HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 93-18 Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan RESOLUTION NO. 93 — 18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING IN ITS ENTIRETY VOLUME I AND THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF VOLUME II
INCLUDING THE INTRODUCTION, CITY OF DUBLIN ANNEX AND APPENDICES, OF THE TRI-
VALLEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, all of the Tri-Valley area has exposure to natural hazards that increase the risk to
life, property, environment and the City and County's economy; and
WHEREAS, pro-active mitigation of known hazards before a disaster event can reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to life and property; and
WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) established new
requirements for pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation programs; and
WHEREAS, a coalition of Tri-Valley Cities and Special Districts with like planning objectives
has been formed to pool resources together and create consistent mitigation strategies within the Tri-
Valley area; and
WHEREAS, the coalition has completed a planning process that engages the public, assesses
the risk and vulnerability to the impacts of natural hazards, develops a mitigation strategy consistent
with a set of uniform goals and objectives, and creates a plan for implementing, evaluating and
revising this strategy.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby:
1. Adopts in its entirety, Volume I and the relevant portions of Volume II including the
Introduction, City of Dublin Annex and Appendices, of the Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan
(HMP) attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. Will use the adopted and approved portions of the Tri-Valley HMP to guide pre- and post-
disaster mitigation of the hazards identified.
3. Will coordinate the strategies identified in the Tri-Valley HMP with other planning programs and
mechanisms under its jurisdictional authority.
4. Will continue its support of the Steering Committee and continue to participate in the Planning
Partnership as described by the Tri-Valley HMP.
5. Will help to promote and support the mitigation successes of all Tri-Valley HMP Planning
Partners.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Gupta, Hernandez, Thalblum and Mayor Haubert
NOES:
Reso No. 93-18, Adopted 7/17/2018, Item No. 4.10 Page 1 of 2
ABSENT: Councilmember Goel
ABSTAIN: ,
ATTEST: ° Mayor
:(4,€)) e"-
City Clerk
Reso No. 93-18, Adopted 7/17/2018, Item No. 4.10 Page 2 of 2
January 2018
TRI-VALLEY
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Volume 1—Planning Area-Wide Elements
Submittal Draft
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
January 2018
PREPARED FOR
City of Dublin, CA City of Livermore, CA City of Pleasanton, CA
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
1052 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
123 Main Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PREPARED BY
Tetra Tech
1999 Harrison Street
Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 302-6300
Fax: (510) 433-0830
tetratech.com
Tetra Tech Project #103S4859
\\IWRS065FS1\Data\Active\0_HazMitigation\103s4859.emi_TriValleyHMP_LivmrPlsntnDbln\HMP\2018-01_SubmittalDraft\2018-01-16_HMP Volume 1 _Tri-
Valley_Submittal Draft.docx
v
CONTENTS
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ xviii
PART 1— PLANNING PROCESS AND COMMUNITY PROFILE
1. Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning ................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Why Prepare This Plan? ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1.1 The Big Picture ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1.2 Purposes for Planning ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Who Will Benefit From This Plan? ........................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Contents of This Plan ................................................................................................................................. 1-2
2. Plan Update—What Has Changed ................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 The Previous Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Why Update? ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2.1 Federal Eligibility ............................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.2 Changes in Development .................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.3 The Updated Plan—What Is Different? ..................................................................................................... 2-2
3. Plan Update Approach ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Formation of the Planning Team ............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Defining Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.3 The Steering Committee ............................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.4 Establishment of the Planning Partnership ................................................................................................ 3-3
3.5 Defining the Planning Area........................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.6 Coordination with Other Agencies ............................................................................................................ 3-4
3.7 Review of Existing Programs .................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.8 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.8.1 Strategy ............................................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.8.2 Public Involvement Results ............................................................................................................ 3-10
3.8.3 Continued Public Involvement ....................................................................................................... 3-10
3.9 Plan Development Chronology/Milestones ............................................................................................. 3-10
4. Community Profile ............................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Geographic Overview ................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Historical Overview ................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Major Past Hazard Events .......................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.4 Physical Setting .......................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.4.1 Topography and Geology ................................................................................................................. 4-4
4.4.2 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.4.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................................. 4-4
4.5 Development Profile .................................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.5.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.5.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 4-7
4.5.3 Future Trends in Development ....................................................................................................... 4-10
4.6 Demographics .......................................................................................................................................... 4-11
4.6.1 Population Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 4-11
4.6.2 Age Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 4-11
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
vi
4.6.3 Race, Ethnicity and Language ........................................................................................................ 4-13
4.6.4 Individuals with Disabilities and Others with Access and Functional Needs ................................ 4-13
4.7 Economy .................................................................................................................................................. 4-14
4.7.1 Income ............................................................................................................................................ 4-14
4.7.2 Industry, Businesses and Institutions ............................................................................................. 4-15
4.7.3 Employment Trends and Occupations ............................................................................................ 4-16
4.8 Laws and Ordinances ............................................................................................................................... 4-17
4.8.1 Federal ............................................................................................................................................ 4-17
4.8.2 State ................................................................................................................................................ 4-23
4.8.3 Local ............................................................................................................................................... 4-28
PART 2— RISK ASSESSMENT
5. Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment Methodology ............................ 5-1
5.1 Identified Hazards of Concern ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Risk Assessment Tools .............................................................................................................................. 5-2
5.2.1 Mapping ............................................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.2 Hazus ................................................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.3 Risk Assessment Approach ........................................................................................................................ 5-3
5.3.1 Earthquake, Dam Failure, and Flood ................................................................................................ 5-3
5.3.2 Drought ............................................................................................................................................. 5-4
5.3.3 Landslide, Severe Weather, Wildfire ............................................................................................... 5-4
5.4 Sources of Data Used in Hazus Modeling ................................................................................................. 5-4
5.4.1 Building, Land Use and Cost Data ................................................................................................... 5-4
5.4.2 Hazus Data Inputs............................................................................................................................. 5-4
5.4.3 Other Local Hazard Data .................................................................................................................. 5-4
5.4.4 Data Source Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.5 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................. 5-5
6. Dam Failure ....................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 General Background .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Causes of Dam Failure ..................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Regulatory Oversight........................................................................................................................ 6-2
6.2 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................ 6-4
6.2.1 Past Events ....................................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.2 Location ............................................................................................................................................ 6-4
6.2.3 Frequency ......................................................................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.4 Severity ............................................................................................................................................. 6-6
6.2.5 Warning Time ................................................................................................................................... 6-6
6.3 Secondary Hazards ..................................................................................................................................... 6-7
6.4 Exposure .................................................................................................................................................... 6-7
6.4.1 Population ......................................................................................................................................... 6-7
6.4.2 Property ............................................................................................................................................ 6-7
6.4.3 Critical Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 6-8
6.4.4 Environment ..................................................................................................................................... 6-8
6.5 Vulnerability .............................................................................................................................................. 6-8
6.5.1 Population ......................................................................................................................................... 6-8
6.5.2 Property ............................................................................................................................................ 6-8
6.5.3 Critical Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 6-9
6.5.4 Environment ..................................................................................................................................... 6-9
Contents
vii
6.6 Future Trends in Development .................................................................................................................. 6-9
6.7 Scenario.................................................................................................................................................... 6-10
6.8 Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 6-10
7. Drought .............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 General Background .................................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1 Types of Drought .............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.2 Monitoring Drought.......................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.1.3 Water Demand .................................................................................................................................. 7-5
7.1.4 Local Water Supply .......................................................................................................................... 7-5
7.1.5 Drought Response Planning ............................................................................................................. 7-8
7.2 Hazard Profile .......................................................................................................................................... 7-10
7.2.1 Past Events ..................................................................................................................................... 7-10
7.2.2 Location .......................................................................................................................................... 7-12
7.2.3 Frequency ....................................................................................................................................... 7-12
7.2.4 Severity ........................................................................................................................................... 7-12
7.2.5 Warning Time ................................................................................................................................. 7-14
7.3 Secondary Hazards ................................................................................................................................... 7-15
7.4 Exposure .................................................................................................................................................. 7-15
7.5 Vulnerability ............................................................................................................................................ 7-15
7.5.1 Population ....................................................................................................................................... 7-15
7.5.2 Property .......................................................................................................................................... 7-16
7.5.3 Critical Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 7-16
7.5.4 Environment ................................................................................................................................... 7-16
7.5.5 Economic Impact ............................................................................................................................ 7-16
7.6 Future Trends in Development ................................................................................................................ 7-16
7.7 Scenario.................................................................................................................................................... 7-17
7.8 Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 7-17
8. Earthquake ........................................................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 General Background .................................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.1 Earthquake Classifications ............................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2 Ground Motion ................................................................................................................................. 8-2
8.1.3 USGS Earthquake Mapping Programs ............................................................................................. 8-3
8.1.4 Effect of Soil Types .......................................................................................................................... 8-4
8.1.5 Earthquake Scenarios for Risk Assessment...................................................................................... 8-5
8.2 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................ 8-5
8.2.1 Past Events ..................................................................................................................................... 8-11
8.2.2 Location .......................................................................................................................................... 8-11
8.2.3 Frequency ....................................................................................................................................... 8-15
8.2.4 Severity ........................................................................................................................................... 8-18
8.2.5 Warning Time ................................................................................................................................. 8-18
8.3 Secondary Hazards ................................................................................................................................... 8-18
8.4 Exposure .................................................................................................................................................. 8-19
8.4.1 Population ....................................................................................................................................... 8-19
8.4.2 Property .......................................................................................................................................... 8-19
8.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 8-20
8.4.4 Environment ................................................................................................................................... 8-20
8.5 Vulnerability ............................................................................................................................................ 8-20
8.5.1 Population ....................................................................................................................................... 8-20
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
viii
8.5.2 Property .......................................................................................................................................... 8-21
8.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 8-23
8.5.4 Environment ................................................................................................................................... 8-23
8.6 Future Trends in Development ................................................................................................................ 8-26
8.7 Scenario.................................................................................................................................................... 8-26
8.8 Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 8-27
9. Flood .................................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1 General Background .................................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1.1 Measuring Floods and Floodplains .................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1.2 Floodplain Ecosystems and the Effects of Human Activities .......................................................... 9-2
9.1.3 Federal Flood Programs ................................................................................................................... 9-2
9.2 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................ 9-6
9.2.1 Types of Flooding Affecting the Planning Area .............................................................................. 9-6
9.2.2 Past Events ....................................................................................................................................... 9-7
9.2.3 Location ............................................................................................................................................ 9-9
9.2.4 Frequency ......................................................................................................................................... 9-9
9.2.5 Severity ........................................................................................................................................... 9-11
9.2.6 Warning Time ................................................................................................................................. 9-11
9.3 Secondary Hazards ................................................................................................................................... 9-13
9.4 Exposure .................................................................................................................................................. 9-13
9.4.1 Population ....................................................................................................................................... 9-13
9.4.2 Property .......................................................................................................................................... 9-13
9.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 9-15
9.4.4 Environment ................................................................................................................................... 9-17
9.5 Vulnerability ............................................................................................................................................ 9-17
9.5.1 Population ....................................................................................................................................... 9-17
9.5.2 Property .......................................................................................................................................... 9-19
9.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 9-21
9.5.4 Environment ................................................................................................................................... 9-22
9.6 Future Trends in Development ................................................................................................................ 9-23
9.7 Scenario.................................................................................................................................................... 9-23
9.8 Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 9-23
10. Landslide ....................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 General Background .............................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.1.1 Landslide Types ........................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1.2 Landslide Modeling ...................................................................................................................... 10-3
10.1.3 Landslide Causes .......................................................................................................................... 10-4
10.1.4 Landslide Management ................................................................................................................ 10-4
10.2 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................................................ 10-5
10.2.1 Past Events ................................................................................................................................... 10-5
10.2.2 Location ........................................................................................................................................ 10-6
10.2.3 Frequency ..................................................................................................................................... 10-7
10.2.4 Severity ......................................................................................................................................... 10-7
10.2.5 Warning Time ............................................................................................................................... 10-7
10.3 Secondary Hazards ................................................................................................................................. 10-9
10.4 Exposure ................................................................................................................................................ 10-9
10.4.1 Population ..................................................................................................................................... 10-9
10.4.2 Property ........................................................................................................................................ 10-9
Contents
ix
10.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 10-9
10.4.4 Environment ............................................................................................................................... 10-12
10.5 Vulnerability ........................................................................................................................................ 10-12
10.5.1 Population ................................................................................................................................... 10-12
10.5.2 Property ...................................................................................................................................... 10-12
10.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 10-13
10.5.4 Environment ............................................................................................................................... 10-13
10.6 Future Trends in Development ............................................................................................................ 10-13
10.7 Scenario................................................................................................................................................ 10-13
10.8 Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 10-14
11. Severe Weather ............................................................................................................. 11-1
11.1 General Background .............................................................................................................................. 11-1
11.1.1 Severe Storms ............................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.2 Extreme Heat ................................................................................................................................ 11-4
11.1.3 Damaging Winds .......................................................................................................................... 11-4
11.1.4 Space Weather .............................................................................................................................. 11-6
11.2 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................................................ 11-7
11.2.1 Past Events ................................................................................................................................... 11-7
11.2.2 Location ........................................................................................................................................ 11-9
11.2.3 Frequency ..................................................................................................................................... 11-9
11.2.4 Severity ......................................................................................................................................... 11-9
11.2.5 Warning Time ............................................................................................................................. 11-11
11.3 Secondary Hazards ............................................................................................................................... 11-11
11.4 Exposure .............................................................................................................................................. 11-11
11.4.1 Population ................................................................................................................................... 11-11
11.4.2 Property ...................................................................................................................................... 11-11
11.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 11-11
11.4.4 Environment ............................................................................................................................... 11-12
11.5 Vulnerability ........................................................................................................................................ 11-12
11.5.1 Population ................................................................................................................................... 11-12
11.5.2 Property ...................................................................................................................................... 11-12
11.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 11-13
11.5.4 Environment ............................................................................................................................... 11-13
11.6 Future Trends in Development ............................................................................................................ 11-14
11.7 Scenario................................................................................................................................................ 11-14
11.8 Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 11-14
12. Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.1 General Background .............................................................................................................................. 12-1
12.1.1 Local Conditions Related to Wildfire ........................................................................................... 12-1
12.1.2 Wildfire Protection Responsibility in California .......................................................................... 12-2
12.2 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................................................ 12-3
12.2.1 Past Events ................................................................................................................................... 12-3
12.2.2 Location ........................................................................................................................................ 12-3
12.2.1 Frequency ..................................................................................................................................... 12-4
12.2.2 Severity ......................................................................................................................................... 12-4
12.2.3 Warning Time ............................................................................................................................... 12-6
12.3 Secondary Hazards ................................................................................................................................. 12-6
12.4 Exposure ................................................................................................................................................ 12-6
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
x
12.4.1 Population ..................................................................................................................................... 12-6
12.4.2 Property ........................................................................................................................................ 12-6
12.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 12-9
12.4.4 Environment ............................................................................................................................... 12-10
12.5 Vulnerability ........................................................................................................................................ 12-10
12.5.1 Population ................................................................................................................................... 12-10
12.5.2 Property ...................................................................................................................................... 12-11
12.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 12-11
12.6 Future Trends in Development ............................................................................................................ 12-11
12.7 Scenario................................................................................................................................................ 12-11
12.8 Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 12-12
13. Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 13-1
13.1 General Background .............................................................................................................................. 13-1
13.1.1 What Is Climate Change? ............................................................................................................. 13-1
13.1.2 How Climate Change Affects Hazard Mitigation ........................................................................ 13-1
13.1.3 Current Indicators of Climate Change .......................................................................................... 13-2
13.1.4 Projected Future Impacts .............................................................................................................. 13-3
13.1.5 Responses to Climate Change ...................................................................................................... 13-7
13.2 Vulnerability Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 13-8
13.2.1 Dam Failure .................................................................................................................................. 13-8
13.2.2 Drought ....................................................................................................................................... 13-10
13.2.3 Earthquake .................................................................................................................................. 13-11
13.2.4 Flood ........................................................................................................................................... 13-12
13.2.5 Landslide .................................................................................................................................... 13-13
13.2.6 Severe Weather ........................................................................................................................... 13-13
13.2.7 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................................... 13-14
13.3 Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 13-15
14. Public Health Emergency ............................................................................................. 14-1
14.1 General Background .............................................................................................................................. 14-1
14.1.1 Vector-Borne ................................................................................................................................ 14-1
14.1.2 Infectious Diseases ....................................................................................................................... 14-3
14.2 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................................................ 14-6
14.2.1 Past Events ................................................................................................................................... 14-7
14.2.2 Location ........................................................................................................................................ 14-7
14.2.3 Frequency ..................................................................................................................................... 14-7
14.2.4 Severity ......................................................................................................................................... 14-7
14.3 Secondary Hazards ................................................................................................................................. 14-8
14.4 Exposure and Vulnerability ................................................................................................................... 14-8
14.4.1 Population ..................................................................................................................................... 14-8
14.4.2 Property ........................................................................................................................................ 14-8
14.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 14-8
14.4.4 Environment ................................................................................................................................. 14-8
14.4.5 Economy ....................................................................................................................................... 14-8
14.5 Future Trends in Development .............................................................................................................. 14-8
14.6 Scenario.................................................................................................................................................. 14-9
14.7 Issues ...................................................................................................................................................... 14-9
15. Human-Caused Hazards .............................................................................................. 15-1
Contents
xi
15.1 General Background .............................................................................................................................. 15-1
15.1.1 Intentional Hazards ....................................................................................................................... 15-1
15.1.2 Technological Hazards ............................................................................................................... 15-11
15.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 15-13
15.2.1 Past Events ................................................................................................................................. 15-13
15.2.2 Location ...................................................................................................................................... 15-16
15.2.3 Frequency ................................................................................................................................... 15-19
15.2.4 Severity ....................................................................................................................................... 15-19
15.2.5 Warning Time ............................................................................................................................. 15-20
15.3 Secondary Hazards ............................................................................................................................... 15-20
15.4 Exposure .............................................................................................................................................. 15-21
15.4.1 Population ................................................................................................................................... 15-21
15.4.2 Property ...................................................................................................................................... 15-21
15.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 15-21
15.4.4 Environment ............................................................................................................................... 15-22
15.5 Vulnerability ........................................................................................................................................ 15-23
15.5.1 Population ................................................................................................................................... 15-23
15.5.2 Property ...................................................................................................................................... 15-23
15.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 15-23
15.5.4 Environment ............................................................................................................................... 15-23
15.5.5 Economic impacts ...................................................................................................................... 15-23
15.6 Future Trends in Development ............................................................................................................ 15-24
15.7 Scenario................................................................................................................................................ 15-24
15.8 Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 15-24
16. Risk Ranking ................................................................................................................. 16-1
16.1 Probability of Occurrence ...................................................................................................................... 16-1
16.2 Impact .................................................................................................................................................... 16-2
16.3 Risk Rating and Ranking ....................................................................................................................... 16-3
PART 3— MITIGATION STRATEGY
17. Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 17-1
17.1 Guiding Principle ................................................................................................................................... 17-1
17.2 Goals ...................................................................................................................................................... 17-1
17.3 Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 17-1
18. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity ...................................................... 18-1
18.1 Mitigation Best Practices ....................................................................................................................... 18-1
18.2 Adaptive Capacity .................................................................................................................................. 18-9
19. Area-Wide Action Plan and Implementation .............................................................. 19-1
19.1 Actions Included in Plan ........................................................................................................................ 19-1
19.2 Benefit-Cost Review .............................................................................................................................. 19-1
19.3 Area-Wide Action Plan Prioritization .................................................................................................... 19-3
19.4 Plan Adoption ........................................................................................................................................ 19-3
19.5 Analysis of Area-Wide Mitigation Actions ........................................................................................... 19-3
19.6 Plan Maintenance Strategy..................................................................................................................... 19-4
19.6.1 Plan Monitoring and Implementation ........................................................................................... 19-5
19.6.2 Plan Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 19-5
19.6.3 Midterm Progress Report ............................................................................................................. 19-5
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
xii
19.6.4 Plan Update .................................................................................................................................. 19-7
19.6.5 Grant Monitoring and Coordination ............................................................................................. 19-7
19.6.6 Continuing Public Involvement .................................................................................................... 19-7
19.6.7 Integration with Other Planning Mechanisms .............................................................................. 19-8
References ............................................................................................................................... 1
Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 1
Appendices
Appendix A. Public Outreach Materials
Appendix B. Risk Assessment Mapping Methodology
Appendix C. Plan Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners
Appendix D. Progress Report Template
Tables
Table 2-1. Plan Changes Crosswalk ....................................................................................................................... 2-3
Table 3-1. Steering Committee Members ............................................................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-2. Municipal Planning Partners ................................................................................................................. 3-4
Table 3-3. Special District Planning Partners ......................................................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-4. Summary of Public Meetings .............................................................................................................. 3-10
Table 3-5. Plan Development Chronology/Milestones ........................................................................................ 3-11
Table 4-1. Presidential Disaster Declarations ......................................................................................................... 4-3
Table 4-2. Normal Precipitation and Temperatures in Planning Area, 1998-2016 ................................................ 4-5
Table 4-3. Present Land Use in Planning Area ...................................................................................................... 4-7
Table 4-4. Planning Area Critical Facilities ........................................................................................................... 4-7
Table 4-5. Annual Population Data ...................................................................................................................... 4-12
Table 5-1. Risk Assessment Data Sources ............................................................................................................. 5-5
Table 6-1. Alameda County Dam Inspection Dates ............................................................................................... 6-3
Table 6-2. Del Valle Dam Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 6-5
Table 6-3. Patterson Dam Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 6-5
Table 6-4. Hazard Potential Classification ............................................................................................................. 6-6
Table 6-5. Value of Property Exposed to Dam Failure .......................................................................................... 6-7
Table 6-6. Dam Inundation Present Land Use ....................................................................................................... 6-8
Table 6-7. Critical Facilities/Infrastructure in Dam Failure Inundation Areas in the Planning Area ..................... 6-8
Table 6-8. Loss Estimates for Dam Failure ............................................................................................................ 6-9
Table 6-9. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Dam Failure .................................... 6-9
Table 6-10. Dam Inundation Future Land Use ..................................................................................................... 6-10
Table 7-1. Projected Normal Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison ......................................................... 7-7
Table 7-2. Projected Single-Dry-Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................... 7-8
Table 7-3. FEMA Declarations for Drought Events in Alameda County ............................................................ 7-12
Contents
xiii
Table 8-1. Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison ................................................................. 8-3
Table 8-2. NEHRP Soil Classification System ...................................................................................................... 8-5
Table 8-3. Recent Earthquakes Magnitude 5.0 or Larger Near Planning Area .................................................... 8-11
Table 8-4. Earthquake Probabilities for the San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2043 ............................................... 8-18
Table 8-5. Earthquake Exposure by Municipality ................................................................................................ 8-19
Table 8-6. Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons and Households ................................................................ 8-21
Table 8-7. Number of Buildings on Moderate to Very High Liquefiable Soils ................................................... 8-21
Table 8-8. Age of Structures in Planning Area .................................................................................................... 8-21
Table 8-9. Loss Estimates for Calaveras Fault Scenario Earthquake ................................................................... 8-22
Table 8-10. Loss Estimates for Greenville Fault Scenario Earthquake ................................................................ 8-22
Table 8-11. Loss Estimates for Haywired Fault Scenario Earthquake ................................................................. 8-22
Table 8-12. Loss Estimates for Mt. Diablo Fault Scenario Earthquake ............................................................... 8-22
Table 8-13. Loss Estimates for North San Andreas Fault Scenario Earthquake .................................................. 8-22
Table 8-14. Estimated Earthquake-Caused Debris ............................................................................................... 8-23
Table 8-15. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the Calaveras Fault Scenario Earthquake ................. 8-24
Table 8-16. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the Greenville Fault Scenario Earthquake ................ 8-24
Table 8-17. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the Haywired Fault Scenario Earthquake ................. 8-24
Table 8-18. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the Mt. Diablo Fault Scenario Earthquake ............... 8-24
Table 8-19. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the San Andreas Fault Scenario Earthquake ............. 8-25
Table 8-20. Functionality of Critical Facilities for Calaveras Fault Scenario Earthquake ................................... 8-25
Table 8-21. Functionality of Critical Facilities the Greenville Fault Scenario Earthquake.................................. 8-25
Table 8-22. Functionality of Critical Facilities for the Haywired Fault Scenario Earthquake ............................. 8-25
Table 8-23. Functionality of Critical Facilities from the Mt. Diablo Fault Scenario Earthquake ........................ 8-26
Table 8-24. Functionality of Critical Facilities from the San Andreas Fault Scenario Earthquake ..................... 8-26
Table 8-25. Developable Land in High and Very High Liquefaction Susceptibility Areas ................................. 8-27
Table 9-1. Jurisdictions and Date Joined NFIP ...................................................................................................... 9-3
Table 9-2. CRS Community Status in the Planning Area ...................................................................................... 9-6
Table 9-3. FEMA Disaster Declarations for Flood Events in Alameda County .................................................... 9-7
Table 9-4. Flood Events in the Tri-Valley Planning Area ...................................................................................... 9-8
Table 9-5. Area in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Flood Floodplain .................................................................... 9-11
Table 9-6. Probability of Future Occurrences of Flood Events ............................................................................ 9-11
Table 9-7. Summary of Peak Discharges within the Planning Area .................................................................... 9-12
Table 9-8. Population Within the 10-Percent, 1-Percent and 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Areas . 9-14
Table 9-9. Area and Structures in the 10-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain ..................................................... 9-14
Table 9-10. Area and Structures in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain ..................................................... 9-14
Table 9-11. Area and Structures in the 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain .................................................. 9-14
Table 9-12. Value of Structures in the 10-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain ................................................... 9-14
Table 9-13. Value of Structures in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain ..................................................... 9-15
Table 9-14. Value of Structures in the 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain .................................................. 9-15
Table 9-15. Land Use Within the Floodplain ....................................................................................................... 9-15
Table 9-16. Critical Facilities/Infrastructure in the 10-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain ................................ 9-16
Table 9-17. Critical Facilities/Infrastructure in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain .................................. 9-16
Table 9-18. Critical Facilities/Infrastructure in the 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain ............................... 9-16
Table 9-19. Estimated Flood Impact on Persons and Households ....................................................................... 9-18
Table 9-20. Loss Estimates for 10-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain ............................................................... 9-19
Table 9-21. Loss Estimates for 1-percent Annual Chance Flood ......................................................................... 9-19
Table 9-22. Loss Estimates for 0.2-percent Annual Chance Flood ...................................................................... 9-19
Table 9-23. Estimated Flood-Caused Debris ........................................................................................................ 9-20
Table 9-24. Flood Insurance Statistics ................................................................................................................. 9-20
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
xiv
Table 9-25. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 10-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood ... 9-
21
Table 9-26. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood . 9-22
Table 9-27. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood .. 9-
22
Table 9-28. Future Land Use Within the Floodplain ............................................................................................ 9-23
Table 10-1. FEMA Landslide Disaster Declarations in Alameda County ........................................................... 10-5
Table 10-2. Landslide Events in the Tri-Valley Planning Area ........................................................................... 10-6
Table 10-3. Population Exposure to the Landslide Hazard .................................................................................. 10-9
Table 10-4. Number and Value of Exposed Structures in Very High Landslide Susceptibility Zone ............... 10-10
Table 10-5. Number and Value of Exposed Structures in High Landslide Susceptibility Zone ........................ 10-10
Table 10-6. Number and Value of Exposed Structures in Moderate Landslide Susceptibility Zone ................. 10-10
Table 10-7. Exposure and Value of Structures in Low Landslide Susceptibility Zone ...................................... 10-10
Table 10-8. Land Use in Landslide Risk Areas .................................................................................................. 10-11
Table 10-9. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Moderate Landslide Risk Areas ........................................ 10-11
Table 10-10. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in High Landslide Risk Areas ............................................. 10-11
Table 10-11. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Very High Landslide Risk Areas .................................... 10-11
Table 10-12. Loss Potential for Landslide .......................................................................................................... 10-12
Table 10-13. Future Land Use in Landslide Risk Areas .................................................................................... 10-13
Table 11-1. FEMA Disasters for Severe Weather Events in Alameda County .................................................... 11-7
Table 11-2. Severe Weather Events in the Tri-Valley Planning Area .................................................................. 11-8
Table 11-3. Loss Estimates for Severe Weather ................................................................................................. 11-13
Table 11-4. Loss of Use Estimates for Power Failure ........................................................................................ 11-13
Table 12-1. Record of Fire Affecting Planning Area ........................................................................................... 12-4
Table 12-2. Population within Wildfire Hazard Areas ......................................................................................... 12-8
Table 12-3. Exposure and Value of Structures in Very High Wildfire Hazard Areas ......................................... 12-8
Table 12-4. Exposure and Value of Structures in High Wildfire Hazard Areas .................................................. 12-8
Table 12-5. Exposure and Value of Structures in Moderate Wildfire Hazard Areas ........................................... 12-8
Table 12-6. Land Use Within the Wildfire Hazard Areas .................................................................................... 12-9
Table 12-7. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Wildfire Hazard Areas ........................................................ 12-9
Table 12-8. Wildfire Loss Potential ................................................................................................................... 12-11
Table 12-9. Future Land Use Within the Wildfire Hazard Areas ....................................................................... 12-12
Table 13-1. Summary of Primary and Secondary Impacts ................................................................................... 13-4
Table 13-2. Average Temperature Projections in Tri-Valley planning area ........................................................ 13-5
Table 15-1. Event Profiles for Terrorism ............................................................................................................. 15-3
Table 15-2. Common Mechanisms for Cyber-attacks .......................................................................................... 15-8
Table 15-3. Hazard Materials Spills in Tri-Valley Planning Area Reported to Cal OES (2012-2016) ............. 15-15
Table 15-4. Total Fatal and Injury Collision Data for Tri-Valley Planning Area .............................................. 15-16
Table 15-5. Injuries and Fatalities from Hazardous Materials Spills in Tri-Valley Planning Area ................... 15-20
Table 15-6. Criticality Factors ............................................................................................................................ 15-22
Table 15-7. Vulnerability Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 15-22
Table 16-1. Probability of Hazards ...................................................................................................................... 16-2
Table 16-2. Impact on People from Hazards ........................................................................................................ 16-3
Table 16-3. Impact on Property from Hazards ..................................................................................................... 16-3
Table 16-4. Impact on Economy from Hazards ................................................................................................... 16-3
Table 16-5. Hazard Risk Rating ........................................................................................................................... 16-4
Table 16-6. Hazard Risk Ranking ........................................................................................................................ 16-4
Contents
xv
Table 18-1. Alternatives to Mitigate the Dam Failure Hazard ............................................................................. 18-2
Table 18-2. Alternatives to Mitigate the Drought Hazard .................................................................................... 18-3
Table 18-3. Alternatives to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard ............................................................................... 18-4
Table 18-4. Alternatives to Mitigate the Flooding Hazard ................................................................................... 18-5
Table 18-5. Alternatives to Mitigate the Landslide Hazard ................................................................................. 18-6
Table 18-6. Alternatives to Mitigate the Severe Weather Hazard ........................................................................ 18-7
Table 18-7. Alternatives to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard .................................................................................... 18-8
Table 19-1. Action Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 19-2
Table 19-2. Prioritization of Area-Wide Mitigation Actions ............................................................................... 19-3
Table 19-3. Analysis of Mitigation Actions ......................................................................................................... 19-4
Table 19-4. Plan Maintenance Matrix .................................................................................................................. 19-6
Figures
Figure 3-1. Hazard Mitigation Survey .................................................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-2. Dublin Farmer’s Market ...................................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-3. Pleasanton Farmers Market ................................................................................................................. 3-8
Figure 3-4. A Resident Receives a Risk Assessment ............................................................................................. 3-8
Figure 3-5. Example “Workstation” Report ........................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-6. Hazard Mitigation Plan Web Site Homepage ...................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 4-1. Planning Area ...................................................................................................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2. Watersheds and Water Bodies in the Planning Area ........................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-3. Critical Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 4-8
Figure 4-4. Critical Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 4-9
Figure 4-5. Residential Building Permit Trends, 2005 to 2014 ............................................................................ 4-10
Figure 4-6. Alameda County vs. Planning Area Population Growth ................................................................... 4-12
Figure 4-7. Planning Area Age Distribution ........................................................................................................ 4-13
Figure 4-8. Planning Area Race Distribution ....................................................................................................... 4-14
Figure 4-9. Industry in the Planning Area by Population Employed ................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4-10. Occupations in the Planning Area ................................................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-11. California State and Planning Area Unemployment Rate ............................................................... 4-17
Figure 7-1. Palmer Crop Moisture Index for Week Ending May 20, 2017 ............................................................ 7-3
Figure 7-2. Palmer Z Index (April 2017) ............................................................................................................... 7-3
Figure 7-3. Palmer Drought Index through May 20, 2017 ..................................................................................... 7-4
Figure 7-4. Palmer Hydrological Drought Index through May 20, 2017 ............................................................... 7-4
Figure 7-5. 12-Month Standardized Precipitation Index (May 1, 2016 – April 30, 2017) ..................................... 7-5
Figure 7-6. Zone 7 Water Agency Supply and Use ................................................................................................ 7-6
Figure 8-1. Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years ........................................ 8-4
Figure 8-2. Calaveras Fault M7.0 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration ............................................. 8-6
Figure 8-3. Greenville Fault M7.0 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration ............................................ 8-7
Figure 8-4. Haywired Fault M7.05 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration............................................ 8-8
Figure 8-5. Mount Diablo Fault M6.7 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration ....................................... 8-9
Figure 8-6. N. San Andreas Fault M7.8 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration .................................. 8-10
Figure 8-7. Recent Earthquakes Near Planning Area ........................................................................................... 8-12
Figure 8-8. Significant Known Faults in the Bay Area ........................................................................................ 8-14
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
xvi
Figure 8-9. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Classification ............................................... 8-16
Figure 8-10. Liquefaction Susceptibility .............................................................................................................. 8-17
Figure 8-11. PGA with 2-Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years........................................................... 8-19
Figure 9-1. CRS Communities by Class Nationwide as of October 2016 .............................................................. 9-5
Figure 9-2. FEMA Effective DFIRM Flood Hazard Areas .................................................................................. 9-10
Figure 10-1. Deep Seated Slide ............................................................................................................................ 10-2
Figure 10-2. Shallow Colluvial Slide ................................................................................................................... 10-2
Figure 10-3. Bench Slide ...................................................................................................................................... 10-2
Figure 10-4. Large Slide ....................................................................................................................................... 10-2
Figure 10-5. Typical Debris Avalanche Scar and Track ...................................................................................... 10-3
Figure 10-6. Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides ........................................................................................ 10-8
Figure 11-1. NWS Experimental Potential Heat Risks ........................................................................................ 11-5
Figure 11-2. Space Weather Phenomena .............................................................................................................. 11-6
Figure 11-3. Annual Number of Thunderstorms in the United States .................................................................. 11-9
Figure 11-4. Wind Zones in the United States ................................................................................................... 11-10
Figure 12-1. CAL FIRE FRAP Map for Alameda County ................................................................................... 12-5
Figure 12-2. Wildfire Severity Zones in the Planning Area ................................................................................. 12-7
Figure 13-1. Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations over Time ......................................................................... 13-2
Figure 13-2. Observed and Projected Average Temperatures in Tri-Valley planning area ................................. 13-5
Figure 13-3. Projected Number of Extreme Heat Days by Year .......................................................................... 13-6
Figure 13-4. Projected Changes in Fire Risk, Relative to 2010 Levels ................................................................ 13-7
Figure 13-5. Oroville Dam Emergency Spillway Failure in Spring 2017 ............................................................ 13-9
Figure 14-1. 2014 Distribution of Ebola Virus Outbreaks in Humans and Animals ............................................ 14-5
Figure 15-1. Pop-Up Message Indicating Ransomware Infection ........................................................................ 15-8
Figure 15-2. Gas Transmission and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Near the Planning Area ................................ 15-18
Acknowledgments
xvii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Planning Team
• Hazel Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Dublin
• Adam Weinstein, Planning Manager, City of Pleasanton
• Shweta Bonn, Senior Planner, Advanced Planning; City of Pleasanton
• Susan Frost, Special Projects Coordinator, City of Livermore
• Stanley Kolodzie, Associate Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Services District
• Brian Fritz, Maintenance and Operations Supervisor, Dublin Unified School District
• Chris Van Schaack, Deputy Superintendent, Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
Consultants
• Rob Flaner, CFM, Tetra Tech, Inc., Project Manager
• Carol Bauman, GISP, Tetra Tech, Inc., Risk Assessment Lead
• Jessica Cerutti, CFM, Tetra Tech, Inc., Planner
• Tommie-Jean Valmassy, Tetra Tech, Inc., Planner
• Kari Valentine, CFM, Tetra Tech, Inc., Planner
• Stephen Veith, MUP, Tetra Tech, Inc., GIS/Hazus Analyst
• Dan Portman, Tetra Tech, Inc., Technical Editor
Stakeholders
• Colter Anderson, Production Manager, Zone 7 Water Agency
• Marla Blagg, Emergency Manager, Bay Area Rapid Transit
• Caryn Thornburg, SEMS Officer, Stanford Health Care – Valley Care
• Lincoln Cashmere, Emergency Manager, Alameda County Fire Department
• Tracy Hein, Disaster Preparedness Coordinator, Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department
• John Lawrence, Assistant General Manager, Livermore Area Recreation & Park District
• Scott Ratay, President/CEO, Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce
• John Richards, Emergency Management Expert, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• Joe Testa, Deputy Chief, Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department
• Cary Fukada, Community Emergency Response Teams.
