The next eruption will most likely be small and similar to previous eruptions along the Mono-Inyo volcanic chain during the past 5,000 years (see Figure 4.34 above). According to the State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, only Medicine Lake, Mount Shasta, Lassen Peak, and the Long Valley Caldera are considered active and pose a threat of future activity. However, due to the location of the planning area relative to the active volcanoes, the State Plan does not consider Calaveras County to be vulnerable to eruption and/or ash from these volcanoes.
4.2.18 Wildfires
Hazard/Problem Description
Wildland fire is an ongoing concern for Calaveras County. Generally, the fire season extends from early spring through late fall of each year during the hotter, dryer months. Fire conditions arise from a combination of high temperatures, low moisture content in the air and fuel, accumulation of vegetation, and high winds.
Throughout California, communities are increasingly concerned about wildfire safety as increased development in the foothills and mountain areas and subsequent fire suppression practices have affected the natural cycle of the ecosystem. While wildfire risk is predominantly associated with wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, significant wildfires can also occur in heavily populated areas. The wildland urban interface is a general term that applies to development adjacent to landscapes that support wildland fire. Wildland fires affect grass, forest, and brushlands, as well as any structures located within them.
WUI fires are the most damaging. WUI fires occur where the natural and urban development intersect. Even relatively small acreage fires may result in disastrous damages. WUI fires occur where the natural forested landscape and urban‐built environment meet or intermix. The damages are primarily reported as damage to infrastructure, built environment, loss of socio‐economic values and injuries to people.
The pattern of increased damages is directly related to increased urban spread into historical forested areas that have wildfire as part of the natural ecosystem. Many WUI fire areas have long histories of wildland fires that burned only vegetation in the past. However, with new
Calaveras County Water District 4.82 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
development, a wildland fire following a historical pattern now burns developed areas. WUI fires can occur where there is a distinct boundary between the built and natural areas or where development or infrastructure has encroached or is intermixed in the natural area. WUI fires may include fires that occur in remote areas that have critical infrastructure easements through them, including electrical transmission towers, railroads, water reservoirs, communications relay sites or other infrastructure assets.
Wildfire is an ongoing concern for Calaveras County. Generally, the fire season extends from early spring to late fall. Fire conditions arise from a combination of hot weather, an accumulation of vegetation, and low moisture content in the air. These conditions when combined with high winds and years of drought increase the potential for a wildfire to occur. Urban wildfires often occur in those areas where development has expanded into the rural areas. A fire along this urban/rural interface can result in major losses of property and structures. Generally, there are three major factors that sustain wildfires and allow for predictions of a given area’s potential to burn. These factors include fuel, topography, and weather.
• Fuel—Fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally classified by type and by volume. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree needles and leaves, twigs, and branches to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Also to be considered as a fuel source are manmade structures, such as homes and associated combustibles. The type of prevalent fuel directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Light fuels such as grasses burn quickly and serve as a catalyst for fire spread. In addition, “ladder fuels” can spread a ground fire up through brush and into trees, leading to a devastating crown fire that burns in the upper canopy and cannot be controlled. The volume of available fuel is described in terms of fuel loading. • Topography—An area’s terrain and land slopes affect its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Both fire intensity and rate of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. The arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes. • Weather—Weather components such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning also affect the potential for wildfire. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out the fuels that feed the wildfire creating a situation where fuel will more readily ignite and burn more intensely. Wind is the most treacherous weather factor. The greater the wind, the faster a fire will spread and the more intense it will be. In addition to wind speed, wind shifts can occur suddenly due to temperature changes or the interaction of wind with topographical features such as slopes or steep hillsides. Lightning also ignites wildfires, which are often terrain that is difficult for firefighters to reach. Drought conditions contribute to concerns about wildfire vulnerability. During periods of drought, the threat of wildfire increases.
Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, natural and cultural resources, quality and quantity of water supplies, cropland, timber, and recreational opportunities. Economic losses could also result. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be
Calaveras County Water District 4.83 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
a severe health hazard. In addition, catastrophic wildfire can create favorable conditions for other hazards such as flooding, landslides, and erosion during the rainy season.
Consequently, wildland fires that burn in natural settings with little or no development are part of a natural ecological cycle and may actually be beneficial to the landscape. Century old policies of fire exclusion and aggressive suppression have given way to better understanding of the importance fire plays in the natural cycle of certain forest types.
Generally, wildfire risk is highest across a broad section of the central and eastern sections of the planning area. Areas of very high or high wildfire threat constitute at least 85 percent of the county (see Figure 4.35).
Calaveras County Water District 4.84 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.35. Calaveras County Wildfire Severity Map
Calaveras County Water District 4.85 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
According to the Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit Pre-Fire Management Plan completed in 2011 by the Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the environment in Calaveras County is conducive to large, damaging fires. All fuel types in the county are ranked as moderate to very high fire hazard. Table 4.23 shows the location and fire hazard rating of fuel models in Calaveras County.
Table 4.23. Location and Hazard Ranking of Fuel Models in Calaveras County
Fuel Model Fire Hazard Ranking Location in Calaveras County Grass Moderate to High West of Highway 49 in the lower foothills. Moderate to high fuel hazard ranking depends on slope. Woodland High to Very High Scattered between 800 to 4,000 feet in elevation; fuel hazard ranking depends on slope. Brush Very High Larger blocks in the 800 to 4,000-foot elevation in less inhabited areas of the county. Areas near New Hogan, Bear Mountain, and New Melones have large concentrations of brush as well as areas north of San Andreas. Brush/Hardwood High Areas with a mixture of live oak, black oak, manzanita, and chamise between 1,000 to 4,000 feet in elevation. Large blocks occur east of Highway 49. Heavy Timber Very High Consists of larger, denser dead fuels on the ground. Primarily found above 3,500 feet and in scattered blocks between Arnold and West Point. Source: California Department of Forestry; Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit Pre-Fire Management Plan, 2011
The grasslands of the rolling western plains routinely experience extreme summer heat, and significant wind events during the spring and fall months. In these areas motorized fire equipment can be fully utilized to great success. The brush fields common throughout the central portions of the County lay over broad expanses of steep hillsides and atop narrow ridgelines between the deepening river canyons. Here too routine summer temperatures can be extreme, while the topography makes access increasingly difficult for motorized equipment. The brush transitions into the mixed oak and conifer zones as the elevation increases and the canyon depth and width increase significantly.
Over 38% of the CAL FIRE protected lands are covered with these high hazard brush and timber fuels. This mid-elevation area also experiences high summer temperatures, and is most affected by the normal diurnal winds associated with the canyon-dominated topography. The higher elevation zone features dense stands of conifer timber much of which exhibits large accumulations of ground and ladder fuels. While routinely temperatures are moderated due to the elevation, wind events in the fall contribute to potentially challenging fire conditions. Historically, severe fire weather occurs throughout the Unit on 35% of days during the fire season. The convergence of significant fire weather conditions, a wide variety of topography and a broad spectrum of fuels has resulted in a long history of large damaging fires within the County. Fire weather is sampled daily during the wildfire season at stations throughout California to create critical fire weather frequency, which is classified in three categories. Calaveras County is rated in the highest frequency class.
Calaveras County Water District 4.86 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Warning times are usually adequate to ensure public safety, provided that evacuation recommendations and orders are heeded in a timely manner. While in most cases wildfires are contained within a week or two of outbreak, in certain cases, they have been known to burn for months, or until they are completely extinguished by fall rains.
Past Occurrences
Wildfires of varying scales occur on an annual basis in Calaveras County. Calaveras County has received state disaster declarations for wildfires in 1988, 1992, and 2001 and a federal declaration (DR-958) in 1992 and 2 in 2004 (FM 2540 and FM 2553). A map of past burn areas is shown in Figure 4.36. A summary table of fires in Calaveras County since 1917 is shown in Table 4.24. Detailed tables of wildfire are shown in Appendix E.
Table 4.24. Wildfire History in Calaveras County by Cause and Size
Cause 50 to 100 acres 100-500 acres >500 acres Arson 4 4 5 Campfire 0 5 0 Debris 8 6 2 Equipment Use 6 14 3 Lightning 0 5 6 Miscellaneous 1 4 3 Power Line 2 4 0 Railroad 0 1 0 Smoking 0 3 0 Prescribed 5 29 14 Unknown/Unidentified 2 41 45 Vehicle 3 2 6 Source: Cal FIRE FRAP dataset
Calaveras County Water District 4.87 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.36. Calaveras County Wildfire History
Calaveras County Water District 4.88 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
The following summarizes major wildfires in Calaveras County since 1979:
• June 6, 1979 Fowler Peak – This fire burned 5,237 acres Calaveras County. The fire’s cause was unknown. Damage estimates, injuries, and deaths were unavailable • August 1992 Old Gulch fire/Shasta fires (DR-958)—Damage was estimated at $54 million across Calaveras and Shasta Counties. Eight people were injured. • August 1996 Keystone fire—7,000 acres burned within the California Department of Forestry Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit (TCU). 20 homes were destroyed and 7 damaged by this lightning-caused fire. • July 19, 1988 Bridge Fire – This fire burned almost 7,000 acres Calaveras County. The fire was attributed to arson and was finally extinguished on July 26, 1988. Damage estimates, injuries, and deaths were unavailable. • September 1999 Winton Incident fire—120 acres burned near West Point. Two homes, two outbuildings, and two vehicles were destroyed. Total costs, including firefighting, totaled $740,000. • 2001 fire season—30,137 acres burned in the TCU. State fire disaster declaration. • 2002 fire season—884 acres burned in the TCU. • 2003 fire season—884 acres burned in the Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit (TCU). • 2004 fire season—7,796 acres burned in 380 separate fires, totaling over $10 million in damage. 26 homes were destroyed. The majority of acreage burned and property damage were due to three fires, the Copperopolis fire (3,844 acres burned, 1 home destroyed), the Armstrong Complex (963 acres burned, 3 homes destroyed), and the Pattison fire (2,676 acres burned, 17 homes destroyed). These occurrences were mostly human-caused, including fires started by vehicle/equipment misuse and arson.
Likelihood of Future Occurrence
Highly Likely—The season when wildfire is most likely to occur generally runs from late June through October. This is due to hot, dry conditions during this time of year and an increase in population throughout the county in the summer months as vacation homes are visited and seasonal workers converge on the area. According to the 2011 TCU Pre-Fire Management Plan, daily severe fire weather conditions are present for approximately 35 percent of the fire season. The 4th of July and Labor Day holiday weekends are specific times when probability is higher than average. The 2011 TCU Pre-Fire Management Plan indicated that there were 237 wildfires inside the Unit’s Primary Operational area.
4.2.19 Natural Hazard Summary
Table 4.25 summarizes the results of the hazard identification and hazard profile for the CCWD based on the hazard identification data and input from the HMPC. For each hazard profiled in Section 4.2, this table includes the likelihood of future occurrence and whether the hazard is considered a priority hazard for the CCWD.
Calaveras County Water District 4.89 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.25. Hazard Identification/Profile Summary and Determination of Priority Hazard: CCWD
Hazard Likelihood of Future Occurrence Priority Hazard Avalanche Unlikely N Dam Failure Occasional Y Drought and Water Shortage Likely Y Earthquake Occasional N Flood: 100-/500-year Occasional Y Flood: Localized Stormwater Likely Y Flooding Levee Failure Unlikely N Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Highly Likely N Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Highly Likely Y Storms Severe Weather: Tornadoes Occasional N Severe Weather: Wind Highly Likely Y Severe Weather: Winter Storms and Likely Y Extreme Cold Soil Hazards: Erosion Highly Likely N Soil Hazards: Expansive Soils Likely N Soil Hazards: Landslide, Debris Likely N Flows Soil Hazards: Subsidence Occasional N Volcano Unlikely N Wildfire Highly Likely Y
Calaveras County Water District 4.90 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
4.3 Vulnerability Assessment
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
With the CCWD hazards identified and profiled, the HMPC conducted a vulnerability assessment to describe the impact that each priority hazard would have on the District. The vulnerability assessment quantifies, to the extent feasible using best available data, assets at risk to natural hazards and estimates potential losses.
This vulnerability assessment followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. The vulnerability assessment first describes the total vulnerability and values at risk and then discusses vulnerability by hazard.
Data used to support this assessment included the following:
• County GIS data (hazards, base layers, and assessor’s data); • Statewide GIS datasets compiled by the CAL EMA to support mitigation planning; • CAL FIRE GIS datasets; • Calaveras County Water District Staff • Written descriptions of inventory and risks provided by participating jurisdictions; • Existing plans and studies; and • Personal interviews with planning team members and staff from the County and participating jurisdictions.
Calaveras County Water District 4.91 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
4.3.1 Calaveras County Water District’s Vulnerability and Assets at Risk
As a starting point for analyzing the planning area’s vulnerability to identified hazards, the HMPC used a variety of data to define a baseline against which all disaster impacts could be compared. If a catastrophic disaster was to occur in the planning area, this section describes significant assets at risk in the planning area. Data used in this baseline assessment included:
• Total CCWD assets at risk; • Cultural, historical, and natural resources; and • Growth and development trends.
Total Values at Risk
The HMPC used the most recent infrastructure valuation provided by CCWD for fiscal year 2012 to determine values for CCWD’s assets. Table 4.26 shows the total values of CCWD capital assets by service area. Land values have been purposely excluded because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value.
Table 4.26. Summary of CCWD Asset Values by Service Area
Service Area Facility Count Replacement Value Copper Cove/Copperopolis 6 $6,927,325 Ebbetts Pass 26 $12,143,932 Jenny Lind 8 $10,365,159 Not Mapped 35 $3,835,282 Sheep Ranch 1 $137,093 Unincorporated County 21 $10,352,135 West Point 4 $3,149,192 Total 101 $46,910,118 Source: CCWD
Detailed Asset Inventory
The CCWD provides a critical lifeline utility, water, to thousands of people in Calaveras County. As such, all facilities owned by CCWD are considered critical facilities. These facilities are shown in Table 4.27.
Calaveras County Water District 4.92 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.27. Detailed Facilities in the Calaveras County Water District by Service Area
Service Area Facility Type Facility Name Replacement Value Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS # 42, Conner Estates $26,370 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #1, Poker Flat $58,374 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #1, Saddle Creek $324,013 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #10, Poker Flat $24,620 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #13, Poker Flat $56,203 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #14, Calypso Bay LS $58,203 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #15, Copper Cove $202,717 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #16, Copper Cove $195,062 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #17, Copper Cove $25,667 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #18, Copper Cove $226,258 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #19, Copper Cove $90,073 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #2, Poker Flat $69,807 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #2, Saddle Creek $141,206 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #3, Poker Flat $60,128 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #3, Saddle Creek $130,994 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #4, Poker Flat $60,128 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #40, Conner's Main $388,227 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #41, Conner Estates $40,114 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #43, Conner Estates $56,439 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #44, Conner Estates $56,439 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #45, Conner Estates $56,439 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #5, Poker Flat $34,816 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #6, Poker Flat $56,182 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #7, Poker Flat $36,122 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #8, Poker Flat $36,371 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS #9, Poker Flat $48,321 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS#11, Poker Flat $19,696 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS#12, Poker Flat $115,668 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Lift-Station LS#20, Copper Cove $82,398 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Pump-Station Copperoplis PS $175,000 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Tanks CC "B" Steel & Redwood Tanks $645,539 Copper Cove/Copperopolis Tanks CC "C" Steel Tanks $60,117 Copper Cove/Copperopolis WTP Copper Cove Water Treatment Plant $3,306,598 Copper Cove/Copperopolis WWRF Cooper Cove Wastewater Reclamation $1,131,765 Facility Copper Cove/Copperopolis WWTP Copper Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant $1,608,306 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Arnold Lift Station #2 $98,214 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Arnold Lift Station #3 $138,228
Calaveras County Water District 4.93 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Service Area Facility Type Facility Name Replacement Value Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Arnold LS #1, Ceder Ridge $86,600 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Avery Middle School Lift Station $110,807 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Forest Meadows Lakeside LS $58,533 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Forest Meadows Lift Station $146,166 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Forest Meadows Lift Station Azalia Ct. $39,368 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Larkspur LS $175,000 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Millwoods Lift Station $56,393 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Mt. Retreat LS $24,000 Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Sequoia Woods LS $36,570 Ebbetts Pass Pump-Station Dorrington PS $177,731 Ebbetts Pass Pump-Station Lakemont PS $161,500 Ebbetts Pass Pump-Station Sawmill Pump Station, Ebbetts Pass $266,134 Ebbetts Pass Tanks Ebbetts Pass Surge Tank $680,420 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Avery Steel Tank $1,375,000 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Big Trees 1 Redwood Tank $224,947 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Big Trees 3 Redwood Tank $122,567 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Big Trees 4 & 5 Redwood Tank $297,637 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Big Trees 60k Redwood Tank $138,810 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP FM#1 Redwood Tank $498,783 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP FM#2 Steel Tank $968,000 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Meadowmont 13 Redwood Tank $1,104,354 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Meadowmont Steel Tank $496,305 Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Sawmill Steel Tank $266,134 Ebbetts Pass WTP Ebbetts Pass Hunters Water Treatment $2,359,059 Plant Ebbetts Pass WWTP Arnold Wastewater Treatment Plant $1,132,216 Ebbetts Pass WWTP Country Houses Sewer Treatment System $138,000 Ebbetts Pass WWTP Forest Meadows Wastewater Treatment $1,082,153 Plant Ebbetts Pass WWTP Sequoia Woods Sewer Treatment System $130,000 Jenny Lind Lift-Station LC Huckleberry Lift Station $431,425 Jenny Lind Lift-Station LC Hwy 26 Lift Station $34,816 Jenny Lind Tanks JL "A" Steel Tank $1,997,164 Jenny Lind Tanks JL "E" Steel Tank $1,200,000 Jenny Lind Tanks JL Water Pressure System (D Tank) $50,000 Jenny Lind WTP Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant $4,174,526 Jenny Lind WWTP La Contenta Wastewater Treatment Plant $1,980,064 Sheep Ranch WTP Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant $137,093 Unincorporated County Diversions EP McKays Point Reservoir & Diversion $1,500,000 Dam
Calaveras County Water District 4.94 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Service Area Facility Type Facility Name Replacement Value Unincorporated County Diversions Sheep Ranch Diversion $43,000 Unincorporated County Diversions WP Bear Creek Diversion $56,650 Unincorporated County Lift-Station Lift Station #21, Lower X Country $476,898 Unincorporated County Lift-Station LS #22, Upper Cross Country $178,393 Unincorporated County Lift-Station Six Mile Village Sewer Lift Station $86,349 Unincorporated County Lift-Station Vallecito Sewer Main Lift Station $159,510 Unincorporated County Pump-Station 602 Pump Station $81,012 Unincorporated County Pump-Station Sheep Ranch Pump Station $49,919 Unincorporated County Tanks CC Copperopolis Steel Tank $1,200,000 Unincorporated County Tanks EP Big Trees 8 Redwood Tank $143,748 Unincorporated County Tanks EP Pinebrook Steel Tank $892,650 Unincorporated County Tanks EP Timber Trails Redwood Tank $178,305 Unincorporated County Tanks JL "602" Redwood Tank $1,612,718 Unincorporated County Tanks JL "B" Steel Tank $1,600,000 Unincorporated County Tanks JL "F" Steel Tank $1,600,000 Unincorporated County Tanks WP Bummerville Redwood Tank $67,169 Unincorporated County WWTP Indian Rock Vineyards Sewer Treatment $15,584 Plant Unincorporated County WWTP Millwoods Sewer Treatment System $99,000 Unincorporated County WWTP Southworth Wastewater Treatment Plant $141,051 Unincorporated County WWTP Vallecito Wastewater Treatment Plant $590,684 West Point Lift-Station West Point LS $105,676 West Point Pump-Station WP Middle Fork Pump Station $166,626 West Point WTP West Point Water Treatment Plant $2,186,712 West Point WWTP West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant $558,235 West Point WWTP Wilseyville Wastewater Treatment Plant $237,619 Total $46,326,605 Source: CCWD WTP - Water Treatment Plant WWTP - Waste Water Treatment Plant WWRF - Waste Water Reclamation Facility
Lifeline utility systems for water and wastewater are critical facilities, so on this basis, all of CCWD’s facilities are critical. In addition, the HMPC identified their own critical facilities – those that are essential to maintaining their operations. Standby power is necessary for critical facilities in the event of a power outage, which can be the result of many natural hazard events, such as severe weather, earthquake, or wildfire. The CCWD has emergency generation capabilities at all of its critical facilities.
Calaveras County Water District 4.95 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Populations Affected
The CCWD does not have exact numbers of population served but uses a general rule of thumb of 2.75 persons per water connection in Jenny Lind and Copper Cove and 2.5 persons per water connection in Ebbetts Pass and West Point. The persons per connection data is based on the 2000 U.S. Census for Calaveras County. Table 4.28 shows the estimated number of customers served by each water service and wastewater area of the CCWD in 2012.
Table 4.28. CCWD Critical Facilities and Populations Served
Water System Population Served Copper Cove 6,872 West Point 1,403 Ebbetts Pass 14,415 Jenny Lind 10,120 Sheep Ranch 132 Wastewater System Population Served Copper Cove 4,810 West Point 480 Forest Meadows 1,510 Vallecito 699 Arnold 1,145 La Contenta 2,648 Source: CCWD
Culture, Historical, and Natural Resources
Assessing the vulnerability of the CCWD and the County it serves to disaster also involves inventorying the natural, historic, and cultural assets of the area. This step is important for the following reasons:
• The community may decide that these types of resources warrant a greater degree of protection due to their unique and irreplaceable nature and contribution to the overall economy. • If these resources are impacted by a disaster, knowing so ahead of time allows for more prudent care in the immediate aftermath, when the potential for additional impacts are higher. • The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different for these types of designated resources. • Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, such as wetlands and riparian habitat, which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters.
Calaveras County Water District 4.96 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Natural Resources
Calaveras County has a variety of natural resource assets that to a large extent serve as the basis for the county’s economy and quality of life. These assets include water, critical species, and wildlife and plant habitat.
Natural resource assets are important to include in benefit-cost analyses for future projects and may be used to leverage additional funding for mitigation projects that also contribute to community goals for protecting sensitive natural resources. Awareness of natural assets can lead to opportunities for meeting multiple objectives. For instance, protecting wetlands areas protects sensitive habitat as well as attenuates and stores floodwaters.
Critical Species
To further understand natural resources that may be particularly vulnerable to a hazard event, as well as those that need consideration when implementing mitigation activities, it is important to identify at-risk species (i.e., endangered species) in the planning area. An endangered species is any species of fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or most of its range. A threatened species is a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Both endangered and threatened species are protected by law and any future hazard mitigation projects are subject to these laws. Candidate species are plants and animals that have been proposed as endangered or threatened but are not currently listed.
There are 15 federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species in Calaveras County. These species are listed in Table 4.29.
Table 4.29. Calaveras County Critical Species
Latin Name Common Name Status Listed Endangered or Threatened Species and/or Habitat Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp T Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle T Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp E Oncorhynchus mykiss Central Valley steelhead T Critical habitat, Central Valley steelhead X Oncorhynchus tshawytscha winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River E Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander, central population T Critical habitat, CA tiger salamander, central population X Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog T Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake T Arctostaphylos myrtifolia Ione manzanita T Brodiaea pallida Chinese Camp brodiaea T
Calaveras County Water District 4.97 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Latin Name Common Name Status Candidate Species for Endangered or Threatened Listing Bufo canorus Yosemite toad C Rana muscosa Mountain yellow-legged frog C Martes pennanti fisher C Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm Key: (E) Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction. (T) Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. (C) Candidate - Candidate to become a proposed species. (X) Critical Habitat designated for this species
Wildlife and Plant Habitat
The majority of Calaveras County is undeveloped and natural habitat areas for a variety of species unique to the eastern San Joaquin Valley and foothills of the Sierra Nevada. Critical habitat areas for the Central Valley steelhead and California tiger salamander are located in the western section of the county. There are several locations throughout the county where species with special or protected status have been identified. Ione chaparral and big tree forest are two vegetation communities with particular importance for biodiversity and the habitat of sensitive species. Annual grassland covers 22 percent of the county’s area and 15 percent is montane hardwood forest.