Special Acknowledgments
The development of this plan would not have been possible without the dedication and commitment to this
process by the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee. The dedication of the volunteer members of this
committee to allocate their time to this process is greatly appreciated. Also, local citizens are commended for their
participation in planning outreach activities. The success of the outreach effort will set the course for the
successful implementation of this plan.
xviii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HAZARD MITIGATION OVERVIEW
Hazard mitigation is the use of policies, programs, projects, and other activities to alleviate the death, injury, and
property damage that can result from a disaster. The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, along with the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (the Tri-Valley Planning Partnership), have collaborated to develop a hazard
mitigation plan to reduce risks from natural disasters that complies with federal requirements for hazard
mitigation planning.
In 2004, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) led a regional hazard mitigation planning effort for
jurisdictions within its area of responsibility. Numerous Bay-area counties and cities used ABAG’s template to
meet federal hazard mitigation planning requirements. In 2010, ABAG conducted its second regional planning
effort. The Tri-Valley planning partners used the 2010 updated ABAG tools to meet federal hazard mitigation
planning requirements.
Federal regulations require periodic updates of hazard mitigation plans. A jurisdiction covered by a plan that has
expired is ineligible for certain federal natural disaster assistance funding. In 2017, the Tri-Valley Planning
Partnership formed to prepare an updated multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan that best suits local needs and
capabilities. The planning partners developed a new plan from scratch, using lessons learned from the earlier
ABAG planning efforts. The 2017 plan is an update for each member of the Tri-Valley Planning Partnership. It
differs from previous plans in the following ways:
• The updated plan is not a subset of a larger regional effort. It focuses on the geographic region of Dublin,
Livermore, Pleasanton and the jurisdictional boundaries for the Dublin/San Ramon Services District (the
Tri-Valley planning area).
• The focus of this plan is for the hazards of concern that impact the Tri-Valley planning area.
• Newly available data and tools provide for a more detailed and accurate risk assessment.
• The risk assessment has been formatted to provide information on risk and vulnerability that will allow a
measurement of cost-effectiveness, as required under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
mitigation grant programs.
• The update gave the planning partners an opportunity to engage local citizens and gauge their perception
of risk and support for risk reduction through mitigation.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
Organize, Review and Engage the Public
A planning team assembled for the plan update conducted outreach to invite the participation of local planning
partners. A 20-member steering committee was assembled to oversee the plan update, consisting of staff from
each of the planning partners, citizens, and other stakeholders in the defined planning area. Coordination with
other county, state, and federal agencies involved in hazard mitigation occurred throughout the plan update
process.
Executive Summary
xix
The planning team implemented a public involvement strategy developed by the Steering Committee. The
strategy included public meetings to present the risk assessment and the draft plan, a hazard mitigation survey, a
project website, and multiple media releases. The planning team and Steering Committee also reviewed the
existing hazard mitigation plan, the California statewide hazard mitigation plan, and existing programs that may
support hazard mitigation actions.
As semble, Adopt and Maintain the Plan
The planning team and Steering Committee assembled a document to meet federal hazard mitigation planning
requirements. A mitigation plan review crosswalk included in the hazard mitigation plan demonstrates its
compliance with all requirements. The planning partners will formally adopt the plan once the State of California
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and FEMA Region IX have granted pre-adoption approval.
The plan includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating plan progress periodically and producing a revised
plan every five years. This maintenance strategy also includes processes for continuing public involvement and
integrating with other programs that can support or enhance hazard mitigation.
RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life resulting from natural hazards, as well as
personal injury, economic injury and property damage. It is used to define the vulnerability of people, buildings,
and infrastructure to natural hazards. For this update, risk assessment models were enhanced with new data and
technologies that have become available since the ABAG planning effort in 2010. The Steering Committee used
the risk assessment to rank risk and to gauge the potential impacts of each hazard of concern in the Tri-Valley
planning area. The risk assessment included the following:
• Hazard identification and profiling
• Assessment of the impact of hazards on physical, social, and economic assets
• Identification of particular areas of vulnerability
• Estimates of the cost of potential damage.
Based on the risk assessment, hazards were ranked for the risk they pose to the overall planning area, as shown in
Table ES-1. Each planning partner also ranked hazards for its own area. Table ES-2 summarizes all jurisdictions’
numerical ratings of high, medium and low. The results indicate the following general patterns:
• The earthquake hazard was most commonly ranked as high.
• The severe weather, wildfire and landslide hazards were most commonly ranked as medium.
• The dam failure, flood and drought hazards were most commonly ranked as low.
Table ES-1. Hazard Risk Ranking for the Overall Planning Area
Hazard Ranking Hazard Event Category
1 Earthquake High
2 Severe Weather High
3 Landslide High
3 Wildfire High
4 Flood Medium
4 Dam Failure Medium
5 Drought Low
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
xx
Table ES-2. Summary of Hazard Ranking Result by Individual Planning Partners
Number of Jurisdictions Assigning Ranking to Hazard
High Medium Low
Dam Failure 0 1 3
Drought 0 1 3
Earthquake 4 0 0
Flood 0 1 3
Landslide 2 2 0
Severe weather 0 4 0
Wildfire 1 3 0
MITIGATION PRINCIPLE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Steering Committee developed the following guiding principle for the 2017 planning effort:
Through community partnerships, establish a plan to reduce the vulnerability to hazards in order to
protect the health, safety, welfare, environment and economy of the planning area.
The Steering Committee established the following goals for the plan update:
1. Ensure that hazards are identified and considered in land use decisions.
2. Improve local emergency management capability.
3. Promote community awareness, understanding, and interest in hazard mitigation policies and programs.
4. Incorporate hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy and standard practice.
5. Reduce community exposure and vulnerability to hazards where the greatest risk exists.
6. Increase resilience of infrastructure and critical facilities.
7. Promote an adaptive and resilient planning area that responds proactively to future conditions.
8. Develop and implement mitigation strategies that identify the best alternative to protect natural resources,
promote equity, and use public funds in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
The objectives listed in Table ES-3 were identified to meet multiple goals, helping to establish priorities for
recommended mitigation actions.
MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The planning partnership selected a range of mitigation actions to work toward achieving the goals set forth in
this plan update. The recommended mitigation actions are activities designed to reduce or eliminate losses
resulting from natural hazards. The update process resulted in the identification of 73 mitigation actions for
implementation by individual planning partners, as presented in Volume 2 of the hazard mitigation plan. In
addition, the Steering Committee identified planning-area-wide actions benefiting the whole partnership, as listed
in Table ES-4.
Executive Summary
xxi
Table ES-3. Objectives for 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Number Objective
Applicable
Goals
1 Develop and provide updated information to improve the understanding of the locations, potential impacts, and
linkages among threats, hazards, vulnerability, and measures needed to protect life safety health, property and
the environment.
3, 5, 7
2 Use local general plan, zoning, and subdivision requirements to help establish resilient and sustainable
communities.
1, 3, 4, 5, 7,
8
3 Improve systems that provide warning and emergency communications. 2, 3
4 Encourage the retrofit of vulnerable structures in the planning area. 5, 6
5 Consider programs that incentivize risk reduction. 3, 4, 5
6 Reduce repetitive property losses due to all hazards by updating land use, design, and construction policies. 3, 4, 5, 6
7 Continually build linkages and promote dialog about emergency management within the public and private
sectors.
2, 3, 4
8 Incorporate risk reduction considerations in new and updated infrastructure and development plans to reduce
the impacts of natural hazards.
4, 5, 6
9 Inform the public, including underrepresented community groups, on the risk of exposure to natural hazards and
ways to increase the public’s capability to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the impacts of
these events.
3, 4, 5
10 Identify projects that simultaneously reduce risk while increasing planning area resilience and sustainability. 5, 6, 7
11 Where feasible and cost-effective, research, develop, and promote adoption of building and development laws,
regulations, and ordinances exceeding the minimum levels needed for life safety.
1.4.8
12 Encourage hazard mitigation measures that promote and enhance natural processes, minimize adverse
impacts on the ecosystem, and promote social equity.
3, 5, 8
Table ES-4. Planning-Area-Wide Hazard Mitigation Actions
Action Number and Description Priority
Action AW-1— Continue to maintain a planning area-wide hazard mitigation website that will store the hazard mitigation plan
and provide the public an opportunity to monitor plan implementation progress. Each planning partner can support this action by
including an action in its own action plan of creating a link to the planning-area-wide hazard mitigation website.
High
Action AW-2— Leverage public outreach partnering capabilities in the planning area (such as Community Emergency
Response Teams) to promote a uniform and consistent message on the importance of proactive hazard mitigation.
High
Action AW-3— Coordinate mitigation planning and project efforts in the planning area to leverage all resources available to the
planning partnership.
High
Action AW-4— Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures in hazard-prone areas to protect
the structures from future damage, with repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties as a priority. Seek opportunities to
leverage partnerships in the planning area in these pursuits.
Medium
Action AW-5— Continue to update hazard mapping with best available data and science as it evolves, within the capabilities of
the partnership. Support FEMA’s RiskMAP initiative.
High
Action AW-6— To the extent possible based on available resources, provide coordination and technical assistance in applying
for grant funding.
High
Action AW-7— Maintain a steering committee as a working body over time to monitor progress of the hazard mitigation plan,
provide technical assistance to planning partners, manage data, and oversee the update of the plan according to schedule. This
body will continue to operate under the ground rules established at its inception.
High
Action AW-8— All planning partners will collaborate and share information to support the development of debris management
plans for the planning area. While each planning partner will be responsible for the development of their own plans, they will
attempt to standardize the content and format based on a regional template.
High
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
xxii
IMPLEMENTATION
The Steering Committee developed a plan implementation and maintenance strategy that includes mid-term
progress reporting, a strategy for continued public involvement, a commitment to plan integration with other
relevant plans and programs, and a recommitment from the planning partners to actively maintain the plan over
the five-year performance period.
Full implementation of the recommendations of this plan will require time and resources. The measure of the
plan’s success will be its ability to adapt to changing conditions. The Tri-Valley Planning Partnership will assume
responsibility for adopting the recommendations of this plan and committing resources toward implementation.
The framework established by this plan commits all planning partners to pursue actions when the benefits of a
project exceed its costs. The planning partnership developed this plan with extensive public input, and public
support of the actions identified in this plan will help ensure the plan’s success.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
PART 1—PLANNING PROCESS AND
COMMUNITY PROFILE
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION TO HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING
1.1 WHY PREPARE THIS PLAN?
1.1.1 The Big Picture
Hazard mitigation is defined as any action taken to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal injury, and
property damage that can result from a disaster. It involves long- and short-term actions implemented before,
during and after disasters. Hazard mitigation activities include planning efforts, policy changes, programs, studies,
improvement projects, and other steps to reduce the impacts of hazards.
For many years, federal disaster funding focused on relief and recovery after disasters occurred, with limited
funding for hazard mitigation planning in advance. The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA; Public Law 106-390),
passed in 2000, shifted the federal emphasis toward planning for disasters before they occur. The DMA requires
state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans and update them every five years as a condition
for federal disaster grant assistance. Regulations developed to fulfill the DMA’s requirements are included in
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR).
The responsibility for hazard mitigation lies with many, including private property owners, commercial interests,
and local, state and federal governments. The DMA encourages cooperation among state and local authorities in
pre-disaster planning. The enhanced planning network called for by the DMA helps local government’s articulate
accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost-effective risk-reduction
projects.
The DMA also promotes sustainability in hazard mitigation. To be sustainable, hazard mitigation needs to
incorporate sound management of natural resources and address hazards and mitigation in the largest possible
social and economic context.
1.1.2 Purposes for Planning
In response to the requirements of the DMA, the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, California and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District have developed this multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan. The three
cities make up the incorporated area of the Alameda County portion of California’s Tri-Valley region, on the east
side of the San Francisco Bay area. This multi-jurisdiction plan represents an update to each city’s component of
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2010 Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for
the San Francisco Bay Area. The three cities prepared annexes for the ABAG 2010 hazard mitigation plan that
were approved and adopted from 2011 to 2012.
The Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan fulfills the five-year plan update requirement for these planning
partners. It identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards in the Tri-
Valley planning area. Components of the hazard mitigation plan were selected because they meet a program
requirement and because they best meet the needs of the planning partners (the cities and participating special
districts) and their citizens. One benefit of multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources and
eliminate redundant activities within a planning area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities. The
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
1-2
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi-jurisdictional planning under its guidance for
the DMA. Local special districts that participated with the cities to develop this hazard mitigation plan are the
Dublin San Ramon Services District, the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, and the Dublin Unified
School District.
The plan will help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the planning area. It was developed to
meet the following objectives:
• Meet or exceed requirements of the DMA.
• Enable all planning partners to continue using federal grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation.
• Meet the needs of each planning partner as well as state and federal requirements.
• Create a risk assessment that focuses on local hazards of concern.
• Meet the planning requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Community
Rating System (CRS), allowing planning partners that participate in the CRS program to maintain or
enhance their CRS classifications.
• Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high-priority projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts
are funded and implemented.
The long-term benefits of mitigation planning include the following:
• An increased understanding of hazards faced by all planning partners
• A more sustainable and disaster-resistant community
• Financial savings through partnerships that support planning and mitigation efforts
• Focused use of limited resources on hazards that have the biggest impact on the communities
• Reduced long-term impacts and damage to human health and structures, and reduced repair costs.
1.2 WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS PLAN?
All citizens and businesses of the planning area are the ultimate beneficiaries of this hazard mitigation plan. The
hazard mitigation plan reduces risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the planning area. It provides a viable
planning framework for all foreseeable natural hazards. Participation in development of the hazard mitigation plan
by key stakeholders helped ensure that outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The resources and background
information in the plan are applicable across the planning area, and the plan’s goals and recommendations can lay
groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships.
1.3 CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN
This plan has been set up in two volumes so that jurisdiction-specific elements may be easily distinguished from
those that apply to the whole planning area:
• Volume 1—Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan that apply to
the entire planning area. This includes the description of the planning process, public involvement
strategy, goals and objectives, planning area hazard risk assessment, planning area mitigation actions, and
a plan maintenance strategy.
• Volume 2—Volume 2 includes all federally required jurisdiction-specific elements in annexes for each
participating jurisdiction. It includes a description of the participation requirements established by the
Steering Committee, as well as instructions and templates that the partners used to complete their
annexes. Volume 2 also includes “linkage” procedures for eligible jurisdictions that did not participate in
development of this plan but wish to adopt it in the future.
1. Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning
1-3
Both volumes include elements required under federal guidelines. DMA compliance requirements are cited at the
beginning of subsections as appropriate to demonstrate compliance.
The following appendices provided at the end of Volume 1 include information or explanations to support the
main content of the plan:
• Appendix A—Public outreach information used in preparation of this update
• Appendix B—Data sources and methods used for hazard mapping
• Appendix C—Plan adoption resolutions from Planning Partners
• Appendix D—A template for progress reports to be completed as this plan is implemented.
All planning partners will adopt Volume 1 in its entirety, including the appendices, and at least the following parts
of Volume 2: Part 1, and each partner’s jurisdiction-specific annex.
2-1
2. PLAN UPDATE—WHAT HAS CHANGED
2.1 THE PREVIOUS PLAN
In 2004, ABAG led a regional effort to address hazard mitigation planning for jurisdictions in the San Francisco
Bay Area. The ABAG process equipped local governments with a template and tools to complete individual
planning processes for their jurisdictions, while pooling resources and eliminating redundant planning efforts.
Alameda County’s first annex to the ABAG hazard mitigation plan was developed and adopted in 2007. In 2010,
ABAG conducted its second regional planning effort. Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton participated in the 2010
planning process, along with Alameda County, other cities, and the Alameda County Water District including the
Zone 7 Water Agency; these jurisdictions used the ABAG tools to achieve DMA compliance. The single-
jurisdiction annexes in the previous hazard mitigation, developed using the ABAG template and tools, contained
the following components:
• Introduction
• Description of the local planning process
• Hazards and risk assessment
• Summary of the National Flood Insurance Program and repetitive loss properties
• Mitigation goals, activities and priorities
• Regional mitigation strategies
• Incorporation of the plan into existing planning mechanisms
• Description of the plan update process
• Exhibits to illustrate the planning process.
The Dublin Unified School District and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District have not previously
participated in a hazard mitigation plan.
2.2 WHY UPDATE?
In 2015, ABAG again provided tools for counties and cities in the Bay Area to revise their previous plans and
annexes, but decided not to revise the regional 2010 ABAG hazard mitigation plan. As a result, multiple counties
and cities that participated in the previous ABAG hazard mitigation plan needed to undertake a planning process
independently, or as part of a new partnership, in order to remain eligible for federal hazard mitigation assistance.
Alameda County set out to develop a stand-alone plan focusing on unincorporated areas; Dublin, Livermore and
Pleasanton pooled resources to develop this multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. The following factors are
the basis for the Tri-Valley hazard mitigation planning effort:
• The planning area has significant exposure to numerous natural hazards.
• Limited local resources make it difficult to be pre-emptive in risk reduction actions. Being able to
leverage federal financial assistance is paramount to successful hazard mitigation in the area.
• The planning partners want to be proactive in preparedness for the probable impacts of natural hazards.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
2-2
2.2.1 Federal Eligibility
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) stipulates that hazard mitigation plans must present a
schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. This provides an opportunity to reevaluate
recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to
change the focus of mitigation strategies. A jurisdiction covered by a plan that has expired is not able to pursue
funding under the Robert T. Stafford Act that requires a current hazard mitigation plan.
2.2.2 Changes in Development
Hazard mitigation plan updates must be revised to reflect changes in development in the planning area since the
previous plan was completed (44 CFR Section 201.6(d)(3)). The plan must describe changes in development in
hazard-prone areas that increased or decreased vulnerability for each jurisdiction since the last plan was approved.
If no changes in development impacted the jurisdiction’s overall vulnerability, plan updates may validate the
information in the previously approved plan. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the mitigation
strategy continues to address the risk and vulnerability of existing and potential development and takes into
consideration possible future conditions that could impact vulnerability.
The planning area experienced an 18.1 percent increase in population from 2000 to 2010, an average growth of
1.81 percent per year. Between 2010 and 2017, the California Department of Finance estimates that the total
populations of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton grew an additional 14.17 percent, to 225,250 (CA DOF, 2017).
This plan update assumes that some new development triggered by the increase in population occurred in hazard
areas. Because all such new development would have been regulated pursuant to local programs and codes, it is
assumed that vulnerability did not increase, even if exposure did. Participating planning partners have adopted
general plans, strategic plans, and emergency plans that govern land-use decisions and policy-making, as well as
building codes and specialty ordinances based on state and federal mandates. A detailed analysis of development
patterns in the planning area is provided in Section 4.5 and in the individual partner annexes in Volume 2.
2.3 THE UPDATED PLAN—WHAT IS DIFFERENT?
The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton are the primary partners in developing this hazard mitigation
plan. The three jurisdictions acquired contractor support to facilitate the development of this plan. The plan is a
revision of the 2010 ABAG hazard mitigation plan annexes, but it represents the initial plan for the combined Tri-
Valley planning area. This plan differs from the 2010 annexes in a variety of ways:
• This plan has been re-structured to focus on the Tri-Valley planning area. The risk assessment is not a
part of a larger regional effort. It addresses only the Tri-Valley planning area, focusing on hazards of
concern specific to that planning area.
• This updated hazard mitigation plan includes the Dublin San Ramon Services District and the Dublin
Unified School District as planning partners.
• The risk assessment has been formatted to best support future grant applications by providing risk and
vulnerability information directly supportive of the cost-effectiveness measurement required under FEMA
mitigation grant programs.
• Newly available data (such as FEMA’s countywide Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps) and tools (such
as FEMA’s Hazus computer model) provide for a more detailed and accurate risk assessment.
• The process of updating the 2010 ABAG annexes gave the planning partners an opportunity to engage
local citizens and gauge their perception of risk and support for risk reduction through mitigation. This
plan update demonstrates that engagement process.
Table 2-1 indicates the major changes between the two plans as they relate to 44 CFR planning requirements.
2. Plan Update—What Has Changed
2-3
Table 2-1. Plan Changes Crosswalk
44 CFR Requirement Previous Plan Updated Plan
§201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
• 1. An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
• 2. An opportunity for neighboring communities,
local and regional agencies involved in hazard
mitigation activities, and agencies that have the
authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
• 3. Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
Appendix A of the ABAG Plan
includes a description of the
planning process. It includes
detail of coordination with other
agencies and review of the
previous plan.
The plan development process deployed
for this update differed significantly from
that of the ABAG plan. Volume 1 Chapters
2, 3, and 5 describe the planning process
for the 2017 updated plan.
§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.
Appendix C of the ABAG plan
includes a risk assessment for
nine hazards (earthquake,
tsunami, flood, landslide, wildfire,
drought, climate change, dam
failure, and delta levee failure) for
the nine-county regional area.
Volume 1 Part 2 presents a risk
assessment of 10 hazards of concern:
dam failure, drought, earthquake, flood,
landslide, severe weather, wildfire, human
caused hazards, health hazards, and
climate change. These hazards are
profiled as they impact the Tri-Valley
planning area. Including a qualitative
assessment of human caused hazards
and health hazards provides a more
complete picture of the hazards facing the
planning area.
§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.
Appendix C of the ABAG plan
includes a risk assessment for
nine hazards (earthquake,
tsunami, flood, landslide, wildfire,
drought, climate change, dam
failure, and delta levee failure) for
the nine-county regional area.
Volume 1 Part 2 presents a risk
assessment of each hazard of concern.
Each hazard chapter includes the
following components:
• Hazard profile, including maps of extent
and location, historical occurrences,
frequency, severity, and warning time
• Secondary hazards
• Climate change impacts
• Exposure of people, property, critical
facilities and environment
• Vulnerability of people, property, critical
facilities and environment
• Future trends in development
• Scenarios
• Issues
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
2-4
44 CFR Requirement Previous Plan Updated Plan
§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). This description shall include an overall summary of each
hazard and its impact on the community
Utilizing existing studies and
documents, the ABAG plan
discussed vulnerability with an
emphasis on exposure and land
use. There was extensive
discussion on the vulnerability to
the earthquake hazard. The
ABAG risk assessment attempts
to estimate potential damage from
future events. ABAG concluded
that Hazus was not an adequate
tool for planning purposes.
Vulnerability was assessed for all hazards
of concern. The Hazus computer model
was used for the dam failure, earthquake,
and flood hazards, incorporating local data
sets. Site-specific data on Steering
Committee-identified critical facilities were
entered into the Hazus model.
Vulnerability was assessed for other
hazards by applying varying damage
percentages to an asset inventory
extracted from Hazus.
§201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program insured
structures that have been repetitively damaged
floods
The ABAG plan includes
summary information by county
on identified repetitive losses. The
plan includes a link to a website
with more information on
repetitive losses, but the site is no
longer maintained. The plan
provides inventories of structures
in repetitive loss areas, but there
is no description of the causes of
repetitive flooding.
Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton have no
identified Repetitive Loss or Severe
Repetitive Loss structures insured through
the National Flood Insurance Program.
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of
existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities located in the identified hazard area.
The focus of the ABAG plan is on
existing land use without detailed
discussion on future land use.
There is no consistent inventory of
the number and types of
structures exposed to each
hazard of concern. The plan does
provide an inventory of identified
critical facilities.
A complete inventory of the numbers and
types of buildings exposed was generated
for each hazard of concern. The Steering
Committee defined and identified “critical
facilities” for the planning area, and these
facilities were inventoried by exposure.
Each hazard chapter provides a
discussion on future development trends.
§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) and a description of the
methodology used to prepare the estimate.
The ABAG plan relied on creating
regional correlations from past
observed damage to create
estimates of future losses from
the hazards of concern.
Appendix F assesses vulnerability
by providing private building
exposure estimates for
earthquake, landslide, wildfire,
dam failure, and 100-year flood.
Loss estimations in terms of dollar loss
were generated for all hazards of concern.
These estimates were generated by
Hazus for the dam failure, earthquake, and
flood hazards. For the other hazards, loss
estimates were generated by applying
varying damage percentages to an asset
inventory extracted from Hazus.
§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.
A strong component of the ABAG
plan is its look at existing land use
in hazard areas, especially for
earthquake. Appendix E provides
additional detail on existing land
use, with a brief discussion of
future land use (through 2030) by
county.
There is a discussion on future
development trends as they pertain to
each hazard of concern. This discussion
looks predominantly at the existing land
use and the current regulatory
environment that dictates this land use.
2. Plan Update—What Has Changed
2-5
44 CFR Requirement Previous Plan Updated Plan
§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.
The ABAG plan identified a
comprehensive list of mitigation
strategies for each planning
partner to consider when creating
annexes to the plan. These
strategies were created via a
facilitated process chronicled in
the plan.
The plan contains a guiding principle,
goals, objectives, and actions. The actions
are jurisdiction-specific and strive to meet
multiple objectives. The objectives of this
plan are broad, similar to the strategies
identified in the ABAG plan. All objectives
meet multiple goals and stand alone as
components of the plan. Each planning
partner was asked to complete a capability
assessment that looks at its regulatory,
technical and financial capabilities.
§201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified
hazards.
The ABAG plan has identified one
overall goal and basic
“commitments” for the plan.
The Steering Committee developed a new
overall guiding principle for the plan, and
developed eight goals and 12 objectives,
as described in Chapter 17. The goals and
objectives are specifically for this hazard
mitigation plan and are completely new.
They were identified based upon the
capabilities of the Planning Partnership.
§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.
The ABAG plan contains a
discussion on the process used to
generate the mitigation strategies,
and includes an alternatives
review.
Volume I, Part 3 includes a hazard
mitigation catalog that was developed
through a facilitated process. This catalog
identifies actions that manipulate the
hazard, reduce exposure to the hazard,
reduce vulnerability, and increase
mitigation capability. The catalog further
segregates actions by scale of
implementation. A table in the action plan
chapter analyzes each action by mitigation
type to illustrate the range of actions
selected.
§201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, and continued compliance with the program’s requirements, as appropriate.
Strategy GOVT-c-5 deals with
maintaining compliance and good
standing in the National
Flood Insurance Program.
Strategies HSNG-h-1, LAND-c-4,
and ECON-f-1 encourage
participation in the CRS program.
Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton
participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program and have identified an action
stating their commitment to maintain
compliance and good standing under the
National Flood Insurance Program.
§201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy shall describe] 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.
Under the ABAG plan, priorities
are organized
based on the following categories:
• Existing
• Existing/underfunded
• Very High
• High
• Moderate
• Under study
• Not applicable
• Not yet considered
Each of the recommended actions is
prioritized using a qualitative methodology
that looked at the objectives the project
will meet, the timeline for completion, how
the project will be funded, the impact of
the project, the benefits of the project and
the costs of the project. This prioritization
scheme is detailed in Chapter 19.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
2-6
44 CFR Requirement Previous Plan Updated Plan
§201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy shall describe] 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.
Under the ABAG plan, priorities
are organized
based on the following categories:
•Existing
•Existing/underfunded
•Very High
•High
•Moderate
•Under study
•Not applicable
•Not yet considered
Each of the recommended actions is
prioritized using a qualitative methodology
that looked at the objectives the project
will meet, the timeline for completion, how
the project will be funded, the impact of
the project, the benefits of the project and
the costs of the project. This prioritization
scheme is detailed in Chapter 19.
Since this planning effort was the 1st for
all the Tri-Valley planning partners working
together on a plan, this was an entirely
new prioritization concept than what was
applied in the ABAG planning effort. Since
each planning partner was asked to review
all risks and prior actions, any action that
was carried over to this plan from the prior
plan had the opportunity to have its priority
reviewed and if necessary, changed. So
therefore, every risk and action in this
plan, whether new of carried over from the
prior plan was prioritized as described in
the introduction section of volume 2.
§201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the
mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
Appendix B of the ABAG plan
contains a plan maintenance and
update process.
Volume I, Part 3 presents a plan
maintenance strategy that contains
additional detail to address deficiencies
observed during the 2010 update process.
This update includes a more defined role
and vehicle for facilitating the annual
review of the plan.
§201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the
requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or
capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
Appendix B of the ABAG plan
contains a brief discussion on
incorporation of the plan into other
planning mechanisms.
Volume I, Part 3 details recommendations
for incorporating the plan into other
planning mechanisms, such as:
•General plans
•Emergency response plans
•Capital improvement programs
•Municipal codes
Specific current and future plan and
program integration activities are detailed
in each participating jurisdiction’s annex in
Volume 2.
§201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will
continue public participation in the plan maintenance
process.
The ABAG plan does not contain
a process for how each
jurisdiction will continue public
participation in the plan
maintenance process. However,
some of the local government
annexes contain this discussion.
Volume I, Part 3 details a comprehensive
strategy for continuing public involvement.
§201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall
include] documentation that the plan has been
formally adopted by the governing body of the
jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City
Council, County Commission, Tribal Council).
All agencies utilizing the ABAG
tools submitted to the state and
FEMA individually.
An appendix in Volume 1 contains the
resolutions of all planning partners that
adopted this plan.
3-1
3. PLAN UPDATE APPROACH
This chapter describes the planning process used to develop the Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan,
including how it was prepared, who was involved, and how the public participated. The process was broadly
defined by the following objectives and activities:
• Form a planning team
• Defining stakeholders
• Establish a steering committee
• Establish a planning partnership
• Define the planning area
• Coordinate with other agencies
• Review existing programs
• Engage the public.
These objectives and activities ensure that the plan meets requirements of the DMA and has the broad and
effective support of the participating jurisdictions, regional and local stakeholders and the public. They are
discussed in the following sections.
3.1 FORMATION OF THE PLANNING TEAM
Project management has been the joint responsibility of staff members from the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and
Pleasanton. A contract planning consultant (Tetra Tech, Inc.) was tasked with the following:
• Assist with organization of a steering committee and planning team
• Assist with development and implementation of a public and stakeholder outreach program
• Collect data
• Facilitate and attend meetings (steering committee, planning team, stakeholder, public and other)
• Review and update the hazards of concern, hazard profiles and risk assessment
• Assist with review and update of mitigation planning goals and objectives
• Assist with review of progress of past mitigation strategies
• Assist with the screening, identification and prioritization of mitigation actions
• Author the draft and final hazard mitigation plan documents.
The Tetra Tech project manager assumed the role of the lead planner, reporting directly to the planning team. In
addition to the Tetra Tech project team, the main planning team consisted of the following members:
• Tracy Hein, Disaster Preparedness Coordinator, Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
• Hazel Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Dublin
• Adam Weinstein, Planning Manager, City of Pleasanton
• Shweta Bonn, Senior Planner, Advanced Planning; City of Pleasanton
• Steve Stewart, Planning Manager, City of Livermore.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
3-2
3.2 DEFINING STAKEHOLDERS
At the beginning of the planning process, the planning team identified a list of stakeholders to engage during the
update of the Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan. “Stakeholder” was defined as any person or public or private
entity that owns or operates facilities that would benefit from the mitigation actions of this plan, and/or has an
authority or capability to support mitigation actions identified by this plan. Stakeholders were separated into two
categories:
• Participatory Stakeholders—Stakeholders that actively participated in the planning process as planning
partners or members of the Steering Committee.
• Coordinating Stakeholders—Stakeholders that were not able to commit to actively participating in the
process but were kept apprised of plan development milestones or were able to provide data that was used
in the plan development.
The following stakeholders played a role in the planning process:
• Federal Agencies—FEMA Region IX
• State Agencies—The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)
• Regional and Local Stakeholders—The following regional and local organizations received information
about the planning process and invitations to provide input and participated in the planning process as full
members of the Steering Committee:
Alameda County Fire Department
Alameda County Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster
Zone 7 Water Agency
Bay Area Rapid Transit
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore Area Recreation & Park District
Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce
Stanford Health Care – ValleyCare.
3.3 THE STEERING COMMITTEE
A Steering Committee provided guidance to the hazard mitigation plan effort and ensured that the document will
be accepted by agencies and the public. For a project kickoff meeting on March 7, 2017, the planning team
assembled a list of planning area candidates who could have recommendations for the plan or be impacted by its
recommendations. The planning team requested these candidates’ participation in the planning process. The
planning team confirmed a committee of 20 members. Table 3-1 lists the Steering Committee members.
Leadership roles and ground rules were established during the Steering Committee’s meeting on March 7, 2017.
The Steering Committee agreed to meet once a month as needed throughout the course of the plan’s development.
The planning team facilitated each Steering Committee meeting to address a set of objectives based on an
established work plan. The Steering Committee met nine times from March 2017 through November 2017. All
Steering Committee meetings were open to the public and agendas and meeting notes were posted to the hazard
mitigation plan website. Steering Committee meeting summaries are included in Appendix A of this volume.
The Steering Committee included key planning partner staff, citizens, and other stakeholders from within the
planning area. Members combined expertise in preventive measures, property protection, natural resource
protection, emergency services, structural flood control projects, public safety, and public information. They
applied their expertise on behalf of all planning partners participating in the plan process.
3. Plan Update Approach
3-3
Table 3-1. Steering Committee Members
Name Title Jurisdiction/Agency
Julie Carter Human Resources Director City of Dublin
Hazel Wetherforda Assistant to the City Manager City of Dublin
Susan Frost Special Projects Coordinator City of Livermore, Community Development Department
Steve Stewart Planning Manager City of Livermore
Shweta Bonn Senior Planner, Advanced Planning City of Pleasanton
Adam Weinsteinb Planning Manager City of Pleasanton
Stanley Kolodzie Associate Engineer Dublin San Ramon Services District
Brian Fritz Maintenance and Operations Supervisor Dublin Unified School District
Lincoln Casimere Emergency Manager Alameda County Fire Department
Marla Blagg Emergency Manager Bay Area Rapid Transit
Cary Fukada Citizen Community Emergency Response Teams
John Richards Emergency Management Expert Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
John Lawrence Assistant General Manager Livermore Area Recreation & Park District
Mike Trudeau Lieutenant Livermore Police Department
Chris Van Schaack Assistant Superintendent Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
Joe Testa Deputy Chief Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
Tracy Hein Disaster Preparedness Coordinator Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
Scott Ratay President/CEO Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce
Caryn Thornburg Safety, Emergency Management, and Sustainability
Officer
Stanford Health Care – Valley Care
Colter Anderson Production Manager Zone 7 Water Agency
a. Chairperson
b. Vice-Chairperson
3.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
Hazard mitigation planning enhances collaboration among diverse parties whose interests can be affected by
hazard losses. In June 2016, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton identified eligible special districts
within the planning area of the pending planning process and invited them to formally participate. All special
districts were asked to identify planning points of contact to serve as planning partners and represent the interests
of their district.
During the first Steering Committee meeting on March 7, 2017, the planning team introduced the opportunity for
special districts to participate as planning partners. A follow-up to the Steering Committee meeting was sent via
email on April 17, 2017, listing potential special purpose district planning partners. This follow-up outlined
planning partner expectations and sought commitment.
The municipal planning partners covered under this plan are shown in Table 3-2. The special purpose district
planning partners are shown in Table 3-3. Together these jurisdictions make up the Planning Partnership for the
hazard mitigation plan. While all participating jurisdictions authorized the Steering Committee to carry out certain
activities on their behalf, all planning partners were invited to attend and participate in all aspects of the plan
update process. Linkage procedures have been established (see Volume 2 of this plan) for any jurisdiction wishing
to link to the Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in the future.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
3-4
Table 3-2. Municipal Planning Partners
Jurisdiction Point of Contact Title
Dublin Hazel Wetherford Assistant to the City Manager
Livermore Steve Stewart
Steve Reily
Planning Manager
Principle Planner
Pleasanton Adam Weinstein Planning Manager
Shweta Bonn Senior Planner, Advanced Planning
Table 3-3. Special District Planning Partners
Special District Point of Contact Title
Dublin San Ramon Services District Stanley Kolodzie Associate Engineer
3.5 DEFINING THE PLANNING AREA
The planning area was defined to consist of the jurisdictional area of the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and
Pleasanton within Alameda County as well as the service area for the Dublin San Ramon Services District that
extends in to Contra Costa County. The planning area is surrounded by unincorporated Alameda County. All
partners to this plan have jurisdictional authority within this planning area. A map showing the geographic
boundary of the defined planning area for this plan update is provided in Chapter 4, along with a description of
planning area characteristics.
3.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Opportunities for involvement in the planning process must be provided to neighboring communities, local and
regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation, agencies with authority to regulate development, businesses,
academia, and other private and nonprofit interests (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(2)). The planning team
accomplished this task as follows:
• Steering Committee Involvement—Agency representatives were invited to participate on the Steering
Committee.
• Agency Notification—The following agencies were invited to participate in the plan development
process from the beginning and were kept apprised of plan development milestones:
Alameda County Fire Department, Emergency Management Division
Alameda County Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (ALCO VOAD)
Alameda County Emergency Management Association (ALCO-EMA)
American Red Cross Bay Area Chapter
Association of Bay Area Governments, Resilience Program Coordinator
Bay Area Rapid Transit
California Department of Water Resources, National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator
Cal OES
Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services
East Bay Parks and Recreation District
FEMA Region IX, Lead Community Planner
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore Area Recreation & Park District
Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce
3. Plan Update Approach
3-5
San Ramon Valley Fire District
Stanford Health Care – Valley Care
Zone 7 Water Agency
These agencies received meeting announcements, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes by e-mail
throughout the plan development process. They supported the effort by attending meetings or providing
feedback on issues.
• Pre-Adoption Review— All the agencies listed above were provided an opportunity to review and
comment on this plan, primarily through the hazard mitigation plan website (see Section 3.8). All were
sent an e-mail message informing them that draft portions of the plan were available for review. Upon
completion of a public comment period, a complete draft plan was sent to Cal OES for a pre-adoption
review to ensure program compliance.
Special involvement in and assistance with the planning process was provided by the following federal and state
agencies:
• FEMA Region IX provided updated planning guidance, provided summary and detailed data for the
planning area from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (including repetitive loss information),
and conducted plan review.
• The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provided earthquake event mapping to support the earthquake risk
assessment.
• Cal OES facilitated FEMA review, provided updated planning guidance, and reviewed the draft and final
versions of the plan prior to FEMA review.
• The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provided fire severity mapping to
support the wildfire risk assessment.
• The California Department of Water Resources provided information on NFIP compliance for local cities.
3.7 REVIEW OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
Hazard mitigation planning must include review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies,
reports and technical information (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). Section 4.8 provides a review of laws and
ordinances in effect within the planning area that can affect hazard mitigation actions. In addition, the following
programs can affect mitigation within the planning area:
• California Fire Code
• 2013 California Building Code
• California State Hazard Mitigation Forum
• Five-year and biennial capital improvement programs
• Local emergency operations plans
• Local general plans
• Local strategic plans
• Housing elements
• Safety elements
• Local zoning ordinances
• Climate action plans.
An assessment of all planning partners’ regulatory, technical and financial capabilities to implement hazard
mitigation actions is presented in the jurisdiction-specific annexes in Volume 2.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
3-6
3.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Broad public participation in the planning process helps ensure that diverse points of view about the planning
area’s needs are considered and addressed. The public must have opportunities to comment on disaster mitigation
plans during the drafting stages and prior to plan approval (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(1)). This section details the
outreach to, and involvement of, the many agencies, departments, organizations, non-profit organizations,
districts, authorities and other entities that have a stake in managing hazard risk and mitigation, commonly
referred to as stakeholders.
3.8.1 Strategy
The strategy for involving the public in this plan emphasized the following elements:
• Include members of the public on the Steering Committee.
• Engage the public in two phases during the planning effort:
Phase 1—Gauge the public’s perception of risk by sharing the results of the risk assessment.
Phase 2—Provide opportunity for the public to comment on a draft of the plan.
• Use a survey to determine if the public’s perception of risk and support of hazard mitigation has changed
since the initial planning process.
• Attempt to reach as many planning area citizens as possible using multiple media.
• Identify and involve planning area stakeholders.
Diligent efforts were made to ensure broad regional, county, and local representation in this planning process.
Stakeholder outreach was performed early and throughout the planning process. In addition to mass media
notification efforts, identified stakeholders were invited to attend meetings and provide input on draft documents.
Information and input provided by these stakeholders has been included throughout this plan where appropriate.
The sections below describe Steering Committee and planning team efforts toward public outreach throughout the
development and review of the hazard mitigation plan.
Survey
A hazard mitigation plan survey (see Figure 3-1) was developed for this planning process. The survey was used to
gauge household preparedness for natural hazards and the level of knowledge of tools and techniques that assist in
reducing risk and loss from natural hazards. This survey was designed to help identify areas vulnerable to one or
more natural hazards. The answers to its questions helped guide the Steering Committee in selecting goals,
objectives, and mitigation strategies. The survey was made available on the hazard mitigation plan website and
was distributed to citizens of the planning area as follows:
• Via social media outlets, including Facebook, Twitter and NextDoor
• At public meetings as hard copies and via QR code access with smart phones
• On the City of Dublin’s platform, “Open City Hall.”
Over 500 surveys were completed during the course of this planning process. The complete survey and a
summary of its findings can be found in Appendix A of this volume.
3. Plan Update Approach
3-7
Figure 3-1. Hazard Mitigation Survey
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
3-8
Phase 1 Public Outreach—Informational Booths
Informational booths were staffed at the following events:
• July 27, 2017 in Dublin as part of the Dublin Farmers’ Market
• September 16, 2017 in Pleasanton as part of the Pleasanton Farmers’ Market.
• September 21, 2017 in Livermore as part of the Livermore Farmers’ Market
During these events (see Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-5), project team members spoke with members of the public
about the project and invited them to take the survey and visit the project website. Members of the public were
invited to receive a personalized risk assessment based on the project risk assessment results. A Hazus
workstation allowed citizens to see information on their property, including exposure and damage estimates for
earthquake and flood hazard events. Participating property owners were provided printouts of this information for
their properties.
Figure 3-2. Dublin Farmer’s Market Figure 3-3. Pleasanton Farmers Market
Figure 3-4. A Resident Receives a Risk Assessment Figure 3-5. Example “Workstation” Report
3. Plan Update Approach
3-9
Press Releases
The planning team distributed press releases over the course of the plan’s development as key milestones were
achieved and prior to each public meeting. All planning partners were also encouraged to distribute press releases
on the project. Press releases and resulting press coverage included the following:
• May 4, 2017—The Independent: Valley Roundup article on commencement of the planning project and
invitation to the public to visit the project website (copy of article provided in Appendix A).
• May 18, 2017—Dublin Patch: Announcement of commencement of the planning project and invitation to
the public to visit the project website (copy of article provided in Appendix A).
• June 28, 2017—Press release regarding Tri-Valley hazard mitigation plan survey.
• December 8, 2017—Press release announcing the final public comment period for the Draft Plan.
• December 20, 2017— Pleasanton Weekly: Article announcing the final public comment meeting on
12/22/2017 (copy of article provided in Appendix A)
Internet
At the beginning of the plan development process, a website was created to keep the public posted on plan
development milestones and to solicit relevant input (see Figure 3-6). The site’s address (https://www.tri-valley-
hmp.com/) was publicized in all press releases, mailings, surveys and public meetings. Information on the plan
development process, the Steering Committee, the survey and phased drafts of the plan was made available to the
public on the site throughout the process. The planning partners intend to keep a website active after the plan’s
completion to keep the public informed about successful mitigation projects and future plan updates.
As part of this website, visitors were encouraged to sign up for project update emails. Two members of the public
signed up for continued information through this mailing list. These members received notices of upcoming
public meetings and scheduled changes.
Figure 3-6. Hazard Mitigation Plan Web Site Homepage
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
3-10
Phase 2 Public Outreach—Final Public Comment Process
A 30-day public comment period, from December 12, 2017 to January 11, 2018, provided the public an
opportunity to comment on the draft plan update prior to its submittal to Cal OES. The principle mechanism for
public comment on the draft plan was the website established for this plan update. Additionally, a public meeting
held on Friday, December 22, 2017 to allow an opportunity to provide comment on the draft plan update. This
meeting was advertised via an area-wide press release distributed by the City of Pleasanton Public Information
Office and received press coverage from the Pleasanton Weakly on December 20, 2017. At the public meeting, a
30-minute presentation was given, followed by a period for questions and answers by those in attendance.
Comments received on the draft plan are available upon request. Additionally, a presentation on the draft plan was
presented to the Livermore City County on January 8, 2018 (Agenda Item 6.01). This meeting was open to the
public.
All comments received during the Phase 2 public outreach were reviewed by the planning team and incorporated
into the draft plan as appropriate.
3.8.2 Public Involvement Results
The public involvement strategy used for this hazard mitigation plan update introduced the concept of mitigation
to the public and provided the Steering Committee with feedback to use in developing the plan. All citizens of the
planning area were provided opportunities to participate and give feedback during all phases of the planning
process. Details of attendance and comments received from the public meetings during the public comment period
are provided in Appendix A. Table 3-4 provides a summary of public meetings held in support of this project.
Table 3-4. Summary of Public Meetings
Date Location
Number of Public
Contacts
Number of Written
Comments Received
July 27, 2017 Dublin Farmers’ Market 100 None
September 16,2017 Pleasanton Farmer’s Market 85 None
September 21, 2017 Livermore Farmer’s Market 45 None
December 22, 2017 Dublin San Ramon Services District Office 3 None
January 8, 2018 Livermore City Council Meeting 20 None
Total 253 None
3.8.3 Continued Public Involvement
The planning partners are committed to the continued involvement of the public in hazard mitigation. Therefore,
the draft hazard mitigation plan will be made available for review on the mitigation website. After the hazard
mitigation plan has been completed, implementation and ongoing maintenance will become a function of the
Planning Partnership. The Planning Partnership will be responsible for reviewing the hazard mitigation plan and
accepting public comment as part of an annual review and as part of the five-year mitigation plan update process.
3.9 PLAN DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY/MILESTONES
A summary of Planning Partnership activities, including Steering Committee meetings held during development
of this hazard mitigation plan, is included in Table 3-5.
3. Plan Update Approach
3-11
Table 3-5. Plan Development Chronology/Milestones
Date Event Description Attendance
2016
11/18 Planning Process Contract executed with Tetra Tech, Inc. to facilitate the plan update process N/A
12/1 Planning Process Planning team Conference Call #1, project organization 9
2017
1/17 Planning Process Planning Team Conference Call #2 8
1/30 Planning Process Planning Team Conference Call #3, Confirm Steering Committee and initiate invitation
process.
6
3/7 Steering Committee
Meeting #1
Planning Partners convened to kickoff planning project with a project overview, Steering
Committee’s role, previous plan, and public involvement strategy.
16
4/11 Steering Committee
Meeting #2
Discussed the hazards of concern, public involvement strategy, and plan mission
statement and goals.
12
5/5 Public Outreach Press coverage on the planning process in The Independent’s Valley Roundup. N/A
5/16 Steering Committee
Meeting #3
Discussed plan mission statement and goals, public involvement, hazards of concern,
critical facilities, and national policy briefing.
11
5/18 Public Outreach Announcement in Dublin Patch of commencement of the planning project and invitation to
the public to visit the project website
N/A
6/13 Steering Committee
Meeting #4
Discussed the planning process, risk assessment update, finalized plan goals, and public
involvement.
10
6/28 Pres Release –
Hazard Mitigation
Plan Survey
Coordinated jurisdictional release of the public survey. Planning partners were
encouraged to link to the survey from their jurisdictional webpages
NA
7/11 Steering Committee
Meeting #5
Planning process, risk assessment update, objective setting, jurisdictional annex process,
public involvement, and plan maintenance schedule discussed.
11
7/27 Dublin’s Farmer’s
Market
Hazard mitigation information booth as part of Farmer’s Market. Residents were provided
with a mitigation flier that provided information on the project and advertised the project
website and survey, property risk assessment, and general preparedness materials.
100+
8/8 Steering Committee
Meeting #6
Risk assessment update, draft plan maintenance strategy, jurisdictional annex process,
and public involvement.
13
9/12 Steering Committee
Meeting #7
Risk assessment update, jurisdictional annex process, public involvement, and strengths,
weaknesses, obstacles and opportunities of mitigation actions.
14
9/16 Pleasanton Farmer’s
Market
Hazard mitigation information booth as part of Farmer’s Market. Residents were provided
with a mitigation flier that provided information on the project and advertised the project
website and survey, property risk assessment, and general preparedness materials.
85+
9/21 Livermore Farmer’s
Market
Hazard mitigation information booth as part of Farmer’s Market. Residents were provided
with a mitigation flier that provided information on the project and advertised the project
website and survey, property risk assessment, and general preparedness materials.
45+
10/10 Steering Committee
Meeting #8
Confirm catalog of hazard mitigation best management practices, Phase 3, jurisdictional
annex process, initiate plan review process
14
11/14 Steering Committee
Meeting #9
Go over SC comments on Volume 1, finalize phase 2 public engagement strategy,
confirm area wide actions, and phase 3 of the Jurisdictional annex status.
12/8 Public Outreach Press release announcing final public comment period disseminated by PIO N/A
12/12
to 1/11
Public Outreach Final Public Comment Period N/A
12/22 Phase 2 Public
Meeting
Public meeting held at Dublin San Ramon Services District for public comment 3
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
3-12
Date Event Description Attendance
2018
1/8 Phase 2 Public
Meeting
Presentation on draft plan presented to the Livermore City Council. This was an open
public meeting
20
1/16 Plan submittal Pre-adoption review draft of the plan submitted to Cal OES. N/A
TBD APA Approval Pending Adoption (APA) provided by FEMA N/A
TBD Adoption Adoption Window opens for planning partnership N/A
TBD Approval Final Plan approval issued by FEMA region IX N/A
4-1
4. COMMUNITY PROFILE
4.1 GEOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
The Tri-Valley planning area is in north-central Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay area, east of San
Francisco and north of San Jose. The cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton are located along Interstate 580,
which runs east-west through the county. The City of Dublin is north of the intersection of Interstates 580 and 680
and is generally bounded by the City of San Ramon to the north, Castro Valley to the west, the City of Pleasanton
to the south, and the City of Livermore to the east. The City of Livermore is north and south of Interstate 580. The
Livermore Valley is edged to the north, south, and east by rolling hills, with the cities of Pleasanton and Dublin to
the west. The City of Pleasanton extends south of Interstate 580 along Interstate 680, bounded by the City of
Dublin on the north, the City of Livermore to the east, the Sunol Valley to the south, and the steep, rugged
Pleasanton and main ridges on the west. Figure 4-1 shows the 66.2-square-mile planning area.
4.2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
For thousands of years until the arrival of Spanish settlers in the late 1700s, the Ohlone people, also referred to as
Costanoans (the Spanish word for “coast”), lived in and around the Bay Area. Living in small villages, they
survived on the abundance of natural resources, including acorns from oak trees and shellfish in the bay. Mission
San Jose was founded on June 11, 1797, by Father Fermín Francisco de Lasuén. It was the 14th of the 21 Spanish
missions in what is now the western United States. The missionaries required the Indians to move to the mission,
and this disruption, as well as new diseases the Spanish brought, destroyed the Indian way of life even before the
influx of gold seekers in the mid-1800s (Alameda County Library, 2017).
The Amador-Livermore Valley was first sighted by a Spanish solder in 1772 while on an expedition searching for
new mission sites. After 1822, Mexico succeeded Spain in jurisdiction over Alta California. Beginning in 1839,
the former mission lands were secularized and broken up into large ranchos as the result of grants to citizens by
Mexico. It was a half-century after the initial discovery that Jose Amador, in 1826, brought the first settlement to
the valley and Spanish families were awarded large tracts of land.
California became part of the United States after the Mexican War of 1846–1847. The territory was formally
ceded in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 and was admitted as a state in 1850. Pressure from the United
States was a major factor leading to the disintegration of Mexican control in California. The first American settler
in the tri-valley area arrived in 1850 and settlement continued. The area was on one of the main routes to the gold
fields and became a mercantile stopover for miners on their way to those fields.
Ranchers and thoroughbred horse breeders, also came to the area, attracted to the favorable climate and
abundance of water, and were followed by dairy farms, hop fields, and vineyards. The Central Pacific Railroad
was completed in 1869, resulting in the establishment of more towns.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & Channels/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, Dublin SanRamon Services District, ESRITri-Valley AreaPlanning Area0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyFigure 4-1.
4. Community Profile
4-3
In 1925, the section of the Lincoln Highway through the area (by 1874 known as Dublin Road) was incorporated
into the U.S. Highway system as U.S. Highway 50. In 1928, it was also designated State Route 84. By 1953, U.S.
Highway 50 had become a divided four-lane road; Interstate 680 was completed in 1967. By 1973, U.S. Highway
50 had become Interstate 580. Prior to the 1950s, small agricultural towns history and economy were integrated
with those of the agricultural areas around them. Since the 1950s, urbanization of the area has grown across
former agricultural land, and urban development now dominate the area (Alameda County CDA, 2005).
4.3 MAJOR PAST HAZARD EVENTS
Presidential disaster declarations are typically issued for hazard events that cause more damage than state and
local governments can handle without assistance from the federal government, although no specific dollar loss
threshold has been established for these declarations. A presidential disaster declaration puts federal recovery
programs into motion to help disaster victims, businesses and public entities. Some of the programs are matched
by state programs. Since 1953, 18 presidential disaster declarations have been issued for Alameda County, which
includes the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton as listed in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Presidential Disaster Declarations
Type of Event FEMA Disaster Number Declaration Date
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides DR-4308 April 1, 2017
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides DR-4305 March 16, 2017
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides DR-4301 February 14, 2017
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1646 June 5, 2006
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1628 February 3, 2006
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding DR-1203 February 9, 1998
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding DR-1155 January 4, 1997
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1046 March 12, 1995
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1044 January 10, 1995
Oakland Hills Fire DR-919 October 22, 1991
Severe Freeze DR-894 February 11, 1991
Loma Prieta Earthquake DR-845 October 17, 1989
Severe Storms, Flooding DR-758 February 12, 1986
Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides, Tornadoes DR-677 January 21, 1983
Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides, High Tide DR-651 January 7, 1982
Drought EM-3023 January 20, 1977
Forest, Brush Fires DR-295 September 29, 1970
Severe Storms, Flooding DR-283 February 16, 1970
Source: FEMA, 2017
Review of these events helps identify targets for risk reduction and ways to increase a community’s capability to
mitigate damage from large-scale events in the future. Still, many natural hazard events do not trigger federal
disaster declaration protocol but have significant impacts on their communities. These events are also important to
consider in establishing recurrence intervals for hazards of concern.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-4
4.4 PHYSICAL SETTING
4.4.1 Topography and Geology
The planning area is in the east-central part of the California Coast Range Province that is characterized by
elongated ranges and narrow valleys parallel to the coast. It lies in a depression within the Diablo Range where
there are three valleys: Amador Valley, Livermore Valley, and San Ramon Valley. The Livermore and Amador
Valleys, which are adjacent in an east-west orientation, make up the major part of the basin. San Ramon is a
smaller valley that trends northwest from the northwest edge of Amador Valley. Elevations in the planning area
range from approximately 300 feet above sea level at the drainage exit of Amador Valley southwest of
Pleasanton, to approximately 700 feet above sea level along Livermore Valley’s eastern margin. The mean
elevation above sea level is 486 feet in the City of Livermore and 354 feet in the City of Dublin. North and east of
the Tri-Valley area, the Diablo Range rises to elevations between approximately 1,000 and 2,000 feet above sea
level, with Mount Diablo reaching an elevation of 3,849 feet above sea level.
Geologic conditions are controlled by the planning area’s location along the complex boundary between the North
American and Pacific Plates and the interaction of these two plates. The Pacific Plate moves northwestward
relative to the North American Plate at a rate of about 5 centimeters per year. Much of this relative movement at
the latitude of the San Francisco Bay Area is accommodated primarily by strike-slip motion along a number of
major faults, including the San Gregorio, San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville faults. Countless
other faults in the region accommodate relative motion between major faults and relieve compression stress along
the plate boundary.
4.4.2 Hydrology
The Tri-Valley area consists of sub-watersheds of the Alameda Creek Watershed. Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo
Seco, and Arroyo Mocho drain the northeastern and southeastern hills, and Arroyo del Valle drains the southern
hills. These drainages converge and flow through the central Tri-Valley area, collecting the flow of Cayetano,
Collier, Cottonwood, Tassajara, and Alamo Creeks from the northern hills. These streams join San Ramon Creek,
which flows south through the San Ramon Valley and exits the basin along Arroyo de la Laguna. Figure 4-2
shows the entire Alameda Creek Watershed and major water bodies around the Tri-Valley area.
4.4.3 Climate
The climate of the planning area is moderated by its proximity to the San Francisco Bay, with average annual
temperatures ranging from 46.7°Fahrenheit (F) to 72.1°F. Climate records from the NOAA National Weather
Service Forecast Office describe the region’s climate as Mediterranean type. This classification is characterized
by sharply contrasting wet and dry seasons, with the wet season from November through March bringing more
than 80 percent of the total annual precipitation. Rainfall is sparse from May through September. Mean
precipitation in June, July and August in Livermore normally totals only 0.14 inches. Wet seasons are cool but
mild, with mean monthly temperatures of 47.2°F in January to 53.1°F in March. Dry season weather is very
consistent, with warm sunny days and average temperatures reaching 85.9°F in June, July, August, and
September. Average temperature and precipitation across the planning area are shown in Table 4-2.
4. Community Profile
4-5
Source: Alameda Creek Alliance, 2017
Figure 4-2. Watersheds and Water Bodies in the Planning Area
Table 4-2. Normal Precipitation and Temperatures in Planning Area, 1998-2016
Precipitation (inches) Minimum Temperature (ºF) Maximum Temperature (ºF)
January 2.22 37.3 57.0
February 2.72 39.4 60.1
March 1.92 41.5 64.7
April 1.14 44.0 68.0
May 0.57 48.9 75.0
June 0.13 53.4 81.8
July 0.0 56.6 87.1
August 0.01 56.5 87.4
September 0.08 54.8 85.4
October 0.93 49.1 76.2
November 1.41 41.9 64.6
December 2.82 37.5 57.6
Annual 13.94 46.7 72.1
Source: Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries, 2017
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-6
4.5 DEVELOPMENT PROFILE
4.5.1 Land Use
Dublin
The City of Dublin, located north of Interstate 580, covers 15.51 square miles, or 9,923.6 acres. As of 2017, the
city accommodates 20,931 housing units. The City has defined the following planning areas:
• The Primary Planning Area consists of the original city boundaries and annexations completed through
1991. It covers roughly 3,100 acres.
• The Eastern Extended Planning Area is east of the Primary Planning Area and south and east of the U.S.
Army’s Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). It covers roughly 4,300 acres.
• The Western Extended Planning Areas is west of the Primary Planning Area. It consists of 3,200 acres,
mostly outside Dublin’s urban limit line, which encompasses the city areas with access to city utilities and
road maintenance services.
• The Dublin Crossing Planning Area, a portion of Camp Parks, covers 189 acres in the center of the city
where existing buildings are scheduled for demolition to be replaced with a residential mixed-use project.
The city’s land use includes a mixture of public open space, commercial/industrial, and residential. Development
guidelines for the Eastern Extended Planning Area consider visually sensitive ridge lands and biologically
sensitive habitat areas to preserve key elements of the area’s physical character. A development elevation cap
keeps growth within the 770-foot elevation that is the highest serviceable elevation for water service.
Development is allowed in only a small portion of the Western Extended Planning Area; that area is out of view
from the major ridgelines so it can be developed without disrupting scenic values (General Plan, 2014).
Livermore
The City of Livermore, on the eastern side of the Tri-Valley planning area, covers 26.46 square miles, or
16,931.3 acres. As of 2017, the city accommodates 31,848 housing units. Single-family residential development is
the predominant land use within the city limits, with residential subdivisions scattered throughout the city. Other
land uses are agriculture, open space and parks, industry, retail and office space, and community facilities. The
city has a defined urban growth boundary to protect agricultural uses and natural resources outside the city from
future urban development (General Plan, 2014).
Pleasanton
The City of Pleasanton covers 24.24 square miles, or 15,513.8 acres, and he City designates future land use for an
additional 75-square-mile area. A 42-square-mile sphere-of-influence area represents the probable ultimate
physical boundary and service area of the city. As of 2017, the City accommodates 27,176 housing units. City
land use policy allows for well-planned neighborhoods and a separation between residential and non-residential
uses. As of 2017, there are 77 residential neighborhoods and 17 commercial, office, and industrial development
sub-areas. The City’s growth management ordinance regulates the location and rate of new residential growth.
(General Plan, 2015).
Summary
Table 4-3 summarizes current land use across the Tri-Valley planning area. Land use information is analyzed in
this plan for each identified hazard that has a defined spatial extent and location. For hazards that lack this spatial
reference, the information in Table 4-3 serves as a baseline estimate of land use and exposure for the planning
area. The distribution of land uses within the planning area will change over time.