Historic and Cultural Assets
Table 4.30 lists sites and buildings from the National Register of Historic Places for Calaveras County. The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Properties listed include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service.
Table 4.30. Calaveras County Properties on the National Register of Historic Places
Site/Building Address Town Altaville Grammar School 125 N. Main Street Altaville Angels Hotel Main Street at Birds Way Angels Camp Calaveras County Bank aka Calaveras Meat 1239 Main Street Angels Camp Market Calaveras County Courthouse Main Street San Andreas Choy, Sam, Brick Store (Angels Camp Jail) Bird Way Angels Camp Copperopolis Armory 695 Main Street Copperopolis Copperopolis Congregational Church aka 411 Main Street Copperopolis Copperopolis Community Center Douglas Flat School Northeast of Vallecito on SR 4 Douglas Flat Honigsberger Store aka Calaveras Copper 665 Main Street Copperopolis Mining Company Warehouse
Calaveras County Water District 4.98 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Site/Building Address Town I.O.O.F. Hall Center Street Mokelumne Hill Leger Hotel Main Street Mokelumne Hill Murphys Grammar School Jones Street Murphys Murphys Historic District Sheep Ranch Road, Main, Church, Jones, Algiers Murphys Streets, Big Trees Road, and Angels Creek Murphys Hotel aka Mitchler Hotel Main and Algiers Streets Murphys New Melones Archeological District Address Restricted Angels Camp Reed's Store aka Copperopolis Copper 679 Main Street Copperopolis Mining Company Office Synder, John J., House aka.Snyder House 247 W. St. Charles Street San Andreas Utica Mansion aka Charles D. Lane 1103 Bush Street Angels Camp Mansion Thorn House 87 E. St. Charles Street San Andreas Source: National Register of Historic Places
It should be noted that as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any property over 50 years of age is considered a historic resource and is potentially eligible for the National Register. Thus, in the event that the property is to be altered, or has been altered, as the result of a major federal action, the property must be evaluated under the guidelines set forth by NEPA. Structural mitigation projects are considered alterations for the purpose of this regulation.
Growth and Development Trends
Based on projections from the California Department of Finance (DOF), the steady population growth that Calaveras County has experienced over the previous four decades is expected to continue. Figure 4.37 represents past and future population trends based on projections from the DOF.
Calaveras County Water District 4.99 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.37. Calaveras County Historic Population and Future Growth Projections
90,000 80,424 80,000
70,000 64,572 72,230
60,000
47,750 56,318 50,000
40,000 40,554 32,000 30,000
20,000 14,000 21,000
10,000 10,500
0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Source: California Department of Finance
Population is scattered in Calaveras County but higher populations are in the upper Highway 4 corridor from Murphys to Big Tree Village, from Valley Springs to Jenny Lind, and in the Copperopolis area. Other population centers include Angels Camp, San Andreas, Mokelumne Hill, Mountain Ranch, and West Point. Due to the recreational opportunities in the region, many vacation homes exist in the county. Population increases during summer months when seasonal residents, tourists, and workers are in the area.
The percentage of growth in Calaveras County from 1980-1990 was 55 percent, from 1990-2000 was 27 percent, and from 2000-2010 was 13 percent based on numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau. Population projections presented in Table 4.31 are based on a combination of the Calaveras County General Plan, District master plans for each area, capita per connection analysis, and projected growth rates obtained from the California Department of Finance (DOF). The County is currently updating the General Plan, which may alter the District’s estimates for each respective service area, expand some of the service areas, or create new service areas. The table indicates current DOF projections nearly double the County population from 2010 to 2050. Growth rates are even higher for the Districts two western service areas because of its proximity to the growing Central Valley, transportation corridors, and future planned developments.
Calaveras County Water District 4.100 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.31. Current and Projected Population
Total Jenny Copper Ebbetts Sheep West Total Calaveras Year Lind Cove/Copperopolis Pass Ranch Point CCWD County 2010 10,600 6,525 13,140 110 1,380 31,750 45,578 2015 11,668 8,238 13,568 112 1,594 35,180 50,948 2020 12,736 9,952 13,996 114 1,807 38,666 56,318 2025 13,974 11,603 14,409 116 2,013 42,115 60,445 2030 15,212 13,254 14,822 118 2,219 45,625 64,572 2035 16,552 14,786 15,205 121 2,334 48,998 68,401 2040 17,892 16,317 15,588 123 2,449 52,369 72,230 2045 19,531 18,160 15,998 125 2,614 56,428 76,327 2050 21,170 20,004 16,407 125 2,613 60,319 80,424 Notes: State of California, Department of Finance, Revised Historical City, County and State Population Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, March 2002. State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007, straight-line interpolation.
The District recently completed updating its database to identify customers by class. Past customer class designations has not been itemized in its planning efforts because of the relatively small volume of water used among the various sectors other than single-family residential. Total projected connections by service area (without customer class designations) are graphically illustrated in Figure 4.38 below.
Calaveras County Water District 4.101 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.38. CCWD Potable Water Projected Connections
Source: Calaveras County Water District Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011
The main source of economic growth expected in Calaveras County, and in nearby foothills counties, in the next few decades is residential development. Much of the growth will be from those working in Stockton, Modesto, and other areas within commuting distance and from the retirement community as they relocate away from employment centers.
There are currently no plans to expand CCWD facilities.
4.3.2 Calaveras County Water District Vulnerability to Specific Hazards
The Disaster Mitigation Act regulations require that the HMPC evaluate the risks associated with each of the hazards identified in the planning process. This section summarizes the possible impacts and quantifies, where data permits, the County’s vulnerability to each of the hazards identified as a priority hazard in Section 4.2.19 Natural Hazards Summary. The priority hazards evaluated further as part of this vulnerability assessment include:
• Dam Failure • Drought and Water Shortage • Flood: 100-/500-year • Flood: Localized Flooding
Calaveras County Water District 4.102 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
• Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms • Severe Weather: Wind • Severe Weather: Winter Weather and Freeze • Wildfire
An estimate of the vulnerability of the County to each identified hazard, in addition to the estimate of risk of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard-specific sections that follow. Vulnerability is measured in general, qualitative terms and is a summary of the potential impact based on past occurrences, spatial extent, and damage and casualty potential. It is categorized into the following classifications:
• Extremely Low—The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal to nonexistent. • Low—Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. • Medium—Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated and less costly than a more widespread disaster. • High—Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. • Extremely High—Very widespread with catastrophic impact.
Vulnerability can be quantified in those instances where there is a known, identified hazard area, such as a mapped floodplain. In these instances, the numbers and types of buildings subject to the identified hazard can be counted and their values tabulated. Other information can be collected in regard to the hazard area, such as the location of CCWD facilities, historic structures, and valued natural resources (e.g., an identified wetland or endangered species habitat). Together, this information conveys the impact, or vulnerability, of that area to that hazard.
The HMPC identified three hazards in the planning area for which specific geographical hazard areas have been defined and for which sufficient data exists to support a quantifiable vulnerability analysis. These three hazards are dam failure, flood, and wildfire. Because these hazards have discrete hazard risk areas, their risk varies by jurisdiction. For dam failure, flood, and wildfire, the HMPC inventoried the following, to the extent possible, to quantify vulnerability in identified hazard areas:
• General hazard-related impacts • Values at risk • Overall community impact • Development trends within the identified hazard area
Calaveras County Water District 4.103 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
The vulnerability and potential impacts from priority hazards that do not have specific mapped areas nor the data to support additional vulnerability analysis are discussed in more general terms.
Dam Failure Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Unlikely Vulnerability—High
Calaveras County’s three major river systems (Mokelumne, Calaveras, and Stanislaus) have dams and large reservoirs. Dams are used for downstream flood control, water storage and hydroelectric generation. Dam failure can occur independently from flooding events discussed above. Dam failure can occur from earthquakes, internal erosion caused by embankment and foundation leakage, and from inadequate spillway capacity that can lead to overtopping of the dam and erosion. The California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams states that the potential for the catastrophic failure of a properly designed and constructed dam is minimal.
The County’s larger dams and reservoirs are located in the western portion of the County. Several smaller dams are found throughout the County; however, the dam inundation threats for these dams have less of a threat than from the larger dams in the western portion of the County. Figure 4.39 shows that the areas with the greatest dam failure inundation threat are found downstream of the larger reservoirs in the County: Pardee, Camanche, New Hogan, New Melones, and Tulloch.
Calaveras County Water District 4.104 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.39. Dam Inundation Zones in Calaveras County
Source: Calaveras County General Plan Baseline Report, 2008
Calaveras County Water District 4.105 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Should a dam fail, many District assets would be at risk to the resulting flooding. Dam inundation analysis was not performed for this plan due to privacy issues of dam inundations.
Drought and Water Storage Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Likely Vulnerability—High to Extremely High
Drought impacts to the District vary but are usually related to the reduction in flow in addition to water supply issues. The CCWD’s sole source of water supply is surface water, which is vulnerable to seasonal and climatic shortage. Historically, CCWD has met a significant portion of the water needs of Calaveras County with surface water from the Mokelumne, Calaveras, and Stanislaus Rivers. CCWD has significant access to surface water from these rivers. The District does possess pre- and post-1914 water rights and agreements to assure a long-term water supply for uses within the county. The CCWD has experienced periods when supplies were reduced and responded by passing resolutions specific to the service area prohibiting certain uses of water.
The earliest action on record by the CCWD was a declared water shortage in the West Point and Copper Cove service areas in 1961, but there are no records of the amount of water supply reduction nor the cause of the shortage. In the statewide 1976-1977 drought, the District restricted water use in the Copperopolis and Ebbetts Pass service areas, though the amount of reduction is unknown. The CCWD adopted Ordinance 77-1 Prohibiting Nonessential Uses of Water to respond to water shortage emergencies.
In the 1987-1994, multi-county drought, water storage in New Hogan Reservoir was greatly diminished, actually falling below the minimum pool level, leading to poor quality, silty water and additional water treatment costs. Voluntary reduction measures in the Jenny Lind service area were adequate to respond to the shortage. Additional water storage at New Melones Reservoir, completed in 1979, and New Spicer Meadow Reservoir in 1990, prevented the Copperopolis and Ebbetts Pass service areas from being affected by this drought. Construction of an intertie linking the community of West Point with the Wilseyville service area, and an agreement for purchasing supplemental water with Calaveras Public Utility District using the Middle Fork of the Mokelumne River as a backup water supply source to the primary Bear Creek water source, helped ensure adequate water supply to the communities of West Point, Wilseyville, and Bummerville. In the community of Sheep Ranch, the normal San Antonio Creek water source was supplemented by releases from the Ebbetts Pass water system.
Losses/Assets at Risk
Drought is different than many other hazard events as it is a slow onset event unlikely to damage buildings or facilities. However, as a water district, drought can be one of the most detrimental hazards to the CCWD and one requiring the most substantive planning as local conditions change and grow. Potential costs to droughts are difficult to assess. In the past, the CCWD has
Calaveras County Water District 4.106 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
borne cost themselves and not implemented any sort of surcharge to customers. Extreme heat in July 2006 led to water distribution problems similar to conditions that might occur during a drought event, including increased power and treatment expense and reduced consumptive revenue.
A limited analysis was conducted nearly a decade ago to determine the financial impacts to the District during water shortages (an update to this analysis is under consideration for the next rate analysis). The analysis examines the primary impacts on a gross basis from instituting the various stages of a water conservation program. The net reduction in revenues for 20 percent, 30 percent, and 50 percent demand reduction is shown in Table 4.32. The District calculates net revenue based on consumptive revenue minus power and chemical costs.
Table 4.32. Net Revenue Impacts from Demand Reductions (2002 Dollars)
Demand type Anticipated revenue Normal $747,300 20 percent reduction $597,840 35 percent reduction $485,745 50 percent reduction $373,650 Source: 2011 Calaveras County Water District Urban Water Management Plan
There are many methods available to offset the projected reduced revenue impacts from conservation. The District could consider drought rates during shortages that increase the unit rate for all customers by a common factor assuming an equitable apportionment per person by connection. In addition, the District maintains an emergency reserve to assist in cash flow during water shortages if necessary. If additional funds are still required, the District will consider utilizing operating reserves to meet the remaining revenue shortfalls.
Specific District vulnerabilities to drought and water shortage include the pumps and water treatment plants that are vulnerable due to pumping and treating silty water during times of low flows.
Development Trends
With recent California DOF growth projections more than doubling the Calaveras County population in the western Calaveras County area by 2050, a significant portion of future water demands will be met with a combination of increasing surface water diversions as well as increased groundwater extractions. New water connections are added at a rate from two percent to seven percent, depending on the system. The higher growth rates are in the Arnold and Copper Cove systems. New and proposed development in the Copper Cove/Copperopolis area along with proposed developments in the Camanche/Valley Springs area will require additional water supply projects to meet the increasing demands during average, single-dry, and multiple- dry water years. Projected supply and demand comparison to the year 2025 indicates that water demand is expected to increase the fastest in the areas of Copper Cove and Camanche Springs.
Calaveras County Water District 4.107 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
According to the CCWD Urban Water Management Plan (2005 update), small populations and low usage per connection have allowed water supplies to satisfy demand even in periods of drought, such as the driest years of record, 1976-1977 and 1987-1994. Low usage per connection is a reflection of the geography and climate of each system. In general, extensive landscaping, which can account for up to 40-60 percent of a single-family connection usage, is not feasible in many of CCWD’s systems. However, recent and proposed growth in certain systems will require existing policies to be reviewed and modified and/or new policies to be developed and implemented in order to better manage and conserve water supplies. The CCWD has established and used short-term water transfer arrangements to address water supply shortages.
Flood Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Occasional Vulnerability—High
Inundation of the water and wastewater treatment plants could result in costs associated with:
• Facility damage and repair • Facility downtime and loss of service to customers • Pumping of floodwaters • Damage to facility access roads • Overflow of wastewater storage ponds
A number of wastewater storage facilities do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the flows being conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant during the 100-year rainfall return interval event. Increasing urbanization has led to increased runoff exacerbating problems with wastewater inflow and infiltration.
Assets at Risk
FEMA’s loss estimation software (Hazus) has special treatments for the definition and valuation of transportation and utilities facilities. Following is the methodology that the Hazus flood model uses to estimate damages to properties and the contents held inside each property.
Hazus Treatment of Lifeline: Transportation and Utilities
Lifelines are defined as the transportation and utility infrastructure that provides the United States with communications, water, power, mobility and other necessities for both continuity of governance and economic health.
The Hazus Flood Model approaches the damage to lifeline facilities by identifying those components are either particularly expensive to replace, or when damaged by floodwaters force an extended closure, thereby removing critical infrastructure from the community and the emergency responders attempting to restore the community. Table 4.33 provided the basis for
Calaveras County Water District 4.108 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
this effort and the determination of those facilities and components that would require damage functions. Within each of these facilities, there are components that could be identified that drove the overall facilities vulnerability to flooding.
Table 4.33 further identifies sub-hazards that may affect the various lifeline components and the expected maximum level of vulnerability. The flood sub-hazards that are being considered include:
• Inundation – a function of water elevation • Scour/erosion – a function of floodwater velocity and duration. • Debris Impact/Hydraulic Loading – a function of water elevation and velocity
The overall maximum vulnerability (the highest of any of the three sub-hazards) is listed in Table 4.33. Along with the determination of vulnerability, the impact of damage on the systems functionality, whether or not damage to the component is a high dollar loss item, and the overall recovery time for the component are identified on Table 4.33.
Table 4.33. Lifeline System Components, Vulnerability to Flood Sub-hazards, Criticality and Potential Dollar Loss and Outage Time
Debris Dollar Impact/ Loss and Overall Scour/ Hydraulic Outage Lifeline Vulnerability Inundation Erosion Pressure Criticality Time Water Systems Water Treatment Plants High High Low Low High High Tanks Low Low None None Medium Medium Reservoirs (Impoundment Low None None None Low Medium Controlled Channels/Pipelines) Dams/Impoundments High None High Low High High (free flow) Pump Stations Medium High None None Medium Medium Pipelines – Bridge High Low None Medium Medium Low Crossings Pipelines – Buried River High None High Low Medium Medium Crossings Pipelines – Low None Low None Low Low Distribution/Transmission Control Vaults (Air High High Low Low Medium Low release valves, meter pits, control valves) Wastewater Systems Treatment Plants High High Low Low High High Pump/Lift Stations High High None None Medium Medium
Calaveras County Water District 4.109 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Debris Dollar Impact/ Loss and Overall Scour/ Hydraulic Outage Lifeline Vulnerability Inundation Erosion Pressure Criticality Time Pipelines – Bridge High Low None Medium Medium Low Crossings Pipelines – Buried River High None High Low Medium Medium Crossings Collection Systems Medium High None None Low Low Control Vaults (meter pits, High High Low Low Low Low control valves) Source: Hazus Technical Manual
Treatment of Plants, Pump Stations, Vaults, Substations, and Telecommunication Facilities - Inundation
Fragility relationships based on inundation have been developed for treatment plants, pump stations, vaults, substations, and telecommunications facilities. The Flood Model currently provides damage and loss estimates for select potable water, wastewater, oil, and natural gas facilities only. Electric power and telecommunications was deferred to a later date. The operational vulnerabilities, damage, and restoration times are primarily a function of the fragility of:
1) Electrical equipment, 2) Mechanical equipment, and 3) Building damage (minor impact on operation).
However, in many situations, the operation of these facilities will be terminated based on a management decision to shut down the facility at some threshold floodwater elevation.
There are two general scenarios for inundation damage, diked/protected and unprotected/ undiked. For unprotected facilities, the damage and recovery time will increase to a maximum as the water depth increases to a defined level (assumed to be one-half a story height (i.e. damage is 100% when flood level is 4 feet above the floor level).
For protected facilities, there will be no damage until the protection elevation is exceeded (dike overtops). At this point the entire facility would be expected to flood. This same approach may also be used for facilities with below-grade components. For example, for a wet-well/dry-well sewage pump station, there would be no damage until the water elevation rose above the ground floor slab elevation. Once that elevation was exceeded, the dry well and the electrical components located in the dry well would be submerged. The user will be required to input this information as part of the site data. It should be noted that flood protection can be automatically or manually implemented. "Automatic" implementation could be inherent in the design (i.e. dikes are always in place), or may require intervention (closing floodgates, etc.).
Calaveras County Water District 4.110 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
For some facilities such as treatment plants, there may be multiple structures with different floor slab elevations. In this situation, the user is required to select the elevation that best represents the vulnerability of the overall facility. One approach might be to select the floor elevation of the facility with key process electrical equipment. When addressing treatment plants (and sewer treatment facilities), the Flood Model includes the value of the control buildings and support buildings in the total value of the treatment plant, but generally, the damage associated with the structure is minimal when compared to the damages associated with the electrical components and systems within the structure. In other words, damage to buildings at a water treatment plant do not play a role in the functionality of the plant. Damage to the electrical controls and components within the plant are the critical path for functionality.
Treatment of Utility Systems
The Flood Model performs loss estimation analysis on
• potable water system facilities including: treatment plants, control vaults and control stations, tanks, wells, • wastewater system facilities including treatments plants, control vaults and control stations, lift stations, • oil facilities including refineries, control vaults and control stations, and tanks, • natural gas facilities including: compressor stations and control vaults and control stations, • electric power plants and substations.
Methodology
The CCWD facility layers were obtained from the previous CCWD plan and were supplemented with new facilities from the CCWD. The new facilities were added by geocoding available addresses for the facilities. Not all facilities had known address and could not be geocoded. Only mapped facilities are accounted for in the flood analysis.
CCWD Facility analysis was performed through GIS where facility centroids were intersected with the effective 12/17/2010 DFIRM, to show potential risk to each facility.
FEMA DFIRMs had been updated since the last plan and analysis was done on pure FEMA flood zones and no buffer was applied. This methodology represents a more accurate count of facilities in the flood zone but does not account for the accuracy of the facility points but this was the best available data. This flood analysis identified 9 facilities to be at risk to flooding according to the effective DFIRM flood zones with a total replacement value of $4,047,956. This can be seen on Figure 4.40, Figure 4.41, and detailed in Table 4.35. Flood zones affecting the District are shown in Table 4.34.
Calaveras County Water District 4.111 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.34. Flooding Sources for the CCWD Service Areas
Service Area FEMA Flood Zone Flooding Sources Copper Cove/Copperopolis Zone A Stanislaus River, no name tributaries Ebbetts Pass Zones A, Zone AE Big Trees Creek, Mill Creek, Moran Creek San Antonio Creek, San Domingo Creek, no name tributaries Jenny Lind Zones A, Zone AE Calaveras River, Cosgrove Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Valley Creek, no name tributaries Sheep Ranch Zone A no name tributaries West Point Zone A Middle Fork Mokelumne River, no name tributaries Source: FEMA
Calaveras County Water District 4.112 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.40. East Calaveras County Water District Facilities in DFIRM Flood Zones
Calaveras County Water District 4.113 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.41. West Calaveras County Water District Facilities in DFIRM Flood Zones
Calaveras County Water District 4.114 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.35. Calaveras County Facilities at Risk to Flooding
Facility Replacement FEMA Flood Flooding Service Area Type Facility Name Value Zones Source Copper Lift-Station LS #10, Poker Flat $24,620 Zone A - Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #3, Poker Flat $60,128 Zone A - Cove/Copperopolis Copper WWRF Cooper Cove Wastewater $1,131,765 Zone A Unnamed Cove/Copperopolis Reclamation Facility tributary Copper WWTP Copper Cove Wastewater $1,608,306 Zone A Unnamed Cove/Copperopolis Treatment Plant tributary Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Arnold Lift Station #2 $98,214 Zone AE Unnamed tributary Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Arnold LS #1, Ceder Ridge $86,600 Zone A - Ebbetts Pass WWTP Sequoia Woods Sewer $130,000 Zone A Morgan Treatment System Creek Jenny Lind Lift-Station LC Huckleberry Lift Station $431,425 Zone AE Cosgrove Creek Unincorporated Lift-Station Lift Station #21, Lower X $476,898 Zone A Unnamed County Country tributary Total $4,047,956 Note: Unmapped facilities are not included in this analysis. The HMPC noted that there are no unmapped facilities in the flood zone. WTP - Water Treatment Plant WWTP - Waste Water Treatment Plant WWRF - Waste Water Reclamation Facility
The HMPC noted that the wastewater treatment plant and the wastewater reclamation facility in the Copper Cove/Copperopolis area have ponds that are subject to flooding. It was also noted that, although these facilities are in Zone A, the parcels do not flood.
Development Trends
There are no planned facilities that will be built in or near the flood zone.
Flood: Localized Flooding Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Highly Likely Vulnerability—Medium
Historically, the District has been at risk to flooding primarily during the spring months when river systems in the County swell with heavy rainfall. Localized flooding also occurs throughout the planning area at various times throughout the year with one area of primary concern unique to the District where impervious ground causes localized flooding near one of the water treatment plants.
Calaveras County Water District 4.115 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
The HMPC noted that the wastewater treatment plant and the wastewater reclamation facility in the Copper Cove/Copperopolis area in Table 4.35 that, although these facilities are in Zone A, the parcels do not flood. However, heavy rains can cause flooding. These storm flows often go to the Jenny Lind wastewater treatment plan and can affect the plant intake.
Future Development
The risk of stormwater/localized flooding to future development can be minimized by accurate recordkeeping of repetitive localized storm activity. Mitigating the root causes of the localized stormwater or choosing not to develop in areas that often are subject to localized flooding will reduce future risks of losses due to stormwater/localized flooding. As the District has little direct control over mitigating localized flooding, it will be important for the District to work with Calaveras County to help identify and mitigate localized flooding.
Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Vulnerability Assessment and
Severe Weather: Wind Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Highly Likely Vulnerability—High
According to historical hazard data, severe weather is an annual occurrence in the communities served by the District. Damage and disaster declarations related to severe weather have occurred and will continue to occur in the future. Heavy rains and thunderstorms are the most frequent type of severe weather occurrence in the area. Wind and lightning often accompany these storms and have caused damage. All wastewater storage facilities are at risk, dam failure, levee failure, and i.e, overflowing. These facilities are Copper Cove wastewater treatment plant, LaContenta wastewater treatment plant, West Point wastewater treatment plant, Forest Meadows wastewater treatment Plan.
Future Development
New District facilities should be built to withstand hail damage, lightning, and thunderstorm winds. While no damages have occurred to District facilities in the past due to lightning, hail, or high wind, it is difficult to quantify damages due to lightning. With development occurring in the region, future losses to new development may occur.
Severe Weather: Winter Weather and Freeze Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Highly Likely Vulnerability—Medium
Winter storms typically involve snow and ice, occasionally accompanied by high winds, which can cause downed trees and power lines, power outages, accidents, and road closures. Transportation networks, communications, and utilities infrastructure are the most vulnerable physical assets in the District. The ability for the District to continue to operate during periods of
Calaveras County Water District 4.116 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
winter storm and freeze is paramount. Although freezes are infrequent, a freeze can affect District facilities. Although most facilities are equipped with heaters, freezing pipes is still a concern. Although freezes are infrequent, a freeze can affect District facilities. Although most facilities are equipped with heaters, freezing pipes is still a concern. Of greatest concern to the District are severe winter weather events with significant snowfall that makes the roads to District facilities impassible. In addition, heavy snows can cause interruption in power, requiring facilities to run on generators several days in a row. A significant challenge is getting backup fuel to generators. Past storm events have knocked out power to multiple facilities at the same time. Recent snow events have resulted in 13 to 14 District facilities running on generators for days.
Future Development
Future District built to code (for those areas with building codes) should be able to withstand snow loads from severe winter storms. Pipes at risk of freezing should be mitigated be either burying or insulating them from freeze as new facilities are improved or added.
Wildfire
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Likely Vulnerability—Extremely High
Wildfires can cause short-term and long-term disruption to the CCWD. Fires can have devastating effects on watersheds through loss of vegetation and soil erosion, which may impact the CCWD by changing runoff patterns, increasing sedimentation, reducing natural and reservoir water storage capacity, and degrading water quality. Fires may result in casualties and can destroy buildings and infrastructure.
The 2001 Darby fire destroyed a flume owned by CCWD but used by the City of Angels Camp water provider to transport water to Murphys and Angels Camp. This flume was repaired. The Pattison fire in September 2004 destroyed a 150,000 gallon redwood potable water storage tank in the Rancho Calaveras area of the Jenny Lind service area. The cost estimate for the replacement steel tank was $800,000 and funded by CAL EMA. This tank has been installed.
Although the physical damages and casualties arising from wildland-urban interface fires may be severe, it is important to recognize that they also cause significant economic impacts by resulting in a loss of function of buildings and infrastructure. In some cases, the economic impact of this loss of services may be comparable to the economic impact of physical damages or, in some cases, even greater. Economic impacts of loss of transportation and utility services may include traffic delays/detours from road and bridge closures and loss of electric power, potable water, and wastewater services.
Calaveras County Water District 4.117 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Fires can also cause major damage to power plants and power lines needed to distribute electricity to operate facilities. The CCWD pump stations have back-up power generators, which also may be destroyed by fire.
The National Fire Plan is a cooperative, long-term effort between various government agency partners with the intent of actively responding to severe wildland fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity for the future. The National Fire Plan identifies the following 34 “Communities at Risk” in Calaveras County:
Table 4.36. Communities at Risk in Calaveras County
Community Community Community Altaville Cottage Springs Paloma Angels Camp Dorrington Rail Road Flat Arnold Douglas Flat San Andreas Avery Forest Meadows Sandy Gulch Big Meadow Ganns Sheep Ranch Big Trees Glencoe Sky High Burson Hathaway Pines Vallecito Calaveritas Jenny Lind Valley Springs Camp Connell Milton West Point Campo Seco Mokelumne Hill Wilseyville Clements Mountain Ranch Copperopolis Murphys Source: California Fire Alliance
The CCWD has facilities near and serves many of these communities; water supply is required for fire protection. The TCU Fire Management Plan identifies watersheds and water utilities as primary assets at risk to wildfire, and CCWD facilities are considered critical assets by the plan.
Assets at Risk
Methodology
The CCWD facility layers were obtained from the previous CCWD plan and were supplemented with new facilities from the CCWD. The new facilities were added by geocoding available addresses for the facilities. Not all facilities had known address and could not be geocoded. Only mapped facilities are accounted for in the flood analysis.
Fire severity layers were obtained from CAL FIRE, three separate layers were used to create complete coverage of fire severity for the County: Local Responsibility Areas (LRA), State Responsibility Areas (SRA), and a draft layer that was used to supplement the limited Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA). These areas are shown on Figure 4.42.
Calaveras County Water District 4.118 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.42. Fire Responsibility Areas in Calaveras County
Calaveras County Water District 4.119 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Facilities at risk in the District are shown in Figure 4.43, Figure 4.44 and Figure 4.43.
Calaveras County Water District 4.120 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.43. East Calaveras County Water District Facilities in Fire Severity Zones
Calaveras County Water District 4.121 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.44. West Calaveras County Water District Facilities in Fire Severity Zones
Calaveras County Water District 4.122 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 4.37. CCWD Assets at Risk in the Moderate, High, and Very High Fire SeverityZones
Service Area Facility Type Facility Name Replacement Value Fire Severity Copper Lift-Station LS #45, Conner Estates $56,439 Moderate Cove/Copperopolis Jenny Lind WWTP La Contenta Wastewater $1,980,064 Moderate Treatment Plant Unincorporated Lift-Station Lift Station #21, Lower X Country $476,898 Moderate County Unincorporated Tanks CC Copperopolis Steel Tank $1,200,000 Moderate County Unincorporated Tanks JL "F" Steel Tank $1,600,000 Moderate County Unincorporated WWTP Southworth Wastewater Treatment $141,051 Moderate County Plant Copper Lift-Station LS # 42, Conner Estates $26,370 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #1, Poker Flat $58,374 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #1, Saddle Creek $324,013 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #10, Poker Flat $24,620 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #13, Poker Flat $56,203 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #14, Calypso Bay LS $58,203 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #15, Copper Cove $202,717 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #16, Copper Cove $195,062 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #17, Copper Cove $25,667 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #19, Copper Cove $90,073 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #2, Poker Flat $69,807 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #2, Saddle Creek $141,206 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #3, Poker Flat $60,128 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #3, Saddle Creek $130,994 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #4, Poker Flat $60,128 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #40, Conner's Main $388,227 High Cove/Copperopolis
Calaveras County Water District 4.123 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Service Area Facility Type Facility Name Replacement Value Fire Severity Copper Lift-Station LS #41, Conner Estates $40,114 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #43, Conner Estates $56,439 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #44, Conner Estates $56,439 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #5, Poker Flat $34,816 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #6, Poker Flat $56,182 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #7, Poker Flat $36,122 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #8, Poker Flat $36,371 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS #9, Poker Flat $48,321 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS#11, Poker Flat $19,696 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS#12, Poker Flat $115,668 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Lift-Station LS#20, Copper Cove $82,398 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Pump-Station Copperoplis PS $175,000 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Tanks CC "B" Steel & Redwood Tanks $645,539 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper Tanks CC "C" Steel Tanks $60,117 High Cove/Copperopolis Copper WTP Copper Cove Water Treatment $3,306,598 High Cove/Copperopolis Plant Copper WWRF Cooper Cove Wastewater $1,131,765 High Cove/Copperopolis Reclamation Facility Copper WWTP Copper Cove Wastewater $1,608,306 High Cove/Copperopolis Treatment Plant Jenny Lind Lift-Station LC Huckleberry Lift Station $431,425 High Jenny Lind Lift-Station LC Hwy 26 Lift Station $34,816 High Jenny Lind Tanks JL "A" Steel Tank $1,997,164 High Jenny Lind Tanks JL "E" Steel Tank $1,200,000 High Jenny Lind Tanks JL Water Pressure System (D $50,000 High Tank) Jenny Lind WTP Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant $4,174,526 High Unincorporated Pump-Station 602 Pump Station $81,012 High County Unincorporated Tanks JL "602" Redwood Tank $1,612,718 High County Copper Lift-Station LS #18, Copper Cove $226,258 Very High Cove/Copperopolis
Calaveras County Water District 4.124 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Service Area Facility Type Facility Name Replacement Value Fire Severity Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Arnold Lift Station #2 $98,214 Very High Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Arnold Lift Station #3 $138,228 Very High Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Arnold LS #1, Ceder Ridge $86,600 Very High Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Avery Middle School Lift Station $110,807 Very High Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Forest Meadows Lakeside LS $58,533 Very High Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Forest Meadows Lift Station $146,166 Very High Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Forest Meadows Lift Station Azalia $39,368 Very High Ct. Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Larkspur LS $175,000 Very High Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Millwoods Lift Station $56,393 Very High Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Mt. Retreat LS $24,000 Very High Ebbetts Pass Lift-Station Sequoia Woods LS $36,570 Very High Ebbetts Pass Pump-Station Dorrington PS $177,731 Very High Ebbetts Pass Pump-Station Lakemont PS $161,500 Very High Ebbetts Pass Pump-Station Sawmill Pump Station, Ebbetts $266,134 Very High Pass Ebbetts Pass Tanks Ebbetts Pass Surge Tank $680,420 Very High Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Avery Steel Tank $1,375,000 Very High Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Big Trees 1 Redwood Tank $224,947 Very High Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Big Trees 3 Redwood Tank $122,567 Very High Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Big Trees 4 & 5 Redwood Tank $297,637 Very High Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Big Trees 60k Redwood Tank $138,810 Very High Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP FM#1 Redwood Tank $498,783 Very High Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP FM#2 Steel Tank $968,000 Very High Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Meadowmont 13 Redwood $1,104,354 Very High Tank Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Meadowmont Steel Tank $496,305 Very High Ebbetts Pass Tanks EP Sawmill Steel Tank $266,134 Very High Ebbetts Pass WTP Ebbetts Pass Hunters Water $2,359,059 Very High Treatment Plant Ebbetts Pass WWTP Arnold Wastewater Treatment $1,132,216 Very High Plant Ebbetts Pass WWTP Country Houses Sewer Treatment $138,000 Very High System Ebbetts Pass WWTP Forest Meadows Wastewater $1,082,153 Very High Treatment Plant Ebbetts Pass WWTP Sequoia Woods Sewer Treatment $130,000 Very High System Sheep Ranch WTP Sheep Ranch Water Treatment $137,093 Very High Plant Unincorporated Diversions EP McKays Point Reservoir & $1,500,000 Very High County Diversion Dam
Calaveras County Water District 4.125 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Service Area Facility Type Facility Name Replacement Value Fire Severity Unincorporated Diversions Sheep Ranch Diversion $43,000 Very High County Unincorporated Diversions WP Bear Creek Diversion $56,650 Very High County Unincorporated Lift-Station LS #22, Upper Cross Country $178,393 Very High County Unincorporated Lift-Station Six Mile Village Sewer Lift Station $86,349 Very High County Unincorporated Lift-Station Vallecito Sewer Main Lift Station $159,510 Very High County Unincorporated Pump-Station Sheep Ranch Pump Station $49,919 Very High County Unincorporated Tanks EP Big Trees 8 Redwood Tank $143,748 Very High County Unincorporated Tanks EP Pinebrook Steel Tank $892,650 Very High County Unincorporated Tanks EP Timber Trails Redwood Tank $178,305 Very High County Unincorporated Tanks JL "B" Steel Tank $1,600,000 Very High County Unincorporated Tanks WP Bummerville Redwood Tank $67,169 Very High County Unincorporated WWTP Indian Rock Vineyards Sewer $15,584 Very High County Treatment Plant Unincorporated WWTP Millwoods Sewer Treatment $99,000 Very High County System Unincorporated WWTP Vallecito Wastewater Treatment $590,684 Very High County Plant West Point Lift-Station West Point LS $105,676 Very High West Point Pump-Station WP Middle Fork Pump Station $166,626 Very High West Point WTP West Point Water Treatment Plant $2,186,712 Very High West Point WWTP West Point Wastewater Treatment $558,235 Very High Plant West Point WWTP Wilseyville Wastewater Treatment $237,619 Very High Plant Total $46,326,605 Source: *WTP - Water Treatment Plant; WWTP - Waste Water Treatment Plant; WWRF - Waste Water Reclamation Facility Note: Unmapped facilities are not included in this analysis. Additional Note: All Mapped Facilities are in the State Responsibility Areas except for two: EP McKays Point Reservoir & Diversion Dam and EP Timber Trails Redwood Tank. These two facilities are within the Federal Responsibility Area.
Development Trends
The primary type of growth occurring in Calaveras County is rural residential development, which is often in the wildland-urban interface. This puts more people and property at risk, adds a new fuel source to vegetative fuels, and increases the fire protection challenges for local governments. The wildfire mitigation practices of surrounding land owners affects the fire risk of
Calaveras County Water District 4.126 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
the CCWD and emphasizes the importance of education and partnerships regarding this shared responsibility.
The CCWD’s service area master plans identify inadequate fire flows as a problem currently and as growth and water demand increases. This is most immediately a problem in the West Point service area, which also has a high fire hazard ranking. The highest priority improvement for the West Point distribution system is to improve fire flows to the commercial district and school, where there have been fire problems in the past. The existing water distribution system does not meet fire flow standards due to inadequate pipe diameter and water pressure concerns related to elevation changes. The next priority is the upper northwest West Point area, which is at a higher elevation and has some of the lowest fire flows. The CCWD also is currently in the process of upgrading the Wilseyville fire flow pump and power generator, which will supply adequate fire flow to the southeastern area of Wilseyville. Replacing the existing redwood tank serving the Bummerville system is also recommended to improve water storage and is currently being pursued through a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) FEMA Grant. Construction of this tank is scheduled for the summer of 2012. The tank is being replaced through Prop 84/IRWMP and the State of California Department of Water Resources.
4.4 Capability Assessment
Thus far, the planning process has identified the natural hazards posing a threat to the planning area and described, in general, the vulnerability of the District to these risks. The next step is to assess what loss prevention mechanisms are already in place. This part of the planning process is the mitigation capability assessment. Combining the risk assessment with the mitigation capability assessment results in the District’s net vulnerability to disasters, and more accurately focuses the goals, objectives, and proposed actions of this plan.
The HMPC used a two-step approach to conduct this assessment for the District. First, an inventory of common mitigation activities was made through the use of a matrix. The purpose of this effort was to identify policies and programs that were either in place, needed improvement, or could be undertaken if deemed appropriate. Second, the HMPC conducted an inventory and review of existing policies, regulations, plans, and programs to determine if they contributed to reducing hazard-related losses or if they inadvertently contributed to increasing such losses.
This section presents CCWD’s mitigation capabilities and discusses select state and federal mitigation capabilities that are applicable to the District. .
Similar to the HMPC’s effort to describe hazards, risks, and vulnerability of the District, this mitigation capability assessment describes the District’s existing capabilities, programs, and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. This assessment is divided into four sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities are discussed in Section 4.4.1; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities are discussed in Section 4.4.2; fiscal mitigation capabilities are discussed in Section 4.4.3; and
Calaveras County Water District 4.127 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
mitigation outreach and partnerships are discussed in Section 4.4.4. A discussion of other mitigation efforts follows in Section 4.4.5.
4.4.1 CCWD’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
Table 4.38 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities, and indicates those that are in place in the District. Excerpts from applicable policies, regulations, and plans and program descriptions follow to provide more detail on existing mitigation capabilities.
Table 4.38. CCWD Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Y/N Date Comments General plan N County has plan Zoning ordinance N County has ordinance Subdivision ordinance N County has ordinance Growth management ordinance N County has ordinance Floodplain ordinance N County has ordinance Other special purpose ordinance (stormwater, steep slope, N County has ordinances wildfire) Building code Y Version: BCEGS Rating N Fire department ISO rating Y Rating: 5 Erosion or sediment control program Y Calaveras County Stormwater Management Plan (under development) Stormwater management program Y Calaveras County Stormwater Management Plan (under development) Site plan review requirements Unknown Capital improvements plan Y 2008-2013 Five Year CIP was done in 2008 Economic development plan Local emergency operations plan Y Sept 2008 CCWD – Water Treatment Systems and Calaveras County Emergency Operations Plan (2006) Community Wildfire Protection Plans Y See Tuolumne- Calaveras County Pre-Fire Management Plan Flood insurance study or other engineering study for streams See Calaveras County’s Flood Insurance Study (FIS) dated September 5, 1990 Repetitive Loss Plan N Elevation certificates Y See Calaveras County Bldg Dept.
Calaveras County Water District 4.128 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Y/N Date Comments Other
Calaveras County Water District
Ongoing and Completed Mitigation Programs and Plans
County Water Master Plan, 1996
The water master plan is a countywide plan that guides the development and management of the county’s water resources. The plan summarizes the water supplies needed for meeting the county’s projected water demands and prioritizes the principal tasks for ensuring highly reliable water supplies. This plan and the Urban Water Management Plan described below provide the framework for drought mitigation and response activities.
Water Reuse Activities
The CCWD currently uses reclaimed water for golf courses, but is considering expanding water reuse for agriculture and irrigated pastures. The potential for reclaimed water availability within the County is limited; the County Water Master Plan predicts about 15 percent potential reclaimed water availability over the service area. The greatest opportunity for water reuse is to provide water for agricultural or public activities in areas where water would not be available or is susceptible to drought. The reuse of wastewater produced from growth projected in Copper Cove could provide a reliable water supply for special types of agriculture in that area. There are opportunities for water reuse at other CCWD facilities, as well (CCWD County Water Master Plan 1996).
Urban Water Management Plan, 2011
California’s Urban Water Management Act requires water utilities of a specified size to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan to promote water conservation and efficient water use. The plans should evaluate water supply during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years and be updated every five years. In 2010/2011, the CCWD developed a draft update to their 2005 plan. The plan includes water demand management measures currently being implemented or planned, many of which mitigate drought. Measures include school and public education programs and incentive programs for high-efficiency washing machines and toilets, among others.
Within the water management plan is a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Appendix D to that plan), which plans for water shortage emergency response and a water conservation program with voluntary and mandatory rationing depending on the severity and anticipated duration of the water supply emergency. The CCWD has also established and used short-term water transfer arrangement to address water supply shortages.
Calaveras County Water District 4.129 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Mokelumne/Amador/Calaveras Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update (2007)
This document has been created by agencies and organizations within the Mokelumne, Amador, and Calaveras watershed region to better manage existing resources and plan for future conditions. The integrated regional water management plan reflects the region’s diversity and goals for ensuring a reliable water supply, reduction in flood-related impacts, and preservation of water quality and the environment.
System Master Plans
The CCWD has recently completed or updated the master plans for individual service systems. These plans describe the existing system, regulations, and current and projected demands, then provide a system evaluation and recommendations for improvements, or capital improvements plans. System master plans were used in this planning project to identify development trends and proposed new facilities. Often the system evaluations reveal vulnerability to natural hazard events, such as insufficient fire flow and have led to capital improvement projects to mitigate those vulnerabilities. The following master plans have been developed:
• Copper Cove Water System Water Master Plan Update, 2005 • Copper Cove Wastewater Facility Plan Update, 2006 • Jenny Lind Water System Master Plan, 2005 • Ebbetts Pass Water Master Plan, 2005 • New Hogan/La Contenta Wastewater System, 2003 • Vallecito Wastewater Master Plan, 2005 • West Point Sewer Master Plan, 2005 • West Point Water System Master Plan, 2005 • Arnold Sewer Master Plan, May 2005 • Forest Meadows Wastewater Master Plan, September 2004
Vulnerability Assessments for Jenny Lind, Copper Cove, and Ebbetts Pass
Vulnerability assessments were conducted to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended by the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. The assessments provide a risk assessment to various threats, which are primarily human- induced but also address natural disaster at a very general level. System components are also described and security vulnerability self-assessments completed.
Water System Emergency Response Plans for Jenny Lind, Copper Cove, and Ebbetts Pass
These plans are companion pieces to the vulnerability assessments and were also developed to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended by the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. The purpose of the emergency response
Calaveras County Water District 4.130 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
plans (ERPs) is to provide the CCWD with a standardized response and recovery protocol to prevent, minimize, and mitigate injury and damage resulting from emergencies or disasters of man-made or natural origin. The ERPs describe how CCWD will respond to potential threats or actual terrorist scenarios identified in the vulnerability assessment, as well as additional emergency response situations. They identify emergency planning partnerships, mutual aid agreements, and emergency response policies, procedures, and documents. They also include specific action plans that will be used to respond to events and incidents.
Potential Agriculture Areas
The District is engaged in an effort to address raw water and wastewater recycling needs throughout the County. The District is uniquely positioned to potentially develop available water resources and deliver irrigation water that could support agricultural development that would benefit the local and regional economy. The potential agricultural area map for Calaveras County represents a collaborative effort between Calaveras County Water District and agricultural groups, including the University of California Cooperative Extension, in Calaveras County to establish priority areas in need of water supplies, whether raw or recycled, to meet irrigation crop demands. The current version of the map depicts available information as of 2009, and as a result, may be updated as additional information is made available. The map is shown in Figure 4.45.
Calaveras County Water District 4.131 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Figure 4.45. Water Demands within Calaveras County
Source: http://www.ccwd.org/pdf/pub/watermanagement/PotentialAgriculturalAreaMapwithdisclaimer.pdf
West Point/Wilseyville Water System Improvements
Two major projects are underway to improve the West Point Water System:
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded the CCWD a State, Tribal, and Assistance Grant to upgrade the West Point community’s backup water supply from the Middle Fork Mokelumne River. This is a high priority project, identified in the West Point
Calaveras County Water District 4.132 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Water System Master Plan as needed immediately, to secure a more reliable backup water supply to the community. West Point is an area identified as at very high fire risk. • The CCWD submitted a grant application to USDA Rural Utility Service and to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Program for funding to replace the water distribution system in West Point/Wilseyville. This is a high priority project identified in the West Point Water System Master Plan as needed immediately to address insufficient fire flow in the high fire risk area in and around West Point. See the attached letter from the West Point Fire Department in Appendix D.
The District has also been awarded a grant through the following:
• Prop 84 – Bummerville Tank and Pipeline replacement. 12-inch water line from clearwell to downtown. • USDA – Bummerville Pump Station – Distribuion piping downtown West Point (8-inch line)
Projects are underway.
Multi-Agency Coordinating Group
The Multi-Agency Coordinating (MAC) Group is an emergency management team composed of the major jurisdictional representatives in Calaveras County, who are responsible for responding to and managing broad-based emergency events. The CCWD serves on MAC as the liaison for all wastewater and utility agencies in the county. Other participants include the following:
• Calaveras County Administration • Calaveras County OES (acts as the MAC coordinator) • Calaveras County Sheriff's Office • Calaveras County Fire Departments • CalFire • Pacific Gas & Electric • CalTrans • Calaveras County Water District (liaison for all wastewater and utility agencies in the County) • Angels Camp Police Department • California Highway Patrol • U.S. Forest Service • Calaveras Works and Human Services • Calaveras County Health Department
Calaveras County Water District 4.133 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Ordinances Supporting Mitigation Efforts
Ordinance No. 77-1 Prohibiting Nonessential Uses of Water
The CCWD adopted this ordinance on April 14, 1977, because of a water shortage emergency in the 1976-1977 drought. T he ordinance is enforced in the CCWD’s improvement districts when an emergency water shortage condition is declared due to drought conditions that prevent the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers from being satisfied without depleting the water supply of the district that would be needed for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. Specific water uses are regulated and prohibited in the ordinance.