4. Community Profile
4-7
Table 4-3. Present Land Use in Planning Area
Present Use Classification Area (acres) % of total
Residential 14,343 33.9%
Commercial 3,737 8.8%
Industrial 1,599 3.8%
Agriculture 99 0.2%
Religion / Assembly 567 1.3%
Government / Institutional 2,576 6.1%
Education 952 2.2%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way / Water / Open Space 18,496 43.7%
Total 42,369 100.0%
4.5.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Facilities and infrastructure that are essential to the health and welfare of the population are designated as critical
facilities and infrastructure. These are especially important after a hazard event. Critical facilities typically include
police and fire stations, schools and emergency operations centers. Critical infrastructure can include the roads
and bridges that provide ingress and egress and allow emergency vehicles access to those in need, as well as the
utilities that provide water, electricity and communication services to the community. Also included are facilities
and railroads that hold or carry significant amounts of hazardous materials with a potential to impact public health
and welfare in a hazard event. For this hazard mitigation plan, a critical facility is defined as follows:
A structure or other improvement that, because of its function, size, service area, or uniqueness, has the
potential to cause serious bodily harm, extensive property damage, or disruption of vital socioeconomic
activities if it is destroyed or damaged or if its functionality is impaired. Critical facilities include
potential shelters, transportation facilities, potential morgue facilities, private facilities, levees, health
and safety facilities, utilities, government facilities, and hazardous materials facilities.
Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 show the location of critical facilities and infrastructure in the planning area. Due to the
sensitivity of this information, a detailed list of facilities is not provided. Table 4-4 provides summaries of the
general types of critical facilities and infrastructure. All critical facilities/infrastructure were analyzed in Hazus to
help rank risk and identify mitigation actions. The risk assessment for each hazard qualitatively discusses critical
facilities with regard to that hazard.
Table 4-4. Planning Area Critical Facilities
Number of Facilities
Medical and
Health Services
Emergency
Services
Educational
Facilities Government Utilities
Transportation
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials
Other
Assets Total
Dublin 5 10 16 11 3 26 2 0 73
Livermore 11 9 26 11 28 61 16 0 162
Pleasanton 9 7 20 7 101 62 7 0 213
Total 25 26 62 29 132 149 25 0 448
"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;íííííííí¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«"N"N"Nnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsnmEducational Facilities"NEmergency Services - EOC¬«Emergency Services - FireíEmergency Services - Police;Government / City Facilities%defgcHazardous Materials"'Medical & Health Services/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, EPA, EIA,Cal Healthcare Atlas, Hazus 4.0, ESRITri-Valley Area0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyCritical Facilities*Not all displayed facilities were includedin the critical facilities analysis.Figure 4-3.
popopopopopopopo§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsJ^Airport FacilitiesJaBus FacilitiesCommunication FacilitiesdElectric Power FacilitiesúHighway BridgesI2Light Rail Facilities/Oil FacilitiespoPotable Water FacilitiesI3Rail FacilitiesúRailway Bridges!(Waste Water Facilities/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, EPA, EIA,Cal Healthcare Atlas, Hazus 4.0, ESRITri-Valley Area0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyCritical Infrastructure*Not all displayed facilities were includedin the critical facilities analysis.Figure 4-4.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-10
4.5.3 Future Trends in Development
The planning area municipal partners have adopted general and economic development strategic plans to guide
future growth, both local and area-wide, and ensure the orderly development of the communities. Development
forecasts and development trends assist in providing a long-term vision for the planning area’s future and a
strategy for achieving the desired vision. This plan aligns with these development programs and provides vital
information on the risk associated with natural hazards in the planning area to support wise land use in the future.
Tracking building permit volume can be a way of looking at the potential increase in exposure within the planning
area. Weather a permit is issued for new construction or improvement to existing construction, the permit volume
can be associated with an increase in exposed value. The number of residential building permits reported in the
planning area has fluctuated significantly from a high of 965 permits in 2014 to a low of 227 permits in 2007. The
permit number jumped in 2012 and stayed steady through 2014. In 2014, the City of Dublin issued residential
building permits for 816 buildings, which was significantly higher than the City of Livermore with 71 and the
City of Pleasanton with 78 (City-Data.com, 2017).
Figure 4-5 shows the trends in residential development projects in the planning area since 2005. Additional city-
specific development trend information is provided in the city-specific annexes in Volume 2 of this plan.
Source: City-Data.com, 2017
Figure 4-5. Residential Building Permit Trends, 2005 to 2014
The municipal partners will incorporate this hazard mitigation plan in their general plans by reference. This will
ensure that future development trends can be established with the benefits of the information on risk and
vulnerability to natural hazards identified in this plan. The planning partners intend to pursue the following:
• Discourage development within vulnerable areas, areas with the potential for high population density, and
Special Flood Hazard Areas.
• Encourage higher regulatory standards at the local level.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Number of Residential Building PermitsDublin
Livermore
Pleasanton
Planning Area Total
4. Community Profile
4-11
Future development is expected to focus on infill as identified through current land use practices. Dublin,
Livermore and Pleasanton are largely built out, and with sustainability practices and urban growth boundaries in
place, there is little opportunity for new growth.
4.6 DEMOGRAPHICS
In general, the functional and access needs populations are at greater risk from hazard events because of decreased
resources or physical abilities. Elderly people, for example, may be more likely to require additional assistance.
Research has shown that people living near or below the poverty line, the elderly (especially older single men),
people with disabilities, women, children, ethnic minorities and renters all experience, to some degree, more
severe effects from disasters than the general population. These vulnerable populations may vary from the general
population in risk perception, living conditions, access to information before, during and after a hazard event,
capabilities during an event, and access to resources for post-disaster recovery. Indicators of vulnerability—such
as disability, age, poverty, and minority race and ethnicity—often overlap spatially and often in the
geographically most vulnerable locations. Detailed spatial analysis to locate areas where there are higher
concentrations of vulnerable community members would help to extend focused public outreach and education to
these most vulnerable citizens.
4.6.1 Population Characteristics
Knowledge of the composition of the population and how it has changed in the past and how it may change in the
future is needed for making informed decisions about the future. Information about population is a critical part of
planning because it directly relates to land needs such as housing, industry, stores, public facilities and services,
and transportation. The California Department of Finance (CA DOF) estimated the planning area population at
225,250 as of January 1, 2017.
Population changes are useful socio-economic indicators. A growing population generally indicates a growing
economy, while a decreasing population signifies economic decline. Figure 4-6 shows the planning area and
Alameda County population change from 1970 to 2017 according to the California Department of Finance.
Between 1970 and 2017, Alameda County’s population grew by 53.32 percent and the planning area’s population
increased by 223.30 percent. Much of the growth in the planning area occurred between 1970 and 1990, though
double-digit growth continues and the local growth still exceeds that of the county. The population of the
planning area increased 72.55 percent from 1990 to 2017, with Dublin gaining 36,457 residents, Livermore
gaining 32,907, and Pleasanton gaining 25,346. Table 4-5 shows population in the planning area from 2010 to
2017 (CA DOF, 2017a).
4.6.2 Age Distribution
As a group, the elderly are more apt to lack the physical and economic resources necessary for response to hazard
events and are more likely to suffer health-related consequences making recovery slower. They are more likely to
be vision, hearing, and/or mobility impaired, and more likely to experience mental impairment or dementia.
Additionally, the elderly are more likely to live in assisted-living facilities where emergency preparedness occurs
at the discretion of facility operators. These facilities are typically identified as “critical facilities” by emergency
managers because they require extra notice to implement evacuation. Elderly residents living in their own homes
may have more difficulty accessing information or evacuating their homes and could be stranded in dangerous
situations. This population group is more likely to need individualized medical attention, which may not be
readily available during natural disasters due to isolation caused by the event. Specific planning attention for the
elderly is an important consideration given the current aging of the American population.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-12
Source: CA DOF, 2017a
Figure 4-6. Alameda County vs. Planning Area Population Growth
Table 4-5. Annual Population Data
Population
Dublin Livermore Pleasanton Tri-Valley Planning Area
2010 46,036 80,968 70,285 197,289
2011 46,408 81,948 70,813 199,169
2012 46,956 82,772 71,117 200,845
2013 50,079 83,768 71,153 205,000
2014 53,512 85,049 71,990 210,551
2015 56,014 86,368 73,776 216,158
2016 57,349 88,138 74,982 220,469
2017 59,686 89,648 75,916 225,250
Source: CA DOF, 2017a
Children under 14 are particularly vulnerable to disaster events because of their young age and dependence on
others for basic necessities. Very young children may additionally be vulnerable to injury or sickness; this
vulnerability can be worsened during a natural disaster because they may not understand the measures that need to
be taken to protect themselves from hazards.
The overall age distribution for the planning area is shown in Figure 4-7. Based on the U.S. Census 2011-2015
American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 11.41 percent of the planning area’s population is 65 or
older, compared to Alameda County’s average of 12.1 percent. The Census data also show that 4.23 percent of the
under-65 population has disabilities of some kind and 4.7 percent have incomes below the poverty line. It is also
estimated that 26.8 percent of the population is 18 or younger, compared to Alameda County’s average of 21.7
percent (U.S. Census, 2016).
38%39%
35%
28%
18%
14%18%
3%
16%
13%
5%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2017Population Change Over PPeriodPlanning Area
Alameda County
4. Community Profile
4-13
Source: U.S. Census, 2016
Figure 4-7. Planning Area Age Distribution
4.6.3 Race, Ethnicity and Language
Research shows that minorities are less likely to be involved in pre-disaster planning and experience higher
mortality rates during a disaster event. Post-disaster recovery can be ineffective and is often characterized by
cultural insensitivity. Since higher proportions of ethnic minorities live below the poverty line than the majority
white population, poverty can compound vulnerability. According to the U.S. Census 2011-2015 ACS 5-year
estimates, the racial composition of the planning area is predominantly white, at 67 percent, with 22 percent Asian
and 3 percent black or African American. Figure 4-8 shows the racial distribution in the planning area. Census
data also indicate that 15 percent of individuals in the planning area are Hispanic or Latino (of any race) and that
24.33 percent of the planning area population is foreign-born.
4.6.4 Individuals with Disabilities and Others with Access and Functional
Needs
The 2010 U.S. Census estimates that 54 million non-institutionalized people with disabilities and others with
access and functional needs live in the U.S. This equates to about one-in-five persons. This population is more
likely to have difficulty responding to a hazard event than the general population. Local government is the first
level of response to assist these individuals, and coordination of efforts to meet their needs is paramount to life
safety efforts. Knowing the percentage of population with a disability or access and functional need will allow
emergency management personnel and first responders to have personnel available who can provide services
needed by this population. According to the 2011-2015 ACS 5-year estimates, there are 15,044 individuals with
some form of disability, access, or functional need within the planning area (U.S. Census, 2016a).
13,462
14,626
15,718
13,123
10,781
26,672
32,147
36,515
14,319
10,763
14,587
7,007
2,638
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
Number of PeopleAge
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-14
Source: U.S. Census, 2016
Figure 4-8. Planning Area Race Distribution
4.7 ECONOMY
4.7.1 Income
In the United States, individual households are expected to use private resources to prepare for, respond to and
recover from disasters to some extent. This expectation means that households living in poverty are automatically
disadvantaged when confronting hazards. Additionally, the economically disadvantaged typically occupy more
poorly built and inadequately maintained housing. Mobile or modular homes, for example, are more susceptible
to damage in earthquakes and floods than other types of housing. In urban areas, the economically disadvantaged
often live in older houses and apartment complexes, which are more likely to be made of unreinforced masonry, a
building type that is particularly susceptible to damage during earthquakes. Furthermore, residents below the
poverty level are less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses incurred from natural disasters. This
means that residents below the poverty level have a great deal to lose during an event and are the least prepared to
deal with potential losses. The events following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 illustrated that personal household
economics significantly impact people’s decisions on evacuation. Individuals who cannot afford gas for their cars
will likely decide not to evacuate.
Based on 2011-2015 ACS 5-year estimates, average per capita income in the planning area in 2015 was $47,658
and the median household income was $114,841. As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and U.S.
Census Bureau, the poverty threshold in 2015 was $24,257 for a household with two adults and two children, and
$12,082 for one person (unrelated individual) (U.S. Census, 2016b).
2011-2015 ACS 5-year estimates showed that roughly 22.45 percent of households in the planning area receive an
income between $100,000 and $149,999 per year and over 34.50 percent of household incomes are above
$150,000 annually. About 8.10 percent of the households in the planning area make less than $25,000 per year.
White…
African American
3%
American Indian and
Alaska Native
0%
Asian
22%
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific
Islander
0%
Other
3%
Two or More Races
5%
4. Community Profile
4-15
4.7.2 Industry, Businesses and Institutions
Figure 4-9 shows the planning area breakdown of employment by U.S. Census-defined industry types from 2011-
2015 ACS 5-year estimates. Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management
services has the highest percentage of employees with 15.5 percent. Followed by educational services, and health
care and social assistance with 13.3 percent.
Source: U.S. Census, 2016c
Figure 4-9. Industry in the Planning Area by Population Employed
The planning area benefits from a variety of business activity. Major businesses with headquarters in Dublin
include Ross Stores, Challenge Dairy, Tria Beauty and DeSilva Gates Construction. Technology firms in Dublin
include Micro Dental Laboratories, Callidues Cloud, Carl Zeiss Meditec, and Epicor. Top employers in City of
Livermore include Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Valley Care Health System Lifestyle Rx Fitness
Center, Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, Comcast Cable, and Sandia National Laboratory, and
Form Factor, Inc., Gillig Bus, and Tesla warehouse. Top employers in City of Pleasanton include Kaiser
Permanente, Safeway, Oracle, Workday Inc., Pleasanton Unified School District, Macy’s, and Valley Care
Medical Center.
0.4%
3.7%
9.1%
2.4%
7.5%
2.6%
2.5%
5.5%
15.5%
13.3%
6.2%
3.0%
2.7%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation, warehousing, utilities
Information
Finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, waste management
Educational services, health care, social assistance
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, food services
Other services
Public administration
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%
Industry Employment as % of Total
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-16
4.7.3 Employment Trends and Occupations
According to the 2011-2015 ACS 5-year estimates, about 50 percent of the planning area’s population is in the
labor force. Of the working-age population group (ages 18 – 64), 48 percent of the population in the labor force
are employed. Figure 4-10 shows the distribution of workers by occupation category.
Source: U.S. Census, 2016d
Figure 4-10. Occupations in the Planning Area
Figure 4-11 compares California and planning area unemployment trends from 2010 through 2016.
Unemployment in the planning area has remained lower than the state average, and is lowest in 2016, at
4.20 percent. Unemployment rates have been on the decline since until 2010 in both the state and the planning
area.
The 2011-2015 ACS 5-year estimates show that over 70 percent of the employed population 16 years and older in
the planning area, or 97,722 individuals, commute to work. Of those, 80.90 percent drove alone (by car, truck or
van) to work, and 8.18 percent carpooled (by car, truck or van). The mean travel time to work in the planning area
is 32 minutes; the state average is 27.6 minutes (U.S. Census, 2016e).
Service
14%
Management,
Business, Science,
Arts
54%
Natural Resources,
Construction,
Maintenance
5%
Production,
Transportation,
Material Moving
5%
Sales, Office
22%
4. Community Profile
4-17
Source: CA EDD, 2017
Figure 4-11. California State and Planning Area Unemployment Rate
4.8 LAWS AND ORDINANCES
Existing laws, ordinances, plans and programs at the federal, state and local level can support or impact hazard
mitigation actions identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required to include a review and
incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning
process (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). The following federal and state programs have been identified as
programs that may interface with the actions identified in this plan. Each program enhances capabilities to
implement mitigation actions or has a nexus with a mitigation action in this plan. Information presented in this
section can be used in the review of local capabilities to implement the actions found in the jurisdictional annexes
of Volume 2. Each planning partner has individually reviewed existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical
information in its jurisdictional annex, presented in Volume 2.
4.8.1 Federal
Disaster Mitigation Act
The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning for
disasters before they occur, specifically addressing planning at the local level, and requiring plans to be in place
before Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds are available to communities. This plan is designed to meet the
requirements of DMA, improving eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts
of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions, alongside technical and economic considerations.
NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), whose regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) set
standards for NEPA compliance. Consideration and decision-making regarding environmental impacts must be
11%
10%
9%
7%
6%
5%4%
12%12%
10%
9%
8%
6%
5%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Population Change Over PPeriodPlanning Area
California
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-18
documented in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Environmental impact
assessment requires the evaluation of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, solicitation of input from
organizations and individuals that could be affected, and an unbiased presentation of direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance
with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to
meet its requirements.
Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to conserve species facing depletion or extinction
and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species are threatened
and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species live. The ESA provides
broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered. Provisions are
made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. The
ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species and
contains exceptions and exemptions. It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA
and the Convention.
Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and use their authorities in furtherance
of the ESA’s purposes. The ESA defines three fundamental terms:
• Endangered means that a species of fish, animal or plant is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.” (For salmon and other vertebrate species, this may include subspecies
and distinct population segments.)
• Threatened means that a species “is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.”
Regulations may be less restrictive for threatened species than for endangered species.
• Critical habitat means “specific geographical areas that are…essential for the conservation and
management of a listed species, whether occupied by the species or not.”
Five sections of the ESA are of critical importance to understanding it:
• Section 4: Listing of a Species—The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for listing marine species; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
responsible for listing terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The agencies may initiate reviews for
listings, or citizens may petition for them. A listing must be made “solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.” After a listing has been proposed, agencies receive comment
and conduct further scientific reviews for 12 to 18 months, after which they must decide if the listing is
warranted. Economic impacts cannot be considered in this decision, but it may include an evaluation of
the adequacy of local and state protections. Critical habitat for the species may be designated at the time
of listing.
• Section 7: Consultation—Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or proposed species or adversely modify its
critical habitat. This includes private and public actions that require a federal permit. Once a final listing
is made, non-federal actions are subject to the same review, termed a “consultation.” If the listing agency
finds that an action will “take” a species, it must propose mitigations or “reasonable and prudent”
alternatives to the action; if the proponent rejects these, the action cannot proceed.
• Section 9: Prohibition of Take—It is unlawful to “take” an endangered species, including killing or
injuring it or modifying its habitat in a way that interferes with essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding or sheltering.
4. Community Profile
4-19
• Section 10: Permitted Take—Through voluntary agreements with the federal government that provide
protections to an endangered species, a non-federal applicant may commit a take that would otherwise be
prohibited as long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity (such as developing land or building a
road). These agreements often take the form of a “Habitat Conservation Plan.”
• Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits—Civil actions initiated by any citizen can require the listing agency to
enforce the ESA’s prohibition of taking or to meet the requirements of the consultation process.
FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any
action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.
The Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant
discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These
tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation’s surface waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.”
Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has included a shift from a program-by-program, source-by-
source, pollutant-by-pollutant approach to more holistic watershed-based strategies. Under the watershed
approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. A full array of
issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority. Involvement of stakeholder groups in the
development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining water quality and other
environmental goals is a hallmark of this approach.
FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any
action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.
Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program
The U.S. Forest Service’s Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program was established to assist federal
agencies with repair or reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities, federal lands transportation facilities, and
other federally owned roads that are open to public travel and have suffered serious damage by a natural disaster
over a wide area or by a catastrophic failure. The program funds both emergency and permanent repairs (Office of
Federal Lands Highway, 2016). Eligible activities under this program meet some of the goals and objectives for
this plan and the program is a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan.
National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally backed flood insurance in exchange for
communities enacting floodplain regulations. Participation and good standing under NFIP are prerequisites to
grant funding eligibility under the Robert T. Stafford Act. Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton participate in the
NFIP and have adopted regulations that meet the NFIP requirements. At the time of the preparation of this plan,
all municipal jurisdictions were in good standing with NFIP requirements.
National Incident Management System
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a systematic approach for government, nongovernmental
organizations, and the private sector to work together to manage incidents involving hazards. The NIMS provides
a flexible but standardized set of incident management practices. Incidents typically begin and end locally, and
they are managed at the lowest possible geographical, organizational, and jurisdictional level. In other instances,
success depends on the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, levels of government, functional agencies, and
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-20
emergency-responder disciplines. These instances necessitate coordination across the spectrum of organizations.
Communities using NIMS follow a comprehensive national approach that improves the effectiveness of
emergency management and response personnel across the full spectrum of potential hazards (including natural
hazards, terrorist activities, and other human-caused disasters) regardless of size or complexity. Although
participation is voluntary, federal departments and agencies are required to make adoption of NIMS by local and
state jurisdictions a condition to receive federal preparedness grants and awards.
Americans with Disabilities Act and Amendments
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeks to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in
employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and government activities. The most recent
amendments became effective in January 2009 (P.L. 110-325). Title II of the ADA deals with compliance with
the act in emergency management and disaster-related programs, services, and activities. It applies to state and
local governments as well as third parties, including religious entities and private nonprofit organizations.
The ADA has implications for sheltering requirements and public notifications. During an emergency alert,
officials must use a combination of warning methods to ensure that all residents have any necessary information.
Those with hearing impairments may not hear radio, television, sirens, or other audible alerts, while those with
visual impairments may not see flashing lights or visual alerts. Two stand-alone technical documents have been
issued for shelter operators to meet the needs of people with disabilities. These documents address physical
accessibility as well as medical needs and service animals.
The ADA also intersects with disaster preparedness programs in regards to transportation, social services,
temporary housing, and rebuilding. Persons with disabilities may require additional assistance in evacuation and
transit (such as vehicles with wheelchair lifts or paratransit buses). Evacuation and other response plans should
address the unique needs of residents. Local governments may be interested in implementing a special-needs
registry to identify the home addresses, contact information, and needs for residents who may require more
assistance.
FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any
action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or nation origin and
requires equal access to public places and employment. The Act is relevant to emergency management and hazard
mitigation in that it prohibits local governments from favoring the needs of one population group over another.
Local government and emergency response must ensure the continued safety and well-being of all residents
equally, to the extent possible. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with
applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its
requirements.
Community Development Block Grant Disaster Resilience Program
In response to disasters, Congress may appropriate additional funding for the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Community Development Block Grant programs to be distributed as Disaster Recovery
grants (CDBG-DR). These grants can be used to rebuild affected areas and provide seed money to start the
recovery process. CDBG-DR assistance may fund a broad range of recovery activities, helping communities and
neighborhoods that otherwise might not recover due to limited resources. CDBG-DR grants often supplement
disaster programs of FEMA, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Housing
and Urban Development generally awards noncompetitive, nonrecurring CDBG-DR grants by a formula that
4. Community Profile
4-21
considers disaster recovery needs unmet by other federal disaster assistance programs. To be eligible for
CDBG-DR funds, projects must meet the following criteria:
• Address a disaster-related impact (direct or indirect) in a presidentially declared county for the covered
disaster
• Be a CDBG-eligible activity (according to regulations and waivers)
• Meet a national objective.
Incorporating preparedness and mitigation into these actions is encouraged, as the goal is to rebuild in ways that
are safer and stronger.
Emergency Watershed Program
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service administers the Emergency Watershed Protection Program,
which responds to emergencies created by natural disasters. Eligibility for assistance is not dependent on a
national emergency declaration. The program is designed to help people and conserve natural resources by
relieving imminent hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, wind-storms, and other natural
occurrences. The Emergency Watershed Protection is an emergency recovery program. Financial and technical
assistance are available for the following activities (NRCS, 2005):
• Remove debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges.
• Reshape and protect eroded banks.
• Correct damaged drainage facilities.
• Establish cover on critically eroding lands.
• Repair levees and structures.
• Repair conservation practices.
This federal program could be a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan.
Presidential Executive Orders 11988 and 13690
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse
impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of
floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. It requires federal agencies to provide
leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health,
and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of floodplains. The requirements apply to
the following activities (FEMA, 1977):
• Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities
• Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements
• Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and
related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing.
Executive Order 13690 expands Executive Order 11988 and acknowledges that the impacts of flooding are
anticipated to increase over time due to the effects of climate change and other threats. It mandates a federal flood
risk management standard to increase resilience against flooding and help preserve the natural values of
floodplains. This standard expands management of flood issues from the current base flood level to a higher
vertical elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain when federal dollars are involved in a project. The goal
is to address current and future flood risk and ensure that projects funded with taxpayer dollars last as long as
intended (FEMA, 2015). All actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with all applicable
presidential executive orders.
The Federal Flood Risk Management Standards established by EO 13690 were revoked on August 15, 2017.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-22
Presidential Executive Order 11990
Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the
destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of
wetlands. The requirements apply to the following activities (FEMA, 1977):
• Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities
• Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements
• Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and
related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing.
All actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with all applicable presidential executive orders.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Programs
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has several civil works authorities and programs related to flood risk and
flood hazard management:
• Floodplain Management Services are 100-percent federally funded technical services such as
development and interpretation of site-specific data related to the extent, duration and frequency of
flooding. Special studies may be conducted to help a community understand and respond to flood risk.
These may include flood hazard evaluation, flood warning and preparedness, or flood modeling.
• For more extensive studies, the Corps of Engineers offers a cost-shared program called Planning
Assistance to States and Tribes. Studies under this program generally range from $25,000 to $100,000,
with the local jurisdiction providing 50 percent of the cost.
• The Corps of Engineers has several cost-shared programs (typically 65 percent federal and 35 percent
non-federal) aimed at developing, evaluating and implementing structural and non-structural capital
projects to address flood risks at specific locations or within a specific watershed:
The Continuing Authorities Program for smaller-scale projects includes Section 205 for Flood
Control, with a $7 million federal limit and Section 14 for Emergency Streambank Protection with a
$1.5 million federal limit. These can be implemented without specific authorization from Congress.
Larger scale studies, referred to as General Investigations, and projects for flood risk management, for
ecosystem restoration or to address other water resource issues, can be pursued through a specific
authorization from Congress and are cost-shared, typically at 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-
federal.
Watershed Management planning studies can be specifically authorized and are cost-shared at
50 percent federal and 50 percent non-federal.
• The Corps of Engineers provides emergency response assistance during and following natural disasters.
Public Law 84-99 enables the Corps to assist state and local authorities in flood fight activities and cost
share in the repair of flood protective structures. Assistance afforded under PL 84-99 is broken down in to
the following categories:
Preparedness—The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act establishes an emergency fund for
preparedness for emergency response to natural disasters; for flood fighting and rescue operations; for
rehabilitation of flood control and hurricane protection structures. Funding for Corps of Engineers
emergency response under this authority is provided by Congress through the annual Energy and
Water Development Appropriation Act. Disaster preparedness activities include coordination,
planning, training and conduct of response exercises with local, state and federal agencies.
Response Activities—PL 84-99 allows the Corps of Engineers to supplement state and local entities
in flood-fighting for urban and other non-agricultural areas under certain conditions (Engineering
4. Community Profile
4-23
Regulation 500-1-1 provides specific details). All flood-fight efforts require a Project Cooperation
Agreement (PCA) signed by the public sponsor and a requirement for the sponsor to remove all
flood-fight material after the flood has receded. PL 84-99 also authorizes emergency water support
and drought assistance in certain situations and allows for “advance measures” assistance to prevent
or reduce flood damage conditions of imminent threat of unusual flooding.
Rehabilitation—Under PL 84-99, an eligible flood protection system can be rehabilitated if damaged
by a flood event. The flood system would be restored to its pre-disaster status at no cost to the federal
system owner, and at 20-percent cost to the eligible non-federal system owner. All systems eligible
for PL 84-99 rehabilitation assistance have to be in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program prior to
the flood event. Acceptable operation and maintenance by the public levee sponsor are verified by
levee inspections conducted by the Corps on a regular basis. The Corps has the responsibility to
coordinate levee repair issues with interested federal, state, and local agencies following natural
disaster events where flood control works are damaged.
All of these authorities and programs are available to the planning partners to support any intersecting mitigation
actions.
4.8.2 State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was enacted in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to
structures for human occupancy. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act’s main purpose is to prevent
construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. Before a new project is
permitted, cities and counties require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be
constructed on active faults. The act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward
other earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction or seismically induced landslides. The law requires the State of
California Geologist to establish regulatory zones around the surface traces of active faults and to issue
appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in
planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects
within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy (California
Department of Conservation, 2010). All seismic hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan will seek full
compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
California General Planning Law
California state law requires that every county and city prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range plan to
serve as a guide for community development. The general plan expresses the community’s goals, visions, and
policies relative to future land uses, both public and private. The general plan is mandated and prescribed by state
law (Cal. Gov. Code §65300 et seq.), and forms the basis for most local government land use decision-making.
The plan must consist of an integrated and internally consistent set of goals, policies, and implementation
measures. In addition, the plan must focus on issues of the greatest concern to the community and be written in a
clear and concise manner. City actions, such as those relating to land use allocations, annexations, zoning,
subdivision and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent with the plan.
All municipal planning partners to this plan have general plans that are currently compliant with this law and have
committed to integrating this mitigation plan with their general plans through provisions referenced below
(AB-2140 and SB-379)
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-24
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970, shortly after the federal government
passed the National Environmental Policy Act, to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA
requires state and local agencies in California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of the
potential environmental impacts of development projects. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory
part of every California state and local agency’s decision making process.
CEQA establishes a statewide environmental policy and mandates actions all state and local agencies must take to
advance the policy. Jurisdictions conduct analyses on projects to determine if there are potentially significant
environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures, and propose possible project alternatives by preparing
environmental reports for projects that require CEQA review. This environmental review is required before an
agency takes action on any policy, program, or project.
Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton have all sought exemption from CEQA for this hazard mitigation plan, using
the 15300 Categorical Exemption section of the CEQA guidelines:
• Section 15300: “...CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect
on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”
AB 162: Flood Planning
This California State Assembly bill passed in 2007 requires cities and counties to address flood-related matters in
the land use, conservation, and safety and housing elements of their general plans. The land use element must
identify and annually review the areas covered by the general plan that are subject to flooding as identified in
floodplain mapping by either FEMA or the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Upon the next
revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element of the general plan must
identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitat, and land that may accommodate floodwater for
the purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. The safety element must identify information
regarding flood hazards including:
• Flood hazard zones
• Maps published by FEMA, DWR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Central Valley Flood
Protection Board, Cal OES, etc.
• Historical data on flooding
• Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones.
The general plan must establish goals, policies and objectives to protect from unreasonable flooding risks
including:
• Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding new development
• Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones
• Identifying construction methods to minimize damage.
AB 162 establishes goals, policies and objectives to protect from unreasonable flooding risks. It establishes
procedures for the determination of available land suitable for urban development, which may exclude lands
where FEMA or DWR has determined that the flood management infrastructure is not adequate to avoid the risk
of flooding.
4. Community Profile
4-25
AB 2140: General Plans—Safety Element
This bill provides that the state may allow for more than the standard 75 percent cost share for public assistance
funding under the California Disaster Assistance Act only if the local agency is in a jurisdiction that has adopted a
local hazard mitigation plan as part of the safety element of its general plan. The local hazard mitigation plan
needs to include elements specified in this legislation. In addition this bill requires Cal OES to give federal
mitigation funding preference to cities and counties that have adopted local hazard mitigation plan. The intent of
the bill is to encourage cities and counties to create and adopt hazard mitigation plans.
AB 70: Flood Liability
This bill provides that a city or county may be required to contribute a fair and reasonable share to compensate for
property damage caused by a flood to the extent that it has increased the state’s exposure to liability for property
damage by unreasonably approving new development in a previously undeveloped area that is protected by a state
flood control project, unless the city or county meets specified requirements.
AB 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act
This bill addresses greenhouse gas emissions. It identifies the following potential adverse impacts of global
warming:
“… the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state
from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal
businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in
the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
AB 32 establishes a state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of
approximately 25 percent from forecast emission levels) with further reductions to follow. The law requires the
state Air Resources Board to do the following:
• Establish a program to track and report greenhouse gas emissions.
• Approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions
from sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Adopt early reduction measures to begin moving forward.
• Adopt, implement and enforce regulations—including market mechanisms such as “cap and-trade”
programs—to ensure that the required reductions occur.
The Air Resources Board recently adopted a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit and an emissions
inventory, along with requirements to measure, track, and report greenhouse gas emissions by the industries it
determined to be significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
AB 2800: Climate Change—Infrastructure Planning
This California State Assembly bill, in effect through July 1, 2020, requires state agencies to take into account the
current and future impacts of climate change when planning, designing, building, operating, maintaining, and
investing in state infrastructure. The bill requires the agency to establish a climate-safe infrastructure working
group by July 1, 2017, to examine how to integrate scientific data concerning projected climate change impacts
into state infrastructure engineering.
Senate Bill 97: Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, amended the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to clearly establish
that greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-26
analysis. It directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop draft CEQA guidelines for the
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or their effects and directed the California Natural Resources Agency to
certify and adopt the CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010.
Senate Bill 1241: General Plans: Safety Element—Fire Hazard Impacts
In 2012, Senate Bill 1241 passed requiring that all future general plans address fire risk in state responsibility
areas and very high fire hazard severity zones in their safety element. In addition, the bill requires cities and
counties to make certain findings regarding available fire protection and suppression services before approving a
tentative map or parcel map.