Water Waste Ordinance 2010-02
The CCWD adopted this ordinance on July 14, 2010 to amend the District Rules and Regulations to prohibit water waste. The ordinance states in Section 16.2.2:
No person shall use or permit the use of water in the District’s service areas in Calaveras County as specified:
a. No excessive Water Flow or Run-Off: Any use of water that results in excessive water runoff from the property and/or gutter flooding.
b. Limited Washing Down of Hard or Paved Surfaces: Hosing down paved surfaces is only allowed to alleviate health or safety hazards.
c. Free Flowing Hoses Prohibited for Any Use: All hoses must have an automatic shutoff device.
d. Single-pass Cooling Systems Prohibited: All new water connections are prohibited from having single-pass cooling systems.
e. Non-recirculating Washing Systems Prohibited: All new conveyor car wash and commercial laundry systems are prohibited from having nonrecirculating washing systems.
f. Re-circulating Water Required for Water Fountains and Decorative Water Features: All pools, spas, fountains, and other water displays must use a recirculation pump and be maintained leak free. "Dump and Fill" maintenance practice for pools is prohibited.
Calaveras County Water District 4.134 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Federal, State, and Local Existing Policies and Plans
Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards. The CCWD must meet all existing and proposed regulatory requirements of the Act.
Source Water Assessment Program
Source water protection is a national priority as a result of the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act and provides a comprehensive watershed-based approach to improving and preserving water quality of the public water supply source. States have a great deal of flexibility in how they design their program. California’s Source Water Assessment and Protection program allows water utilities to conduct their own assessments to improve and preserve water quality of the public water supply sources and provide information to communities that wish to develop local programs to protect their sources of drinking water. Because of the significant negative effects of wildfires on watersheds, potential wildfire mitigation measures could be linked to source water protection for the CCWD.
State
California State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010
The State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan establishes goals and priorities for Cal EMA to carry out disaster mitigation activities. The plan provides the basis for funding pre-mitigation priorities for projects and consolidates the plans of other state agencies and interagency groups into a comprehensive set of recommendations for California’s long-term mitigation strategy. CCWD’s multi-hazard mitigation planning process used the State plan for information to conduct their risk assessment, to identify mitigation goals and objectives, and to prioritize potential mitigation projects.
California Fire Plan, 2010
The California Fire Plan is the State’s road map for reducing the risk of wildfire. The fire plan is a cooperative effort between the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and the CDF and places the emphasis on what needs to be done before a fire starts. The current plan was finalized in early 2010 and is located at http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/fire_er/fpp_planning_cafireplan.
California Water Plan, 2009 update (currently being updated for 2013)
The California Water Plan provides a framework for water managers to consider options and make decisions regarding California’s water future. The plan presents basic data and
Calaveras County Water District 4.135 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
information on California’s water resources, including water supply evaluations and assessments of agricultural, urban, and environmental water uses to quantify the gap between water supplies and uses. The plan also provides water managers with general guidance on preparing for climate change and sudden changes caused by natural disasters.
California Water Code
Sections of the California Water Code related to the CCWD and hazards mitigation are summarized below:
• Water Code 350. Gives the governing body of a public water supply distributor the power to declare a water shortage emergency condition within their area when ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting the water supply to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. • Water Code 8000-8129. Local Flood Control. Empowers counties and local jurisdictions to appropriate and expend money from the general fund for: − The construction of works, improvements, levees or check dams to prevent overflow and flooding. − The protection and reforestation of watersheds. − The conservation of the flood waters. − The making of all surveys, maps and plats necessary to carry out any work, construction or improvement authorized by this article. − The carrying out of any work, construction or improvement authorized by this article outside the county if the rivers or streams affected flow in or through more than one county. • Water Code 10910. Requires cities and counties to identify the public water system that will supply water for a new project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. If the city or county is not able to identify any public water system, then they must prepare a water supply assessment. The city or county must request each public water system to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan. If the projected water demand was not accounted for, or there is no urban water management plan, “the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.”
Calaveras County Water District 4.136 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Local
Calaveras County General Plan, 1996
This is the County’s long-term, comprehensive plan for the development of the county as required by California law. The plan includes seven elements: land use, transportation, conservation, open space, safety, noise, and housing, and sets goals, policies, implementation measures, and related maps for each. Elements with goals and policies most-related to the CCWD include land use, conservation, open space, and safety. Policies more specifically related to the CCWD and/or this plan are the following:
• Policy II-3A—Allow for maximum densities in Natural Resource Lands, (which include dam inundation areas, wildlife, botanical, and agricultural preserve) • Policy II-25C—Encourage all sewer districts in the county to improve and expand sewer systems and services • Policy IV-9A—Support the development of water projects in the county for domestic and irrigation purposes • Policy IV-9B—Encourage continued cooperation among water suppliers in meeting the water need for the county as a whole • PolicyV-9A—Balance water resources development with the preservation of streams and rivers in their natural state • Policy V-9B—Protect public access to streams and rivers • Policy VII-1B—Review all proposed building in the county for compliance with current building standards relating to seismic safety and slope stability • Policy VII-1C—Review proposals to locate dams or other major facilities in the county for geologic and seismic safety • Policy VII-4A—Review building proposals for flood safety
The General Plan also includes the following individual community plans: Arnold Community Plan, Avery/Hathaway Pines Community Plan, Ebbetts Pass Special Plan, Mokelumne Hill Community Plan, Murphys/Douglas Flat Community Plan, Rancho Calaveras Special Plan, San Andreas Community Plan, and Valley Springs Community Plan. Assessing these individual plans was beyond the scope of this plan.
The Calaveras County Zoning Code includes the Environmental Protection Combining Zone, Chapter 17.58, which designates environmentally sensitive areas for protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The zone is intended for areas subject to flooding, sensitive archeological areas or environmental habitats, or areas where future construction or subdivision may have a significant effect on the environment.
Calaveras County is beginning the update process for their General Plan and many changes are anticipated due to the significant growth in the county in the last 10 years. The update process
Calaveras County Water District 4.137 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
presents an excellent opportunity for the CCWD to be involved in county land use planning and champion mitigation goal and objectives.
Calaveras County Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010
The Calaveras County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a county guide to hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of Calaveras County from the effects of hazardous events. This plan demonstrates the communities’ commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources.
Calaveras County Mass Fatality Plan
The Calaveras County Mass Fatality Plan establishes the policies, responsibilities, and procedures required to serve the needs of Calaveras County populace during incidents that result in significant loss of life. This plan establishes the emergency response organization for mass fatality incidents occurring within Calaveras County. This plan also establishes the operational concepts and procedures.
Calaveras County Terrorism Plan
The Calaveras County Terrorism Plan establishes a concept of operations for Calaveras County consequence management of a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or terrorist incident. This plan provides the basic field ICS and Emergency Operations Center SEMS (standardized emergency management system) guidance for actions to take for terrorist situations analysis, initial response, extended response, recover, and mitigation (awareness and prevention). This plan provides direction on how to integrate with federal agencies during crisis management.
Calaveras County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)
This multi-hazard functional plan outlines the functions, responsibilities, and regional risk assessments of Calaveras County for large scale emergencies (i.e. wildland fires, hazardous materials incidents, flooding, dam failure, light airplane crashes, etc.). This Plan sets forth an operating strategy for managing these incidents. The EOP addresses the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies in or affecting the County of Calaveras. The plan establishes a flexible, all hazards, emergency management organization required to facilitate the response to, and provide for short term recovery activities related to any significant emergency or disaster affecting Calaveras County. The plan further identifies the policies, responsibilities and procedures required to protect the health and safety of Calaveras County communities, public and private property and the environmental effects of natural and technological emergencies and disasters. It establishes the operational concepts and procedures associated with Initial Response Operations (field response) to emergencies, the Extended Response Operations (County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) activities) and the recovery process.
Calaveras County Water District 4.138 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Area Plan
The Area Plan, a.k.a. the Calaveras County Operational Area Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan, establishes the policies, responsibilities, and procedures required to protect the health and safety of Calaveras County’s populace, the environment, and public and private property from the effects of hazardous materials incidents.
Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit Pre-Fire Management Plan, 2011
The TCU of CDF developed this plan which combines all of the TCU’s pre-fire components into one document and also serves as the Community Wildfire Protection Plan for all communities in Calaveras County. The plan provides an excellent assessment of wildfire risk and capabilities in the TCU, including GIS analysis and maps. Pre-fire management projects are identified for both the entire unit and for each of the six battalions. The plan also documents the activities of the Calaveras Foothills Fire Safe Council.
The TCU plan identifies watersheds and water utilities as critical assets at risk to wildfire. The CCWD should integrate their wildfire mitigation strategy with projects identified in the TCU plan to the extent possible and consider further involvement with the Fire Safe Council in the future.
4.4.2 CCWD’s Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities
Table 4.39 identifies the County personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in the District.
Table 4.39. CCWD Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities
Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/Engineer with knowledge of land Y CCWD –Utilities Dept. development/land management practices Engineer/Professional trained in construction Y CCWD – Utilities Dept. practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Planner/Engineer/Scientist with an understanding of N natural hazards Personnel skilled in GIS Y CCWD –Utilities Dept. Basic/General Full time building official N Floodplain Manager N Emergency Manager Y CCWD – Utilities Dept. Grant writer Y CCWD – Utilities Dept. Other personnel GIS Data – Hazard areas N GIS Data - Critical facilities Y CCWD – Utilities Dept GIS Data – Building footprints N
Calaveras County Water District 4.139 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments GIS Data – Land use Y CCWD – Utilities Dept GIS Data – Links to Assessor’s data Y CCWD – Utilities Dept. Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-11, cable Y CCWD – MAC Group override, outdoor warning signals) Other
The CCWD has emergency generation capabilities at all of its critical facilities.
4.4.3 CCWD’s Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities
Table 4.40 identifies financial tools or resources that the District could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities.
Table 4.40. CCWD Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities
Financial Resources Accessible/Eligible to Use (Y/N) Comments Community Development Block Grants Y Capital improvements project funding Y Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes N Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services Y Impact fees for new development Y Incur debt through general obligation bonds Y Incur debt through special tax bonds N Incur debt through private activities N Withhold spending in hazard prone areas N Other
4.4.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships
The District works cooperatively and has many mutual aid agreements in place with various federal, state, and local agencies, groups, and districts. Examples include Cal Trans, Garden state cellular, PG&E, Comcast, County Public works, County Sheriff, County OES, Cal EMA, Red Cross.
4.4.5 Other Mitigation Efforts
Calaveras County participates in the annual EAP meetings for dam. In addition, the County participates in the table top exercises every five years.
The District noted that there is active participation in MACs group.
Calaveras County Water District 4.140 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Public Outreach Efforts include:
• post information, such as conservation efforts, on website • post signs on streets and in neighborhoods as to conservation directions, such as went to water • send informational press releases out as needed • District Board meetings are always open to the public • attend job fairs and other events, such as the Garden Show
The District has a Robust Maintenance Policy and Program to keep facilities up and running during adverse events:
• generators are well maintained, fueled and accessible • own and maintain District-owned snowplow and snow removal equipment to keep facilities accessible during severe winter weather • ensure all critical facilities have backup generators and they are kept fueled and running • also maintain portable generators as a redundant back up for critical facilities
Maintain good communication system for District staff
• radios in all vehicles • District cell phones provided to all staff • working to place GPS systems in all vehicles
Calaveras County Water District 4.141 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 5 MITIGATION STRATEGY
Requirement §201.6(c)(3): [The plan shall include] a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.
This section describes the mitigation strategy process and mitigation action plan for the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. It describes how the CCWD met the following requirements from the 10-step planning process:
Planning Step 6: Set Goals Planning Step 7: Review Possible Activities Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan 5.1 Mitigation Strategy: Overview
The results of the planning process, the risk assessment, the goal setting, the identification of mitigation actions, and the hard work of the HMPC led to the mitigation strategy and mitigation action plan for this LHMP update. As part of the plan update process, a comprehensive review and update of the mitigation strategy portion of the plan was conducted by the HMPC. Some of the initial goals and objectives from the 2006 plan were refined and reaffirmed and others were added. The end result was a new set of goals, reorganized to reflect the completion of 2006 actions, the updated risk assessment and the new priorities of this plan update. To support the new LHMP goals, the mitigation actions from 2006 were reviewed and assessed for their value in reducing risk and vulnerability to the planning area from identified hazards and evaluated for their inclusion in this plan update (See Section 2.0 What’s New). Section 5.2 below identifies the new goals and objectives of this plan update and Section 5.4 details the new mitigation action plan.
Taking all of the above into consideration, the HMPC developed the following umbrella mitigation strategy for this LHMP update:
Communicate the hazard information collected and analyzed through this planning process as well as HMPC success stories so that District staff and community stakeholders better understand what can happen where and what they themselves can do to minimize loss. Implement the action plan recommendations of this plan. Use existing rules, regulations, policies, and procedures already in existence. Monitor multi-objective management opportunities so that funding opportunities may be shared and packaged and broader support may be garnered.
Calaveras County Water District 5.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
5.2 Goals and Objectives
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
Up to this point in the planning process, the HMPC has organized resources, assessed hazards and risks, and documented mitigation capabilities. The resulting goals, objectives, and mitigation actions were developed based on these tasks. The HMPC held a focused meeting designed to achieve a collaborative mitigation strategy as described further throughout this section.
During the mitigation strategy meeting, the HMPC reviewed the results of the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. This analysis of the risk assessment identified areas where improvements could be made and provided the framework for the HMPC to formulate planning goals and objectives and to develop the mitigation strategy for the CCWD.
Goals were defined for the purpose of this mitigation plan as broad-based public policy statements that:
Represent basic desires of the District; Are nonspecific, in that they refer to the quality (not the quantity) of the outcome; Are future-oriented, in that they are achievable in the future; and Are time-independent, in that they are not scheduled events.
Goals are stated without regard to implementation. Implementation cost, schedule, and means are not considered. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. Goal statements form the basis for objectives and actions that will be used as means to achieve the goals. Objectives define strategies to attain the goals and are more specific and measurable.
HMPC members were provided with the list of goals from the 2006 plan as well as a list of other sample goals to consider. Goals and objectives from the 2006 plan were:
Goal 1 – Reduce risk to existing facilities from natural hazards
Objective 1.1 – Implement mitigation measures for facilities identified in the 100-year floodplain. Objective 1.2 – Reduce the fire vulnerability of facilities identified in high fire hazard areas. Objective 1.3 – Update and improve risk assessment data and maps.
Calaveras County Water District 5.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Goal 2 – Prevent loss of services
Objective 2.1 – Increase interconnections with regional water suppliers to prevent loss of service during drought and other emergencies. Objective 2.2 – Increase water supply storage capacity. Objective 2.3 – Improve redundancy at critical facilities. Objective 2.4 – Integrate natural hazards mitigation into future facilities planning.
Goal 3 – Protect public health and safety
Objective 3.1 – Maintain adequate flows in water system for fire protection. Objective 3.2 – Improve capacity of critical sewer infrastructure to accommodate peak events.
Goal 4 – Improve education, coordination, communication with public and stakeholders
Objective 4.1 – Educate public on responsible water use and conservation measures. Objective 4.2 – Foster partnerships with other water and sewer providers locally and regionally. Objective 4.3 – Maintain and enhance participation in multi-agency groups, such as the Multi-Agency Coordinating Group, related to natural hazards and emergencies.
They were told that they could use, combine, or revise the statements provided or develop new ones, keeping the risk assessment in mind. Each member was given three index cards and asked to write a goal statement on each. Goal statements were collected and grouped into similar themes and displayed on the wall of the meeting room. The goal statements were then grouped into similar topics. New goals from the HMPC were discussed until the team came to consensus. Some of the statements were determined to be better suited as objectives or actual mitigation actions and were set aside for later use. Next, the HMPC developed objectives that summarized strategies to achieve each goal.
Based on the risk assessment review and goal setting process, the HMPC identified the following goals and objectives, which provide the direction for reducing future hazard-related losses within the CCWD.
Goal 1 Provide protection of life and public health and safety
Objective 1.1 Maintain adequate flows in water system for fire protection. Objective 1.2 Improve capacity of critical sewer infrastructure to accommodate peak events. Objective 1.3 Continue emergency water supply planning during periods of drought and water shortage.
Calaveras County Water District 5.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Goal 2 Reduce risk and vulnerability to existing and future facilities from hazards
Objective 2.1 Protect critical facilities from hazard impacts. Objective 2.2 Implement mitigation measures for facilities vulnerable to flooding. Objective 2.3 Reduce the vulnerability of facilities identified in fire hazard areas. Objective 2.4 Update and improve risk assessment data and maps. Objective 2.5 Integrate natural hazards mitigation into future facilities planning.
Goal 3 Maintain current service levels and prevent loss of services
Objective 3.1 Protect critical lifeline utilities from hazard impacts. Objective 3.2 Enhance and improve interconnections with regional water suppliers to prevent loss of service during drought and other emergencies. Objective 3.3 Improve and protect water supply storage capacity. Objective 3.4 Improve redundancy at critical facilities. Objective 3.5 Increase backup capacities post-disaster to service the community until complete services are restored.
Goal 4 Improve education, awareness, coordination, and communication with District staff, first responders, emergency management planners, public and other stakeholders
Objective 4.1 Educate public on responsible water use and conservation measures. Objective 4.2 Foster partnerships with other water and sewer providers locally and regionally. Objective 4.3 Improve emergency planning relative to vulnerable special populations. Objective 4.4 Improve coordination with other County departments and agencies (such as public health) related to natural hazard planning. Objective 4.5 Maintain and enhance participation in multi-agency groups, such as the Multi- Agency Coordinating Group, related to natural hazards and emergencies. Objective 4.6 Coordinate with other agencies for disaster training exercises. Objective 4.7 Increase use of shared resources. Objective 4.8 Make better use of technology.
Calaveras County Water District 5.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
5.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
In order to identify and select mitigation actions to support the mitigation goals, each hazard identified in Section 4.1 Identifying Hazards: Natural Hazards was evaluated. Only those hazards that were determined to be a priority hazard were considered further in the development of hazard-specific mitigation actions.
These priority hazards (in alphabetical order) are:
Dam Failure Drought and Water Shortage Flood 100/500 year Flood: Localized Stormwater Flooding Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Severe Weather: Winter Storms and Extreme Cold Severe Weather: Wind Wildfire
The HMPC eliminated the hazards identified below from further consideration in the development of mitigation actions because the risk of a hazard event in the CCWD is unlikely or nonexistent, the vulnerability of the CCWD is low, or capabilities are already in place to mitigate negative impacts. The eliminated hazards are:
Avalanche Earthquake Levee Failure Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Severe Weather: Tornadoes Soil Hazard: Erosion Soil Hazard: Expansive Soils Soil Hazards: Landslides and Debris Flows Soil Hazard: Subsidence Volcano
It is important to note, however, that all the hazards addressed in this plan are included in the District wide multi-hazard actions identified in the following section.
Calaveras County Water District 5.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Once it was determined which hazards warranted the development of specific mitigation actions, the HMPC analyzed viable mitigation options that supported the identified goals and objectives. The HMPC was provided with the following list of categories of mitigation actions, which originate from the NFIP’s Community Rating System:
Prevention Property protection Structural projects Natural resource protection Emergency services Public information
The HMPC was also provided with examples of potential mitigation action alternatives for each of the above categories. The HMPC was instructed to consider both future and existing infrastructure and service areas in considering possible mitigation actions. A facilitated discussion then took place to examine and analyze the options. Appendix C Mitigation Strategy provides an overview by CRS mitigation category to assist in the review and identification of possible mitigation activities. Also utilized in the review of possible mitigation measures is FEMA’s publication on Mitigation Ideas, by hazard type. This was followed by a brainstorming session that generated a list of preferred mitigation actions by hazard.
5.3.1 Prioritization Process
Once the mitigation actions were identified, the HMPC was provided with several decision- making tools, including FEMA’s recommended prioritization criteria, STAPLEE sustainable disaster recovery criteria; Smart Growth principles; and others, to assist in deciding why one recommended action might be more important, more effective, or more likely to be implemented than another. STAPLEE stands for the following:
Social: Does the measure treat people fairly? (e.g., different groups, different generations) Technical: Is the action technically feasible? Does it solve the problem? Administrative: Are there adequate staffing, funding, and other capabilities to implement the project? Political: Who are the stakeholders? Will there be adequate political and public support for the project? Legal: Does the jurisdiction have the legal authority to implement the action? Is it legal? Economic: Is the action cost-beneficial? Is there funding available? Will the action contribute to the local economy? Environmental: Does the action comply with environmental regulations? Will there be negative environmental consequences from the action?
Calaveras County Water District 5.6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
In accordance with the DMA requirements, an emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit-cost analysis in determining action priority. Other criteria used to assist in evaluating the benefit-cost of a mitigation action includes:
Does the action address hazards or areas with the highest risk? Does the action protect lives? Does the action protect infrastructure, community assets or critical facilities? Does the action meet multiple objectives (Multiple Objective Management)? What will the action cost? What is the timing of available funding?
The mitigation categories, multi-hazard actions, and criteria are included in Appendix C.
With these criteria in mind, HMPC members were each given a set of eighteen colored dots, six each of red, blue, and green. The dots were assigned red for high priority (worth five points), blue for medium priority (worth three points), and green for low priority (worth one point). The team was asked to use the dots to prioritize actions with the above criteria in mind. The point score for each action was totaled. Appendix C contains the total score given to each identified mitigation action.
The process of identification and analysis of mitigation alternatives allowed the HMPC to come to consensus and to prioritize recommended mitigation actions. During the voting process, emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit-cost review in determining project priority; however, this was not a quantitative analysis. Benefit-cost was also considered in greater detail in the development of the Mitigation Action Plan detailed below in Section 5.3. Specifically, each action developed for this plan contains a description of the problem and proposed project, the entity with primary responsibility for implementation, any other alternatives considered, a cost estimate, expected project benefits, potential funding sources, and a schedule for implementation. Development of these project details for each action led to the determination of a High, Medium, or Low priority for each.
Recognizing the regulatory requirement to prioritize by benefit-cost to ensure cost-effectiveness, the HMPC decided to pursue:
mitigation action strategy development and implementation according to the nature and extent of damages; the level of protection and benefits each action provides; political support; project cost; available funding; and priority.
Calaveras County Water District 5.7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
This process drove the development of a prioritized action plan for the CCWD. Cost- effectiveness will be considered in greater detail through performing benefit-cost project analyses when seeking FEMA mitigation grant funding for eligible actions associated with this plan.
5.4 Mitigation Action Plan
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
This action plan was developed to present the recommendations developed by the HMPC for how the CCWD can reduce the risk and vulnerability of people, property, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources to future disaster losses. Emphasis was placed on both future and existing development. The action plan summarizes who is responsible for implementing each of the prioritized actions as well as when and how the actions will be implemented. Each action summary also includes a discussion of the benefit-cost review conducted to meet the regulatory requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act.
The action plan detailed below contains both new action items developed for this plan update as well as old actions that were yet to be completed from the 2006 plan. Table 5.1 indicates whether the action is new or from the 2006 plan and Section 2.2 contains the details for each 2006 mitigation action item indicating whether a given action item has been completed, deleted, or deferred.
It is important to note that CCWD has numerous existing, detailed action descriptions, which sometimes include benefit-cost estimates, in other planning documents, such as their Water Supply Master Plan, Integrated Water Master Plan, Service Area Master Plans, and capital improvement budgets and reports. These actions are considered to be part of this plan, and the details, to avoid duplication, should be referenced in their original source document. The HMPC also realizes that new needs and priorities may arise as a result of a disaster or other circumstances and reserves the right to support new actions, as necessary, as long as they conform to the overall goals of this plan.