Senate Bill 1000 General Plan Amendments: Safety and Environmental Justice Elements
In 2016, Senate Bill 1000 amended California’s Planning and Zoning Law in two ways:
• The original law established requirements for initial revisions of general plan safety elements to address
flooding, fire, and climate adaptation and resilience. It also required subsequent review and revision as
necessary based on new information. Senate Bill 1000 specifies that the subsequent reviews and revision
based on new information are required to address only flooding and fires (not climate adaptation and
resilience).
• Senate Bill 1000 adds a requirement that, upon adoption or revision of any two other general plan
elements on or after January 1, 2018, an environmental justice element be adopted for the general plan or
environmental justice goals, policies and objectives be incorporated into other elements of the plan.
Senate Bill 379: General Plans: Safety Element—Climate Adaptation
Senate Bill 379 builds upon the flood planning inclusions into the safety and housing elements and the hazard
mitigation planning safety element inclusions in general plans outlined in AB 162 and AB 2140, respectively.
SB 379 focuses on a new requirement that cities and counties include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies
in the safety element of their general plans beginning January 1, 2017. In addition, this bill requires general plans
to include a set of goals, policies and objectives, and specified implementation measures based on the conclusions
drawn from climate adaptation research and recommendations.
California State Building Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24 (CCR Title 24), also known as the California Building Standards Code, is
a compilation of building standards from three sources:
• Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards
contained in national model codes
• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet
California conditions
• Building standards authorized by the California legislature that constitute extensive additions not covered
by the model codes adopted to address particular California concerns.
The state Building Standards Commission is authorized by California Building Standards Law (Health and Safety
Code Sections 18901 through 18949.6) to administer the processes related to the adoption, approval, publication,
and implementation of California’s building codes. These building codes serve as the basis for the design and
construction of buildings in California. The national model code standards adopted into Title 24 apply to all
occupancies in California except for modifications adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies. Since
1989, the Building Standards Commission has published new editions of Title 24 every three years.
4. Community Profile
4-27
On January 1, 2014, California Building Code Accessibility Standards found in Chapter 11B incorporated the
2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards as the model accessibility code for California. The
purpose for this incorporation was to ensure consistency with federal guidelines. As a result of this incorporation,
the California standards will fully implement and include 2010 ADA Standards within the California Building
Code while maintaining enhanced levels of accessibility already provided by existing California accessibility
regulations.
Standardized Emergency Management System
CCR Title 19 establishes the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) to standardize the response
to emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions. SEMS is intended to be flexible and adaptable to the needs of all
emergency responders in California. It requires emergency response agencies to use basic principles and
components of emergency management. Local governments must use SEMS by December 1, 1996 in order to be
eligible for state funding of response-related personnel costs under CCR Title 19 (Sections 2920, 2925 and 2930).
Individual agencies’ roles and responsibilities contained in existing laws or the state emergency plan are not
superseded by these regulations.
State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Under the DMA, California must adopt a federally approved statewide hazard mitigation plan in order to be
eligible for certain disaster assistance and mitigation funding. The intent of the State of California Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan is to reduce or prevent injury and damage from hazards in the state through the following:
• Documenting statewide hazard mitigation planning in California
• Describing strategies and priorities for future mitigation activities
• Facilitating the integration of local and tribal hazard mitigation planning activities into statewide efforts
• Meeting state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements.
The plan is an annex to the State Emergency Plan. It identifies past and present mitigation activities, current
policies and programs, and mitigation strategies for the future. It also establishes hazard mitigation goals and
objectives. The plan will be reviewed and updated annually to reflect changing conditions and new information,
especially information on local planning activities.
Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08
Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08 enhances the state’s management of climate impacts from sea level rise,
increased temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme weather events. It required the following key actions:
• Initiate California’s first statewide climate change adaptation strategy to assess expected climate change
impacts, identify where California is most vulnerable, and recommend adaptation policies by early 2009.
This effort will improve coordination within state government so that better planning can more effectively
address climate impacts on human health, the environment, the state’s water supply and the economy.
• Request that the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea level rise impacts
in California, to inform state planning and development efforts.
• Issue interim guidance to state agencies for how to plan for sea level rise in designated coastal and
floodplain areas for new projects.
• Initiate a report on critical infrastructure projects vulnerable to sea level rise.
California Residential Mitigation Program
The California Residential Mitigation Program was established in 2011 to help Californians strengthen their
homes against damage from earthquakes. The program is a joint powers authority created by Cal OES and the
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4-28
California Earthquake Authority, which is a not-for-profit, publicly managed, privately funded provider of home
earthquake insurance to California homeowners and renters.
Earthquake Brace + Bolt was developed to help homeowners lessen the potential for damage to their houses
during an earthquake. A residential seismic retrofit strengthens an existing older house, making it more resistant
to earthquake activity such as ground shaking and soil failure. The seismic retrofitting involves bolting the house
to its foundation and adding bracing around the perimeter of the crawl space. Most homeowners hire a contractor
to do the retrofit work, and owners of houses in ZIP codes with house characteristics suitable for this type of
retrofit are eligible for up to $3,000 toward the cost. A typical retrofit by a contractor may cost between $3,000
and $7,000, depending on the location and size of the house, contractor fees, and the amount of materials and
work involved. If the homeowner is an experienced do-it-yourselfer, a retrofit can cost less than $3,000.
Geologic Abatement Districts
Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHAD) enabled by the Beverly Act of 1979 (SB 1195), are potentially
useful financial mechanisms for reducing hillslope hazards. The enabling statute, (Division 17 of the Public
Resources Code, Sections 26500 - 26654) provides for the formation of local assessment districts for the purpose
of prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards. The Act broadly defines "geologic hazard" as
"an actual or threatened landslide, land subsidence, soil erosion, earthquake, or any other natural or unnatural
movement of land or earth." Currently, there are over 35 GHADs in California working to prevent, mitigate and
abate geologic hazards.
4.8.3 Local
Plans, reports and other technical information were identified and provided directly by participating jurisdictions
and stakeholders or were identified through independent research by the planning consultant. These documents
were reviewed to identify the following:
• Existing jurisdictional capabilities.
• Needs and opportunities to develop or enhance capabilities, which may be identified within the local
mitigation strategies.
• Mitigation-related goals or objectives, considered during the development of the overall goals and
objectives.
• Proposed, in-progress, or potential mitigation projects and actions to be incorporated into the updated
jurisdictional mitigation strategies.
Local regulations, codes, ordinances and plans were reviewed for the following capabilities, in order to develop
complementary and mutually supportive goals, objectives, and mitigation strategies that are consistent across
local and regional planning and regulatory mechanisms:
• Legal and regulatory—Jurisdictions have the ability to develop policies and programs and to implement
rules and regulations to protect and serve residents. Local policies are typically identified in a variety of
community plans, implemented via a local ordinance, and enforced through a governmental body.
Jurisdictions regulate land use through the adoption and enforcement of zoning, subdivision and land
development ordinances, building codes, building permit ordinances, floodplain, and stormwater
management ordinances. When effectively prepared and administered, these regulations can lead to
hazard mitigation.
• Fiscal—Assessing a jurisdiction’s fiscal capability provides local governance with an understanding of
the ability to fulfill the financial needs associated with hazard mitigation projects. This assessment
4. Community Profile
4-29
identifies both outside resources, such as grant-funding eligibility, and local jurisdictional authority to
generate internal financial capability, such as through impact fees.
• Administrative and technical—Legal, regulatory, and fiscal capabilities are needed to provide the
backbone for successfully developing a mitigation strategy, but without appropriate personnel the strategy
may not be implemented. The administrative and technical capability assessment focuses on the
availability of personnel resources for implementing hazard mitigation. These personnel resources include
technical experts, such as engineers and scientists, as well as capabilities that may be found in multiple
departments, such as grant writers.
• Development and permitting—The ability to track previous and future growth in potential hazard areas
provides an overview of increased exposure to a hazard within a community. Maintaining an inventory of
buildable lands allows better estimation of potential future growth and resulting hazard exposure.
• Public education and outreach—Assessing outreach and education capability identifies the connection
between government and community members, which opens a two-way dialogue and results in a more
resilient community based on education and public engagement.
• NFIP compliance—Community participation in the NFIP lowers flood insurance premiums and opens
up opportunity for grant funding to address flooding issues. Assessment of current NFIP status and
compliance provides understanding about local flood management programs and opportunities for
improvement.
• Adaptive capacity for climate change—Given the uncertainties associated with how hazard risk may
change with a changing climate, a community’s ability to track such changes and adapt as needed is an
important component of ongoing hazard mitigation.
• Classification under national community mitigation programs—Community mitigation programs—
such as the Community Rating System, Storm Ready and Firewise—enhance a jurisdiction’s ability to
mitigate, prepare for, and respond to natural hazards. These programs indicate a jurisdiction’s desire to go
beyond minimum requirements set forth by local, state, and federal regulations for the purpose of creating
a more resilient community. They complement each other by focusing on communication, mitigation, and
community preparedness to save lives and minimize the impact of natural hazards.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
PART 2—RISK ASSESSMENT
5-1
5. IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and
property damage resulting from natural hazards. It allows emergency management personnel to establish early
response priorities by identifying potential hazards and vulnerable assets. The process focuses on the following
elements:
• Hazard identification—Use all available information to determine what types of disasters may affect a
jurisdiction, how often they can occur, and their potential severity.
• Exposure identification—Estimate the total number of people and properties in the jurisdiction that are
likely to experience a hazard event if it occurs.
• Vulnerability identification and loss estimation—Assess the impact of hazard events on the people,
property, environment, economy and lands of the region, including estimates of the cost of potential
damage or cost that can be avoided by mitigation.
The risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan update evaluates the risk of natural hazards prevalent in the
planning area and meets requirements of the DMA (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(2)). To protect individual privacy
and the security of critical facilities, information on properties assessed is presented in aggregate, without details
about specific individual personal or public properties.
5.1 IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN
The Steering Committee considered the full range of natural hazards that could impact the planning area and then
listed hazards that present the greatest concern. The process incorporated review of state and local hazard
planning documents, as well as information on the frequency, magnitude and costs associated with hazards that
have impacted or could impact the planning area. Anecdotal information regarding natural hazards and the
perceived vulnerability of the planning area’s assets to them was also used. Based on the review, this plan
presents complete risk assessment for the following hazards of concern (presented in alphabetical order; the order
of listing does not indicate the hazards’ relative severity):
• Climate change
• Dam failure
• Drought
• Earthquake
• Flood
• Landslide
• Severe weather
• Wildfire
In addition to the hazards of concern for which full risk assessments were performed, other hazards of interest
were identified for inclusion in this plan: intentional human -caused hazards, technological hazards, and public
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
5-2
health hazards. These hazards are of interest because they present risk to the planning area. However, no
methodologies are currently available to perform risk assessments on them that are equivalent to those used for
the natural hazards of concern addressed in detail in this plan.
5.2 RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS
5.2.1 Mapping
National, state and local databases were reviewed to locate spatially based data relevant to this planning effort.
Maps were produced using GIS software to show the spatial extent and location of identified hazards when such
data was available. These maps are included in the hazard profile sections of this document. Information
regarding the data sources and methodologies employed in these mapping efforts is located in Appendix B.
5.2.2 Hazus
Overview
In 1997, FEMA developed the standardized Hazards U.S., or Hazus, model to estimate losses caused by
earthquakes and identify areas that face the highest risk and potential for loss. Hazus was later expanded into a
multi-hazard methodology with new models for estimating potential losses from hurricanes and floods.
Hazus is a GIS-based software program used to support risk assessments, mitigation planning, and emergency
planning and response. It provides a wide range of inventory data, such as demographics, building stock, critical
facility, transportation and utility lifeline, and multiple models to estimate potential losses from natural disasters.
The program maps and displays hazard data and the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings
and infrastructure. Its advantages include the following:
• Provides a consistent methodology for assessing risk across geographic and political entities.
• Provides a way to save data so that it can readily be updated as population, inventory, and other factors
change and as mitigation planning efforts evolve.
• Facilitates the review of mitigation plans because it helps to ensure that FEMA methodologies are
incorporated.
• Supports grant applications by calculating benefits using FEMA definitions and terminology.
• Produces hazard data and loss estimates that can be used in communication with local stakeholders.
• Is administered by the local government and can be used to manage and update a hazard mitigation plan
throughout its implementation.
Levels of Detail for Evaluation
Hazus provides default data for inventory, vulnerability and hazards; this default data can be supplemented with
local data to provide a more refined analysis. The model can carry out three levels of analysis, depending on the
format and level of detail of information about the planning area:
• Level 1—All of the information needed to produce an estimate of losses is included in the software’s
default data. This data is derived from national databases and describes in general terms the characteristic
parameters of the planning area.
• Level 2—More accurate estimates of losses require more detailed information about the planning area.
Level 2 estimates of losses require detailed information on local geology, hydrology, hydraulics, building
inventory, utilities, and critical facilities. This information is needed in a GIS format.
• Level 3—This level of analysis generates the most accurate estimate of losses. It requires detailed
engineering and geotechnical information to customize it for the planning area.
5. Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment Methodology
5-3
5.3 RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH
The risk assessments in this plan describe the risks associated with each hazard of concern identified. The
following steps were used to define the risk of each hazard:
• Identify and profile each hazard—The following information is given for each hazard:
Geographic areas most affected by the hazard
Event frequency estimates
Severity estimates
Warning time likely to be available for response.
• Determine exposure to each hazard—Exposure was assessed by overlaying hazard maps with an
inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to decide which of them would be exposed to each hazard.
• Assess the vulnerability of exposed facilities—Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure
was evaluated by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing structures,
facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. Tools such as GIS and FEMA’s hazard-modeling
program Hazus were used for this assessment for the dam failure, earthquake, and flood hazards. Outputs
similar to those from Hazus were generated for other hazards, using data generated through GIS.
5.3.1 Earthquake, Dam Failure, and Flood
The following hazards were evaluated using Hazus:
• Flood—A Level 2 user-defined analysis was performed for general building stock in flood zones and for
critical facilities and infrastructure. Current flood mapping for the planning area was used to delineate
flood hazard areas and estimate potential losses from the 1-percent-annual-chance, 0.2-percent-annual-
chance, and 10-percent-annual-chance flood events. To estimate damage that would result from a flood,
Hazus uses pre-defined relationships between flood depth at a structure and resulting damage, with
damage given as a percent of total replacement value. Curves defining these relationships have been
developed for damage to structures and for damage to typical contents within a structure. By inputting
flood depth data and known property replacement cost values, dollar-value estimates of damage were
generated.
• Dam Failure—A Level 2 analysis was run using the flood methodology described above.
• Earthquake—A Level 2 analysis was performed to assess earthquake exposure and vulnerability for five
scenario events:
Calaveras (North Central South) Fault Scenario—A Magnitude-7.0 event with a depth of 7 km and
epicenter 1 mile west of the City of Dublin.
Greenville Fault Scenario—A Magnitude-7.0 event with a depth of 12 km and epicenter 24 miles
southeast of the City of Pleasanton.
Haywired Fault Scenario—This is the name given by the USGS to the fault scenario used in a 2014-
2015 of Bay Area impacts from an earthquake on the Hayward Fault; it is a Magnitude-7.05 event
with a depth of 8 km and epicenter 10 miles northwest of the City of Dublin.
Mount Diablo Fault Scenario—A Magnitude-6.7 event with a depth of 14 km and epicenter 10 miles
north of the City of Livermore.
North San Andreas Fault Scenario—A Magnitude-7.8 event with a depth of 9.8 km and epicenter 75
miles northwest of the City of Dublin.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
5-4
5.3.2 Drought
The risk assessment methodologies used for this plan focus on damage to structures. The risk assessment for
drought was more limited and qualitative than the assessment for the other hazards of concern because drought
does not affect structures.
5.3.3 Landslide, Severe Weather, Wildfire
Historical datasets were not adequate to model future losses for most of the hazards of concern. However, areas
and inventory susceptible to some of the hazards of concern were mapped by other means and exposure was
evaluated. A qualitative analysis was conducted for other hazards using the best available data and professional
judgment.
5.4 SOURCES OF DATA USED IN HAZUS MODELING
5.4.1 Building, Land Use and Cost Data
Replacement cost values and detailed structure information derived from parcel and tax assessor data provided by
Alameda County were loaded into Hazus. When available, an updated inventory was used in place of the Hazus
defaults for critical facilities and infrastructure. Land use areas were calculated using the County’s parcel data and
Hazus general occupancy classes.
Replacement cost is the cost to replace the entire structure with one of equal quality and utility. Replacement cost
is based on industry-standard cost-estimation models published in RS Means Square Foot Costs (RS Means,
2017). It is calculated using the RS Means square foot cost for a structure, which is based on the Hazus occupancy
class (i.e., multi-family residential or commercial retail trade), multiplied by the square footage of the structure
from the tax assessor data. The construction class and number of stories for single-family residential structures
also factor into determining the square foot costs.
5.4.2 Hazus Data Inputs
The following hazard datasets were used for the Hazus Level 2 analysis conducted for the risk assessment:
• Flood—The effective Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) for the planning area was used to
delineate flood hazard areas and estimate potential losses from the 1-percent-annual-chance, 0.2-percent-
annual-chance, and 10-percent-annual-chance flood events. Using the DFIRM floodplain boundaries and
base flood elevation information, and the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 3-meter digital elevation
model data, flood depth grids were generated and integrated into the Hazus model.
• Dam Failure—Dam inundation area data provided by the County and the USGS 3-meter digital elevation
model were used to develop depth grids that were integrated into the Hazus model.
• Earthquake—Earthquake mapping prepared by the USGS was used for the analysis of this hazard. A
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) soils map from the California Department of
Conservation, the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) liquefaction susceptibility data, and
the California Geological Survey’s landslide susceptibility data were also integrated into the Hazus
model.
5.4.3 Other Local Hazard Data
Locally relevant information on hazards was gathered from a variety of sources. Frequency and severity indicators
include past events and the expert opinions of geologists, emergency management specialists, and others. Data
sources for specific hazards were as follows:
5. Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment Methodology
5-5
• Landslide—Susceptibility to deep-seated landslide data were provided by the California Geological
Survey. Areas categorized as moderate (susceptibility classes V and VI), high (classes VII, VIII, and IX),
and very high (class X) were used in the exposure analysis.
• Wildfire—Fire severity data were acquired from the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE).
• Climate Change—Climate change related projections, data and visualization tools were provided by Cal-
Adapt, an online resource that provides information on how climate change might affect local
communities in California, unless otherwise indicated. The data available on Cal-Adapt is from a variety
of organizations in the scientific community and represents peer-reviewed science.
5.4.4 Data Source Summary
Table 5-1 summarizes the data sources used for the risk assessment for this plan.
Table 5-1. Risk Assessment Data Sources
Data Source Date Format
Property parcel data including use code, year built, number of stories, and area Alameda County 2017 Digital (GIS) format
Building replacement cost RS Means 2017 Paper format
Demographic data FEMA Hazus version 4.0 (U.S. Census) 2010 Digital (GIS and tabular) format
Flood hazard data FEMA 2016 Digital (GIS) format
Earthquake mapping USGS Earthquake Hazards Program
website
2012-2014 Digital (GIS) format
Liquefaction susceptibility ABAG (from USGS) 2006 Digital (GIS) format
Susceptibility to deep-seated landslides CA Geological Survey 2011 Digital (GIS) format
NEHRP soils California Department of Conservation 2008 Digital (GIS) format
Dam inundation areas City of Pleasanton Unknown Digital (GIS) Format
Fire hazard severity zones CAL FIRE 2008 Digital (GIS) format
National elevation data 3m USGS Unknown Digital (GIS) format
Future Land Use, General Plan Land Use & Zoning Districts City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore,
ABAG
Various Digital (GIS) format
Critical Facilities and Assets
Critical Facilities and Assets: EOCs; fire
stations; medical care facilities; police
stations; schools; hazardous material
facilities; airports and helipads; bus
facilities; highway bridges; light rail
facilities; railway bridges; rail facilities;
communications facilities; electric power
facilities; petroleum facilities; potable water
facilities; wastewater facilities; government /
city facilities
City of Dublin, City of Livermore, City of
Pleasanton, Hazus 4.0 Database, EPA
Toxic Reporter Inventory, EIA, California
HealthCare Atlas, Caltrans
Various Digital (GIS) format
5.5 LIMITATIONS
Loss estimates, exposure assessments, and hazard-specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best available data
and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise in part from
incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment.
Uncertainties also result from the following:
• Approximations and simplifications necessary to conduct a study
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
5-6
• Incomplete or outdated inventory, demographic or economic parameter data
• The unique nature, geographic extent, and severity of each hazard
• Mitigation measures already employed
• The amount of advance notice residents have to prepare for a specific hazard event
• The uncertain spatial accuracy of the dam inundation area data.
• Lack of a standardized model for assessing sea level rise impacts. Multiple models provide multiple
results. Not all models were run in the development of the sea level rise analysis.
These factors can affect loss estimates by a factor of two or more. Therefore, potential exposure and loss estimates
are approximate and should be used only to understand relative risk. Over the long term, the planning partners
will collect additional data to assist in estimating potential losses associated with other hazards.
6-1
6. DAM FAILURE
6.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
A dam is an artificial barrier that has the ability to store
water, wastewater, or liquid-borne materials for many
reasons (flood control, human water supply, irrigation,
livestock water supply, energy generation, containment of
mine tailings, recreation, or pollution control). Many dams
fulfill a combination of the stated functions. Dams provide a
life-sustaining resource to people in all regions of the United
States. They are an important resource in the United States.
Man-made dams can be classified according to the type of
construction material used, the methods used in
construction, the slope or cross-section of the dam, the way
the dam resists the forces of the water pressure behind it, the
means used for controlling seepage, and, occasionally,
according to the purpose of the dam. The materials used for
construction of dams include earth, rock, tailings from
mining or milling, concrete, masonry, steel, timber,
miscellaneous materials (plastic or rubber), and any
combination of these materials (Association of State Dam
Safety Officials, 2013).
More than a third of the country’s dams are 50 or more years
old. Approximately 14,000 of those dams pose a significant
hazard to life and property if failure occurs. There are also
about 2,000 unsafe dams in the United States, located in
almost every state.
6.1.1 Causes of Dam Failure
The failure of a dam can allow stored water to inundate
areas downstream. Dam failures typically occur when
spillway capacity is inadequate and excess flow overtops the
dam, or when internal erosion (piping) through the dam or
foundation occurs. Complete failure occurs if internal
erosion or overtopping results in a complete structural breach, releasing a high-velocity wall of debris-filled
waters that rush downstream damaging and/or destroying anything in its path.
Dam failures can be catastrophic to human life and property downstream. Dam failures in the United States
typically occur in one of four primary ways:
DEFINITIONS
Dam—Any artificial barrier, together with
appurtenant works, that does or may impound or
divert water, and that either (a) is 25 feet or more in
height from the natural bed of the stream or
watercourse at the downstream toe of the barrier (or
from the lowest elevation of the outside limit of the
barrier if it is not across a stream channel or
watercourse) to the maximum possible water
storage elevation; or (b) has an impounding capacity
of 50 acre-feet or more. (CA Water Code,
Division 3.)
Dam failure—An uncontrolled release of impounded
water due to structural deficiencies in a dam.
Emergency action plan—A formal document that
identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam
and specifies actions to be followed to minimize
property damage and loss of life. The plan specifies
actions the dam owner should take to alleviate
problems at a dam. It contains procedures and
information to assist the dam owner in issuing early
warning and notification messages to responsible
downstream emergency management authorities of
the emergency situation. It also contains inundation
maps to show emergency management authorities
the critical areas for action in case of an emergency.
(FEMA 2013a)
High hazard dam—Dams where failure or improper
operation will probably cause loss of human life.
(FEMA 2004)
Significant hazard dam—Dams where failure or
improper operation will result in no probable loss of
human life but can cause economic loss,
environmental damage or disruption of lifeline
facilities, or can impact other concerns. Significant
hazard dams are often located in rural or agricultural
areas but could be located in areas with population
and significant infrastructure. (FEMA 2004)
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
6-2
• Overtopping of the primary dam structure, which accounts for 34 percent of all dam failures, can occur
due to inadequate spillway design, settlement of the dam crest, blockage of spillways, and other factors.
• Foundation defects due to differential settlement, slides, slope instability, uplift pressures, and foundation
seepage account for 30 percent of all dam failures.
• Piping and seepage account for 20 percent of all failures. These result from internal erosion, erosion along
hydraulic structures such as spillways, erosion due to animal burrows, and cracks in the dam structure.
• Failure due to problems with conduits and valves, typically caused by the piping of embankment material
into conduits through joints or cracks, constitutes 10 percent of all failures.
The remaining six percent of dam failures are due to other miscellaneous causes. Many of the historical dam
failures in the United States have been secondary results of other disasters. The prominent causes are earthquakes,
landslides, extreme storms, and massive snowmelt.
The most likely causes of dam failure in the planning area are age of dams, earthquakes, excessive rainfall, and
landslides. Poor construction, lack of maintenance and repair, and deficient operational procedures are
preventable or correctable by a program of regular inspections. Terrorism and vandalism are serious concerns that
all operators of public facilities must plan for; these threats are under continuous review by public safety agencies.
6.1.2 Regulatory Oversight
National Dam Safety Act
Potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Safety Act (Public Law
92-367). The National Dam Safety Program requires a periodic engineering analysis of the majority of dams in
the country, with exceptions for the following:
• Dams under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority, or International
Boundary and Water Commission
• Dams constructed pursuant to licenses issued under the Federal Power Act
• Dams that the Secretary of the Army determines do not pose any threat to human life or property.
The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of dam failure so as to protect lives
and property of the public. The National Dam Safety Program is a partnership among the states, federal agencies,
and other stakeholders that encourages individual and community responsibility for dam safety. Under FEMA’s
leadership, state assistance funds have allowed all participating states to improve their programs through
increased inspections, emergency action planning, and purchases of needed equipment. FEMA has also expanded
existing and initiated new training programs. Grant assistance from FEMA provides support for improvement of
dam safety programs that regulate most of the dams in the United States (FEMA, 2013).
California Division of Safety of Dams
California DWR’s Division of Safety of Dams monitors dam maintenance and safety at the state level through all
of the following procedures (DWR, 2017):
• When a new dam is proposed, Division engineers and geologists inspect the site and the subsurface.
• Upon submittal of an application, the Division reviews the plans and specifications prepared by the owner
to ensure that the dam is designed to meet minimum requirements and that the design is appropriate for
the known geologic conditions.
• After approval of the application, the Division inspects all aspects of the construction to ensure that the
work accords with the approved plans and specifications.
6. Dam Failure
6-3
• After construction, the Division inspects each dam annually to ensure performance as intended and to
identify developing problems. Roughly a third of these inspections include in-depth reviews of
instrumentation.
• The Division periodically reviews stability of dams and their major appurtenances in light of improved
design approaches, requirements, and new findings regarding earthquake hazards and hydrologic
estimates in California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program
The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non-federal dams in the
United States that meet size and storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety Act. The Corps has
inventoried dams; surveyed each state and federal agency’s capabilities, practices, and regulations regarding
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation
of dam safety (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2017). The Corps of Engineers’ National Inventory of Dams
provides the most recent inspection dates for 26 Alameda County dams, as listed in Table 6-1. It is important to
note that this data base is updated only periodically, and therefore the dates reflected may not be reflective of the
most recent inspection dates for each facility listed.
Table 6-1. Alameda County Dam Inspection Dates
Alameda County Dam Inspection Date Alameda County Dam Inspection Date
Almond January 26, 2012 New U San Leandro December 20, 2011
Bethany Forebay November 2, 2011 Patterson March 8, 2012
Calaveras January 24, 2012 Patterson November 3, 2011
Central January 26, 2012 Piedmont February 9, 2012
Chabot December 20, 2011 Quarry Pits March 9, 2012
Cull Creek August 24, 2011 Rubber Dam 3 March 9, 2012
Decoto Reservoir March 8, 2012 San Lorenzo Creek August 24, 2011
Del Valle November 3, 2011 Seneca January 26, 2012
Dunsmuir Reservoir January 26, 2012 Shinn March 9, 2012
Dyer February 10, 2012 South January 26, 2012
Estates February 9, 2012 Summit February 7, 2012
James H Turner January 23, 2012 Temescal, Lake March 2, 2012
Middlefield Res March 8, 2012 Ward Creek August 24, 2011
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2017
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the largest dam safety program in the United States.
FERC cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety and, more
recently, homeland security. Approximately 3,036 dams that are part of regulated hydroelectric projects are in the
FERC program. Two-thirds of these dams are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety
and integrity grows, and oversight and a regular inspection program are extremely important. FERC staff inspects
hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following:
• Potential dam safety problems
• Complaints about constructing and operating a project
• Safety concerns related to natural disasters
• Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license.
Every five years, an independent consulting engineer, approved by the FERC, must inspect and evaluate projects
with dams higher than 32.8 feet, or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre-feet.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
6-4
FERC staff monitors and evaluates seismic research in geographic areas such as California where there are
concerns about possible seismic activity. This information is applied in investigating and performing structural
analyses of hydroelectric projects in these areas. FERC staff also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large
floods on the safety of dams. During and following floods, FERC staff visits dams and licensed projects,
determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must
undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects guides the
FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety. The publication is frequently revised to reflect
current information and methodologies.
FERC requires licensees to prepare emergency action plans, and conducts training sessions on how to develop and
test these plans. The plans outline an early warning system pertaining to actual or potential sudden release of
water from a dam due to failure or accident. The plans include operational procedures that may be applied, such
as reducing reservoir levels and downstream flows, or notifying affected residents and agencies responsible for
emergency management. Updates and tests of these plans occur frequently to ensure that everyone knows what to
do in emergency situations (FERC, 2016).
6.2 HAZARD PROFILE
6.2.1 Past Events
Even under normal operating conditions, dam failures can occur suddenly, without warning (referred to as a
“sunny-day” failure). Dam failures may also occur during a large storm event. Significant rainfall can quickly
inundate an area and cause floodwaters to overwhelm a reservoir. If the dam spillway cannot safely pass the
resulting flows, water will begin flowing in areas not designed for such flows, and a failure may occur.
No dam failures have been recorded in the planning area. According to the Alameda County Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan, there have been two failures in the county:
• 1918 Calaveras Dam Failure—The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission-owned Calaveras Dam,
located in Alameda County, failed during construction in 1918. A landslide damaged the upstream shell
of the dam and destroyed the dam’s outlet tower.
• 2015 Rubber Dam 3 Failure—In 2015, the inflatable dam on Alameda Creek (Rubber Dam 3) failed due
to vandalism, releasing nearly 50 million gallons of water from the community’s water into the San
Francisco Bay. The water was supposed to go into the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin where residents
and businesses from the Cities of Newark, Union City and Fremont could access drinking water.
There is a possibility that the planning area experienced the direct or indirect impacts of these events, though no
specific information on local impact is available.
6.2.2 Location
According to the Corps of Engineers’ National Inventory of Dams, there are over 87,000 dams in the country;
however, this inventory only covers dams that meet minimum height and impoundment requirements; numerous
small dams are not identified. According to the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), as of 2017, there
were 24 dams in Alameda County of which 20 were classified as high or extremely high hazard according the
DSOD Downstream Hazard Classification guidelines. Of these, the Del Valle and Patterson Dams described in
Table 6-2 and Table 6-3, have the potential to impact the planning area if a failure were to occur. Dam failure
inundation mapping in support of emergency action planning is available for both dams, but have not been
included in this plan for security purposes.
6. Dam Failure
6-5
Table 6-2. Del Valle Dam Characteristics
Hazard Classa Extremely High
Water Course Arroyo Valle
Owner California Department of Water Resources
Year Built 1968
Dam Type Earth
Crest Length (feet) 880
Height (feet) 222
Storage Capacity (acre-feet) 77,100
Drainage area (sq. mi.) 146
Inundation Area (sq. mi.) 97.98
a. Hazard classification as identified in the National Performance of Dams Program:
Low Hazard—Downstream hazard classification for dams in which no lives are in jeopardy and minimal economic loss would occur
as a result of failure of the dam.
Significant Hazard—Downstream hazard classification for dams in which one to six lives are in jeopardy and appreciable economic
loss would occur as a result of failure of the dam.
High Hazard—Downstream hazard classification for dams in which more than six lives would be in jeopardy and excessive economic
loss would occur as a direct result of dam failure.
Sources: California Department of Water Resources, 2017
Table 6-3. Patterson Dam Characteristics
Hazard Classa High
Water Course Off stream
Owner California Department of Water Resources
Year Built 1962
Dam Type Earth
Crest Length (feet) 1,275
Height (feet) 39
Storage Capacity (acre-feet) 104
Drainage area (sq. mi.) 0
Inundation Area (sq. mi.) Information not available
a. Hazard classification as identified in the National Performance of Dams Program:
Low Hazard—Downstream hazard classification for dams in which no lives are in jeopardy and minimal economic loss would occur
as a result of failure of the dam.
Significant Hazard—Downstream hazard classification for dams in which one to six lives are in jeopardy and appreciable economic
loss would occur as a result of failure of the dam.
High Hazard—Downstream hazard classification for dams in which more than six lives would be in jeopardy and excessive economic
loss would occur as a direct result of dam failure.