Further, it should be clarified that the actions included in this mitigation strategy are subject to further review and refinement; alternatives analyses; and reprioritization due to funding availability and/or other criteria. The CCWD is not obligated by this document to implement any or all of these projects. Rather this mitigation strategy represents the desires of the District to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities from identified hazards. The actual selection, prioritization, and implementation of these actions will also be further evaluated in accordance with the CRS mitigation categories and criteria contained in Appendix C.
Calaveras County Water District 5.8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Table 5.1. CCWD Mitigation Actions
Addresses Addresses New Action/ Hazard Current Future Mitigation Action 2006 Action Addressed Priority Development Development 1. Dam Failure Emergency New Action Dam Failure L X X Planning 2. Review and Update Drought New Action Drought H X Plan 3. Implement Other Facility New Action Flood H X X Flood Mitigation Projects 4. Retrofit Manhole Covers New Action Flood H X X 5. Improve grading and New Action Flood H X drainage of Wastewater Effluent Storage Ponds 6. Enhance On-Site New Action Wildfire H X Coordination with Cal-Fire during Fire Events 7. Construct Fire Resistant New Action Wildfire M X Electrical Control Panels 8. Increase District Owned New Action Severe H X Snow Removal Equipment Weather: and/or Snow Plows that can Winter be attached to the District’s Storms and Truck Fleet. Extreme Cold 9. Remaining Redwood Storage New action Wildfire H X X Tanks 10. Jenny Lind Water Treatment 2006 Flood H X Plant Flood Protection (was Provide flood protection for Jenny Lind water treatment plant and La Contenta main sewage lift station) 11. Big Trees South Zone, 2006 Wildfire H X X Redwood Potable Water Storage Tanks, Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Project (was titled Replace redwood water storage tanks with steel tanks in 2006) 12. Work with Calaveras County 2006 Multi-hazard H X X on County General Plan update to integrate natural hazards mitigation measures in new development planning 13. Implement recommendations 2006 Flood H X X in service area master plans related to critical sewer facilities
Calaveras County Water District 5.9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Addresses Addresses New Action/ Hazard Current Future Mitigation Action 2006 Action Addressed Priority Development Development 14. Implement pipeline 2006 Wildfire H X X improvements identified in water master plans to provide adequate fire flows 15. Create and maintain wildfire 2006 Wildfire M X X defensible spaces around facilities identified as in high fire hazard areas 16. Evaluate the need for 2006 Multi-hazard M X X improved redundancy at critical facilities 17. Review and update a tiered 2006 Drought L X X rate structure to encourage responsible water use 18. Update the National Pollutant 2006 Flood L X Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for wastewater facilities as required 19. Identify and incorporate 2006 Drought L X X strategies for increasing water storage capacity to mitigate impacts of drought and other emergencies in an updated CCWD County Water Master Plan 20. Develop mutual aid 2006 Multi-hazard L X X agreements with other water providers and county agencies for support during emergencies
Calaveras County Water District 5.10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 1. Dam Failure Emergency Planning
Hazards Addressed: Dam Failure
Issue/Background: The State of California Division of Safety of Dams recommend that an emergency action plan (EAP) be developed for dams which, in the event of failure or uncontrolled release, could endanger downstream life or property. Once developed, the EAP should be regularly updated and exercised.
Other Alternatives: No action
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Participate in Annual Emergency Action Plan Meetings and Exercises and educate District staff on dams of concern to flooding, loss of service
Responsible Office: CCWD Staff
Priority (H, M, L): Low
Cost Estimate: Unknown
Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increased life and property safety.
Potential Funding: None
Schedule: On-going.
Calaveras County Water District 5.11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 2. Review and Update Drought Plan
Hazards Addressed: Drought and Water Storage
Issue/Background: The District adopted Ordinance 77-1 “Prohibiting Nonessential Uses of Water” on April 14, 1977, because of a water shortage emergency in the 1976-1977 drought. The ordinance is enforced in the CCWD’s improvement districts when an emergency water shortage condition is declared due to drought conditions that prevent the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers from being satisfied without depleting the water supply of the district that would be needed for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. Specific water uses are regulated and prohibited in the ordinance.
CCWD adopted ordinance 2010-02, “Water Waste”, on July 14, 2010 to amend the District Rules and Regulations to prohibit water waste. See Section 16.2.2 of this ordinance.
Other Alternatives: No action.
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented:
Responsible Office: CCWD Engineering/Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: Staff time,
Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increased preparation for the District for drought related problems.
Potential Funding: None
Schedule: On-going
Calaveras County Water District 5.12 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 3. Implement Other Facility Flood Mitigation Projects
Hazards Addressed: Flood
Issue/Background: Prepare alternatives report and select preferred alternatives for each location. Prepare planning documents and implement as required. Identify other facility flood mitigation projects throughout the District and Implement as needed.
Other Alternatives: No action.
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Planned through various mechanisms including water system mitigation and grant programs. These activities will be performed by CCWD with the assistance of consultants and government agencies.
Responsible Office: CCWD Engineering/Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: To be determined.
Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increased life safety and property protection and safeguard the potable water supply.
Potential Funding: To be determined.
Schedule: On-going, identification process within the next two years, 2014.
Calaveras County Water District 5.13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 4. Retrofit Manhole Covers
Hazards Addressed: Reduce the amount of peak wet weather flow entering the District’s wastewater conveyance system. I/I flows contribute to sewer system overflows into local homes and region’s waterways, negatively impacting public health and the environment.
Issue/Background: In order to control infiltration and Inflow into manholes which end up at the wastewater treatment plant(s) where it must be treated like sewage, resulting in high treatment costs. Also with I/I creates overflows of the manholes, where it can get into waterways and homes. The peak wet weather flows also cause problems with winter storage at the wastewater treatment plant(s) which also can create dam failures of the treatment ponds.
Other Alternatives: No action
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Create and implement a budget to replace manhole covers of a yearly basis throughout the District over a 10 year period.
Responsible Office: CCWD Engineering/Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: $25,000/year
Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced risk to localized flooding to property, as well as increased traffic safety.
Potential Funding: To be determined.
Schedule: On-going completed in 10 years 2022
Calaveras County Water District 5.14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 5. Improve grading and drainage of Wastewater Effluent Storage Ponds
Hazards Addressed: Flood
Issue/Background: The CCWD owns and operates 12 sewer facilities that treat wastewater for 50 to 4,000 people depending on the system. Peak wet weather flows can cause inflow and infiltration problems as well as flooding of the effluent ponds, especially during wet winters when excessive winter storage at the wastewater treatment plant(s) can cause dam failures of the treatment ponds.
Other Alternatives: No action.
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Create and implement a plan for each facility designed to improve the grading and drainage of the District’s wastewater effluent storage ponds.
Responsible Office: CCWD Engineering/Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: $5,000,000
Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced risk of infiltration of flood waters to the wastewater ponds, which could cause an effluent spill.
Potential Funding: To be determined.
Schedule: Master Plans to be updated within next 5 years, 2017. CCWD staff will identify critical recommendations regarding sewer facilities.
Calaveras County Water District 5.15 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 6. Enhance On-Site Coordination with Cal-Fire during Fire Events
Hazards Addressed: Wildfire
Issue/Background: Contact information through the Multiple Agency Coordination Committed (aka MAC Group). There may be times during fire emergencies when CCWD’s recourses are overwhelmed in terms of staff and resources. Quick response to emergencies and restoration of services is vital to protect public health and assist with community disaster recovery. This action seeks to establish contact procedures and information through the Multiple Agency Coordination Committee and related public safety organizations.
Other Alternatives: No action
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented:
Responsible Office: CCWD Engineering/Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: Unknown
Benefits (Losses Avoided): Enhanced protection of District facilities from wildfire.
Potential Funding: To be determined.
Schedule: To be completed within 2 years, (2014) and updated as needed.
Calaveras County Water District 5.16 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 7. Construct Fire Resistant Electrical Control Panels
Hazards Addressed: Wildfire
Issue/Background: The District has several facilities (water treatment plants, pump stations, wastewater facilities and lift stations) that require 24 hour service. Some of these facilities are in fire zones. It is the District’s responsibility to keep service going during all types of weather and hazards. By protection the electrical control panels with fire resistant control panels, the District can keep services going to our customers.
Other Alternatives: No action.
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Identify, prioritize and construct fire resistant electrical control panels.
Responsible Office: CCWD Engineering/Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): Medium
Cost Estimate: Not known at this time
Benefits (Losses Avoided): The primary benefits are safeguarding the potable water supply and reducing or eliminating wastewater spills or overflows. Protects public health, safety and the environment.
Potential Funding: Unknown
Schedule: To be completed within four years, 2016.
Calaveras County Water District 5.17 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 8. Increase District Owned Snow Removal Equipment and/or Snow Plows that can be attached to the District’s Truck Fleet.
Hazards Addressed: Winter weather and snow.
Issue/Background: During snow events where power failure occurs the District has to be able to get to their pump stations, lift stations and water/wastewater treatment facilities in order to fuel up their standby generators. District facilities are spread out throughout the county. Cal- Trans and the County are busy clearing county roads and highways that they cannot always get to District facilities. Therefore the District has to rely on staff and snow removal equipment in order to not only fuel the standby generators but also the pump stations, lift stations, and treatment plants in order to make sure that our services are not interrupted.
Other Alternatives: No action.
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented:
Responsible Office: CCWD Engineering/Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: $750,000.00
Benefits (Losses Avoided): Loss of water and wastewater services are avoided.
Potential Funding: Unknown
Schedule: On-going over the next five years (2017).
Calaveras County Water District 5.18 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 9. Remaining Redwood Storage Tanks
Hazards Addressed: Replace remaining redwood tanks with fire resistant steel tanks in high fire hazard zones where redwood tanks and potable water supply are at significant risk to wildfire and no alternate potable water source is readily available. (This ties in with Action 11 below)
The following list of existing redwood tanks are identified for mitigation projects:
Big Trees Tanks 4, 5 and 8, Dorrington, CA (a.k.a. Big Trees North Zone) Copper Cove Tank 'B', Copperopolis, CA Heather Drive Tank, Forest Meadows, CA Meadowmont #13, Arnold, CA Timber Trails, Avery, CA
Other Alternatives: In addition to defensible space and fuel reduction, the recommended action is to replace the vulnerable redwood tanks with steel tanks of fire resistant materials.
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action will be Implemented: Planned through various mechanisms including water system master plans, hazard mitigation and grant programs (by CCWD, consultants and government agencies).
Responsible Office: Calaveras County Water District
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: $1,000,000 for Big Trees North Zone (3 tanks); $450,000 for Copper Cove Tank 'B'; $450,000 for Heather Drive Tank; and $300,000 for Meadowmont #13, and $300,000 for Timber Trails.
Benefits (Losses Avoided): The primary benefit is safeguarding the potable water supply. Big Trees Village North Zone serves approximately 700 households and an estimated $4 million in avoided damages after mitigation.
Potential Funding: Bummerville Tank replacement is currently funded by a DWR Prop.84 grant. CCWD plans to submit an application to Cal-EMA for Big Trees North Zone (Tanks 4, 5 and 8). No funding has been identified for the remaining tanks.
Schedule: Bummerville Tank is currently under construction to be completed in 2012. The other projects are scheduled for 2015 through 2017 depending on availability of funding.
Calaveras County Water District 5.19 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 10. Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant Flood Protection
Hazards Addressed: Existing raw water diversion pump station, electrical systems, and liquid oxygen tank are located within 100-yr flood zone and at risk to flooding. The April 2006 flood event, which resulted in a federal disaster declaration covering 17 counties in California, dumped several inches of rain during a six-hour period and caused the Calaveras River and Cosgrove Creek to overflow their banks threatening CCWD raw water diversion facilities at the Jenny Lind water treatment plant.
Other Alternatives: An alternatives report was prepared and evaluated several alternatives including no project alternative, construction of flood walls/barriers, and relocating electrical controls and raising the pump motors.
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action will be Implemented: Planning documents prepared by CCWD assisted by private consultants and Cal-EMA.
Responsible Office: Calaveras County Water District
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: $750,000 to relocate the raw water pump station electrical control panels to a new electrical building, elevate pump motors and associated site improvements.
Benefits (Losses Avoided): The primary benefit is safeguarding the potable water supply. The Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant serves residential and commercial sectors and a population of approximately 10,000 people and avoided losses of over $900,000 per day.
Potential Funding: The project is currently 75% grant funded by Cal-EMA with CCWD contributing a 25% cost share.
Schedule: The project is to be completed by deadline of November 2013.
Calaveras County Water District 5.20 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 11. Big Trees South Zone, Redwood Potable Water Storage Tanks, Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Project
Hazards Addressed: The proposed project will replace redwood tanks (Big Trees Tank #1, Tank #3 and Tank 60K) with steel tanks of fire resistant construction. In the 2004 Pattison Complex Fire, CCWD lost a redwood storage tank to wildfire. The communities of Darrington, Camp Connell, Big Trees Village are recognized as "communities at risk" to wildfire and located within a high wildfire hazard zone. The community's potable water supply is at risk to wildfire because the redwood tanks are not fire resistant and vulnerable to wildfire, and there is no alternate potable water source.
Other Alternatives: In addition to fuel reduction and defensible space, the District reviewed alternatives to provide fire resistant construction to protect the potable water tanks. Because the underlying redwood construction of the tanks is not fire resistant, metal cladding of the existing tanks was considered but determined to be effective. Replacement of the redwood tanks with steel tanks is the recommended action.
Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action will be Implemented: Planned through various mechanisms including water system master plans, hazard mitigation and grant programs. These activities will be performed by CCWD with assistance of consultants and government agencies.
Responsible Office: Calaveras County Water District
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: $1,160,000
Benefits (Losses Avoided): The primary loss is an extended loss of the potable water supply to a population of 1,475 persons and an estimated $3 million in avoided damages after mitigation.
Potential Funding: CCWD has submitted an application with Cal-EMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Schedule: Project is scheduled for 2013 or 2014 depending on availability of funding.
Calaveras County Water District 5.21 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 12. Work with Calaveras County on County General Plan update to integrate natural hazards mitigation measures in new development planning
Issue/Background: Calaveras County is continuing the process to update their General Plan (last version completed in 1996). The CCWD is charged with the creation of the Water Element section of the new General Plan. The District's 1946 charter establishes the boundaries of the entire County to be the CCWD's responsibility. Therefore, the CCWD's participation and leadership in updating the General Plan is appropriate. The CCWD has identified several issues with existing infrastructure placement that can be improved with appropriate planning for future development. Several examples include avoiding floodplain areas and installing underground infrastructure to avoid potential damage from landslides and/or wildfires.
Other Alternatives: No Action
Responsible Office: CCWD
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: The cost to the District is approximately $80,000. Future costs are unknown but will be based upon the amount of CCWD staff time necessary to attend meetings, review plan elements, and communicate recommendations in the County's planning process.
Benefits (Losses Avoided): Cost-effective planning with the County will result in the development of more efficient, pragmatic, long-term mitigation solutions.
Potential Funding: General CCWD budget
Schedule: Update will be an ongoing process through at least 2014. Waiting on the County to complete the update.
Calaveras County Water District 5.22 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 13. Implement recommendations in service area master plans related to critical sewer facilities
Issue/Background: The CCWD owns and operates 45 sewer lift stations in their 12 wastewater systems. Many lift stations are located near water bodies used for recreational activities including full-body contact. One example is Lake Tulloch, where the CCWD has 30 lift stations within a few feet from the lake. These stations can convey up to 100,000 gallons of raw sewage each day. Heavy rainfall and flooding create inflow/infiltration in the collection system exacerbating the quantity of sewage these stations must pump. It is imperative that the public be protected from overflows from these lift stations. A recent state regulation requires collection system operators to reduce overflows and spills from their systems or face mandatory monetary penalties.
Six of the largest sewer systems have been recently master planned. Computer modeling of collection systems was conducted to determine adequacy for current and future flows. Many were found to be deficient and recommendations were made for the improvements needed to bring them up to capacity.
Other Alternatives: No action
Responsible Office: CCWD Engineering Department
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: $7.9 million
Benefits (Losses Avoided):
Protect public safety and the environment and access to recreational activities in rivers and lakes Avoid mandatory fines due to overflows and spills Reduce revenue losses due to closures of recreational areas (not CCWD revenue)
Potential Funding: District revenue from rates, fees, property taxes, interest on investments
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program U.S. EPA USDA Rural Utility Service California State Water Resources Control Board Small Community Wastewater Grant State revolving fund grants and/or loans
Schedule: Project ongoing, completion within 10 years
Calaveras County Water District 5.23 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 14. Implement pipeline improvements identified in water master plans to provide adequate fire flows
Issue/Background: The CCWD owns and operates five potable water systems in the county. Recently, master plans have been prepared for the four largest systems: Copper Cove, Ebbetts Pass, Jenny Lind, and West Point. In each system, the computer models identified zones of inadequate fire flow in the distribution systems. Most of the systems were installed when 500 gallons per minute (gpm) was considered adequate flow. By today's standards that flow is inadequate; today's fire experts recommend at least 1,000 gpm fire flow.
Particularly in the West Point system, but also to smaller degrees in the other three systems, it was found that the system does not even deliver the CCWD's own standard of 500 gpm. This lack of fire flow is a threat to the safety of the West Point residents and is also curbing the development of the business section of downtown West Point. County planners will not approve the construction of buildings, residential or commercial, in areas of inadequate fire flows.
Other Alternatives: No action
Responsible Office: CCWD Engineering Department
Priority (H, M, L): High
Cost Estimate: $2.6 million
Benefits (Losses Avoided):
Ensure adequate fire flow for the protection of lives and property from fire Provide for community development Protect public health and safety
Potential Funding:
District revenue from rates, fees, property taxes, interest on investments FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Program (Eminent Threat in West Point) USDA Rural Utility Service State revolving fund grants and/or loans
Schedule: Project ongoing, completion within 10 years.
Calaveras County Water District 5.24 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 15. Create and maintain wildfire defensible spaces around facilities identified as in high fire hazard areas
Issue/Background: The risk assessment indicates that much of Calaveras County is at high to very high wildfire risk due to vegetative fuels, topography, and weather. Damaging fires are likely to occur each year. The risk assessment also showed many of CCWD's facilities to be in high fire hazard areas; the operations of these facilities are critical lifeline utilities for the public and critical for fire protection. Maintaining the recommended 100-foot defensible space around facilities will reduce potential for losses during a fire. CDF fire crews or California Conservation Corps crews may be available to complete work.
Other Alternatives:
Responsible Office: CCWD Operations and Administrative Departments
Priority (H, M, L): Medium
Cost Estimate: Staff time to coordinate with CDF and costs of temporary hires
Benefits (Losses Avoided):
Reduce risk of damage or destruction to facilities due to wildfire Reduce risk of loss of services to customers and for fire protection
Potential Funding:
District revenue from rates, fees, property taxes, interest on investments FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program U.S. Forest Service Wildland-Urban Interface grants California State Fire Safe Council or local Fire Safe Council State revolving fund grants and/or loans
Schedule: Annually.
Calaveras County Water District 5.25 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 16. Evaluate the need for improved redundancy at critical facilities
Issue/Background: The CCWD owns and operates 5 water and 12 sewer facilities that deliver drinking water and provide fire flow to 100 to 13,000 people and treat wastewater of 50 to 4,000 people, depending on the system. Redundancy of critical processes at these facilities can avoid outages and loss of services during emergencies. The extent of redundancy and need for improvements are currently unknown.
Other Alternatives: In a few systems water delivery can be provided through interties, but this is limited. The only alternate solution is trucking wastewater to other facilities.
Responsible Office: CCWD Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): Medium
Cost Estimate: The cost of creating plans will be low. The capital costs related to redundancy is unknown until study is done.
Benefits (Losses Avoided):
Improve reliability of water delivery and sewer conveyance facilities Protect public health and safety
Potential Funding: District revenue from rates, fees, property taxes, interest on investments
Schedule: Currently ongoing
Calaveras County Water District 5.26 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 17. Review and update a tiered rate structure to encourage responsible water use.
Issue/Background: Based on the mitigation action included in the 2006 plan, the CCWD developed a tiered water rate structure. There are a number of CCWD's residential customers who have extensively landscaped their homes, often creating "mini-ranches" which require significant amounts of water for livestock and orchards. The residential connection is designed for the average single family home. Customers who use significantly more than the average amount of water to care for extensive landscaping create the need for additional infrastructure to meet demand and fire protection standards, and increase the area's vulnerability to drought. Additional requirements dictated by California Senate Bill SB 7-7, or 20 by 2020, will require the District to reduce its per capita per day water consumption by 20%. Continual review of District’s billing and tiered rates is one way to entice customers to reduce consumption.
Other Alternatives: Continue to allow all consumption to be billed at the recently developed tiered rate structure.
Responsible Office: CCWD Administrative Department
Priority (H, M, L): Low
Cost Estimate: Staff time needed to review, update and implement any modifications to the program and changes in billing. The billing program is already setup to handle tiered rates.
Benefits (Losses Avoided):
Reduce the amount of peak water usage Reduce CCWD revenue losses and extra costs during times of drought or other water shortage or distribution problems Provide incentives for conservation and responsible water use
Potential Funding: CCWD general budget
Schedule: Implement update over next 3 years.
Calaveras County Water District 5.27 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 18. Update the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for wastewater facilities as required
Issue/Background: There are two ways to dispose of treated wastewater effluent - disposal to land (waste discharge requirements (WDR) permit) or discharge to creeks or rivers (NPDES permit). The permits are obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, but each permit type has differing requirements. Until recently, the CCWD was not allowed to apply for a water discharge NPDES permit and, thus, was restricted to finding land for storage and disposal under the land application WDR permit. However, costs of land and construction of facilities have skyrocketed in recent years, making land application very costly for small customer-based agencies such as CCWD.
Heavy rainfall and flooding causes high inflow/infiltration, thus exacerbating the amount of sewage to treat, store, and dispose of. The CCWD is applying for water discharge NPDES permits when current storage or disposal capacities are reached, to reduce vulnerability during heavy precipitation events and to reduce costs to the CCWD and ratepayers.
Other Alternatives: Continue to purchase land and build facilities for storage and disposal
Responsible Office: CCWD Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): Low
Cost Estimate: Staff time to prepare and coordinate applications. Costs average $16,000 per acre-foot to construct storage and disposal facilities
Benefits (Losses Avoided):
Reduce sewer overflows or spills Avoid mandatory fines due to overflows and spills Protect public health and safety and the environment Significant potential savings in avoiding land purchases and construction of facilities for storage and disposal.
Potential Funding: CCWD general budget; district revenue from rates, fees, property taxes, interest on investments
Schedule: Ongoing.
Calaveras County Water District 5.28 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 19. Identify and incorporate strategies for increasing water storage capacity to mitigate impacts of drought and other emergencies in an updated CCWD County Water Master Plan
Issue/Background: The CCWD County Water Master Plan is 10 years old. There are a number of strategies recommended in this plan. Some are related to communications between local agencies, whereas others focus on policy issues and feasibility studies. An updated comprehensive analysis is needed to address changing conditions and ensure a high reliability water supply for the future. The updated plan will review the status of accomplished feasibility studies, assess new priorities, include measures to maintain and enhance interagency communications, and incorporate strategies to increase the district's and community's disaster resistance.
Other Alternatives: No action
Responsible Office: CCWD Administrative Department
Priority (H, M, L): Low
Cost Estimate: $50,000 to $100,000
Benefits (Losses Avoided):
Reduce vulnerability to drought Ensure future water supply needs
Potential Funding: Potential funding in future fiscal year's budget starting in July, 2014
Schedule: Initiate within five years
Calaveras County Water District 5.29 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Action 20. Develop mutual aid agreements with other water providers and county agencies for support during emergencies
Issue/Background: There may be times during an emergency or disaster when CCWD resources are overwhelmed-in terms of staff and equipment. While the CCWD is an active participant in the countywide Multi-Agency Coordinating Committee (MAC) and receives support from them, no formal mutual aid agreements exist with other county or regional water/sewer service providers. Quick response to emergencies and restoration of services is vital to protect public health and allow for community disaster recovery. This action seeks to develop mutual aid agreements with the Tuolumne Utilities District and Amador Water Agency, neighboring countywide agencies, and with WARN, the statewide emergency response network.