Sources: California Department of Water Resources, 2017
The Del Valle dam was constructed in 1968 to create Lake Del Valle, which provides water storage, Alameda
Creek flood control, and regulatory storage for a portion of water delivered through the South Bay Aqueduct. The
dam is in satisfactory condition as of September 2017, which means it has no recognized safety deficiencies. It is
the only flood control dam in the Livermore Valley. The dam has a storage capacity of 77,100 acre-feet of water
(California Department of Water Resources, 2017).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
6-6
There are two dams listed as Patterson Dam in the DSOD inventory of dams. One of the 2 dams is listed as high
hazard is owned by the California Department of Water Resources, and was built in 1962 and was constructed as
part of the California State Water Project. The California State Water Project is a water storage and delivery
system of reservoirs, aqueducts, power plants and pumping plants. Its main purpose is to store water and
distribute it to 29 urban and agricultural water suppliers in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, the
San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern California. Of the contracted water supply, 70 percent goes
to urban users and 30 percent goes to agricultural users. The Project makes deliveries to two-thirds of California's
population. It is maintained and operated by the California Department of Water Resources. The Project is also
operated to improve water quality in the Delta, control Feather River flood waters, provide recreation, and
enhance fish and wildlife.
6.2.3 Frequency
Dam failures are infrequent and usually coincide with the events that cause them, such as earthquakes, landslides,
and excessive rainfall and snowmelt. There is a “residual risk” associated with dams; residual risk is the risk that
remains after safeguards have been implemented. The residual risk is associated with events beyond those that the
facility was designed to withstand. However, the probability of occurrence of any type of dam failure event is
considered to be low in today’s regulatory and dam safety oversight environment.
6.2.4 Severity
Dam failure can be catastrophic to all life and property downstream. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
developed the classification system shown in Table 6-4 for the hazard potential of dam failures.
Table 6-4. Hazard Potential Classification
Hazard
Categorya Direct Loss of Lifeb Lifeline Lossesc Property Lossesd
Environmental
Lossese
Low None (rural location, no permanent
structures for human habitation)
No disruption of services (cosmetic
or rapidly repairable damage)
Private agricultural lands,
equipment, and isolated
buildings
Minimal incremental
damage
Significant Rural location, only transient or
day-use facilities
Disruption of essential facilities and
access
Major public and private
facilities
Major mitigation
required
High Certain (one or more) extensive
residential, commercial, or
industrial development
Disruption of essential facilities and
access
Extensive public and
private facilities
Extensive mitigation
cost or impossible to
mitigate
a. Categories are assigned to overall projects, not individual structures at a project.
b. Loss of life potential based on inundation mapping of area downstream of the project. Analyses of loss of life potential should take into
account the population at risk, time of flood wave travel, and warning time.
c. Indirect threats to life caused by the interruption of lifeline services due to project failure or operational disruption; for example, loss of
critical medical facilities or access to them.
d. Damage to project facilities and downstream property and indirect impact due to loss of project services, such as impact due to loss of
a dam and navigation pool, or impact due to loss of water or power supply.
e. Environmental impact downstream caused by the incremental flood wave produced by the project failure, beyond what would normally
be expected for the magnitude flood event under which the failure occurs.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1996
6.2.5 Warning Time
Warning time for dam failure varies depending on the cause of the failure. In events of extreme precipitation,
evacuations can be planned with sufficient time. In the event of a structural failure due to earthquake, it is possible
that there would be no warning time.
6. Dam Failure
6-7
A dam’s structural type also affects warning time. Earthen dams do not tend to fail completely or instantaneously.
Once a breach is initiated, discharging water erodes the breach until either the reservoir water is depleted or the
breach resists further erosion. Concrete gravity dams also tend to have a partial breach as one or more monolith
sections formed during dam construction are forced apart by the escaping water. The time for breach formation
ranges from a few minutes to a few hours.
Alameda County and the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton have established protocols for emergency
warning and response through adopted emergency operations plans. These protocols are tied to the emergency
action plans created by the dam owners.
6.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
Dam failure can cause severe downstream flooding depending on the magnitude of the failure. Other potential
secondary hazards of dam failure include landslides around the reservoir perimeter, bank erosion on the rivers,
and destruction of downstream habitat.
6.4 EXPOSURE
Exposure to dam failure hazard was assessed by use of spatial analysis. While 2 dams, Del Valle and Patterson
could impact the planning area, digital dam failure inundation mapping was only available for the Del Valle Dam.
Therefore, the following exposure and vulnerability sections only look at the Del Valle inundation areas based on
the best available data. The inundation area for the Del Valle Dam was overlaid with planning area general
building stock and critical facility databases. The Hazus flood module was used to assess damage from the dam
failure. Hazus uses census data at the block level, which has a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes.
Where possible, the Hazus default data was enhanced using GIS data from local, state and federal sources.
6.4.1 Population
All populations living in a dam failure inundation zone are exposed to the risk of a dam failure. The estimated
population living in the Del Valle Dam inundation area is 57,666, or 25.6 percent of the planning area’s
population.
6.4.2 Property
The Hazus model estimated that there are 17,555 structures within the inundation area. The value of exposed
buildings in the planning area was generated using Hazus and is summarized in Table 6-5. This methodology
estimated $17 billion worth of building-and-contents exposure to the inundation area, representing 33.2 percent of
the total replacement value of the planning area. Table 6-6 shows the general land use of planning area parcels
exposed to the Del Valle Dam Inundation Area.
Table 6-5. Value of Property Exposed to Dam Failure
Number of Buildings Value Exposed % of Total
Exposed Building Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin 442 $639,600,057 $533,654,000 $1,173,254,056 9.6%
Livermore 1,688 $818,547,256 $509,556,562 $1,328,103,818 6.5%
Pleasanton 15,425 $8,709,927,283 $6,595,801,497 $15,305,728,780 72.8%
Total Planning Area 17,555 $10,168,074,596 $7,639,012,059 $17,807,086,655 33.2%
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
6-8
Table 6-6. Dam Inundation Present Land Use
Present Land Use Within the Del Valle Dam Inundation Area
Area (acres) % of total
Residential 3,374 32.8%
Commercial 1,653 16.1%
Industrial 303 2.9%
Agriculture 73 0.7%
Religion / Assembly 161 1.6%
Government / Institutional 82 0.8%
Education 253 2.5%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way / Water / Open Space 4,381 42.6%
Total 10,281 100.0%
Source: Alameda County, 2016
6.4.3 Critical Facilities
GIS analysis was used to determine the number of critical facilities in the mapped dam failure inundation areas.
As Table 6-7 shows, 173 of the planning area’s critical facilities and critical infrastructure (41 percent) are in the
inundation areas.
Table 6-7. Critical Facilities/Infrastructure in Dam Failure Inundation Areas in the Planning Area
Medical & Health
Services
Emergency
Services
Educational
Facilities Government Utilities
Transportation
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials
Other
Assets Total
Dublin 1 1 0 3 2 12 0 0 19
Livermore 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 6
Pleasanton 6 5 16 7 58 51 5 0 148
Total 7 6 17 10 61 67 5 0 173
6.4.4 Environment
The environment would be exposed to a number of risks in the event of dam failure. The inundation could
introduce many foreign elements into local waterways. This could result in destruction of downstream habitat and
could have detrimental effects on many species of animals, especially endangered species such as salmon.
6.5 VULNERABILITY
6.5.1 Population
Vulnerable populations are all populations downstream from dam failures that are incapable of escaping the area
within the allowable time frame. This population includes the elderly and young who may be unable to get
themselves out of the inundation area. The vulnerable population also includes those who would not have
adequate warning from a television or radio emergency warning system. The potential for loss of life is affected
by the capacity and number of evacuation routes available to populations living in areas of potential inundation.
6.5.2 Property
Vulnerable properties are those closest to the dam failure inundation area. These properties would experience the
largest, most destructive surge of water. Low-lying areas are also vulnerable since they are where the dam waters
would collect. Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam failure inundation and have the potential to be wiped
6. Dam Failure
6-9
out, creating isolation issues. This includes all roads, railroads and bridges in the path of the dam failure
inundation. Those that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition and would not be able to
withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines could also be
vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional isolation issues for the inundation areas.
It is estimated that there could be up to $8.8 billion of loss from a dam failure affecting the planning area. This
represents 49 percent of the total exposure within the inundation area, or 16.3 percent of the total assessed value
of the planning area. Table 6-8 summarizes the loss estimates for dam failure.
Table 6-8. Loss Estimates for Dam Failure
Value Exposed % of Total
Building Loss Contents Loss Total Loss Replacement Value
Dublin $54,263,652 $134,358,432 $188,622,085 1.6%
Livermore $249,974,304 $232,863,515 $482,837,819 2.4%
Pleasanton $3,995,994,142 $4,100,811,972 $8,096,806,114 38.5%
Total Planning Area $4,300,232,098 $4,468,033,919 $8,768,266,017 16.3%
6.5.3 Critical Facilities
Hazus was used to estimate the flood loss potential to critical facilities exposed to dam failure risk. Using
depth/damage function curves to estimate the percent of damage to the building and contents of critical facilities,
Hazus correlates these estimates into an estimate of functional down-time (the estimated time it will take to
restore a facility to 100 percent of its functionality). This helps to gauge how long the planning area could have
limited usage of facilities deemed critical to flood response and recovery. The Hazus critical facility results for
dam failure are shown in Table 6-9.
Table 6-9. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Dam Failure
Number of Average % of Total Value Damaged Days to 100%
Facilities Affected Structure Content Functionality
Medical and Health Services 6 35.48 81.59 730
Emergency Services 5 57.03 81.08 816
Educational Facilities 13 65.93 91.33 801
Government / City Facilities 7 55.08 86.22 N/A
Utilities 55 33.56 67.62 N/A
Transportation Infrastructure 51 3.78 70.38 N/A
Hazardous Materials 4 26.28 41.00 N/A
Total/Average 141 39.59 74.18 782
6.5.4 Environment
The environment would be vulnerable to a number of risks in the event of dam failure. The inundation could
introduce foreign elements into local waterways, resulting in destruction of downstream habitat and detrimental
effects on many species of animals, especially endangered species. The extent of the vulnerability of the
environment is the same as the exposure of the environment.
6.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
All land use decision-making is guided by the goals, policies and implementation measures contained in the land
use elements of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton’s general plans. The Dublin general plan’s environmental
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
6-10
resources management element, Livermore general plan’s public safety element, and Pleasanton’s general plan’s
public safety element establish standards and plans for protecting the community from hazards. Most of the areas
vulnerable to the worst impacts from a dam failure correspond to the flood hazard areas. Flood-related policies in
the general plans will help to reduce the risk associated with the dam failure hazard for all future development in
the planning area. Table 6-10 shows the future land use within the Del Valle Dam Inundation Area.
Table 6-10. Dam Inundation Future Land Use
Future Land Use Within the Del Valle Dam Inundation Area
Area (acres) % of total
Residential 4,062 39.5%
Commercial 1,356 13.2%
Industrial 265 2.6%
Agriculture 378 3.7%
Religion / Assembly 954 9.3%
Government / Institutional 838 8.2%
Education 2,427 23.6%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way / Water / Open Space 10,281 100.0%
Total 4,062 39.5%
Source: Alameda County, 2016
6.7 SCENARIO
An earthquake within the region could lead to liquefaction of soils around the dams. This could occur without
warning during any time of the day. A human-caused failure such as a terrorist attack also could trigger a
catastrophic failure of a dam that impacts the planning area. The worst-case scenario for the dam failure hazard
would be a full failure of the Del Valle Dam. Such a failure would result in a large portion of Pleasanton being
inundated and a smaller portion of Dublin and Livermore. Critical facilities located in the dam inundation area
would likely experience failure, resulting in a severe disruption of essential services.
6.8 ISSUES
The most significant issue associated with dam failure involves the properties and populations in the inundation
zones. Flooding as a result of a dam failure would significantly impact these areas. There is often limited warning
time for dam failure. These events are frequently associated with other natural hazard events such as earthquakes,
landslides or severe weather, which limits their predictability and compounds the hazard. Other important issues
associated with dam failure include the following:
• Federally regulated dams have an adequate level of oversight and sophistication in the development of
emergency action plans for public notification in the unlikely event of failure. However, the protocol for
notification of downstream citizens of imminent failure needs to be tied to local emergency response
planning.
• Mapping for federally regulated dams is already required and available; however, mapping that estimates
inundation depths is needed for dams that are not federally regulated, in order to better assess the risk
associated with failure of these facilities.
• Most dam failure mapping required at federal levels requires determination of the probable maximum
flood. While the probable maximum flood represents a worst-case scenario, it is generally the event with
the lowest probability of occurrence. For dams that are not federally regulated, mapping of failure
scenarios that are less extreme than the probable maximum flood but have a higher probability of
6. Dam Failure
6-11
occurrence can be valuable to downstream community officials and emergency managers. This type of
mapping can illustrate areas potentially impacted by more frequent events to support emergency response
and preparedness actions.
• The concept of residual risk associated with structural flood control projects should be considered in the
design of capital projects and the application of land use regulations.
• Addressing security concerns and the need to inform the public of the risk associated with dam failure is a
challenge for public officials.
7-1
7. DROUGHT
7.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
Most of California’s precipitation comes from storms moving across
the Pacific Ocean. The path followed by the storms is determined by
the position of an atmospheric high-pressure belt that normally shifts
southward during the winter, allowing low pressure systems to move
into the state. On average, 75 percent of California’s annual
precipitation occurs between November and March, with 50 percent
occurring between December and February. If a persistent Pacific
high-pressure zone takes hold over California mid-winter, there is a
tendency for the water year to be dry.
A typical water year produces about 100 inches of rainfall over the
North Coast, 50 inches of precipitation (combination of rain and
snow) over the Northern Sierra, 18 inches in the Sacramento area,
and 15 inches in the Los Angeles area. In extremely dry years,
precipitation can be as little as a third of these amounts.
Determination of when drought begins requires knowledge of
drought impacts on water users, including supplies available to local
water users and stored water available to them in surface reservoirs
or groundwater basins. Different local water agencies have different
criteria for defining drought conditions within their jurisdictions.
Some agencies issue drought watch or drought warning
announcements to their customers. Determinations of regional or statewide drought conditions are usually based
on a combination of hydrologic and water supply factors (DWR, 2017). The California water code does not have
a statutory definition of drought; however, analysis of text in the code indicates that legal matters most frequently
focus on drought conditions during times of water shortages (California Code of Regulations (CCR), 2017). The
Sierra Nevada snowpack is the primary agent for replenishing water for much of California, including the
planning area. A reduction in spring snowpack runoff, whether due to drier winters or to increasing temperatures
that lead to more rain instead of snow, can increase the risk of summer or fall water shortages throughout the
region (California Water Action Plan, 2013).
7.1.1 Types of Drought
As defined by the National Weather Service (NWS), drought is a deficiency in precipitation over an extended
period, usually a season or more, resulting in a water shortage causing adverse impacts on vegetation, animals,
and/or people. It is a normal, recurrent feature of climate that occurs in virtually all climate zones, from very wet
to very dry. If the weather pattern lasts a short time (a few weeks or a couple months), the drought is considered
short-term. If the weather pattern becomes entrenched and the precipitation deficits last for several months or
years, the drought is considered to be a long-term drought. It is possible for a region to experience a long-term
circulation pattern that produces drought, and to have short-term changes in this long-term pattern that result in
short-term wet spells. Likewise, it is possible for a long-term wet circulation pattern to be interrupted by short-
term weather spells that result in short-term drought. There are four ways that drought can be defined:
DEFINITIONS
Drought—The cumulative impacts of
several dry years on water users. It can
include deficiencies in surface and
subsurface water supplies and generally
impacts health, wellbeing, and quality of
life.
Meteorological drought—Precipitation’s
departure from normal over some period
of time. Meteorological measurements are
the first indicators of drought and are
usually region-specific.
Agricultural drought—Insufficient soil
moisture to meet the needs of a particular
crop at a particular time.
Hydrological drought—Deficiencies in
surface and subsurface water supplies,
measured as stream flow or as lake,
reservoir, or groundwater level.
Socioeconomic drought—Drought
impacts on people’s health, well being, or
quality of life.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
7-2
• Meteorological drought is a measure of departure of precipitation from normal. It is defined solely on the
relative degree of dryness. Due to climatic differences, what might be considered a drought in one
location of the country may not be a drought in another location.
• Agricultural drought links various characteristics of meteorological (or hydrological) drought to
agricultural impacts, focusing on precipitation shortages, differences between actual and potential
evapotranspiration, soil water deficits, reduced ground water or reservoir levels, and other parameters. It
occurs when there is not enough water available for a particular crop to grow at a particular time.
Agricultural drought is defined in terms of soil moisture deficiencies relative to water demands of plant
life, primarily crops.
• Hydrological drought is associated with the effects of periods of precipitation shortfalls (including
snowfall) on surface or subsurface water supply. It occurs when these water supplies are below normal. It
is related to the effects of precipitation shortfalls on stream flows and reservoir, lake, and groundwater
levels.
• Socioeconomic drought is associated with the supply and demand of an economic good with elements of
meteorological, hydrological, and agricultural drought. This differs from the aforementioned types of
drought because its occurrence depends on the processes of supply and demand to identify or classify
droughts. The supply of many economic goods depends on weather (for example water, forage, food
grains, fish, and hydroelectric power). Socioeconomic drought occurs when the demand for an economic
good exceeds supply as a result of a weather-related shortfall in water supply (Wilhite & Glantz, 1985).
7.1.2 Monitoring Drought
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed several indices to measure
drought impacts and severity and to map their extent and locations.
• The Palmer Crop Moisture Index measures short-term drought on a weekly scale and is used to
quantify drought’s impacts on agriculture during the growing season. Figure 7-1 shows this index for
week ending May 20, 2017.
• The Palmer Z Index measures short-term drought on a monthly scale. Figure 7-2 shows this index for
April 2017.
• The Palmer Drought Index measures the duration and intensity of long-term drought-inducing
circulation patterns. Long-term drought is cumulative, so the intensity of drought during a given month is
dependent on the current weather patterns plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. Weather
patterns can change quickly from a long-term drought pattern to a long-term wet pattern, and the Palmer
Drought Severity Index can respond fairly rapidly. Figure 7-3 shows this index through May 20, 2017.
• The hydrological impacts of drought (e.g., reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.) take longer to
develop and it takes longer to recover from them. The Palmer Hydrological Drought Index, another
long-term index, was developed to quantify hydrological effects. The Palmer Hydrological Drought Index
responds more slowly to changing conditions than the Palmer Drought Index. Figure 7-4 shows this index
for April 2017.
• While the Palmer indices consider precipitation, evapotranspiration and runoff, the Standardized
Precipitation Index considers only precipitation. In the Standardized Precipitation Index, an index of
zero indicates the median precipitation amount; the index is negative for drought and positive for wet
conditions. The SPI is computed for time scales ranging from one month to 24 months. Figure 7-5 shows
the 12-month SPI map for May 2016 through April 2017.
7. Drought
7-3
Source: NOAA, NWS, 2017
Figure 7-1. Palmer Crop Moisture Index for Week Ending May 20, 2017
Source: NOAA, NWS, 2017a
Figure 7-2. Palmer Z Index (April 2017)
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
7-4
Source: NOAA, NWS, 2017b
Figure 7-3. Palmer Drought Index through May 20, 2017
Source: NOAA, NWS, 2017c
Figure 7-4. Palmer Hydrological Drought Index through May 20, 2017
7. Drought
7-5
Source: NOAA, NWS, 2017d
Figure 7-5. 12-Month Standardized Precipitation Index (May 1, 2016 – April 30, 2017)
7.1.3 Water Demand
Drought produces a complex web of impacts that span many sectors of the economy and reach well beyond the
area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce
goods and provide services. Drought can affect a wide range of economic, environmental and social activities.
The vulnerability of an activity to the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is
met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand.
California’s 2005 Water Plan (DWR, 2005) and subsequent updates indicate that water demand in the state will
increase through 2030. Although the Department of Water Resources predicts a modest decrease in agricultural
water use, the agency anticipates that urban water use will increase by 1.5 to 5.8 million acre-feet per year (DWR,
2005). The 2013 update to the Water Plan explores measures, benchmarks, and successes in increasing
agricultural and urban water use efficiency. Between 1996 and 2005, the average amount of water use in the San
Francisco Bay area (including the planning area for this hazard mitigation plan) was 155 gallons per capita per
day (gpcd); the statewide average was 198 gpcd. The state established a 20-percent water use reduction goal to be
achieved by 2020. Although regional estimates were not available, the state average for water use reduction by
2010 was 16 percent (or 166 gpcd) (DWR, 2013).
7.1.4 Local Water Supply
Water Supply System
The Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7), a water wholesaler, provides treated drinking water to four major retailers in
the planning area that serve approximately 240,000 people and businesses. The wholesale water has three sources
(Figure 7-6): South Bay Aqueduct that originates from the California State Water Project; Lake Del Valle storage
reservoir that is approximately 10 miles from Livermore; and groundwater from local wells (Zone 7, 2017).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
7-6
Source: Zone 7, 2015
Figure 7-6. Zone 7 Water Agency Supply and Use
The following retail water purveyors in the Tri-Valley planning purchase water from Zone 7:
• City of Dublin—Dublin San Ramon Services District is a public agency that distributes water and
recycled water, and collects, treats and disposes of wastewater for 173,000 people in Dublin, southern San
Ramon, Dougherty Valley, and Pleasanton. It provides water services only to Dougherty Valley and
Dublin (Dublin San Ramon Services District, 2017).
• City of Livermore— Livermore Municipal Water purchases potable water from Zone 7 Water agency
and provides water to more than 28,800 Livermore residents in addition to significant industrial and
commercial areas. The balance of residents are served by the California Water Service Company (Cal
Water) and with 18,600 customers (including residential and commercial) are within their Livermore
system (City of Livermore, 2017).
• City of Pleasanton—The City of Pleasanton Utilities Division provides potable water to Pleasanton
residents and businesses. The City purchases approximately 80 percent of the water from the Zone 7
Water Agency; the remaining 20 percent comes from local groundwater pumped from City-owned and
operated wells (City of Pleasanton, 2017).
7. Drought
7-7
Water Supply Strategy
Zone 7 includes a water supply strategy in its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan to meet its planning
objectives for water supply reliability, cost, water quality, environmental protection and risk. It evaluates a range
of water supply and water conservation options and recommended a strategy that includes desalination, recycled
water, conservation, groundwater management and off-site banking/transfers.
Zone 7 has projected water supply and demand through 2035 for normal-year, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-
year conditions. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 show the normal-year and single-dry-year projections. Under normal-
year conditions, the agency will have sufficient supply to meet the projected demand and to increase groundwater
storage for later use in the service area (Zone 7, 2015).
Table 7-1. Projected Normal Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison
Supply Projections by Year (acre-feet per year)
Supply/Demand 2020 2025 2030 2035
Supply Component
State Water Project (Existing Conveyance-Early Long-Term) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Yuba Accord 145 145
Byron Bethany Irrigation District 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Arroyo Valle 7,300 7,300 10,300 10,300
California Water Fix 8,000 8,000
Possible desalination and/or potable reusea 10,000 10,000 10,000
Groundwater 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,200
State Water Project - Carryover 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
TOTAL SUPPLY 78,645 88,645 99,500 99,500
Demand Component
Retail Demand 41,300 44,700 46,600 47,600
Untreated Water Demand 6,200 6,600 7,800 8,300
Direct Retail Demand 300 300 300 300
Local Groundwater Basin 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,200
Kern County Groundwater Banking Program 0 300 7,300 9,000
Surface Water Storage – SWP Carryover or Other Storage 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Transmission System 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
Storage Losses 3,000 4,000 6,000 6,000
TOTAL DEMAND 72,100 77,300 89,500 92,800
Supply & Demand Comparison
Supply Totals 78,645 88,645 99,500 99,500
Demand Totals 72,100 77,300 89,500 92,800
Difference 6,545 11,345 10,000 6,700
Difference as % of Supply 8% 13% 10% 6%
Difference as % of Demand 9% 15% 11% 7%
a. Per Water Supply Evaluation Update
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
7-8
Table 7-2. Projected Single-Dry-Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison
Supply Projections (by year) (acre-feet per year)
Supply/Demand 2018 2023 2028 2033
Supply Component
State Water Project (Existing Conveyance-Early Long-Term) 21,800 21,800 21,800 21,800
State Water Project - Carryover 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Yuba Accord 676 676
Byron Bethany Irrigation District 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Arroyo Valle 350 350 350 350
California Water Fix 0 0
Possible desalination and/or potable reusea 10,000 10,000 10,000
Groundwater 12,400 12,400 12,400 12,400
Semitropic 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400
Cawelo 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
TOTAL SUPPLY 67,626 77,626 76,950 76,950
Demand Component
Retail Demand 39,500 43,400 46,100 47,300
Untreated Water Demand 6,200 6,200 7,300 8,300
Direct Retail Demand 300 300 300 300
Local Groundwater Basin 0 0 0 0
Kern County Groundwater Banking Program 0 0 0 0
Surface Water Storage – SWP Carryover or Other Storage 0 0 0 0
Transmission System Losses 2,000 2,200 2,300 2,400
Storage Losses 0 0 0 0
TOTAL DEMAND 48,000 52,100 56,000 58,300
Supply & Demand Comparison
Supply Totals 67,626 77,626 76,950 76,950
Demand Totals 48,000 52,100 56,000 58,300
Difference 19,626 25,526 20,950 18,650
Difference as % of Supply 29% 33% 27% 24%
Difference as % of Demand 40% 49% 37% 32%
a. Per Water Supply Evaluation Update
Source: Zone 7, 2015
7.1.5 Drought Response Planning
California Drought Contingency Plan
The California Drought Contingency Plan defines the following drought levels, which can serve as a reference
for determining the need for response (DWR, 2010):
• When the state’s precipitation, snowpack, or runoff is lower than normal, or reservoir levels are below
average, conservation measures should be increased voluntarily, to help manage the state’s current water
supply. General response types are as follows:
Level 1, Abnormally Dry—Actions to raise awareness of drought
7. Drought
7-9
Level 2, First-Stage Drought—Voluntary conservation, heightened awareness, increased preparation
• When reservoirs are low; precipitation, snowpack, and runoff are all well below normal and forecasted to
remain so, mandatory conservation may need to be enacted in communities that do not have adequate
water supplies. General response types are as follows:
Level 3, Severe Drought—Mandatory conservation, emergency actions
Level 4, Extreme Drought—Maximum mandatory conservation
• When extremely dry conditions persist across the state, water safety, supply, and quality are all at risk due
to shortages, and all sectors of water usage are facing hardship as a result of inadequate supply and dry
conditions, general response types are as follows:
Level 5, Exceptional Drought—Water supplies cut off, maximum response.
Drought recovery begins when water conditions throughout the state are at normal levels. No drastic water
conservation measures are necessary in this period, although water conservation should always be practiced. The
state’s reservoirs are full or nearly full and runoff across the state is at normal levels.
Zone 7 Water Management Plan
Zone 7’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan will be enacted at the appropriate level to address a water supply
shortage up to 50 percent (Chapter 8, Water Shortage Contingency Plan). Zone 7 Water District has sufficient
water supply to meet demand in most years, but shortages can occur as a result of dry weather or an extended
interruption of imported supplies. Voluntary water restrictions may also be initiated by an executive order from
the governor due to state-level water conditions. The water shortage stages and associated actions Zone 7 will take
to implement a water shortage contingency plan in response to a water supply shortfall are as follows (Zone 7,
2015):
• Stage 1, Minimal Shortage
Zone 7 Board declaration based on findings from the Annual Sustainability Report to determine
voluntary vs. mandatory reductions (Stage 1 vs. Stage 2).
Public outreach to support voluntary conservation.
Retailers asked to voluntarily reduce demand up to 20 percent.
• Stage 2, Moderate Shortage
Zone 7 Board declaration based on findings from the Annual Sustainability Report to determine
voluntary vs. mandatory reductions (Stage 1 vs. Stage 2), and retailers required to reduce demand
accordingly up to 20 percent.
Water shortage surcharge may be implemented as determined by the board.
Expanded public outreach to support conservation.
Specific practices may be prohibited as determined by the board.
• Stage 3, Severe Shortage
Zone 7 Board declaration based on findings from the Annual Sustainability Report with mandatory
demand reduction between 20 and 35 percent and retailers asked to reduce demand accordingly.
Water shortage surcharge may be implemented as determined by the board.
Intensified public outreach to support conservation.
Specific practices are prohibited as determined by the board.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
7-10
• Stage 4, Critical Shortage
Zone 7 Board declaration based on findings from the Annual Sustainability Report with mandatory
demand reduction greater than 35 percent and retailers asked to reduce demand accordingly.
Water shortage surcharge may be implemented as determined by the board.
Intensified public outreach to support conservation.
Specific practices are prohibited as determined by the board.
Since Zone 7 is a wholesale water agency, it has not adopted ordinances that set or enforce consumption limits at
the customer level.
Local Retail Water Purveyors
Local retail water purveyors in the Tri-Valley planning area (Dublin San Ramon Services District, Livermore
Municipal Water, California Water Service Company, and City of Pleasanton Utilities Division) have prepared
for water supply interruptions with water shortage contingency plans. The plans consist of four stages of water
conservation and give guidelines to residential and commercial users’ conservation action ideas. These plans also
include per capita allotment, penalties and customer incentives for conservation.
7.2 HAZARD PROFILE
7.2.1 Past Events
In California, droughts typically occur after two or three years of below-average rainfall for the period from
November to March, when about 75 percent of the State’s average annual precipitation falls. December, January,
and February are when approximately 50 percent of the rainfall occurs in California.
Drought has affected nearly every county in California at one time, causing more than $2.6 million in damages.
They are a cyclic part of the climate of the State and occur at any time of the year, with an average recurrence
interval between three and 10 years (Cal OES, 2013a; Alameda County, 2016a). This section provides
information regarding drought events that occurred in California and Alameda County.
State of California
The California Department of Water Resources has state hydrologic data back to the early 1900s. The hydrologic
data show multi-year droughts from 1912 to 1913, 1918 to 1920 and 1922 to 1924, and 1928 to 1934 (DWR,
2013a). Since then, four prolonged periods of drought occurred in California:
• 2012 to 2016 Drought—California’s drought has set several records for the state. The period from 2012
to 2014 ranked as the driest three consecutive years for statewide precipitation. Calendar year 2014 set
new climate records for statewide average temperatures and for record-low water allocations from State
Water Project and federal Central Valley Project contractors. Calendar year 2013 set minimum annual
precipitation records for many communities. The state has detailed executive orders and regulations
concerning water conservation and management. Total impacts of the drought cannot be determined until
after its conclusion. Based on a wet winter, Governor Brown declared an end to the drought emergency
on April 7, 2017 in Executive Order B-40-17, except in four counties (Fresno, Kings Tulare, and
Tuolumne) (CA.gov, 2017).
• 2007 to 2009 Drought—The Governor issued an Executive Order that proclaimed a statewide drought
emergency on June 4, 2008 after spring 2008 was the driest spring on record and low snowmelt runoff.
On February 27, 2009, the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency for the entire state as the severe
7. Drought
7-11
drought conditions continued widespread impacts and the largest court-ordered water restriction in state
history (at the time).
• 1987 to 1992 Drought —California received precipitation well below average levels for four consecutive
years. While the Central Coast was most affected, the Sierra Nevadas in Northern California and the
Central Valley counties were also affected. During this drought, only 56 percent of average runoff for the
Sacramento Valley was received, totaling just 10 million acre-feet. In 1991, the State Water Project
sharply decreased deliveries to water suppliers including the San Francisco Bay Area. By February 1991,
all 58 counties in California were suffering from drought conditions, and urban areas as well as rural and
agricultural areas were impacted.
• 1976 to 1977 Drought—California had one of its most severe droughts due to lack of rainfall during the
winters of 1976 and 1977. 1977 was the driest period on record in California, with the previous winter
recorded as the fourth driest in California’s hydrological history. The cumulative impact led to
widespread water shortages and severe water conservation measures throughout the state. Only 37 percent
of the average Sacramento Valley runoff was received, with just 6.6 million acre-feet recorded. Over
$2.6 billion in crop damage was recorded in 31 counties. Alameda County was included in FEMA-3023-
EM-CA declaration on January 20, 1977.
Alameda County
The 2010 ABAG Annex to Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (ABAG, 2010) identified the following drought events
that impacted Alameda County:
• 2007 to 2009—This event affected the entire state, particularly the central coast. It was a three year
drought due to below average rainfall, low snowmelt runoff, and the largest court ordered water
restriction in state history. The dry conditions damaged crops, deteriorated water quality, and caused
extreme fire danger. California proclaimed a state disaster in 2008 and 2009. Damages included $300
million in agricultural revenue loss and potential $3 billion in economic losses over time.
• 1987 to 1992—This event affected the entire state.
• 1976 to 1977—This event affected the entire state with the exception of southwestern deserts. These were
the two driest years in California’s history. The drought was most severe in the northern two-thirds of the
State. California proclaimed a statewide disaster that did not include Alameda County, but the federal
disaster declaration in 1977 did include Alameda County. Damage totaled $2.664 billion ($888.5 million
in 1976 and $1.775 billion in 1977).
• 1959 to 1962—This event affected the entire state.
• 1943 to 1951—This event affected the entire state.
• 1928 to 1937—This event affected the entire state.
• 1922 to 1926—This event affected the entire state with the exception of central Sierra Nevada.
• 1917 to 1921—This event affected the entire state with the exception of central Sierra Nevada and the
north coast.
The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) developed the Drought Impact Reporter in response to the need
for a national drought impact database for the United States. Information comes from a variety of sources: on-line,
drought-related news stories and scientific publications, members of the public who visit the website and submit a
drought-related impact for their region, members of the media, and members of relevant government agencies.
The database is being populated beginning with the most recent impacts and working backward in time. The
Drought Impact Reporter contains information on 173 impacts from droughts that specifically affected Alameda
County from 2006 through May 1, 2017 (NDMC Drought Impact Reporter, 2017). The following are the
categories and reported number of impacts (some impacts are assigned to more than one category):
• Agriculture—38
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
7-12
• Business and Industry—8
• Energy—4
• Fire—14
• Plants and Wildlife—33
• Relief, Response, and Restrictions—96
• Society and Public Health—65
• Tourism and Recreation—7
• Water Supply and Quality—109
Between 1954 and 2016, the State of California experienced one FEMA declared drought-related major disaster
(DR) or emergency (EM) classified as a drought. Generally, these disasters cover a wide region of the State;
therefore, they may have impacted many counties. Alameda County was included in the declaration (FEMA
2017a) (see Table 7-3).
Table 7-3. FEMA Declarations for Drought Events in Alameda County
FEMA Declaration Number Event Date Event Type Location
EM-3023 1977 Drought 58 counties including Alameda County
Agriculture-related disasters and disaster declarations are common in the United States. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency provides assistance for natural disaster losses resulting from drought,
flood, fire, freeze, tornadoes, pest infestation, and other natural disasters. The Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to designate counties as disaster areas to make emergency loans to producers suffering losses. Between
2012 and 2016, California has been included in 61 drought-related USDA disaster declarations and Alameda
County has been included in 11 (USDA, 2017):
• S3952 in 2016
• S3784 and S3943 in 2015
• S3626, S3637, and S3743 in 2014
• S3547, S3558 and S3569 in 2013
• S3248 and S3930 in 2012.
7.2.2 Location
Droughts can occur anywhere in California and are typically regional in nature. If a drought is occurring in
Alameda County, then the planning area is most likely being impacted as well. The entire planning area is
susceptible to droughts and impacts brought on by such events.
7.2.3 Frequency
Historical drought data for the Alameda County region indicate there have been four significant droughts in the
last 40 years (1976 to 2016). The Tri-Valley planning area has been included in various drought stages during 12
of the last 40 years. This equates to a drought about every three years on average, or a 30 percent chance of a
drought in any given year. As temperatures increase, the probability of future droughts will likely increase.
7.2.4 Severity
General Drought Impacts
Drought can have a widespread impact on the environment and the economy, although it typically does not result
in direct loss of life or damage to property, as do other natural disasters. Nationwide, the impacts of drought occur
primarily in the agriculture, transportation, recreation and tourism, forestry, and energy sectors. Social and
7. Drought
7-13
environmental impacts are also significant, although it is difficult to put a precise cost on these impacts. The
National Drought Mitigation Center uses three categories to describe likely drought impacts:
• Economic Impacts—Drought can cost people and businesses money: farmers’ crops are destroyed; low
water supply requires spending money on irrigation or to drill new wells; water-related businesses see
drops in sales; water companies must spend money on new or additional water supplies.
• Environmental Impacts—Plants and animals depend on water, just like people. When a drought occurs,
their food supply can shrink and their habitat can be damaged
• Social Impacts—These impacts affect people’s health and safety. Social impacts include public safety,
health, conflicts between groups when there is not enough water to go around, and changes in lifestyle.
The severity of a drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of
the affected area. The longer the duration of the drought and the larger the area impacted, the more severe the
potential impacts.
Drought generally does not affect groundwater sources as quickly as surface water supplies, but groundwater
supplies generally take longer to recover. Reduced precipitation during a drought means that groundwater
supplies are not replenished at a normal rate. This can lead to a reduction in groundwater levels and problems
such as reduced pumping capacity or wells going dry. Shallow wells are more susceptible than deep wells.
Reduced replenishment of groundwater affects streams. Much of the flow in streams comes from groundwater,
especially during the summer when there is less precipitation and after snowmelt ends. Reduced groundwater
levels mean that even less water will enter streams when steam flows are lowest.
Local Impacts of the 2012-2016 Drought
The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton all initiated water shortage contingency plans during the most
recent drought. Each city carried out public education campaigns about water conservation and took steps to
conserve water. Zone 7 and its retailers developed a website for Tri-Valley residents with information on water-
wise gardening www.trivalleywaterwise.com (Water-Wise Gardening Tri-Valley, 2017). The following are
examples of how local proprietors dealt with the drought.
Zone 7
In 2014, Zone 7 had to establish mandatory minimum guidelines for its service area to achieve a needed
25-percent reduction in water use over the course of the year by cutting back on outdoor watering by 50 to
60 percent. During this time, Zone 7 only received a 5 percent allocation from the State Water Project, but Zone 7
was able to fulfill 75 percent of retail requests. Zone 7 relied on its out-of-valley storage, groundwater banking
programs, and its local groundwater basin management operations (Zone 7 Water Agency, 2014).
Dublin San Ramon Services District and City of Dublin
On May 19, 2015, the Dublin San Ramon Services District declared that a State of Community Drought
Emergency existed since February 2014 as there was insufficient water to meet ordinary demand of water
consumers in the service area. An updated Drought Response Act Plan adopted on May 19, 2015 was to run
through February 2, 2016 and was later revised to continue until October 31, 2016.
In May 2015, Dublin San Ramon Services District issued Water Use Limitations Urgency Ordinance No. 336,
which adopted water use limitations during the drought Emergency, and Water Shortage Enforcement Ordinance
No. 337, which adopted penalties and provisions for the enforcement of water use limitations. In March 2016, the
Board adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 338 to revise the water use limitations during the Community Drought
Emergency.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
7-14
Customers responded positively to Dublin San Ramon Services District’s water conservation program and the
ongoing drought statewide by saving water that exceeded water use reduction goals. From June 2015 through
January 2016, Dublin San Ramon Services District’s cumulative water savings was 37 percent compared to 2013
water use, exceeding Dublin San Ramon Services District’s conservation standard of 12 percent.
The City of Dublin has taken steps to reduce its consumption of potable water. Nearly all of its parks and
landscaped medians now use recycled water; recycled water use is approximately 90 percent of total usage for
municipal operations. The City instituted several water-saving practices for businesses, residents, and City
departments (City of Dublin, 2017).
City of Livermore
The City of Livermore first adopted a Water Shortage Contingency Plan in 1991 and updated the plan in 1996,
2005 and 2011. The Plan includes water conservation strategies in response to shortages. In response to the
drought emergency declared by Governor Brown in January 17, 2014, the Livermore City Council declared a
water shortage emergency on February 24, 2014 and enacted Stage 1 Voluntary Water Conservation Measures to
achieve a 20% reduction in water consumption. On April 28, 2014, the City Council enacted Stage 2 mandatory
conservation measures at a 35% level. Due to the community’s positive response in achieving conservation
targets and updated evaluation of water availability, the City Council on June 27, 2016 was able to repeal the
mandated Stage 3 conservation measures and enacted Stage 1 voluntary conservation of 10%. On May 22, 2017,
the City Council repealed the Stage 1 conservations measures following Governor Brown’s declaration of the end
of the drought emergency. During the drought, Livermore Municipal Water customers were able to achieve
conservation of 25% in 2014, 32% in 2015 and 28% in 2016 as compared to 2013 water use. (City of Livermore,
2017a).
City of Pleasanton
In April 2014, the City moved into Stage 3 water restrictions, mandating a 25-percent reduction in use by all
water customers. This continued into 2015. City staff organized a public education program to inform residents
and businesses on ways to conserve water with more efficient and reduced landscape irrigation, repairing leaks,
and eliminating non-necessary water usage from their routines. In under 6 months, Pleasanton water users reduced
their water consumptions by 27 percent from the previous year.
In 2015, the City secured almost $17 million in low-interest loans and incentive grants from the state to build
infrastructure to deliver more recycled water. As a result, approximately 450 million gallons a year of recycled
water was projected to be delivered to commercial users. In 2016, 10 miles of purple lines (recycled water
infrastructure) were installed, saving the City 10 percent of potable water (City of Pleasanton, 2017a).
7.2.5 Warning Time
Droughts are climatic patterns that occur over long periods of time. Only generalized warning can take place due
to the numerous variables that scientists have not pieced together well enough to make accurate and precise
predictions.
Empirical studies conducted over the past century have shown that meteorological drought is never the result of a
single cause. It is the result of many causes, often synergistic in nature; these include global weather patterns that
produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems along the West Coast with warm, dry air resulting in less
precipitation.
Scientists at this time do not know how to predict drought more than a month in advance for most locations.
Predicting drought depends on the ability to forecast precipitation and temperature. Anomalies of precipitation
and temperature may last from several months to several decades; California is currently experiencing a several-
7. Drought
7-15
year-long drought, while other areas in the United States may experience droughts as short as one or two months.
How long droughts last depends on interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans, soil moisture and land
surface processes, topography, internal dynamics, and the accumulated influence of weather systems on the global
scale.
7.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
The secondary hazard most commonly associated with drought is wildfire. A prolonged lack of precipitation dries
out vegetation, which becomes increasingly susceptible to ignition as the duration of the drought extends.
Millions of board feet of timber have been lost, and in many cases erosion occurred, which caused serious damage
to aquatic life, irrigation, and power production by heavy silting of streams, reservoirs, and rivers.
Drought also is often accompanied by extreme heat, exposing people to the risk of sunstroke, heat cramps and
heat exhaustion. Pets and livestock are also vulnerable to heat-related injuries. Crops can be vulnerable as well.
Environmental losses are the result of damage to plants, animals, wildlife habitat, and air and water quality; forest
and range fires; degradation of landscape quality; loss of biodiversity; and soil erosion. Some of the effects are
short-term and conditions quickly return to normal following the end of the drought. Other environmental effects
linger for some time or may even become permanent. Wildlife habitat, for example, may be degraded through the
loss of wetlands, lakes, and vegetation. However, many species will eventually recover from this temporary
aberration. The degradation of landscape quality, including increased soil erosion, may lead to a more permanent
loss of biological productivity.
Drought-induced subsidence is a potential secondary hazard, although it is not as common as wildfire or extreme
heat. If subsidence does occur, it can significantly impact the local environment, floodplain/wetlands, and water
supply.
7.4 EXPOSURE
All people, property and environments within the Tri-Valley planning area would be exposed to some degree to
the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions.
7.5 VULNERABILITY
7.5.1 Population
The entire population of the planning area is vulnerable to drought events. Drought conditions can affect people’s
health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows and poor water quality, and health
problems related to dust. Droughts can also lead to the loss of human life (NDMC, 2017a). Other possible impacts
on health from drought include increased recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions
related to energy, air quality, and sanitation and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased
incidence of illness and disease. Health implications of drought—both short-term and long-term—are numerous
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). Drought conditions can cause shortages of water for human
consumption. Droughts can also lead to reduced local firefighting capabilities.
Alameda County, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, regional water purveyors, and other regional
stakeholders have spent considerable effort to protect life, safety, and health during times of consecutive dry
years, such as the current drought. Provisions and measures have been taken to analyze and account for
anticipated water shortages. With the actions implemented by the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton and
the coordination with Alameda County, the planning area has the ability to minimize and reduce impacts on
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
7-16
residents and water consumers in the planning area. No significant life or health impacts as a result of drought are
anticipated in the planning area.
7.5.2 Property
No structures will be directly affected by drought conditions in the Tri-Valley planning area, though some
structures may become vulnerable to wildfires, which are more likely following years of drought. Risk to life and
property is greatest in the wildland-urban interface, where forested areas adjoin urbanized areas (high density
residential, commercial and industrial). All assets in and adjacent to the wildland-urban interface zone, including
population, structures, critical facilities, lifelines, and businesses are considered vulnerable to wildfire. Specific
vulnerability regarding wildfire is described in Chapter 12.
7.5.3 Critical Facilities
Critical facilities as defined for this plan will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility
elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s
critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic impacts that are not considered significant.
7.5.4 Environment
Environmental losses from drought are associated with damage to plants, animals, wildlife habitat, and air and
water quality; forest and range fires; degradation of landscape quality; loss of biodiversity; and soil erosion. Some
of the effects are short-term and conditions quickly return to normal following the end of the drought. Other
environmental effects linger for some time or may even become permanent. Wildlife habitat, for example, may be
degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes and vegetation. However, many species will eventually recover from
this temporary condition. The degradation of landscape quality, including increased soil erosion, may lead to a
more permanent loss of biological productivity. Environmental losses are difficult to quantify, but growing public
awareness and concern for environmental quality have forced public officials to focus greater attention on these
effects.
7.5.5 Economic Impact
A prolonged drought can have a serious economic impact on a community. Increased demand for water and
electricity may result in shortages and higher costs for these resources. Industries that rely on water for business
may be impacted the most (e.g., landscaping businesses). Although most businesses will still be operational, they
may be impacted aesthetically. These aesthetic impacts are most significant within the recreation and tourism
industry. Moreover, droughts in another area could impact the food supply/price of food for residents of the
planning area. While the planning area is not considered highly agricultural, it is important to note that ranching,
vineyards and the winery business are an important part of the Tri-Valley economy.
7.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
Land use planning is directed by general plans adopted under California’s General Planning Law. Municipal
planning partners are encouraged to establish general plans with policies directing land use and dealing with
issues of water supply and the protection of water resources. These plans provide the capability at the local
municipal level to protect future development from the impacts of drought. Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton
reviewed their general plans under the capability assessments performed for this effort. Deficiencies identified by
these reviews can be identified as mitigation actions to increase the capability to deal with future trends in
development.
7. Drought
7-17
7.7 SCENARIO
Continuation or exacerbation of the current drought across California—an extreme, multiyear drought with
record-breaking rates of low precipitation and high temperatures—is the worst-case scenario for the planning
area. Low precipitation and high temperatures intensify the possibility of wildfires throughout the planning area,
increasing the need for water, when water is already in limited supply. Surrounding regions, also in drought
conditions, could increase their demand for the water supplies also relied upon in the planning area, causing social
and political conflicts. The high-density population of the Bay Area increases the likelihood of such conflicts,
despite the existence of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Water Conservation
Implementation Plan. The longer drought conditions last in the planning area, the more impacted the local
economy becomes; water-dependent industries especially will experience setbacks.
7.8 ISSUES
The planning team has identified the following drought-related issues:
• Identification of the availability and reliability of new water supplies
• Monitoring of the implementation and benefits of the long-term reliable water supply strategy projects,
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Water Conservation Implementation Plan projects,
and water system upgrades
• Application of alternative techniques (groundwater recharge, water recycle, local capture and reuse,
desalination, and transfer) to stabilize and offset Sierra Nevada snowpack water supply shortfalls
• Regular occurrence of drought or multiyear droughts that may limit the planning area’s ability to
successfully recover from or prepare for more occurrences-particularly noteworthy due to longevity of the
current ongoing drought.
• The probability of increased drought frequencies and durations due to climate change
• The promotion of active water conservation even during non-drought periods.
8-1
8. EARTHQUAKE
8.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
An earthquake is the vibration of the earth’s surface that follows a
release of energy in the earth’s crust. Most destructive quakes are caused
by dislocations of the crust. The crust may first bend and then, when the
stress exceeds the strength of the rocks, break and snap to a new
position. Vibrations called “seismic waves” are generated in the process
of breaking. These waves travel outward from the source of the
earthquake along the surface and through the earth at varying speeds,
depending on the material they move through.
California is seismically active because of movement of the North
American Plate, on which everything east of the San Andreas Fault sits,
and the Pacific Plate, which includes coast communities west of the
fault. The movement of the tectonic plates creates stress released as
energy that moves through the earth as waves called earthquakes.
8.1.1 Earthquake Classifications
Earthquakes are typically classified in one of two ways: by the amount of
energy released, measured as magnitude; or by the impact on people and
structures, measured as intensity.
Magnitude
An earthquake’s magnitude is a measure of the energy released at the source of the earthquake. It is commonly
expressed by ratings on either of two scales (USGS, 1989):
• The Richter scale measures magnitude of earthquakes based on the amplitude of the largest energy wave
released by the earthquake. Richter scale readings are suitable for smaller earthquakes; however, because
it is a logarithmic scale, the scale does not distinguish clearly the magnitude of large earthquakes above a
certain level. Richter scale magnitudes and corresponding earthquake effects are as follows:
2.5 or less—Usually not felt, but can be recorded by seismograph
2.5 to 5.4—Often felt, but causes only minor damage
5.5 to 6.0—Slight damage to buildings and other structures
6.1 to 6.—May cause a lot of damage in very populated areas
7.0 to 7.9—Major earthquake; serious damage
8.0 or greater—Great earthquake; can totally destroy communities near the epicenter
• A more commonly used magnitude scale today is the moment magnitude (Mw) scale. The moment
magnitude scale is based on the total moment release of the earthquake (the product of the distance a fault
moved and the force required to move it). Moment magnitude roughly matches the Richter scale but
provides more accuracy for larger magnitude earthquakes. The scale is as follows:
DEFINITIONS
Earthquake—The shaking of the
ground caused by an abrupt shift of
rock along a fracture in the earth or a
contact zone between tectonic
plates.
Epicenter—The point on the earth’s
surface directly above the
hypocenter of an earthquake. The
location of an earthquake is
commonly described by the
geographic position of its epicenter
and by its focal depth.
Fault—A fracture in the earth’s crust
along which two blocks of the crust
have slipped with respect to each
other.
Hypocenter—The region
underground where an earthquake’s
energy originates
Liquefaction—Loosely packed,
water-logged sediments losing their
strength in response to strong
shaking, causing major damage
during earthquakes.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8-2
Great—Mw > 8
Major—Mw = 7.0 - 7.9
Strong—Mw = 6.0 - 6.9
Moderate—Mw = 5.0 - 5.9
Light—Mw = 4.0 - 4.9
Minor—Mw = 3.0 - 3.9
Micro—Mw < 3
Intensity
Currently the most commonly used intensity scale is the modified Mercalli intensity scale, with ratings defined as
follows (USGS, 2014):
• I (Not Felt). Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions
• II (Weak). Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.
• III (Weak). Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people
do not recognize it is an earthquake. Standing cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of
a truck. Duration estimated.
• IV (Light). Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes,
windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like a heavy truck striking building.
Standing cars rocked noticeably.
• V (Moderate). Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects
overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.
• VI (Strong). Felt by all; many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster.
Damage slight.
• VII (Very Strong). Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight in well-built
ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures. Some chimneys broken.
• VIII (Severe). Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary buildings
with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns,
monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
• IX (Violent). Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures
thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off
foundations.
• X (Extreme). Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed
with foundations. Rails bent.
8.1.2 Ground Motion
Earthquake hazard assessment is also based on expected ground motion. During an earthquake when the ground is
shaking, it also experiences acceleration. The peak acceleration is the largest increase in velocity recorded by a
particular station during an earthquake. Estimates are developed of the annual probability that certain ground
motion accelerations will be exceeded; the annual probabilities can then be summed over a time period of interest.
The most commonly mapped ground motion parameters are horizontal and vertical peak ground accelerations
(PGA) for a given soil type. PGA is a measure of how hard the earth shakes, or accelerates, in a given geographic
area. Instruments called accelerographs record levels of ground motion due to earthquakes at stations throughout a
region. PGA is measured in g (the acceleration due to gravity) or expressed as a percent acceleration force of
gravity (%g). These readings are recorded by state and federal agencies that monitor and predict seismic activity.
8. Earthquake
8-3
Maps of PGA values form the basis of seismic zone maps that are included in building codes such as the
International Building Code. Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force due to
lateral acceleration that a building should be able to withstand during an earthquake. PGA values are directly
related to these lateral forces that could damage “short period structures” (e.g. single-family dwellings). Longer
period response components determine the lateral forces that damage larger structures with longer natural periods
(apartment buildings, factories, high-rises, bridges). Table 8-1 lists damage potential and perceived shaking by
PGA factors, compared to the Mercalli scale.
Table 8-1. Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison
Modified Potential Structure Damage Estimated PGAa
Mercalli Scale Perceived Shaking Resistant Buildings Vulnerable Buildings (%g)
I Not Felt None None <0.17%
II-III Weak None None 0.17% – 1.4%
IV Light None None 1.4% – 3.9%
V Moderate Very Light Light 3.9% – 9.2%
VI Strong Light Moderate 9.2% – 18%
VII Very Strong Moderate Moderate/Heavy 18% – 34%
VIII Severe Moderate/Heavy Heavy 34% – 65%
IX Violent Heavy Very Heavy 65% – 124%
X – XII Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy >124%
a. PGA measured in percent of g, where g is the acceleration of gravity
Sources: USGS, 2008; USGS, 2010
8.1.3 USGS Earthquake Mapping Programs
ShakeMaps
The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program produces maps called ShakeMaps that provide near-real-time mapping
of ground motion and shaking intensity following significant earthquakes. ShakeMaps focus on the ground
shaking resulting from the earthquake, rather than on characteristics of the earthquake source, such as magnitude
and epicenter. An earthquake has only one magnitude and one epicenter, but it produces a range of ground
shaking at sites throughout the region, depending on the distance from the earthquake, the rock and soil conditions
at sites, and variations in the propagation of seismic waves from the earthquake due to complexities in the
structure of the earth’s crust. A ShakeMap shows the extent and variation of ground shaking immediately
following significant earthquakes.
Such mapping is derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors, with interpolation
where data are lacking based on estimated amplitudes. Color-coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from
empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity.
National Seismic Hazard Map
National maps of earthquake shaking hazards have been produced since 1948. They provide information essential
to creating and updating seismic design requirements for building codes, insurance rate structures, earthquake loss
studies, retrofit priorities and land use planning used in the U.S. Scientists frequently revise these maps to reflect
new information and knowledge. Buildings, bridges, highways and utilities built to meet modern seismic design
requirements are typically able to withstand earthquakes better, with less damage and disruption. After thorough
review of the studies, professional organizations of engineers update the seismic-risk maps and seismic design
requirements contained in building codes (Brown et al., 2001).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8-4
The USGS updated its National Seismic Hazard Map in 2014, incorporating the best available seismic, geologic,
and geodetic information on earthquake rates and associated ground shaking. Figure 8-1 shows the peak ground
acceleration with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. For Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, this
PGA is 0.4 or greater.
Source: USGS, 2014a
Figure 8-1. Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years
8.1.4 Effect of Soil Types
The impact of an earthquake on structures and infrastructure is largely a function of ground shaking, distance
from the source of the quake, and liquefaction, a secondary effect of an earthquake in which soils lose their shear
strength and flow or behave as liquid, thereby damaging structures that derive their support from the soil.
Liquefaction generally occurs in soft, unconsolidated sedimentary soils. A program called the National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) creates maps based on soil characteristics to help identify
locations subject to liquefaction. Table 8-2 summarizes NEHRP soil classifications. NEHRP Soils B and C
typically can sustain ground shaking without much effect, dependent on the earthquake magnitude. The areas that
are commonly most affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E and F. In general, these areas are also
most susceptible to liquefaction.
8. Earthquake
8-5
Table 8-2. NEHRP Soil Classification System
NEHRP Soil
Type Description
Mean Shear Velocity
to 30 m (m/s)
A Hard Rock 1,500
B Firm to Hard Rock 760-1,500
C Dense Soil/Soft Rock 360-760
D Stiff Soil 180-360
E Soft Clays < 180
F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, organic soils, soft clays >36 m thick)
The USGS has created a soil type map for the San Francisco Bay area that provides rough estimates of site effects
based on surface geology. NEHRP soil types were assigned to a geologic unit based on the average velocity of
that unit; USGS notes that this approach can lead to some inaccuracy. For instance, a widespread unit consisting
of Quaternary sand, gravel, silt, and mud has been assigned as Class C soil types; however, some of the slower
soil types in this unit fall under Class D. USGS does not have any way of differentiating units for slower-velocity
soils in its digital geologic dataset (USGS, 2017).
8.1.5 Earthquake Scenarios for Risk Assessment
The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program creates scenarios of potential earthquakes for use in earthquake hazard
planning. Hypothetical ShakeMaps of these scenarios depict the expected ground motions and effects of the
scenario across the surrounding region. The following USGS scenarios were used in the risk assessment for this
plan:
• Calaveras (North + Central + South) Fault Scenario—A Magnitude-7.0 event with a depth of 7 km and
epicenter one mile west of the City of Dublin. (See Figure 8-2)
• Greenville Fault Scenario—A Magnitude-7.0 event with a depth of 12 km and epicenter 24 miles
southeast of the City of Pleasanton. (See Figure 8-3)
• Haywired Fault Scenario—A Magnitude-7.05 event with a depth of 8 km epicenter 9 miles northwest of
the City of Dublin. (See Figure 8-4)
• Mount Diablo Fault Scenario—A Magnitude-6.7 event with a depth of 14 km and epicenter 9 miles north
of the City of Livermore. (See Figure 8-5).
• North San Andreas (North Coast + Peninsula + Santa Cruz Mountain) Fault Scenario—A Magnitude-7.8
event with a depth of 9.8 km and epicenter 140 miles northwest of the City of Dublin. (See Figure 8-6).
8.2 HAZARD PROFILE
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. Coastal cities from
Monterey to San Diego are on the Pacific Plate, which is constantly moving northwest past the North American
Plate. The relative rate of movement is about 2 inches (50 millimeters) per year (Cal OES, 2013b). Earthquakes in
the San Francisco Bay region result from strain energy constantly accumulating across the region because of the
northwestward motion of the Pacific Plate relative to the North American Plate.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsModified Mercalli Scale,Potential ShakingI (Not Felt)II-III (Weak)IV (Light)V (Moderate)VI (Strong)VII (Very Strong)VIII (Severe)IX (Violent)X+ (Extreme)/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, USGS, ESRI0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyTri-Valley AreaCalaveras Fault M7.0 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground AccelerationRange of Model Results Inside Planning AreaFigure 8-2.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsModified Mercalli Scale,Potential ShakingI (Not Felt)II-III (Weak)IV (Light)V (Moderate)VI (Strong)VII (Very Strong)VIII (Severe)IX (Violent)X+ (Extreme)/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, USGS, ESRI0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyTri-Valley AreaGreenville Fault M7.0 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground AccelerationRange of Model Results Inside Planning AreaFigure 8-3.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsModified Mercalli Scale,Potential ShakingI (Not Felt)II-III (Weak)IV (Light)V (Moderate)VI (Strong)VII (Very Strong)VIII (Severe)IX (Violent)X+ (Extreme)/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, USGS, ESRI0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyTri-Valley AreaHaywired M7.05 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground AccelerationRange of Model Results Inside Planning AreaFigure 8-4.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsModified Mercalli Scale,Potential ShakingI (Not Felt)II-III (Weak)IV (Light)V (Moderate)VI (Strong)VII (Very Strong)VIII (Severe)IX (Violent)X+ (Extreme)/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, USGS, ESRI0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyTri-Valley AreaMt. Diablo Fault M6.7 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground AccelerationRange of Model Results Inside Planning AreaFigure 8-5.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsModified Mercalli Scale,Potential ShakingI (Not Felt)II-III (Weak)IV (Light)V (Moderate)VI (Strong)VII (Very Strong)VIII (Severe)IX (Violent)X+ (Extreme)/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, USGS, ESRI0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyTri-Valley AreaN San Andreas Fault M7.8 Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground AccelerationRange of Model Results Inside Planning AreaFigure 8-6.
8. Earthquake
8-11
8.2.1 Past Events
The last significant (> 6.0 M) seismic event in the Tri-Valley vicinity was the 2014 Magnitude-6.0 earthquake that
originated 6 miles southwest of Napa. The previous large event was the 1989 M-7.1 Loma Prieta Earthquake that
originated 10 miles northeast of Santa Cruz. No significant seismic events in the planning area vicinity have been
recorded since these two events. Other significant earthquakes in California include the 1906 earthquake in San
Francisco, the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, and the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Recent earthquakes of
magnitude of 5.0 or greater near the planning area are listed in Table 8-3 and their locations are shown on
Figure 8-7.
Table 8-3. Recent Earthquakes Magnitude 5.0 or Larger Near Planning Area
Date Magnitude Epicenter Location
8/24/2014, South Napa Earthquake 6.0 South Napa
10/31/2007, Alum Rock Earthquake 5.6 San Francisco Bay area, California
5/14/2002, Gilroy Earthquake 5 Northern California
9/3/2000, Yountville Earthquake 5 Northern California
8/12/1998, San Juan Bautista Earthquake 5.2 Central California
4/18/1990, Northern California 5.4 Near Aromas, Northern California
10/18/1989, Loma Prieta Earthquake 7.1 10 miles northeast of Santa Cruz
8/8/1989, Santa Cruz County Earthquake 5.2 Central California
6/27/1989 5.3 Northern California
6/13/1988 5.3 San Francisco Bay area, California
2/20/1988 5.1 Central California
3/31/1986 5.6 Northern California
1/26/1986 5.4 Central California
Source: USGS, 2017a
The State of California has been included in 12 FEMA major disaster (DR) or emergency (EM) declarations for
earthquake events; however, Alameda County was included in only one: DR-845 for the October 17, 1989 Loma
Prieta Earthquake; this declaration applied to the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey,
Sacramento, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Solano (FEMA,
2017).
8.2.2 Location
Faults
Geologists have found that earthquakes tend to reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the earth’s
crust. Even if a fault zone has recently experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been
relieved. Another earthquake could still occur. In fact, relieving stress along one part of a fault may increase it in
another part.
Active faults have experienced displacement in historical time. Inactive faults, where no such displacements have
been recorded, also have the potential to reactivate or experience displacement along a branch sometime in the
future. The State Division of Mines and Geology indicates that increased earthquake activity throughout
California may cause tectonic movement along currently inactive fault systems. An example of a fault zone that
has been reactivated is the Foothills Fault Zone in the Sierra Nevada, which was considered inactive until
evidence was found near Spenceville, California, of an earthquake 1.6 million years ago. Then, in 1975, an
earthquake occurred on another branch of the zone near Oroville, California.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8-12
Source: USGS, 2016a
Figure 8-7. Recent Earthquakes Near Planning Area
M 5.6—Northern California
3/31/1986
M 5.6 – San Francisco Bay Area
10/31/2007
M 5.0 – San Francisco Bay Area
6/13/1988
M 7.2 – Northern California
10/18/1989, 8:15 p.m.
M 5.0—Northern California
6/27/1989, 4:25 p.m.
M 5.0—Northern California
5/14/2002
M 5.4—Northern California
4/18/1990
M 5.4—Central
California
1/26/1986
M 5.0—Central California
1/14/1986
M 5.0—Northern California
9/3/2000
M 6.0 – South Napa Earthquake
8/24/2014
8. Earthquake
8-13
A direct relationship exists between a fault’s length and location and its ability to generate damaging ground
motion at a given site. Small, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong and
damage can be significant in areas close to the fault. In contrast, large regional faults can generate earthquakes of
great magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, they may result in only moderate shaking in an area.
The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton are located in a seismically active region in California, with
exposure to major regional faults: Calaveras, Greenville, Hayward, Mount Diablo, and San Andreas. The primary
seismic hazard for the planning area is potential ground shaking from these five large faults. Figure 8-8 shows the
location of these fault lines and the probability of a major earthquake on each.
Calaveras Fault
The Calaveras Fault is a major branch of the San Andreas Fault, located east of the Hayward Fault. It extends 76
miles from the San Andreas Fault near Hollister to Danville at its northern end. The Calaveras Fault is one of the
most geologically active and complex faults in the San Francisco Bay Area (USGS, 2017b). The probability of a
M-6.7 or greater earthquake along the Calaveras Fault within the next 30 years is 26 percent.
Greenville
The Greenville Fault is in the eastern Bay Area in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. This dextral strike-slip
fault zone borders the eastern side of Livermore Valley and is considered to be part of the larger San Andreas
fault system in the central Coast Ranges. The fault zone extends from northwest of Livermore Valley along the
Marsh Creek and Clayton Faults toward Clayton Valley.
Hayward Fault
The Hayward Fault is a 45-mile-long, right lateral slip fault that runs parallel to the San Andreas Fault through
densely populated areas on the East Bay. The Hayward Fault is increasingly becoming a hazard priority in the
Bay Area because of its increased chance for activity and its proximity to critical infrastructure and multiple
highly populated areas. The probability of a M-6.7 or greater earthquake along the Hayward Fault within the next
30 years is 33 percent (USGS, 2016b).