Other Alternatives: Continue to respond with existing staff and equipment
Responsible Office: CCWD Field Operations
Priority (H, M, L): Low
Cost Estimate: Staff time
Benefits (Losses Avoided):
Improve timeliness of restoring services following emergencies, which will allow communities and businesses to recover more quickly Protect public health and safety
Potential Funding: General district budget
Schedule: Ongoing
Calaveras County Water District 5.30 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 6 PLAN ADOPTION
Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally approved by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, county commissioner, Tribal Council).
The purpose of formally adopting this plan is to secure buy-in from the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD), raise awareness of the plan, and formalize the plan’s implementation. The adoption of this plan completes Planning Step 9 of the 10-step planning process: Adopt the Plan, in accordance with the requirements of DMA 2000. The CCWD Board of Directors has adopted this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by passing a resolution. A copy of the generic resolution and the executed copy (pending) is included in Appendix D: Adoption Resolutions.
Calaveras County Water District 6.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 7 PLAN MAINTENANCE
Requirement §201.6(c)(4): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
Implementation and maintenance of the plan is critical to the overall success of hazard mitigation planning. This is Planning Step 10 of the 10-step planning process. This chapter provides an overview of the overall strategy for plan implementation and maintenance and outlines the method and schedule for monitoring, updating, and evaluating the plan. The chapter also discusses incorporating the plan into existing planning mechanisms and how to address continued public involvement.
Chapter 3 Planning Process includes information on the implementation and maintenance process since the 2006 plan was adopted. This section includes information on the implementation and maintenance process for this plan update.
7.1 Implementation
Once adopted, the plan faces the truest test of its worth: implementation. While this plan contains many worthwhile actions, the District will need to decide which action(s) to undertake first. Two factors will help with making that decision: the priority assigned the actions in the planning process and funding availability. Low or no-cost actions most easily demonstrate progress toward successful plan implementation.
An important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is incorporation of the hazard mitigation plan recommendations and their underlying principles into other plans and mechanisms. The District already implements policies and programs to reduce losses to life and property from hazards. This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related planning efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing actions, where possible, through these other program mechanisms.
Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of government and development. Implementation will be accomplished by adhering to the schedules identified for each action and through constant, pervasive, and energetic efforts to network and highlight the multi-objective, win-win benefits to each program and the District and its stakeholders. This effort is achieved through the routine actions of monitoring agendas, attending meetings, and promoting a safe, sustainable community. Additional mitigation strategies could include consistent and ongoing enforcement of existing policies and vigilant review of programs for coordination and multi-objective opportunities. Simultaneous to these efforts, it is important to maintain a constant monitoring of funding opportunities that can be leveraged to implement some of the more costly recommended actions.
Calaveras County Water District 7.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
This will include creating and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet local match or participation requirements. When funding does become available, the District will be in a position to capitalize on the opportunity. Funding opportunities to be monitored include special pre- and post-disaster funds, state and federal earmarked funds, benefit assessments, and other grant programs, including those that can serve or support multi-objective applications.
7.1.1 Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Implementation and Maintenance
With adoption of this plan, the HMPC will be tasked with plan implementation and maintenance as the ongoing Hazard Mitigation Coordinating Committee led by the CCWD. The committee agrees to:
Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues; Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants; Pursue the implementation of high-priority, low/no-cost recommended actions; Keep the concept of mitigation in the forefront of CCWD decision-making by identifying plan recommendations when other community goals, plans, and activities overlap, influence, or directly affect increased community vulnerability; Maintain a vigilant monitoring of multi-objective cost-share opportunities to help the community implement the plan’s recommended actions for which no current funding exists; Monitor and assist in implementation and update of this plan; Report on plan progress and recommended changes to the Board of Directors; and Inform and solicit input from the public.
The committee is an advisory body and will not have any powers over CCWD or County staff. Its primary duty is to see the plan successfully carried out and to report to the District governing board and the community on the status of plan implementation and mitigation opportunities for the CCWD. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, hearing stakeholder concerns about hazard mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate entities, and posting relevant information on the CCWD website.
7.2 Maintenance
Plan maintenance implies an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate plan implementation and to update the plan as progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are recognized.
7.2.1 Maintenance Schedule
Plan maintenance implies an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate the plan’s implementation and make updates as progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are recognized. To track progress and update the Mitigation Strategy, the Hazard Mitigation Coordinating Committee will revisit the CCWD Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan annually and after a hazard event. The CCWD
Calaveras County Water District 7.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
General Manager is responsible for initiating this review. A five-year written update, as required by FEMA, will be submitted to the state and FEMA Region IX, unless disaster or other circumstances (e.g., changing regulations) lead to a different time frame.
7.2.2 Maintenance Evaluation Process
Evaluation of progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in vulnerabilities identified in the plan. Changes in vulnerability can be identified by noting:
Decreased vulnerability as a result of implementing recommended actions; Increased vulnerability as a result of failed or ineffective mitigation actions; and/or Increased vulnerability as a result of new development (and/or annexation).
Updates to this plan will:
Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation; Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective; Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective; Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked; Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks; Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities; Incorporate growth and development-related changes to infrastructure inventories; and Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization.
The plan should be changed to reflect projects that have failed or are not considered feasible after a review of consistency with established criteria, timeframe, community priorities, and funding resources. Priorities that were not ranked high but identified as potential mitigation strategies should be reviewed during the monitoring and update of the plan to determine feasibility of future implementation. Updating of the plan will be made through written changes and submissions as the coordinating committee deems appropriate and necessary, and as approved by the CCWD Board of Directors. In keeping with the process of adopting the plan, a public hearing to receive public comment on plan maintenance and updating should be held during any formal plan update process and the final product adopted by the Board of Directors.
7.2.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
The overall mitigation strategy presented in Section 5 recommends using existing plans and/or programs to implement hazard mitigation, where possible. Based on the capability assessment described previously, the CCWD has and continues to implement programs to reduce losses to life and property from natural hazards. This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related planning and mitigation and recommends implementing projects through the following plans, where possible:
Calaveras County Water District 7.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
CCWD Water Supply Master Plan CCWD Integrated Water Master Plan (currently being updated) CCWD Service Area Master Plans CCWD Service Area Vulnerability Assessments and Emergency Response Plans Calaveras County General Plan (currently being updated) and Zoning Code Other capital improvement and community plans within the county Calaveras County Multi-Hazard Functional Plan Calaveras County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Local Fire Safe Plans and Community Wildfire Protection Plans Other plans and policies outlined in the capability assessment section of this plan
HMPC members involved in these other planning mechanisms will be responsible for integrating the findings and recommendations of this plan with these other plans, programs, etc, as appropriate. As described in Section 7.1 Implementation, incorporation into existing planning mechanisms will be done through the routine actions of:
monitoring other planning/program agendas; attending other planning/program meetings; participating in other planning processes; and monitoring District and community budget meetings for other program opportunities.
The successful implementation of this mitigation strategy will require constant and vigilant review of existing plans and programs for coordination and multi-objective opportunities that promote a safe, sustainable community. Efforts should continuously be made to monitor the progress of mitigation actions implemented through these other planning mechanisms and, where appropriate, their priority actions should be incorporated into updates of this hazard mitigation plan.
7.2.4 Continued Public Involvement
Continued public involvement is imperative to the overall success of the plan’s implementation. The update process provides an opportunity to solicit participation from new and existing stakeholders and to publicize success stories from the plan implementation and seek additional public comment. The plan maintenance and update process will include continued public and stakeholder involvement and input through attendance at designated committee meetings, web postings, press releases to local media, and through public hearings.
When the HMPC reconvenes for the update, they will coordinate with all stakeholders participating in the planning process—including those that joined the committee since the planning process began—to update and revise the plan. In reconvening, the HMPC plans to review and identify new options for involving the greater public. The HMPC will develop a plan for public involvement and will be responsible for disseminating information through various
Calaveras County Water District 7.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
channels detailing the plan update process. As part of this effort, a public meeting will be held and public comments will be solicited on the plan update draft.
Calaveras County Water District 7.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 Appendix A PLANNING PROCESS
Table A.1. Invitees to Join HMPC
Name Title Agency Address Telephone E-mail Clay Chief Assistant Chief 891 (209) 754- [email protected] Hawkins County Administrative Mountain 6025 Administrative Office Ranch Road Officer San Andreas, CA 95249 Brian Moss Agency Environmental 891 (209) 754- [email protected] Administrator Management Mountain 6398 Agency Ranch Road San Andreas, CA 95249 Howard Director Technology 891 (209) 754- [email protected] Stohlman Services Mountain 6651 Ranch Road San Andreas, CA 95249 Doug Calaveras Geographic 891 (209) 754- [email protected] Polzoni* County GIS Information Mountain 6608 Systems Ranch Road San Andreas, CA 95249 Adam US Army Corps 2713 Hogan (209) 772- [email protected] Durando* of Engineers Dam Road 1343 Valley Springs, CA 95252 Vern Pyle Utica Power 1168 (209) 736- [email protected] Authority Booster Way 9419 P.O. Box 358 Angels Camp, CA 95222 Rachelle OES Calaveras (209) 754- [email protected] Whiting* County Sheriffs 6500 Ofc Debbie Emergency American Red 13669 Mono (209) 533- [email protected] Calcote Services Cross Way Sonora, 1513 [email protected] Coordinator CA 95370 Sherri Special Calaveras 891 (209) 754- [email protected] Munson* Operations County Sheriff’s Mountain 2888 Division – OES Ofc Ranch Rd. San Andreas, CA 95249
Calaveras County Water District A.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Name Title Agency Address Telephone E-mail Chris OES Calaveras 891 [email protected] Dorsey* County Sheriff’s Mountain Ofc Ranch Rd San Andreas, CA 95249 Dennis Calaveras 891 (209) 754- [email protected] Huberty County Sheriff’s Mountain 6492 Office Ranch Rd San Andreas, CA 95249 Andy Murphy Cal-Fire (209) 743- [email protected] 4692 Dan United States 2713 Hogan (209) 772- [email protected] Benedetti* Army Corps of Dam Road 1343 Engineers Valley Springs, CA 95252 Mike Shirley* Cal Fire (209) 754- [email protected] 1187 Teresa Utilities CCWD 423 E. St. (209) 754- [email protected] Tanaka* Department Charles St. 3306 Administrator San Andreas, CA 95249 Jeff Meyer* Director of CCWD 423 E. St. (209) 754- [email protected] Support Charles St. 3102 Services San Andreas, CA 95249 Lacey West Senior Admin CCWD 423 E. St. (209) 754- [email protected] Tech Charles St. 3345 San Andreas, CA 95249 John CCWD 423 E. St. (209) 754- [email protected] Gomes* Charles St. 3022 San Andreas, CA 95249 Charles CCWOD (209) 754- Palner 3174 * Participated on HMPC
Calaveras County Water District A.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District, Calaveras County, California LHMP Kickoff Meeting Invite & Press Release
CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT INVITES PARTICIPATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
Calaveras County Water District (CCWD), California is leading the development of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Update to better position resources to address potential natural hazards before they occur and to maintain eligibility for mitigation funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). CCWD, Calaveras County stakeholders, state and local agencies, and the public are invited to participate in this planning effort.
This LHMP, which updates the 2006 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan will be developed by a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee with input from District, Calaveras County representatives, state and federal agencies, the public, and other local stakeholders. The plan will address a comprehensive list of hazards, including dam failure, drought, flooding, severe weather, wildfire, and other natural hazards, and will assess the likely impacts of these hazards to CCWD assets. The plan will also set goals and prioritize projects to reduce the impacts of future disasters on people and property within the CCWD jurisdictional boundaries.
Local stakeholder and public attendance is invited and encouraged at the upcoming kickoff meeting to introduce the CCWD LHMP Update process. The purpose of the kickoff meeting is to inform the community, the public and other interested stakeholders about the purpose and process of the plan and to describe how to participate and the benefits of doing so. The kickoff meeting will be held at the following time and location:
Location/Time
Calaveras County Water District – Board Room Friday – March 23, 2012 – 10:00 a.m. to Noon
Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually helping communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disaster. Some natural disasters are predictable and, in many cases, much of the damage can be reduced or even eliminated. FEMA has targeted natural disaster loss reduction as one of its primary goals. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires local governments to have a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan to maintain eligibility for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding programs.
Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. Natural hazard mitigation planning is the process by which natural hazards that threaten a community are identified, their likely impacts are assessed, mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies for reducing risk are developed, prioritized, and implemented.
Calaveras County Water District A.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
The CCWD has taken the initiative to develop this plan update under the direction of the General Manager. The District has drawn on the expertise of consultants with AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., a firm that specializes in hazard mitigation and emergency management. The District and the consultants will organize a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee to facilitate development of this plan update. Community stakeholders as well as the public are invited to be part of this planning committee. Upon preliminary approval by the California Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and FEMA Region IX, the plan will be presented to the District board, for formal adoption.
Please come to the kickoff meeting to hear more about hazard mitigation and the LHMP Update process. For more information on this project and how you can be involved, contact Teresa Tanaka at (209) 754-3306 or by e-mail to [email protected].
Calaveras County Water District A.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
AGENDA
Calaveras County Water District Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Update Project
HMPC Kickoff Meeting #1 March 23, 2012
1) Introductions 2) Mitigation, Mitigation Planning, & the Disaster Mitigation Act Requirements 3) Brief overview of the current (2006) Calaveras County Water District Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan & discussion of what has been done since plan adoption 4) Discussion of objectives for the plan update 5) The Role of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) 6) Planning for Public Input 7) Coordinating with other Agencies 8) Hazard Identification 9) Data Collection Needs (Handout) 10) Schedule Overview 11) Questions and Answers/Adjourn
Calaveras County Water District A.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
AGENDA
Calaveras County Water District Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Project Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
Meeting #2 July 17, 2012
1) Introductions 2) Status of the Plan Update Process 3) Review of Risk Assessment Summary 4) Update Plan Goals and Objectives 5) Review of Mitigation Actions and Mitigation Selection Criteria 6) Update and Prioritize Mitigation Actions 7) Project Completion Schedule
Calaveras County Water District A.7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
AGENDA
Calaveras County Water District Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Update Project Public Meeting
August 28, 2012
1) Introductions 2) Mitigation, Mitigation Planning, & the Disaster Mitigation Act Requirements 3) Overview of the Calaveras County Water District Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 4) Questions and Answers/Public Input
Calaveras County Water District A.9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.12 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.15 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.16 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.17 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.18 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.19 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.20 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.21 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.22 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.23 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.24 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.25 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.26 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.27 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.28 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Calaveras County Water District A.29 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 Appendix B REFERENCES
Cal FIRE FRAP dataset. http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/
Calaveras County General Plan. 1996.
Calaveras County General Plan Water Element Baseline Report Supplement. 2008
Calaveras County GIS, www.co.calaveras.ca.us/comaps.asp
Calaveras County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2010.
Calaveras County Water District County Water Supply Master Plan. 1996
Calaveras County Water District. Facility Master Plans. 2005
Calaveras County Water District. Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan. 2008-2013.
Calaveras County Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. 2007 Update.
Calaveras County Water District Urban Water Management Plan. 2010 update.
California Department of Water Resources, www.water.ca.gov/
California Department of Finance Demographics Research Unit. www.dof.ca.gov/ research/demographic
California’s Drought of 2007-2009, An Overview. State of California Natural Resources Agency, California Department
California Geological Survey. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/CGS/Pages/Index.aspx
California State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2010. California Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA: Building Performance Assessment: Oklahoma and Kansas Tornadoes. 2008.
FEMA DFIRM for Calaveras County. 2010.
FEMA Hazus Technical Manual. 2011.
FEMA’s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, 1997
FEMA 386-2: “Understanding Your Risks – Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses.” 2002. State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to-Guide.
Calaveras County Water District B.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
FEMA 386-3: “Developing a Mitigation Plan.” 2002. State and Local Mitigation Planning How- to-Guide.
Levees In History: The Levee Challenge. Dr. Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., P.E., Ph.D., Water Policy Collaborative, University of Maryland, Visiting Scholar, USACE, IWR. http://www.floods.org/ace-files/leveesafety/lss_levee_history_galloway.ppt
National Climatic Data Center. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html.
National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. http://drought.unl.edu/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center, www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f-scale.html
National Register of Historic Places. www.nationalregister.gov
National Weather Service. www.nws.gov.
Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) Disaster Declaration History. http://www.peripresdecusa.org/mainframe.htm
SHELDUS Database (Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States). University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab. http://go2.cla.sc.edu/sheldus/db_registration.
Toulumne-Calaveras Unit Pre-Fire Management Plan. 2011. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
United States Census Bureau. 2010. www.census.gov
US Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm
U.S. Geologic Survey, Earthquake Intensity Zonation and Quaternary Deposits, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 9093, 1977.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. “Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States.” Geological Survey Professional Paper 1183. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1183/pp1183.html.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2007‐1437
U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs073-97/eruptions.html
U.S. Geological Survey: Volcanic Ash: Effect & Mitigation Strategies. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/properties.html.
Calaveras County Water District B.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Western Regional Climate Center. www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html.
Calaveras County Water District B.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 Appendix C MITIGATION STRATEGY
C.1 Categories of Mitigation Measures Considered
The following categories are based on the Community Rating System.
Prevention Emergency Services Property Protection Natural Resource Protection Structural Projects Public Information
C.2 Alternative Mitigation Measures per Category
Prevention
Preventive measures are designed to keep the problem from occurring or getting worse. Their objective is to ensure that future development is not exposed to damage and does not increase damage to other properties.
Planning Zoning Open space preservation Land development regulations Subdivision regulations Floodplain development regulations Stormwater management Fuels management, fire breaks Building codes Firewise construction (also see Property Protection)
Emergency Services
Emergency services protect people during and after a disaster. A good emergency services program addresses all hazards. Measures include:
Warning (floods, tornadoes, ice storms, hail storms, dam failures) NOAA weather radio all hazards Sirens
Calaveras County Water District C.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Reverse 911 Evacuation and sheltering Communications Emergency planning Activating the emergency operations room (emergency management) Closing streets or bridges (police or public works) Shutting off power to threatened areas (utility company) Holding children at school/releasing children from school (school district) Passing out sand and sandbags (public works) Ordering an evacuation (mayor) Opening evacuation shelters (red cross) Monitoring water levels (engineering) Security and other protection measures (police) Monitoring of conditions (dams) Critical facilities protection (buildings or locations vital to the response and recovery effort, such as police/fire stations, hospitals, sewage treatment plants/lift stations, power substations) Buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters, such as hazardous materials facilities and nursing homes Lifeline utilities protection Health and safety maintenance
Property Protection
Property protection measures are used to modify buildings subject to damage rather than to keep the hazard away. A community may find these to be inexpensive measures because often they are implemented by or cost-shared with property owners. Many of the measures do not affect the appearance or use of a building, which makes them particularly appropriate for historical sites and landmarks.
Retrofitting/disaster proofing Floods . Wet/dry floodproofing (barriers, shields, backflow valves) . Relocation . Acquisition Tornadoes . Safe rooms . Securing roofs and foundations with fasteners and tie-downs . Strengthening garage doors and other large openings Drought . Improve water supply (transport/storage/conservation)
Calaveras County Water District C.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
. Remove moisture competitive plants (tamarisk/salt cedar) . Water restrictions/water saver sprinklers/appliances . Grazing on CRP lands (no overgrazing-see noxious weeds) . Create incentives to consolidate/connect water services . Recycled wastewater on golf courses Earthquakes . Removing masonry overhangs, bracing, and other parts . Tying down appliances, water heaters, bookcases, and fragile furniture so they will not fall over during a quake. . Installing flexible utility connections that will not break during shaking (pipelines, too) Wildland fire . Replacing building components with fireproof materials (roofing, screening) . Creating "defensible space" . Installing spark arrestors . Fuels modification Noxious weeds/insects . Mowing . Spraying . Replacement planting . Stop overgrazing . Introduce natural predators Insurance
Natural Resource Protection
Natural resource protection activities are generally aimed at preserving (or in some cases restoring) natural areas. In so doing, these activities enable the naturally beneficial functions of floodplains and watersheds to be better realized. These natural and beneficial floodplain functions include the following:
Storage of floodwaters Absorption of flood energy Reduction in flood scour Infiltration that absorbs overland flood flow Groundwater recharge Removal/filtering of excess nutrients, pollutants, and sediments from floodwaters Habitat for flora and fauna Recreational and aesthetic opportunities
Methods of protecting natural resources include:
Calaveras County Water District C.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Erosion and sediment control Wetlands protection Riparian area/habitat protection Threatened and endangered species protection Fuels management Set-back regulations/buffers Best management practices-Best management practices ("BMPs") are measures that reduce nonpoint source pollutants that enter the waterways. Nonpoint source pollutants come from non-specific locations. Examples of nonpoint source pollutants are lawn fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm chemicals, animal wastes, oils from street surfaces and industrial areas and sediment from agriculture, construction, mining and forestry. These pollutants are washed off the ground's surface by stormwater and flushed into receiving storm sewers, ditches and streams. BMPs can be implemented during construction and as part of a project's design to permanently address nonpoint source pollutants. There are three general categories of BMPs: Avoidance-Setting construction projects back from the stream. Reduction-Preventing runoff that conveys sediment and other water-borne pollutants, such as planting proper vegetation and conservation tillage. Cleanse-Stopping pollutants after they are en route to a stream, such as using grass drainageways that filter the water and retention and detention basins that let pollutants settle to the bottom before they are drained Dumping regulations Water use restrictions Weather modification Landscape management
Structural Projects
Structural projects have traditionally been used by communities to control flows and water surface elevations. Structural projects keep flood waters away from an area. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff. These measures are popular with many because they "stop" flooding problems. However, structural projects have several important shortcomings that need to be kept in mind when considering them for flood hazard mitigation:
They are expensive, sometimes requiring capital bond issues and/or cost sharing with Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
They disturb the land and disrupt natural water flows, often destroying habitats.
Calaveras County Water District C.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
They are built to a certain flood protection level that can be exceeded by a larger flood, causing extensive damage. They can create a false sense of security when people protected by a structure believe that no flood can ever reach them. They require regular maintenance to ensure that they continue to provide their design protection level.
Structural measures include:
Detention/retention structures Erosion and sediment control Basins/low-head weirs Channel modifications Culvert resizing/replacement/maintenance Levees and floodwalls Fencing (for snow, sand, wind) Drainage system maintenance Reservoirs (for flood control, water storage, recreation, agriculture) Diversions Storm sewers
Public Information
A successful hazard mitigation program involves both the public and private sectors. Public information activities advise property owners, renters, businesses, and local officials about hazards and ways to protect people and property from these hazards. These activities can motivate people to take protection
Hazard maps and data Outreach projects (mailings, media, web, speaker's bureau) Library resources Real estate disclosure Environmental education Technical assistance
C.3 Mitigation Alternative Selection Criteria
The following criteria were used to select and prioritize proposed mitigation measures:
STAPLE/E
Social-Does the measure treat people fairly? (different groups, different generations)
Calaveras County Water District C.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Technical-Will it work? (Does it solve the problem? Is it feasible?) Administrative-Do you have the capacity to implement and manage project? Political-Who are the stakeholders? Did they get to participate? Is there public support? Is political leadership willing to support? Legal-Does your organization have the authority to implement? Is it legal? Are there liability implications? Economic-Is it cost-beneficial? Is there funding? Does it contribute to the local economy or economic development? Environmental-Does it comply with environmental regulations?
Sustainable Disaster Recovery
Quality of life Social equity Hazard mitigation Economic development Environmental protection/enhancement Community participation
Smart Growth Principles
Infill versus sprawl Efficient use of land resources Full use of urban resources Mixed uses of land Transportation options Detailed, human-scale design
Other
Does measure address area with highest risk? Does measure protect… The largest # of people exposed to risk? The largest # of buildings? The largest # of jobs? The largest tax income? The largest average annual loss potential? The area impacted most frequently? Critical infrastructure (access, power, water, gas, telecommunications)? What is timing of available funding? What is visibility of project?
Calaveras County Water District C.6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Community credibility
Table C.1. CCWD initial Prioritization Process
New Worksheet Action Points Action Status Multi-Hazard Work with Calaveras County on County General Plan update to integrate No/#3 Needs natural hazards mitigation measures in new development planning updating Implement recommendations in service area master plans related to critical No/#5 Needs sewer facilities updating Create a disaster recovery plan No/#9 Needs updating Evaluate the need for improved redundancy at critical facilities No/#12 Needs updating Hire coordinator to develop and implement a public outreach and water 10 No/#14 Needs conservation program updating Develop mutual aid agreements with other water providers and county 10 No#17 Needs agencies for support during emergencies updating Dam Failure Participate in annual EAP meetings and exercises 19 Yes Educate District staff on dams of concern to facilities, potential impacts and 8 Yes actions to be taken in the event of a failure Drought & Water Shortage Expand the existing water reuse and recycling program 17 No/#10 Needs updating Review and update a tiered rate structure to encourage responsible water 1 No/#13 Needs use (modified) updating Identify and incorporate strategies for enhancing water storage capacity to 3 No/#16 Needs mitigate impacts of drought and other emergencies in an updated CCWD updating County Water Master Plan Review and update drought plan 7 Yes Flood Provide flood protection for Jenny Lind water treatment plant and La 20 No/#1 Needs Contenta main sewage lift station updating Promote best management practices, such as low impact development 3 No/#4 Needs techniques, in new development to reduce runoff and urban flooding updating (Coordinate with County agencies) Continue to improve and implement sewer lateral inspection program to 0 No/#11 Needs minimize inflow and infiltration (modified) updating Flood mitigation of Coppercove Pond #5 (dam leaks, diversion ditch failure) 15 Yes Implement other facility-specific flood mitigation projects (to be identified) 8 Yes Retrofit man-hole covers District wide 10 Yes Improve grading and drainage of wastewater effluent storage ponds 15 Yes Implement recommendations in Master Plans related to critical sewer 3 Yes facilities
Calaveras County Water District C.7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
New Worksheet Action Points Action Status Wildfire Replace redwood water storage tanks with steel tanks to protect potable 44 No/#2 Needs water supply (3 tanks – current grant) (modified) updating Replace remaining redwood water storage tanks with steel tanks to protect 15 No #2 Needs potable water supply (list all remaining) (modified) updating Design and replace existing systems identified in water master plans to 11 No/#6 Needs provide adequate fire flows (modified) updating Create and maintain wildfire defensible spaces around facilities identified as No/#8 Needs in high fire hazard areas updating Enhance on-site coordination with Cal Fire during fire events 14 Yes Construct fire resistant electrical control panels 15 Yes Implement fuels reduction/defensible space projects 15 Yes Wind/Winterstorms Implement tree inspection and trimming program 4 Yes Improve backup generators for extended runs 7 Yes Increase District-owned snow removal equipment 4 Yes
Calaveras County Water District C.8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 Appendix D ADOPTION RESOLUTION
Note to Reviewers: When this plan has been reviewed and approved pending adoption by FEMA Region IX, the adoption resolutions will be signed by the Calaveras County Water District and added to this appendix. A model resolution is provided below:
Resolution # ______
Adopting the Calaveras County Water District Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Whereas, the Calaveras County Water District recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property within our community; and
Whereas, undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential for harm to people and property from future hazard occurrences; and
Whereas, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (“Disaster Mitigation Act”) emphasizing the need for pre-disaster mitigation of potential hazards;
Whereas, the Disaster Mitigation Act made available hazard mitigation grants to state and local governments;
Whereas, an adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is required as a condition of future funding for mitigation projects under multiple FEMA pre- and post-disaster mitigation grant programs; and
Whereas, the Calaveras County Water District fully participated in the FEMA-prescribed mitigation planning process to prepare this local hazard mitigation plan; and
Whereas, the California Emergency Management Agency and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX officials have reviewed the Calaveras County Water District Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and approved it contingent upon this official adoption of the participating governing body;
Whereas, the Calaveras County Water District desires to comply with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act and to augment its emergency planning efforts by formally adopting the Calaveras County Water District Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan;
Whereas, adoption by the governing body for the Calaveras County Water District, demonstrates the jurisdiction’s commitment to fulfilling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in this Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Whereas, adoption of this legitimacies the plan and authorizes responsible agencies to carry out their responsibilities under the plan.
Calaveras County Water District D.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Calaveras County Water District adopts the Calaveras County Water District Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
Be it further resolved, the Calaveras County Water District will submit this adoption resolution to the California Emergency Management Agency and FEMA Region IX officials to enable the plan’s final approval in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and to establish conformance with the requirements of AB 2140.
Passed: (date)
Certifying Official
Calaveras County Water District D.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012 Appendix E WILDFIRE HISTORY
Table E.1. Wildfire History in Calaveras County
Cause Fire/Treatment Name Year Acres Start Date Arson SILVER MTN. 1971 112 19710402 Arson BRIDGE 1988 6,690 19880721 Arson BRIDGE 1988 6,374 19880719 Arson MASON 1988 4,050 19880721 Arson HIGHWAY 1988 260 19880718 Arson MYRTLE 1999 317 19990927 Arson MELONES #5 1999 55 19990705 Arson PALOMA 2000 210 20000805 Arson ARMSTRONG #2 2004 879 20040806 Arson ARMSTRONG #2 2004 879 20040806 Arson ARMSTRONG #1 2004 87 20040806 Arson DOUBLE 2004 69 20040529 Arson FRECCERO 2011 57 20110908 Campfire MOORE 2001 579 20011027 Campfire MOORE 2001 579 20011027 Campfire HOGAN 2001 162 20010625 Campfire MOKE 2004 354 20040617 Campfire MOKE 2004 354 20040617 Debris GOLD KING 1961 131 19610123 Debris PG&E #5 1963 68 19631206 Debris SAN ANTONIO 1966 200 19660403 Debris MOORE 1991 59 19910120 Debris FRECOT 1996 63 19961107 Debris HARLEY 2000 158 20000331 Debris HARLEY 2000 158 20000331 Debris SPI #3 "SOURGRASS" 2002 635 20021125 Debris SPI #3 "SOURGRASS" 2002 635 20021125 Debris SPI #4 "MILL CREEK 2002 53 20021125 #1" Debris SPI #4 "MILL CREEK 2002 53 20021125 #1" Debris HIGHWAY 2004 63 20040702 Debris STINSON 2006 52 20061116 Debris MURRAY 2007 103 20070525 Debris BLUE 2011 439 20111201 Debris BLUE 2011 79 20111201
Calaveras County Water District E.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Cause Fire/Treatment Name Year Acres Start Date Equipment Use SUMMIT 1985 176 19850810 Equipment Use GRADE 1988 375 19880819 Equipment Use HAIBACH 1992 443 19920907 Equipment Use PARROTS 2 1992 105 19920904 Equipment Use CANYON 1996 144 19960704 Equipment Use PARROTTS 2000 289 20000805 Equipment Use LEONARD 2001 5,188 20010819 Equipment Use PG&E#1 2002 266 20020609 Equipment Use WILLOW 2002 166 20020924 Equipment Use HWY26 #2 2003 101 20030831 Equipment Use CHUCKWAGON 2003 82 20030625 Equipment Use PITMAN 2003 67 20030815 Equipment Use TURCHET 2003 53 20030629 Equipment Use POWER 2004 16,983 20041006 Equipment Use POWER 2004 16,983 20041006 Equipment Use HUNT 2004 490 20040810 Equipment Use PONTE 2006 194 20060626 Equipment Use JENSON 2006 150 20060719 Equipment Use HORSESHOE 2006 53 20060829 Equipment Use DUNTON 2007 208 20070604 Equipment Use DOME2 2007 138 20070810 Equipment Use MIDDLE 2011 97 20110722 Equipment Use MURRAY 2011 66 20110725 Lightning COLD CK FIRE 1917 992 19170824 Lightning COLD CK FIRE 1917 992 19170824 Lightning BEAR RIVER FIRE 1918 1,748 19180612 Lightning BEAR RIVER FIRE 1918 1,748 19180612 Lightning LIGHTNING #14 1996 2,647 19960812 Lightning LIGHTNING #12 1996 1,141 19960812 Lightning MANUAL 1996 378 19960812 Lightning MANUAL 1996 378 19960812 Lightning LIGHTNING #31 1999 114 19990909 Lightning LIGHTNING #31 1999 114 19990909 Lightning TELEGRAPH 2009 162 20090912 Miscellaneous FOREST CREEK 1959 528 19590724 Miscellaneous HUNT 1986 410 19860911 Miscellaneous PARDEE 1988 1,209 19880628 Miscellaneous SPARKS 1992 349 19920520 Miscellaneous MURRAY 1995 272 19951006
Calaveras County Water District E.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Cause Fire/Treatment Name Year Acres Start Date Miscellaneous HWY 49 #7 2000 68 20000826 Miscellaneous LAKE 2001 773 20010703 Miscellaneous ROCK 2009 409 20090626 Power Line PG&E #16 1999 205 19990826 Power Line PG&E #17 1999 107 19990826 Power Line PG&E #11 2004 193 20040903 Power Line PG&E #15 2005 146 20051108 Power Line PENN 2005 61 20050625 Power Line PG&E #7 2005 59 20050625 Prescribed 1982 1,028 19820923 Prescribed TRYON 1982 551 19820814 Prescribed 1982 474 19820910 Prescribed JOSES BROS. 1982 277 19820822 Prescribed RAGGIO 1982 66 19820716 Prescribed TERREBONE 1983 2,940 19830913 Prescribed TRYON #2 1983 1,136 19830816 Prescribed HOLLAND 1983 459 19830919 Prescribed LIME CREEK ASSN. 1983 178 19830906 Prescribed RAGGIO 1983 120 19830726 Prescribed BEAR MTN. #3 1984 2,094 19840912 Prescribed DOUBLE "B" 1984 262 19840905 Prescribed JOSES BROS. #2 1984 211 19840824 Prescribed TERREBONE #2 1984 211 19840808 Prescribed HIGGINS 1984 117 19840815 Prescribed RAGGIO BROS. #3 1984 66 19840718 Prescribed BEAR MTN. #4 1985 905 19850917 Prescribed ESCAPE 1985 409 19850925 Prescribed TERREBONE #3 1985 259 19850830 Prescribed PANTANE/FERGUSON 1985 199 19850823 #2 Prescribed BEAR MTN. #5 1985 156 19850928 Prescribed BEAR MTN. #6 1986 1,288 19861022 Prescribed BEAR MTN. #8 1986 355 19860911 Prescribed PATANE #3 1986 102 19860904 Prescribed TRYON #3 1986 91 19860829 Prescribed RAGGIO BROS. #3 1986 85 19860903 Prescribed BEAR MTN. #10 1987 2,192 19871015 Prescribed FOLENDORF #2 1987 309 19870819 Prescribed TISCORNIA 1989 174 19890820 Prescribed HOLLAND 1989 168 19890820
Calaveras County Water District E.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Cause Fire/Treatment Name Year Acres Start Date Prescribed RAGGIO 1989 162 19890910 Prescribed DEMER 1990 585 19900226 Prescribed BEAR MTN. #1 1991 5,556 19910131 Prescribed RED HOUSE 1991 1,404 19910129 Prescribed TERRY 1993 295 19930606 Prescribed FOLENDORF #3 1993 272 19930922 Prescribed BEAR MTN. #12 1995 4,217 19950917 Prescribed JOSES #4 1995 316 19950827 Prescribed JUPITER VMP 1998 626 19980923 Prescribed HOGAN DAM VMP 2001 57 20011017 Prescribed HOGAN DAM VMP 2002 213 20021017 Prescribed PIONEER VMP 2004 152 20040625 Prescribed IRISH 2005 267 20050930 Prescribed IRISH 2005 231 20050930 Prescribed PALOMINO TRAINING 2005 159 20051023 BURN Prescribed FY06 THIN 2006 683 0 Prescribed BIOMASS FY06 2006 305 20060000 Prescribed BURN MACHINE 2006 264 0 PILES FY06 Railroad EVANS 2008 104 20080706 Smoking SMITH ROAD 1951 629 19510813 Smoking FOREST CREEK 1959 528 19590724 Smoking COWELL CREEK 1966 177 19660501 Unknown/Unidentified GOLD BUG 1923 510 19230322 Unknown/Unidentified GOLD BUG 1923 510 19230322 Unknown/Unidentified CARSON FLAT 1950 2,660 19500819 Unknown/Unidentified FRECERRO 1950 1,652 19500827 Unknown/Unidentified SIX MILE CREEK 1950 541 19500818 Unknown/Unidentified ANGELS CREEK 1950 495 19500901 Unknown/Unidentified LOMBARDI 1950 446 19500806 Unknown/Unidentified SAN ANTONE 1950 407 19500728 Unknown/Unidentified THREE CORNERS 1950 383 19500813 Unknown/Unidentified THREE CORNERS 1950 383 19500813 Unknown/Unidentified RILEY 1950 366 19500818 Unknown/Unidentified POOL 1950 345 19500819 Unknown/Unidentified MURPHY #2 1950 153 19500708 Unknown/Unidentified DOGTOWN #2 1950 130 19500818 Unknown/Unidentified BURSON 1951 2,628 19510718 Unknown/Unidentified CAMP NINE 1951 1,400 19510817
Calaveras County Water District E.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Cause Fire/Treatment Name Year Acres Start Date Unknown/Unidentified DEYOUNG 1951 526 19510707 Unknown/Unidentified DOG TOWN 1952 2,301 19520831 Unknown/Unidentified SWISS 1952 1,361 19521004 Unknown/Unidentified CALAVERITAS 1952 1,259 19520901 Unknown/Unidentified HIGHWAY 49 #5 1952 1,117 19520718 Unknown/Unidentified JENNY LIND 1952 928 19520901 Unknown/Unidentified MURRAY CREEK 1952 907 19520930 Unknown/Unidentified GUTTINGER 1952 599 19520724 Unknown/Unidentified INDIAN CREEK 1952 580 19520818 Unknown/Unidentified ROLLERI #2 1952 508 19520727 Unknown/Unidentified ROLLERI #4 1952 317 19520819 Unknown/Unidentified P.G.&E. #4 1953 797 19531021 Unknown/Unidentified HIGH MTN. 1953 556 19530716 Unknown/Unidentified INDIAN CREEK 1953 331 19530910 Unknown/Unidentified CAMP NINE 1954 900 19540828 Unknown/Unidentified ZWINGE 1954 437 19540905 Unknown/Unidentified DELL ORTO ESCAPE 1954 380 19540817 Unknown/Unidentified COMANCHE 1955 431 19550902 Unknown/Unidentified ONEIL CREEK 1955 318 19550831 Unknown/Unidentified LOMBARDI 1955 265 19550810 Unknown/Unidentified ROLLERI 1955 240 19550801 Unknown/Unidentified SHEEPRANCH 1956 579 19560810 Unknown/Unidentified SAN ANTONIO 1956 264 19560823 Unknown/Unidentified 1956 160 19560000 Unknown/Unidentified OLD GULCH 1957 874 19570803 Unknown/Unidentified MITCHELL 1957 817 19570625 Unknown/Unidentified CLINTON TRAIL 1957 666 19570815 Unknown/Unidentified MITCHELL 1957 327 19570616 Unknown/Unidentified HIWAY 4 #5 1958 4,747 19580919 Unknown/Unidentified TISCORNIA ESCAPE 1958 1,246 19580809 Unknown/Unidentified STEARMAN 1958 777 19581004 Unknown/Unidentified SAN ANTONIO 1959 344 19590730 Unknown/Unidentified MEYER 1960 3,801 19600820 Unknown/Unidentified GARLAND 1961 576 19611014 Unknown/Unidentified HUNT 1961 293 19610722 Unknown/Unidentified O'BYRNES FERRY 1962 1,257 19620602 ROAD1 Unknown/Unidentified PROTHERS 1962 294 19620620 Unknown/Unidentified MEXICAN GULCH #2 1964 392 19640823 Unknown/Unidentified P.G. & E. #3 1965 1,570 19650917
Calaveras County Water District E.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Cause Fire/Treatment Name Year Acres Start Date Unknown/Unidentified MILTON 1966 2,678 19660618 Unknown/Unidentified INDIAN CREEK 1966 430 19660822 Unknown/Unidentified PODESTA 1966 343 19661018 Unknown/Unidentified LOMBARDI 1966 290 19660520 Unknown/Unidentified HOAG 1966 281 19660905 Unknown/Unidentified TISCORNIA #3 1967 1,677 19670813 Unknown/Unidentified BURNS 1968 1,422 19680622 Unknown/Unidentified CAVE CITY 1968 630 19680728 Unknown/Unidentified COYOTE CREEK 1968 610 19680727 Unknown/Unidentified STONE CORRAL 1968 186 19680622 Unknown/Unidentified LAKEVIEW 1968 162 19680619 Unknown/Unidentified HIGHWAY 4 1969 408 19690629 Unknown/Unidentified RED HILLS 1969 232 19691005 Unknown/Unidentified U3-RANCH 1970 447 19700922 Unknown/Unidentified NEW HOGAN 1971 575 19710903 Unknown/Unidentified SNOW RANCH 1972 1,266 19720514 Unknown/Unidentified CHILI GULCH 1972 1,118 19720614 Unknown/Unidentified BLUE JAY 1972 168 19720923 Unknown/Unidentified FOWLER PEAK 1979 5,237 19790611 Unknown/Unidentified BRUNSWICK 1979 1,353 19790608 Unknown/Unidentified GOLDEN GATE 1979 1,116 19790612 Unknown/Unidentified MOUNTAIN PASS 1979 58 19790514 Unknown/Unidentified RED HILL 1980 95 19800822 Unknown/Unidentified GREGORY 1983 271 19830624 Unknown/Unidentified GANN 1985 1,004 19850704 Unknown/Unidentified HUCKLEBERRY 1985 459 19850530 Unknown/Unidentified LOMA FIRE 1989 449 19890915 Unknown/Unidentified HWY 26 #3 1989 390 19890815 Unknown/Unidentified FRICOT 1992 264 19920801 Unknown/Unidentified DARBY 2001 14,280 20010905 Unknown/Unidentified DARBY 2001 14,280 20010905 Unknown/Unidentified MILTON 2006 228 20060920 Unknown/Unidentified GASSNER 2007 229 20070721 Vehicle GULCH FIRE 1992 17,419 19920816 Vehicle GULCH FIRE 1992 17,419 19920816 Vehicle COPPER #8 1994 1,914 19940629 Vehicle COPPER #1 1994 1,143 19940629 Vehicle COPPER #3 1994 277 19940629 Vehicle HOWELL 2002 80 20020817
Calaveras County Water District E.6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Cause Fire/Treatment Name Year Acres Start Date Vehicle HIGHWAY 2003 142 20030712 Vehicle HWY 4 #2 2004 3,445 20040806 Vehicle PATTISON 2004 2,483 20040903 Vehicle GOLDEN 2007 66 20070816 Vehicle POOL 2 - MAIN 2008 73 20080729 Source: Cal FIRE FRAP database
Calaveras County Water District E.7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update August 2012
Appendix O Notification to Cities and County
Appendix O includes notification of preparation of the District’s Urban Water Management Plan to the cities and county that CCWD serves and other relevant entities. This notification indicates that the District intends to update its Urban Water Management Plan at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, as required by the California Water Code.
Appendix P Public Hearing Notice
Appendix P includes notification of the District’s Public Hearing on the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. These notifications include the two newspaper notices as required by the California Water Code.
Appendix Q Email Sent to Interested Parties
Appendix Q includes the email sent to interested stakeholders by the District informing them of the Public Draft and public review period. From: Peter Martin Subject: Public Draft Availability; Calaveras County Water District 2015 UWMP Update Date: Wednesday May 11 2016 5:40 PM
Greetings,
As a courtesy to potential interested parties, I’d like to inform you of the availability of the Calaveras County Water District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft for review. To satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, the district must update the plan every five years. The document and appendices can be found online at http://ccwd.org/2015-urban- water-management-plan/. The document is also available in hardcopy for review at two locations: 1) the District Headquarters, 120 Toma Ct. San Andreas, CA 95249, and 2) San Andreas Central Public Library, 1299 Gold Hunter Rd, San Andreas, CA 95249.
Per the requirements of California Water Code and the Urban Water Management Planning Act, the Calaveras County Water District has already formally noticed both the preparation of the draft plan update and the Board Hearing to solicit input on the plan, which is scheduled to take place at Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 9 a.m. in the District Board Meeting room.
The District seeks input on the Draft Plan Update and welcomes your comments. The deadline for receiving comments on the Draft Plan Update is June 3, 2016. Please send all comments to [email protected] or via postal mail to P.O. Box 846, San Andreas, CA 95249. Thank you and please feel free to contact me if you should have any questions.
Peter Martin, Water Resources Program Manager
Calaveras County Water District (209) 754-3094 | Fax (209) 754-1069 120 Toma Ct. San Andreas, CA 95249|- P.O. Box 846
Appendix R Public Hearing Agenda
Appendix R includes the Public Hearing agenda for the Urban Water Management Plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–23 RESOLUTION NO. PFA-03 ORDINANCE NO. 2016–01
AGENDA
MISSION STATEMENT "Our team is dedicated to protecting, enhancing, and developing our rich water resources to the highest beneficial use for Calaveras County, while maintaining cost-conscious, reliable service, and our quality of life, through responsible management."
Regular Board Meeting Calaveras County Water District Wednesday, May 25, 2016 120 Toma Court, (PO Box 846) 9:00 a.m. San Andreas, California 95249
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Administration Office at 209-754-3028. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable CCWD to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Any documents that are made available to the Board before or at the meeting, not privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure, and related to agenda items, will be made available at CCWD for review by the public.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may address the Board on any non-agendized item. The public is encouraged to work through staff to place items on the agenda for Board consideration. No action can be taken on matters not listed on the agenda. Comments are limited to five minutes per person.
3. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are expected to be routine / non-controversial. Items will be acted upon by the Board at one time without discussion. Any Board member may request that any item be removed for later discussion.
3a Approval of Minutes for the Board Meetings of April 6 (Regular), April 6 (CCWD Public Financing Authority), April 6 (Special), and April 20 (Regular), 2016
3b Discussion / Action to Ratify Claim Summary #530 Secretarial Fund in the Amount of $1,428,550.30 for April, 2016 (Jeffrey Meyer, Director of Administrative Services) RES 2016-______BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Terry Strange, President Jeff Davidson, Vice President Scott Ratterman, Director Bertha Underhill, Director Dennis Mills, Director
3c Review Board of Directors Monthly Time Sheets for April, 2016
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4a To Accept Public Comment on the District’s Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update (Peter Martin, Water Resources Program Manager)
5. NEW BUSINESS
5a Discussion / Action regarding Amending and Restating Lease Agreement with the Loyal Order of Moose, Ebbetts Pass Lodge No. 1123 (Dave Eggerton, General Manager) RES 2016-______
5b Discussion / Action regarding Rescinding Ordinance 2015-03 and Stage 2.5 Mandatory Water Conservation Measures (Joel Metzger, PIO/Customer Relations Mgr.) RES 2016-______
5c Discussion / Action regarding Ballot for Calaveras LAFCO Independent Special District Representatives (Dave Eggerton, General Manager)
5d Review and Acceptance of the FY 2015-16 Third Quarter Investment Report (Jeffrey Meyer, Director of Administrative Services)
5e Discussion / Action regarding Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Preliminary Budget (Jeffrey Meyer, Director of Administrative Services)
5f Discussion / Action regarding Closing Out of the 2015 CalPERS Audit (Stacey Lollar, HR Manager)
• Approve Side Letter Agreement of the Memorandum of Understanding with SEIU Local 1021 effective July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017 to Close the 2015 CalPERS Audit Findings RES 2016-______
• Approve Side Letter Agreement of the Compensation Agreement with the Management & Confidential Unit effective July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018 to Close the 2015 CalPERS Audit Findings RES 2016-______
• Approve Listing of Existing Pay Schedules of SEIU Local 1021, Management & Confidential Unit, and General Manager Positions to Close the 2015 CalPERS Audit Findings RES 2016-______
6. OLD BUSINESS Nothing to Report
*No information included in packet 05/25/16 Regular Board Meeting Page 2 of 3
7.* GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
8.* BOARD REPORTS / INFORMATION / FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
9. NEXT BOARD MEETINGS
. Wednesday, June 8, 2016, 9:00 a.m., Regular Board Meeting . Thursday, June 9, 2016, 9:00 a.m., Board Budget Workshop . Wednesday, June 22, 2016, 9:00 a.m., Regular Board Meeting
10. ADJOURNMENT
*No information included in packet 05/25/16 Regular Board Meeting Page 3 of 3
Appendix S Response to Comments
Appendix S summarizes each of the comments received on the 2015 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and provides responses for those comments received during the public comment period. Calaveras County Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Response to Comments June 2016
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location CCWD Board The Inset Map showing the geographic The red box in the inset map defines President Terry extent within Central California is much the extent of the larger map and is Strange (May 19, larger than the actual boundary of the 1 Figure 3-1 automatically drawn by ArcGIS. The 2016) To be noted full map. It appears that CCWD service service area was added to the inset as “TS051916” in areas are from Modesto to Sacramento. map to better orient the reader. future comments. Please revise.
The “temporary urgency ordinance” was Page 3-5, This has been updated in the Sheep 2 TS051916 adopted by the Calaveras Board of “Sheep Ranch narrative, as well as in the West Supervisors on May 10th, 2016. Ranch” Point description.
While illegal diversions may have Please include something in the Page 3-5, occurred in the past, CCWD has no 3 TS051916 narrative about “historic illegal “Sheep documentation of illegal diversions to diversions.” Ranch” support such a discussion.
The community supported General Plan places limitations on smaller parcels in Page 3-5, This has been added to the Sheep 4 TS051916 this service area. Larger parcels could “Sheep Ranch narrative, as well as in the West benefit from raw water supplies to Ranch” Point and Wallace descriptions. support “hobby orchards” or vineyards.
Page 1 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location A sentence has been added to Section Consider adding that there are 350+ Section 5 TS051916 3.2.3 to indicate that there are roughly acres of dry farming of walnuts. 3.2.3 350 acres of walnut dry-farming.
The Wallace/Burson area is described Should Wallace/Burson be included in Section 3.2.4 and includes a given the service area could be served Section 6 TS051916 discussion of supplying with CARWSP III water from area-of- 3.2.3 Wallace/Burson with surface water origin reservation? from the Mokelumne River.
Pipeline to Wallace/Burson should be A sentence has been added to clarify also described as a project to use Section that a pipeline would be required to 7 TS051916 surface water to ensure long-term 3.2.4 convey the water to the sustainability of the critically Wallace/Burson area. overdrafted basin.
Page 2 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Table 4-4 presents current demand only; projected future demand is shown in Table 4-12. Agricultural irrigation was added as a use type in Table 4-4, indicating that there was no agricultural irrigation in 2015. There is no Raw water/Ag Customer Agricultural irrigation has been added as a use type in Table 4-12 with a 8 TS051916 class. Please include a footnote or other Table 4-4 notation that, given the history and footnote indicating that the CCWD burgeoning cannabis cultivation study did not evaluate West Point, but industry, this may change. that there may be some growth in the future associated with nut and cannabis production. It was also noted that CCWD will continue to evaluate the agricultural potential and the impact on demand.
Page 3 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that these are aggressive, as opposed to conservative. To address both comments, a footnote has been added to Table 4-6 indicating that the Please add a footnote that the agricultural irrigation numbers agricultural projection is a conservative presented are an estimate of 9 TS051916 estimate of ag demand in the County Table 4-6 agricultural demand that the District and that the district will continue to could serve in the future, that the evaluate potential. actual number may be higher or lower than that which is presented in the 2015 UWMP, and that CCWD will continue to evaluate the agricultural potential and the impact on demand.
Page 4 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that these are aggressive, as opposed to conservative. To address both comments, a footnote has been added to Table 4-8 indicating that the Please add a footnote that the agricultural irrigation numbers agricultural projection is a conservative presented are an estimate of 10 TS051916 estimate of ag demand in the County Table 4-8 agricultural demand that the District and that the district will continue to could serve in the future, that the evaluate potential. actual number may be higher or lower than that which is presented in the 2015 UWMP, and that CCWD will continue to evaluate the agricultural potential and the impact on demand
There is a period missing at the end of this sentence: “…Highway 4 Corridor to Section A period has been added after this 11 TS051916 Calaveritas, located south of San 4.2.5 sentence. Andreas in Central Calaveras County”
Page 5 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that these are aggressive, as opposed to conservative. To address both comments, a footnote has been added to Table 4-10 indicating that the Add a footnote that the agricultural agricultural irrigation numbers projection is a conservative estimate of presented are an estimate of 12 TS051916 ag demand in the County and that the Table 4-10 agricultural demand that the District district will continue to evaluate could serve in the future, that the potential. actual number may be higher or lower than that which is presented in the 2015 UWMP, and that CCWD will continue to evaluate the agricultural potential and the impact on demand
Page 6 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location The 2011 CCWD study did not specifically say that that the West Point area does not have a high potential. Rather, the study indicated that District staff “felt that the greatest opportunity would be in the western, flatter portion of Calaveras County” due to it “having the most suitable Ag water use category needs to be soils, terrain, and elevation for included in this table. potential irrigated agricultural Did the Provost study say that West development.” Text in the UWMP has 13 TS051916 Table 4-12 Point does not have high ag potential? been revised to indicate that the West Point area was not studied as part of What about dry land walnuts and the 2011 CCWD study. cannabis demands? An agricultural irrigation row has been added to Table 4-12 with a footnote indicating that the CCWD study did not study the potential for agricultural irrigation in the Mokelumne River Sub- Region but that there may still be some growth in the future associated with nut and cannabis production.
Page 7 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Section 4.4, as described in the DWR Should there be a discussion about the Guidebook, is intended to discuss District’s investment in funding pipeline future water savings as they relate to replacement projects and CIP to address passive conservation associated with 14 TS051916 leaks, and anticipated savings. (West Section 4.4 codes and ordinances. A discussion of Point Pipeline example – approx 25-30% the District’s investments in leak losses captured from main detection programs and projects is replacement). included in Chapter 9.
The discussion on increased demand has been expanded. Water quantity Please include a discussion on water and lost yield are supply-related quantity, lost yield, and increased impacts of climate change and are thus demand. Please cite the El Dorado 15 TS051916 Section 4.6 discussed in Section 6.10. A summary Irrigation District study and percentage of the findings of the El Dorado loss estimates and findings to provide Irrigation District study have been numbers expected as lost yield. included in Section 6.10 and the study added to the references list.
Page 8 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Section 6.1 has been revised to clarify that CCWD’s Bear Creek right can suffer limitations when supply is Should include that the District has limited, and that water quality can be demands that exceed the water supply impacted by dry conditions. A 16 TS051916 from Bear Creek. Also that the quality of Section 6.1 sentence has also been added to note the District’s Bear Creek supply can that projected demands in the West suffer when flows are low. Point service area are expected to exceed the water available through CPUD’s Bear Creek right.
A sentence has been added to Section 6.5.5 indicating that the District is Please discuss the District’s interest in committed to marketing recycled marketing recycled water and increasing Section 17 TS051916 water throughout its service area to use to move away from sprayfields over 6.5.5 help move away from sprayfields and the long-term planning horizon. towards beneficial reuse over the long- term planning horizon.
This makes no mention of the many Section 6.8 has been updated to specific CIP projects that we have on file 18 TS051916 Section 6.8 include a list of the relevant, supply- to increase supplies, including some that related CIP projects. we are actively pursuing grant funds for.
Page 9 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Per the DWR Guidebook, Section 7.1.3 specifically discusses the supply reliability of the Mokelumne Sub- Region.
CCWD did not evaluate Agriculture in A sentence has been added to Section the Moke, but should include narrative Section 4.2.6 indicating that while agricultural 19 TS051916 that the District will evaluate this 7.1.3 irrigation demands are not included in further. the projections, the District intends to further study the agricultural irrigation potential within the Mokelumne River Sub-Region to better understand and plan for future demands associated with agriculture.
Page 10 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Table 7-4 is a prescribed DWR table, so no changes can be made. The footnote in Table 7-4 indicates that 200 AFY of the volume available is from the contract with CPUD. A footnote has been added to Table 7-12 indicating that 200 AFY of the supply This should break the CPUD supply out total is water from CPUD, per the from CCWD’s supplies, since the CPUD contract. supply is available through contract. Section 7.2.3 has been updated to Should mention that we have a joint Section 20 TS051916 indicate that CCWD could receive interest in developing the Mokelumne 7.2.3 additional water as a result of supplies with CPUD. partnering with CPUD on the Middle Mention the historical Ditch pipeline Fork Ditch Pipeline and Hydroelectric project with CPUD. Power Project. It has also been noted that CCWD is interested in working with CPUD to develop additional projects that could help the District develop Mokelumne River supplies. Footnotes on Table 7-13 and Table 7- 14 have also been updated to reflect this supply increase possibility.
Page 11 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Table 7-12 is a prescribed DWR table, so no changes can be made. A This table should break out the CCWD 21 TS051916 Table 7-12 footnote has been included to clarify and CPUD supplies separately. that 200 AFY of the supply total is water from CPUD, per the contract.
These projects have been mentioned Please mention the Reach 3A, West Section in Section 9.3.5 and a discussion 22 TS051916 Point, Reach 1, and Techite projects. 9.3.5 included in Section 6.8 (Future Water Supply Projects) and Table 6-17.
Discuss more options to conservation supported by the District. These measures could include graywater system development and use; Additional narrative has been added to supporting local and regional efforts and Section 9.3.7 to address low-impact stormwater recapture and low impact Section 23 TS051916 development (graywater systems, development techniques for 9.3.7 stormwater capture, etc.) and homeowners, building/planning codes, coordination with other agencies. etc.; working with local county and municipalities for General Plan updates and water element or water management strategies.
Page 12 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location There were a number of concerns surrounding the demand projections included in the 2010 UWMP; in particular, the unknown extent of future agricultural water demand in the service area. As part of the 2015 CCWD Director What was the most serious issue to UWMP, demand projections were 24 Bertha Underhill N/A modify? updated to reflect current known (May 25, 2016) conditions and address concerns expressed in 2010. Three approaches were used to develop demand projections, which allowed for the development of a range of projections to reflect the future uncertainties.
Footnotes have been added to Table 4- Section CCWD Director 12 and Table 4-14 to indicate that Please address conveyance challenges in 4.2.6 and 25 Dennis Mills (May additional conveyance capacity may be the Mokelumne and Wallace regions. Section 25, 2016) needed to meet the future projected 4.2.7 demands.
Page 13 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location These numbers have been confirmed. The Calaveras Sub-Region has more agricultural demand than does the CCWD Director Please confirm the number of 2015 Stanislaus Sub-Region. Additionally, Section 26 Bertha Underhill connections and 2015 use for Calaveras the Stanislaus Sub-Region has a higher 1.3.1/1.3.2 (May 25, 2016) River and Stanislaus River sub-regions. percent of non-residents, which increases the number of connections without a significant increase in water use.
The majority of the projected demand CCWD Director What accounts for the increase in water increase is due to increases in 27 Scott Ratterman N/A use over the planning horizon? agricultural demand, as shown in Table (May 25, 2016) 4-6.
Page 14 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location A discussion on the potential water demands associated with increased production of walnuts, almonds, and Please include the potential demand other nuts has been added to Section associated with the encroachment of 4.2.4. Water quality impacts nut harvest crops into Calaveras County, associated with agricultural production especially along the Highway 26 have been added to Table 7-1 and a corridor. This demand will likely be an sentence added to Sections 7.1.1, CCWD Director increase in groundwater use. 7.1.2, and 7.1.3. 28 Jeff Davidson Furthermore, agricultural operations, N/A (May 25, 2016) including cannabis, may impact water Two PPIC documents were referenced quality through application of chemicals in Sections 7.1.1, 7.1.2, and 7.1.3 and other nutrients. Please reference indicating that illegal marijuana the recent PPIC report which discusses production has harmful effects on the water impacts associated with cannabis environment and that a well-regulated production. marijuana market would include strict environmental and water use requirements. These documents have been added to the References list.
The County identified areas where supply may be needed, including A narrative discussion of these CCWD Director Diamond Twenty and Paloma. These potential future demands has been 29 Dennis Mills (May are areas that the District is not N/A included in Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5; 25, 2016) currently serving, but may need to serve footnotes have also been added to in the future due to failing groundwater Tables 4-8 and 4-10. wells. Please mention this in the report.
Page 15 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location The Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Chapter 8) includes an additional trigger that addresses this. The trigger How does the plan address conservation is designed to give the District requirements that are not directly flexibility to address future potential CCWD Director associated with local supply conditions? state mandates or other needed 30 Jeff Davidson For instance, the Governor’s order N/A demand reductions that are not (May 25, 2016) mandated that we conserve even directly triggered by the District’s local though the District was not experiencing supply outlook. The potential for a supply shortage. curtailments has been added as a legal threat to surface water supply in Table 7-1.
After speaking with DWR representatives, the requirements associated with the Governor’s latest executive order do not need to be addressed in the UWMP. The UWMP The Governor’s latest order includes CCWD Director must address urban water analyzing supply reserves for the next 31 Dennis Mills (May N/A management planning requirements in three years. Does this need to be 25, 2016) the California Water Code; the addressed in this plan? requirements in the executive order are not included in the California Water Code. However, analysis that was completed for the UWMP may be used to address the requirements.
Page 16 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location The UWMP Planning Act does not require that agencies discuss IRWM projects nor how they establish partnerships; these are discussions CCWD Director that are included as part of the Dennis Mills (June Please include a list of IRWM funded Integrated Regional Water 2, 2016) To be projects included here. This section also Management Plan, which can be found 32 Section 2.2 noted as doesn’t mention our partners and how by following the link provided in the “DM06016” in they would be established. UWMP Section 2.2. future comments. The West Point Water Main and Tank Replacement Project received nearly $1.5 million in funding through Prop 84 Round 1. This has been mentioned in Section 2.2.
Does the Triangle above Highway 4 Yes, the triangle above Highway 4 is (Northernmost portion of Copper part of CCWD’s service area. CCWD’s Service Area) actually exist in the Engineering Department confirmed District’s service area? that there are active connections in this area. Would like to include the discussion on 33 DM06016 the Diamond Bar XX and Circle XX water Figure 3.3 See response to comment 29. A supplies being areas that potentially narrative discussion of these potential could be served in the future due to future demands has been included in poor well production. Also, include Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5; footnotes Toyon in Calaveras. have also been added to Tables 4-8 and 4-10.
Page 17 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location A footnote has been included on Table 3-4 indicating that projections The table needs a footnote presented are from Department of 34 DM06016 acknowledging the disparity between Table 3-4 Finance and not reflective of the General Plan projections. projections included in the General Plan.
As with other population analyses in the UWMP (SB X7-7), U.S. Census Appendix C doesn’t show analysis of numbers were used. Appendix C has 35 DM06016 how this was derived. What was the Table 3-5 been updated to clarify this and source for these numbers? provide more detail on the analysis for determining seasonal population.
Page 18 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Table 4-1 shows the district-wide water demand in 2015 and uses actual billing CCWD data. Table 3-4 shows current and projected population (permanent resident only) for the District’s service area. One of the prescribed methods for determining population for SB X7-7, as listed in the DWR Guidebook, is to use Department of Finance data. The Guidebook does Do these numbers reflect actual not list voter rolls as an approved residents in actual area? Based on 36 DM06016 Table 4-1 methodology for determining estimation of voter rolls, this means 1 in population. To be consistent in 3 are full time residents. methodologies, the District used Department of Finance projections for population projections. Table 3-5 shows the estimated seasonal population by Service Area. While no area has a one in three ratio, Department of Finance data indicates that in 2015, 43% of the population in Ebbett’s Pass is listed as a permanent resident.
Page 19 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Department of Finance data indicates There should be a notation that the that, between 2010 and 2015, Section 37 DM06016 County has seen negative growth Calaveras County has experienced a 4.2.3 recently in the DOF numbers. 0.6% decrease in population. This has been added as a footnote to Table 4-6.
Chapter 5 is required by DWR to discuss progress made on SB X7-7 targets and goals. Discussion regarding conservation measures, Please acknowledge that increased including increased greywater use, is 38 DM06016 greywater use could reduce household Chapter 5 included in Chapter 9. A paragraph consumption over the near-term. has been added to Section 9.3.7 to include a discussion of greywater use and its role in reducing potable water use.
A “statement of coordination” is necessary with the County to identify The District may need to backstop low yield (groundwater) parcels that failing wells and provide communities may be near water or wastewater which it does not currently serve with services. reliable water. A sentence has been 39 DM06016 Chapter 6 added in Section 4.2.4 and Section There should be more overriding 4.2.5 to note that CCWD and Calaveras concern about the basic needs of the County would need to coordinate to defined characteristics of a developable identify these areas and parcels with at parcel of land that can support future risk wells. uses.
Page 20 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location See response to comment 17. A sentence has been added to Section 6.5.5 indicating that the District is There should be some statements about committed to marketing recycled the marketability of treated wastewater water throughout its service area to for beneficial use in the future, and the 40 DM06016 Page 6-24 increase beneficial reuse and expand coordination of potentially expanding into other areas of service. This will into other areas of service and spheres help the District move away from of influence. sprayfields and towards beneficial reuse over the long-term planning horizon.
There should be a discussion about See response to comment 28. Water marijuana farmers, safe yield, and water quality impacts associated with quality impacts, and harm to fish that Section agricultural production have been 41 DM06016 may need to be considered in the 7.1.1 added to Table 7-1 and a sentence future. added to Sections 7.1.1, 7.1.2, and 7.1.3.
Page 21 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Under Water Rights Order 97-05, the area that would be served by the slurry line is permitted as an area of use. Additionally, the water used would be expected to be applied to land and Should note that this is an “inter-basin” Section 42 DM06016 consumed along the alignment of the transfer. 7.1.2 pipeline, with no direct releases into areas that would influence the Calaveras River watercourse. As such, this would not be an inter-basin transfer.
Beginning in Stage 4, there is a Listed in the “other” category, there requested prohibition that fire should be a prohibition on hydrant departments limit training exercises 43 DM06016 testing/exercising by fire districts or Table 8-3 that use potable water. This has been others (with limitations) for health and expanded to Stage 3 and updated to safety reasons in Stage 3 and above. include hydrant testing.
It currently reads “Utica Public Utilities This has been edited to read “Union 44 DM06016 District.” It should be “Union Public Page 4-12 Public Utilities District.” Utilities District.”
Page 22 of 23
Comment Page, Commenter Comment Response No. Location Seasonal population has been removed from the SB X7-7 analysis and baselines and targets updated. This change does not impact CCWD’s ability to meet its 2015 interim target. However, CCWD encourages DWR to In April 2016, DWR pre-approved formalize a methodology that accounts CCWD’s methodology for determining for seasonal population in the SB X7-7 historical population for use in the analysis. There are a number of other District’s SB X7-7 analysis. Part of this water agencies throughout the state California methodology included determining with high proportions of part-time or 45 Department of Chapter 5 seasonal population. On June 16, 2016, seasonal residents. By not accounting Water Resources DWR revoked that approval and for these populations, the calculated indicated that it would not accept GPCD of these agencies does not UWMPs that included seasonal accurately reflect actual per-person population in the analysis for SB X7-7. use, as the water use of seasonal residents is included but their population is not. This artificially increases the calculated GPCD and hides the effectiveness of the conservation efforts of agencies with high seasonal populations.
Page 23 of 23
CCWD’s public comment period was held from May 11th, 2016, when the Public Draft was posted, through June 3rd, 2016. The following comment letter was received via email from the Foothill Conservancy on June 21st, 2016.
June 21, 2016
Terry Strange, President Calaveras County Water District Board of Directors 120 Toma Court San Andreas, CA 95249 Transmitted by email
Refc: Foothill Conservancy Comments on CCWD’s 2015 Draft Urban Water Management Plan
Dear President Strange and Members of the Board:
Foothill Conservancy is submitting these comments on Calaveras County Water District’s Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Draft UWMP). We are not able to attend tomorrow’s board meeting, but wanted to present our comments to the Board.
We appreciate the time spent and thought given in preparing the Draft UMWP. We commend CCWD for its current efforts and future plans to increase its water supply through using recycled water, and for its success in conserving water by replacing old, leaking pipes that were part of the District’s water delivery system. However, we have concerns regarding the water demand forecasts, particularly the forecasted demand for agricultural irrigation.
Table 3-4 (p. 3-17) forecasts Calaveras County’s population will increase approximately 22% between 2015 and 2040 (from 20,698 to 25,183). Table 4-1 (p. 4-1) indicates current total annual water use within CCWD’s service area is 6,096 acre-feet (af), with 1,469 af of that amount used for agricultural irrigation.
Section 4.2 presents water demand forecasts up to 2040. Using three different approaches to determine future water needs, results from each approach are presented in Figure 4 and Tables 4- 6 and 4-7 (pp. 4-8 to 4-10). Notably, Tables 4-6 and 4-7 indicate water demand for agricultural irrigation from 2020 to 2040 will increase over 300%, to more than 45,000 af annually.
Although the Draft UWMP uses three methods for forecasting future water demands, each method relied upon the 2011 Provost & Pritchard (Provost) memorandum for purposes of forecasting agricultural water demand. This memorandum concluded there is potential in western Calaveras County to develop over 100,000 af of water for future agricultural needs.
Foothill Conservancy comments, CCWD Draft 2015 UMWP June 21, 2016
Foothill Conservancy requests CCWD reconsider basing the Draft UWMP’s agricultural water demand forecast on the Provost memorandum as the memorandum relied upon 30 to 45 year-old data.
In addition, when the Provost memorandum was released, CCWD acknowledged the need for additional further ground truthing and analysis of the memorandum’s conclusions. The Board developed recommendations for next steps, including:
• Reviewing the old data sets used in the Provost memorandum with Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) staff to verify whether the memorandum’s data is still valid and reliable • Obtaining updated information from NRCS on soil condition and types in western Calaveras County • Discussing the potential for additional irrigated agriculture with local landowners • Evaluating the type of crops suitable for the area, and required acreage for each crop • Evaluating economic factors including local land prices, lease rates, production costs versus yield for different crops, and costs for irrigation system infrastructure • Evaluating community support for increased agriculture and any preferences for type of agricultural activity (i.e. grazing versus crops) • Evaluating water supply availability by including evaluations of potential water delivery systems and diversion points to supply water for agricultural use, and by developing several alternatives for such a system.
Determining how CCWD will serve its customers’ future water needs requires analyses based on current, valid data, which the Provost memorandum does not provide. We hope you will revise the agricultural water demand forecast in the Draft UMWP by taking action on the recommendations listed above.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Cecily Smith Executive Director
Cc: Dave Eggerton, General Manager Peter Martin, Water Resources Program Manager
Foothill Conservancy comments, CCWD Draft 2015 UMWP June 21, 2016
Appendix T Board Resolution Adopting the 2015 UWMP
Appendix T provides the Board resolution indicating that the District adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.