Mount Diablo
The Mount Diablo thrust fault is in the vicinity of Mount Diablo in Contra Costa County. The fault lies between
the Calaveras Fault, the Greenville Fault, and the Concord Fault, all right-lateral strike slip faults, and appears to
transfer movement from the Calaveras and Greenville Faults to the Concord Fault, while continuing to uplift
Mount Diablo.
San Andreas Fault
The San Andreas Fault extends 810 miles from the East Pacific rise in the Gulf of California through the
Mendocino fracture zone off the shore of northern California. The fault is estimated to be 28 million years old. It
is an example of a transform boundary exposed on a continent. The fault forms the tectonic boundary between the
Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, and its motion is right-lateral strike-slip.
The San Andreas Fault is typically referenced in three segments. The southern segment extends from its origin at
the East Pacific Rise to Parkfield, California, in Monterey County. The central segment extends from Parkfield to
Hollister, California. The northern segment extends northwest from Hollister, through the Bay Area, to its
ultimate junction with the Mendocino fracture zone and the Cascadia subduction zone in the Pacific Ocean. The
probability of a M-6.7 or greater earthquake along the San Andreas Fault within the next 30 years is 22 percent
(USGS, 2016d).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8-14
Source: USGS, 2016c
Note: Oval shows the approximate location of Tri-Valley planning area.
Figure 8-8. Significant Known Faults in the Bay Area
8. Earthquake
8-15
Maps of Earthquake Impact in the Planning Area
Identifying the extent and location of an earthquake is not as simple as it is for other hazards such as flood,
landslide or wildfire. The impact of an earthquake is largely a function of the following components:
• Ground shaking (ground motion accelerations)
• Liquefaction (soil instability)
• Distance from the source (both horizontally and vertically).
Mapping that shows the impacts of these components was used to assess the risk of earthquakes in the planning
area. While the impacts from each of these components can build upon each other during an earthquake event, the
mapping looks at each component individually. The mapping used in this assessment is described below.
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soil Maps
NEHRP soil types define the locations that will be significantly impacted by an earthquake. NEHRP Soils B and
C typically can sustain low-magnitude ground shaking without much effect. The areas that are most commonly
affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E and F. Figure 8-9 shows NEHRP soil classifications in the
planning area.
Liquefaction Maps
Soil liquefaction maps are useful tools to assess potential damage from earthquakes. When the ground liquefies,
sandy or silty materials saturated with water behave like a liquid, causing pipes to leak, roads and airport runways
to buckle, and building foundations to be damaged. In general, areas with NEHRP Soils D, E and F are also
susceptible to liquefaction. If there is a dry soil crust, excess water will sometimes come to the surface through
cracks in the confining layer, bringing liquefied sand with it, creating sand boils. Figure 8-10 shows the
liquefaction susceptibility in the planning area.
Alquist-Priolo Zone Maps
The sudden sliding of one part of the earth’s crust past another releases the vast store of elastic energy in the rocks
as an earthquake. The resulting fracture is a fault, and the sliding movement of earth on either side of a fault is
called fault rupture. Fault rupture begins below the ground surface at the earthquake hypocenter, typically
between 3 and 10 miles below the ground surface in California. If an earthquake is large enough, the fault rupture
will travel to the ground surface, potentially destroying structures built across its path (Cal OES, 2013).
California’s Alquist-Priolo Zone Maps provide regulatory zones for potential surface fault rupture where fault
lines intersect with future development and populated areas. The purpose of these maps is to assist in the geologic
investigation before construction begins to ensure that the resulting structure will not be located on an active fault.
The Tri-Valley planning area is located in a designated Alquist-Priolo Zone (California DOC, 2010a).
Alquist-Priolo maps were referenced, but not specifically used, in the assessment of risk for this plan. This plan
assumes that the studies conducted and information provided by the State of California are the best available data
for surface rupture risk and could not be improved through a separate assessment for this plan. Alquist-Priolo
maps are available to the public on the California Department of Conservation website.
8.2.3 Frequency
California experiences hundreds of earthquakes each year, most with minimal damage and magnitudes below 3.0
on the Richter Scale. Earthquakes that cause moderate damage to structures occur several times a year. According
to the USGS, a strong earthquake measuring greater than 5.0 occurs every 2 to 3 years and major earthquakes of
more than 7.0 occur once a decade.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsNEHRP Site Class / SoilProfileB / RockC / Very Dense Soil - Soft RockD / Stiff Soil/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaDept of Conservation, CGS, USGS, ESRI0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyTri-Valley AreaNational Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soil ClassificationSoil classification data provided by the California Departmentof Conservation. The data is based on surficial geologypublished at a scale of 1:250,000. The surficial geologic unitswere grouped into composite units with similar average shearwave velocity to 30 meters depth (Vs30) values. This datawas prepared as part of the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Mapof California (Petersen, M., D. Beeby, W. Bryant, T. Cao, C.Cramer, J. Davis, M. Reichle, G. Saucedo, S. Tan G., Taylor,T. Toppozada, J. Treiman, and C. Wills (1999) SeismicShaking Hazard Maps of California: California Division ofMines and Geology Map Sheet 48).Figure 8-9.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsNo Liquefaction Data AvailableSusceptibility toLiquefactionVery LowLowMediumHighVery High/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGS, ESRITri-Valley AreaThis report presents a map and database of Quaternarydeposits and liquefaction susceptibility for the urban core ofthe San Francisco Bay region. Much of the land adjacent tothe Bay and the major rivers and streams is underlain byunconsolidated deposits that are particularly vulnerable toearthquake shaking and liquefaction of water-saturatedgranular sediment. Like Open-File Report 00-444, the currentmapping uses geomorphic expression, pedogenic soils,inferred depositional environments, and geologic age todefine and distinguish the map units. The report is the productof cooperative work by the National Earthquake HazardsReduction Program (NEHRP) and National CooperativeGeologic Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey,William Lettis and & Associates, Inc. (WLA), and theCalifornia Geological Survey. For detailed information aboutthe map the USGS has an open report, "Maps of QuaternaryDeposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central SanFrancisco Bay Region, California. U.S. Geological SurveyOpen File Report 2006-1037 Version 1.1.0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyLiquefaction SusceptibilityFigure 8-10.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8-18
Both the San Andreas and the Hayward Faults have the potential for major to great events. The USGS estimated
in 2016 that there is a 72 percent probability of at least one 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake before 2043 that
could cause widespread damage in the San Francisco Bay area (USGS, 2016e). The 2013 State of California
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan cites projections that there is more than a 99-percent probability of a Magnitude-
6.7 earthquake in California in the next 30 years and a 94-percent probability of a Magnitude-7.0 earthquake in
California in the next 30 years. Probabilities for earthquakes on major fault lines in the San Francisco Bay Area
were estimated by the USGS in a 2016 report, as summarized in Table 8-4.
Table 8-4. Earthquake Probabilities for the San Francisco Bay Area, 2014-2043
Fault
Probability of One or More
≥6.7 Quake, 2014-2043 Fault
Probability of One or More
≥6.7 Quake, 2014-2043
Hunting Creek 16% Maacama 8%
Green Valley 16% Rodgers Creek Fault 33%
Concord 16% Hayward 33%
Greenville 16% San Andreas 22%
Berryessa 16% San Gregorio 6%
Calaveras 26%
Source: USGS, 2016e
8.2.4 Severity
Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over five minutes; they may also occur as a series of tremors over a
period of several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or
death. Casualties generally result from falling objects and debris, because the shocks shake, damage or demolish
buildings and other structures. Disruption of communications, electrical power supplies and gas, sewer and water
lines should be expected. Earthquakes may trigger fires, dam failures, landslides or releases of hazardous material,
compounding their disastrous effects.
The USGS has created ground motion maps based on current information about several fault zones. These maps
show the PGA that has a certain probability (2 percent or 10 percent) of being exceeded in a 50-year period. The
PGA is measured in numbers of g’s (the acceleration associated with gravity). Figure 8-11 shows the PGAs with a
2-percent exceedance chance in 50 years in the planning area. The planning area is located within a high risk area.
8.2.5 Warning Time
There is no current reliable way to predict the day or month that an earthquake will occur at any given location.
Research is being done with warning systems that use the low energy waves that precede major earthquakes.
These potential warning systems would give approximately 40 seconds notice that a major earthquake is about to
occur. The warning time is very short, but it could allow for someone to get under a desk, step away from a
hazardous material, or shut down a computer system.
8.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
Earthquakes can cause large and sometimes disastrous landslides and mudslides. River valleys are vulnerable to
slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Soil liquefaction occurs when water-saturated
sands, silts, or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact with one another and
“float” freely in the water, turning the ground into a pudding-like liquid. Building and road foundations lose load-
bearing strength and may sink quicksand-like into what was previously solid ground. Unless properly secured,
hazardous materials can be released, causing significant damage to the environment and people.
8. Earthquake
8-19
Figure 8-11. PGA with 2-Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years
Earthen dams and levees are highly susceptible to seismic events, and the impacts of their eventual failures can be
considered secondary hazards of earthquakes. Additionally, fires can result from gas lines or power lines that are
broken or downed during the earthquake. It may be difficult to control a fire, particularly if the water lines feeding
fire hydrants are also broken.
8.4 EXPOSURE
8.4.1 Population
The entire population of the planning area is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes.
Whether directly impacted or indirectly impact, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of
earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate
populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an
event itself.
8.4.2 Property
According to Alameda County Assessor records, there are 66,760 buildings in the planning area, with a total
replacement value of $53 billion. Since all structures in the planning area are susceptible to earthquake impacts to
varying degrees, this total represents the property exposure to seismic events. Most of the buildings (96 percent)
are residential. Table 8-5 shows the exposure value breakdown by municipality.
Table 8-5. Earthquake Exposure by Municipality
Jurisdiction Total # of Buildings Total Building Value—Structure and Contents
Dublin 16,588 $12,164,354,419
Livermore 27,539 $20,508,103,666
Pleasanton 22,633 $21,028,153,157
Total 66,760 $53,700,611,242
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8-20
8.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
All critical facilities and infrastructure in the planning area (see Table 4-4) are exposed to the earthquake hazard.
Hazardous materials releases can occur during an earthquake from fixed facilities or transportation-related
incidents. Transportation corridors can be disrupted during an earthquake, leading to the release of materials to the
surrounding environment. Facilities holding hazardous materials are of particular concern because of possible
isolation of neighborhoods surrounding them. During an earthquake, structures storing these materials could
rupture and leak into the surrounding area or an adjacent waterway, having a disastrous effect on the environment.
8.4.4 Environment
Environmental problems as a result of an earthquake can be numerous. Secondary hazards will likely have some
of the most damaging effects on the environment. Earthquake-induced landslides in landslide-prone areas can
significantly damage surrounding habitat. It is also possible for streams to be rerouted after an earthquake.
Rerouting can change the water quality, possibly damaging habitat and feeding areas. There is a possibility that
streams fed by groundwater wells will dry up because of changes in underlying geology.
8.5 VULNERABILITY
Earthquake vulnerability data was generated using a Hazus analysis. Once the location and size of a hypothetical
earthquake are identified, Hazus estimates the intensity of the ground shaking, the number of buildings damaged,
the number of casualties, the damage to transportation systems and utilities, the number of people displaced from
their homes, and the estimated cost of repair and clean up.
8.5.1 Population
Residents of High Risk Areas
The degree of vulnerability is dependent on many factors, including the age and construction type of the
structures people live in, the soil type their homes are constructed on, and their proximity to fault locations. There
are estimated to be 146,510 people in over 53,075 households living on soils with moderate to very high
liquefaction potential in the planning area. This is about 74 percent of the total population.
Susceptible Population Groups
Two groups are particularly vulnerable to earthquake hazards:
• Population Below Poverty Level—An estimated 11,500 households in areas with moderate to very high
liquefaction potential soils have household incomes less than $50,000 per year. This is about 22 percent
of all households located on moderate to very high liquefaction potential soils. These households may
lack the financial resources to improve their homes to prevent or mitigate earthquake damage.
Economically disadvantaged residents are also less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses in
earthquakes.
• Population Over 65 Years Old—An estimated 14,611 residents in areas with moderate to very high
liquefaction potential soils are over 65 years old. This is about 28 percent of all residents in those areas.
This population group is vulnerable because they are more likely to need special medical attention, which
may not be available due to isolation caused by earthquakes. Elderly residents also have more difficulty
leaving their homes during earthquake events and could be stranded in dangerous situations.
8. Earthquake
8-21
Estimated Impacts on Persons and Households
Impacts on persons and households in the planning area were estimated for the five selected earthquake scenarios
through the Hazus analysis. Table 8-6 summarizes the results.
Table 8-6. Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons and Households
Number of Displaced Households Number of Persons Requiring Short-Term Shelter
Calaveras 758 375
Greenville 89 49
Haywired 2,071 1,039
Mount Diablo 292 143
North San Andreas 4 2
8.5.2 Property
Liquefaction Potential
Table 8-7 shows the estimated number of buildings on moderate to very high liquefiable soils. There are
estimated to be 45,568 buildings, or 70 percent of the total building stock, on these soils.
Table 8-7. Number of Buildings on Moderate to Very High Liquefiable Soils
Jurisdiction Number of Buildings
Dublin 9,696
Livermore 19,542
Pleasanton 16,330
Total 45,568
Building Age
Table 8-8 identifies significant milestones in building and seismic code requirements that directly affect the
structural integrity of development. Using these time periods, the planning team used Hazus to identify the
number of structures in the planning area by date of construction.
Table 8-8. Age of Structures in Planning Area
Time Period
Number of Current
Structures Built in Period Significance of Time Frame
Pre-1933 618 Before 1933, there were no explicit earthquake requirements in building codes. State
law did not require local governments to have building officials or issue building permits.
1933-1940 169 In 1940, the first strong motion recording was made.
1941-1960 3,635 In 1960, the Structural Engineers Association of California published guidelines on
recommended earthquake provisions.
1961-1975 20,087 In 1975, significant improvements were made to lateral force requirements.
1976-1994 19,562 In 1994, the Uniform Building Code was amended to include provisions for seismic
safety.
1994 – present 22,689 Seismic code is currently enforced.
Total 66,760
The number of structures does not reflect the number of total housing units, as many multi-family units are
reported as one structure. Approximately 34 percent of the planning area’s structures were constructed after the
Building Code was amended in 1994 to include seismic safety provisions. Approximately 1 percent were built
before 1933 when there were no building permits, inspections, or seismic standards.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8-22
Loss Potential
Property losses were estimated through the Hazus analysis for the five scenario events. Table 8-9 through
Table 8-13 show the results for structural loss, representing damage to building structures, and non-structural loss,
representing the value of lost contents and inventory, relocation, income loss, rental loss, and wage loss.
Table 8-9. Loss Estimates for Calaveras Fault Scenario Earthquake
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin $564,146,058 $162,144,441 $726,290,499 6.0%
Livermore $183,024,116 $77,605,970 $260,630,086 1.3%
Pleasanton $899,391,183 $289,707,975 $1,189,099,158 5.7%
Total Planning Area $1,646,561,357 $529,458,386 $2,176,019,743 4.1%
Table 8-10. Loss Estimates for Greenville Fault Scenario Earthquake
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin $83,206,165 $34,160,786 $117,366,951 1.0%
Livermore $503,487,581 $163,105,087 $666,592,668 3.3%
Pleasanton $102,370,262 $49,355,172 $151,725,435 0.7%
Total Planning Area $689,064,008 $246,621,046 $935,685,054 1.7%
Table 8-11. Loss Estimates for Haywired Fault Scenario Earthquake
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin $1,460,638,578 $479,691,784 $1,940,330,362 16.0%
Livermore $1,370,533,128 $455,789,010 $1,826,322,138 8.9%
Pleasanton $2,650,641,204 $980,362,472 $3,631,003,677 17.3%
Total Planning Area $5,481,812,910 $1,915,843,266 $7,397,656,177 13.8%
Table 8-12. Loss Estimates for Mt. Diablo Fault Scenario Earthquake
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin $303,165,849 $86,701,274 $389,867,123 3.2%
Livermore $373,545,048 $127,640,591 $501,185,639 2.4%
Pleasanton $274,380,720 $95,288,012 $369,668,732 1.8%
Total Planning Area $951,091,617 $309,629,877 $1,260,721,494 2.3%
Table 8-13. Loss Estimates for North San Andreas Fault Scenario Earthquake
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin $30,230,952 $14,295,720 $44,526,672 0.4%
Livermore $34,240,275 $21,438,354 $55,678,629 0.3%
Pleasanton $51,698,029 $25,378,231 $77,076,260 0.4%
Total Planning Area $116,169,256 $61,112,305 $177,281,561 0.3%
8. Earthquake
8-23
A summary of the property-related losses is as follows:
• For the Calaveras Scenario, the estimated damage potential is $2.17 billion, or 4.1 percent of the total
replacement value for the planning area.
• For the Greenville Scenario, the estimated damage potential is $935 million, or 1.7 percent of the total
replacement value for the planning area.
• For the Haywired Scenario, the estimated damage potential is $7.39 billion, or 13.8 percent of the total
replacement value for the planning area.
• For the Mount Diablo Scenario, the estimated damage potential is $1.26 billion, or 2.3 percent of the total
replacement value for the planning area.
• For the North San Andreas Scenario, the estimated damage potential is $177 million, or 0.3 percent of the
total replacement value for the planning area.
Debris Estimates
The Hazus analysis also estimated the amount of earthquake-caused debris in the planning area for the five
scenario events, as summarized in Table 8-14.
Table 8-14. Estimated Earthquake-Caused Debris
Debris to Be Removed (tons)
Calaveras 723.42
Greenville 287.84
Haywired 2,499.41
Mount Diablo 413.29
North San Andreas 26.19
8.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Level of Damage
Hazus classifies the vulnerability of critical facilities to earthquake damage in five categories: no damage, slight
damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, or complete damage. The model was used to assign a vulnerability
category to each critical facility in the planning area, which was then averaged across the facility category. The
results for the five fault scenario events are summarized in Table 8-15 through Table 8-19.
Time to Return to Functionality
Hazus estimates the time to restore critical facilities to fully functional use. Results are presented as probability of
being functional at specified time increments: 1, 3, 7, 14, 30 and 90 days after the event. For example, Hazus may
estimate that a facility has 5 percent chance of being fully functional at Day 3, and a 95-percent chance of being
fully functional at Day 90. The analysis was performed for the five fault scenarios. Results are summarized in
Table 8-20 through Table 8-24.
8.5.4 Environment
The environment vulnerable to earthquake hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8-24
Table 8-15. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the Calaveras Fault Scenario Earthquake
Percent of Facilities Experiencing Defined Damage Level
Category No Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage
Medical and Health Services 62.73% 26.71% 0.82% 0.04% 9.68%
Emergency Services 56.62% 32.71% 4.09% 0.04% 6.52%
Educational Facilities 56.18% 30.98% 4.80% 0.17% 7.85%
Government 15.52% 17.46% 38.40% 17.15% 11.44%
Utilities 30.28% 25.41% 27.74% 5.52% 11.03%
Transportation Infrastructure 53.13% 18.57% 7.10% 10.40% 10.79%
Hazardous Materials 47.14% 17.46% 22.80% 8.10% 4.48%
Overall 45.9% 24.2% 15.1% 5.9% 8.8%
Table 8-16. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the Greenville Fault Scenario Earthquake
Percent of Facilities Experiencing Defined Damage Level
Category No Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage
Medical and Health Services 90.76% 3.08% 0.13% 0.44% 5.56%
Emergency Services 79.34% 15.95% 1.00% 0.09% 3.59%
Educational Facilities 77.12% 16.37% 1.11% 0.19% 5.18%
Government 57.32% 23.07% 12.62% 1.58% 5.37%
Utilities 80.56% 11.18% 2.69% 0.64% 4.90%
Transportation Infrastructure 70.88% 14.95% 3.91% 6.09% 4.14%
Hazardous Materials 29.48% 19.36% 35.30% 9.95% 5.89%
Overall 69.4% 14.9% 8.1% 2.7% 4.9%
Table 8-17. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the Haywired Fault Scenario Earthquake
Percent of Facilities Experiencing Defined Damage Level
Category No Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage
Medical and Health Services 39.61% 46.51% 2.46% 0.01% 11.40%
Emergency Services 24.90% 51.46% 15.62% 0.31% 7.68%
Educational Facilities 24.63% 49.03% 15.93% 0.32% 10.06%
Government 0.36% 1.32% 8.16% 25.04% 65.11%
Utilities 4.78% 14.66% 27.08% 24.09% 29.36%
Transportation Infrastructure 20.47% 15.40% 9.56% 15.80% 38.74%
Hazardous Materials 1.01% 3.74% 28.60% 30.86% 35.76%
Overall 16.5% 26.0% 15.3% 13.8% 28.3%
Table 8-18. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the Mt. Diablo Fault Scenario Earthquake
Percent of Facilities Experiencing Defined Damage Level
Category No Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage
Medical and Health Services 82.95% 9.37% 0.09% 0.16% 7.40%
Emergency Services 64.18% 28.76% 2.01% 0.07% 4.95%
Educational Facilities 66.51% 25.49% 1.49% 0.07% 6.42%
Government 22.96% 33.88% 32.02% 3.78% 7.33%
Utilities 64.53% 21.43% 6.53% 0.71% 6.76%
Transportation Infrastructure 61.92% 19.26% 5.16% 8.63% 5.01%
Hazardous Materials 41.53% 26.33% 25.77% 2.98% 3.36%
Overall 57.8% 23.5% 10.4% 2.3% 5.9%
8. Earthquake
8-25
Table 8-19. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from the San Andreas Fault Scenario Earthquake
Percent of Facilities Experiencing Defined Damage Level
Category No Damage Slight Damage Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage
Medical and Health Services 96.90% 0.37% 0.47% 0.80% 1.43%
Emergency Services 97.89% 1.46% 0.11% 0.12% 0.40%
Educational Facilities 97.51% 1.67% 0.10% 0.11% 0.59%
Government 90.39% 8.13% 1.07% 0.18% 0.21%
Utilities 94.76% 1.94% 0.54% 0.62% 2.11%
Transportation Infrastructure 91.11% 5.80% 0.81% 1.97% 0.28%
Hazardous Materials 91.62% 6.33% 1.90% 0.07% 0.05%
Overall 94.3% 3.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7%
Table 8-20. Functionality of Critical Facilities for Calaveras Fault Scenario Earthquake
# of Critical Probability of Being Fully Functional (%)
Planning Unit Facilities at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90
Medical and Health Services 20 62.7 63.3 88.8 89.4 90.2 90.2
Emergency Services 24 56.6 57.3 88.5 89.3 93.4 93.4
Educational Facilities 62 56.1 56.8 86.4 87.1 91.9 92.0
Government 23 15.5 16.3 32.9 33.0 71.4 88.5
Utilities 120 53.9 72.8 84.1 86.9 90.9 97.5
Transportation Infrastructure 147 70.1 76.7 79.3 79.8 80.7 86.6
Hazardous Materials 27 47.1 47.9 64.5 64.5 87.4 95.4
Total/Average 423 51.7 55.9 74.9 75.7 86.5 91.9
Table 8-21. Functionality of Critical Facilities the Greenville Fault Scenario Earthquake
# of Critical Probability of Being Fully Functional (%)
Planning Unit Facilities at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90
Medical and Health Services 20 90.7 90.7 93.7 93.8 93.9 94.2
Emergency Services 24 79.3 79.6 94.9 95.3 96.3 96.3
Educational Facilities 62 77.1 77.4 93.1 93.5 94.6 94.7
Government 23 57.3 58.4 80.3 80.3 93.0 94.6
Utilities 120 88.3 93.5 94.7 95.3 96.3 98.8
Transportation Infrastructure 147 83.8 88.5 90.0 90.3 90.8 94.1
Hazardous Materials 27 29.4 30.4 48.7 48.8 84.1 94.0
Overall 423 72.3 74.1 85.1 85.3 92.7 95.2
Table 8-22. Functionality of Critical Facilities for the Haywired Fault Scenario Earthquake
# of Critical Probability of Being Fully Functional (%)
Planning Unit Facilities at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90
Medical and Health Services 20 39.6 40.6 85.0 86.1 88.5 88.5
Emergency Services 24 24.9 26.0 75.1 76.3 92.0 92.1
Educational Facilities 62 24.6 25.7 72.5 73.6 89.5 89.7
Government 23 0.3 0.4 1.6 1.6 9.8 34.8
Utilities 120 27.4 41.8 52.3 59.0 71.6 91.7
Transportation Infrastructure 147 36.9 43.4 46.8 47.7 49.2 59.7
Hazardous Materials 27 1.0 1.2 4.7 4.7 33.3 64.2
Total/Average 423 22.1 25.6 48.3 49.9 62.0 74.4
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8-26
Table 8-23. Functionality of Critical Facilities from the Mt. Diablo Fault Scenario Earthquake
# of Critical Probability of Being Fully Functional (%)
Planning Unit Facilities at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90
Medical and Health Services 20 82.9 83.1 92.1 92.3 92.4 92.4
Emergency Services 24 64.2 64.8 92.2 92.9 94.9 94.9
Educational Facilities 62 66.5 67.0 91.4 92.0 93.4 93.4
Government 23 22.9 24.5 56.7 56.8 88.8 92.6
Utilities 120 80.0 90.2 92.9 93.6 95.0 98.5
Transportation Infrastructure 147 78.8 84.7 86.7 87.1 87.8 92.4
Hazardous Materials 27 41.5 42.7 67.7 67.8 93.6 96.6
Total/Average 423 62.4 65.3 82.8 83.2 92.3 94.4
Table 8-24. Functionality of Critical Facilities from the San Andreas Fault Scenario Earthquake
# of Critical Probability of Being Fully Functional (%)
Planning Unit Facilities at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90
Medical and Health Services 20 96.9 96.9 97.2 97.2 97.7 98.1
Emergency Services 24 97.8 97.9 99.3 99.3 99.4 99.5
Educational Facilities 62 97.5 97.5 99.1 99.1 99.2 99.3
Government 23 90.3 90.7 98.4 98.4 99.6 99.7
Utilities 120 96.2 97.2 97.4 97.7 98.2 99.3
Transportation Infrastructure 147 95.7 97.4 97.7 97.8 98.0 99.0
Hazardous Materials 27 91.5 91.9 97.9 97.9 99.8 99.9
Total/Average 423 95.1 95.6 98.2 98.2 98.8 99.2
8.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
Land use in the planning area will be directed by general plans adopted under California’s General Planning Law.
The safety elements of the general plans establish standards and plans for the protection of the cities from hazards.
The information in this plan provides a tool to ensure that there is no increase in exposure in areas of high seismic
risk. Development in the planning area will be regulated through building standards and performance measures so
that the degree of risk will be reduced. The geologic hazard portions of the planning area are heavily regulated
under California’s General Planning Law. The International Building Code establishes provisions to address
seismic risk. Table 8-25 summarizes developable land by land use in areas with high and very high susceptibility
to liquefaction.
8.7 SCENARIO
With the abundance of fault exposure in the Bay Area, the potential scenarios for earthquake activity are many.
An earthquake does not have to occur within the planning area to have a significant impact on the people,
property and economy of the planning area.
Any seismic activity of 6.0 or greater on faults within the planning area would have significant impacts
throughout the planning area. Potential warning systems could give approximately 40 seconds notice that a major
earthquake is about to occur. This would not provide adequate time for preparation. Earthquakes of this
magnitude or higher would lead to massive structural failure of property on NEHRP C, D, E, and F soils. Dams
and revetments built on these poor soils would likely fail, representing a loss of critical infrastructure. These
events could cause secondary hazards, including landslides and mudslides that would further damage structures.
Soil liquefaction would occur in water-saturated sands, silts or gravelly soils.
8. Earthquake
8-27
Table 8-25. Developable Land in High and Very High Liquefaction Susceptibility Areas
High Liquefaction Susceptibility Areas
Very High Liquefaction Susceptibility
Areas
Area (acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total
Residential 919 38.9% 329 25.1%
Commercial 141 6.0% 37 2.8%
Industrial 200 8.5% 45 3.4%
Agriculture 41 1.7% 40 3.1%
Religion / Assembly 247 10.5% 243 18.6%
Government / Institutional 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Education 812 34.4% 616 47.0%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way / Water / Open Space 2,361 100.0% 1,310 100.0%
Total 919 38.9% 329 25.1%
Source: Alameda County, 2016
8.8 ISSUES
Important issues associated with an earthquake include the following:
• More information is needed on the exposure and performance of soft-story construction within the
planning area.
• Based on the modeling of critical facility performance performed for this plan, a high number of facilities
in the planning area are expected to have complete or extensive damage from scenario events. These
facilities are prime targets for structural retrofits.
• Critical facility owner should be encouraged to create or enhance continuity of operations plans using the
information on risk and vulnerability contained in this plan.
• Geotechnical standards should be established that take into account the probable impacts from
earthquakes in the design and construction of new or enhanced facilities.
• There are a few dams that could affect a portion of the planning area. Dam failure warning and evacuation
plans and procedures should be reviewed and updated to reflect the dams’ risk potential associated with
earthquake activity in the region.
• Earthquakes could trigger other natural hazard events such as dam failures and landslides, which could
severely impact the planning area.
• A worst-case scenario would be the occurrence of a large seismic event during a flood or high-water
event. Dam failures would happen at multiple locations, increasing the impacts of the individual events.
• Citizens are expected to be self-sufficient for up to three days after a major earthquake without
government response agencies, utilities, private-sector services, and infrastructure components. Education
programs are currently in place to facilitate development of individual, family, neighborhood, and
business earthquake preparedness. Government alone can never make this region fully prepared. It takes
individuals, families, and communities working in concert with one another to be fully prepared for
disaster.
• After a major seismic event, the Tri-Valley planning area is likely to experience disruptions in the flow of
goods and services resulting from the destruction of major transportation infrastructure across the broader
region.
9-1
9. FLOOD
9.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
A floodplain is the area adjacent to a river, creek or lake that
becomes inundated during a flood. Floodplains may be broad, as
when a river crosses an extensive flat landscape, or narrow, as
when a river is confined in a canyon.
When floodwaters recede after a flood event, they leave behind
layers of rock and mud. These gradually build up to create a new
floor of the floodplain. Floodplains generally contain
unconsolidated sediments (accumulations of sand, gravel, loam,
silt, and/or clay), often extending below the bed of the stream.
These sediments provide a natural filtering system, with water
percolating back into the ground and replenishing groundwater.
These are often important aquifers, the water drawn from them
being filtered compared to the water in the stream. Fertile, flat
reclaimed floodplain lands are commonly used for agriculture,
commerce and residential development.
Connections between a river and its floodplain are most apparent
during and after major flood events. These areas form a complex
physical and biological system that not only supports a variety of
natural resources but also provides natural flood and erosion
control. When a river is separated from its floodplain with levees
and other flood control facilities, natural, built-in benefits can be
lost, altered, or significantly reduced.
9.1.1 Measuring Floods and Floodplains
The frequency and severity of flooding are measured using a discharge probability, which is the probability that a
certain river discharge (flow) level will be equaled or exceeded in a given year. Flood studies use historical
records to determine the probability of occurrence for the different discharge levels. The flood frequency equals
100 divided by the discharge probability. For example, the 100-year discharge has a 1-percent chance of being
equaled or exceeded in any given year. The “annual flood” is the greatest flood event expected to occur in a
typical year. These measurements reflect statistical averages only; it is possible for two or more floods with a
100-year or higher recurrence interval to occur in a short time period. The same flood can have different
recurrence intervals at different points on a river.
The extent of flooding associated with a 1-percent annual change flood (also called the base flood) is used as a
regulatory boundary by many agencies. The area flooded by the base flood is called the special flood hazard area
(SFHA). Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of flooding for the base flood.
DEFINITIONS
Flood—The inundation of normally dry land
resulting from the rising and overflowing of a
body of water.
Floodplain—The land area along the sides
of a river that becomes inundated with water
during a flood.
1-percent annual chance (1oo-Year)
floodplain—The area flooded by the flood
that has a 1-percent chance of being equaled
or exceeded each year. The 1-percent annual
chance flood is the standard used by most
federal and state agencies.
0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance (500-Year)
Floodplain—The area flooded by the flood
that has a 0.2-percent chance of being
equaled or exceeded in a given year.
Regulatory Floodway—Channel of a river or
other water course and adjacent land areas
that must be reserved for discharge of the
base flood without cumulatively increasing
water surface elevation more than a
designated height. Communities must
regulate development in these floodways to
ensure no increases in upstream flood
elevations.
Return Period—The average number of
years between occurrences of a hazard
(equal to the inverse of the annual likelihood
of occurrence).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-2
Corresponding water-surface elevations describe the elevation of water that will result from a given discharge
level, which is one of the most important factors used in estimating flood damage.
9.1.2 Floodplain Ecosystems and the Effects of Human Activities
Floodplains can support ecosystems that are rich in plant and animal species. A floodplain can contain 100 or
even 1,000 times as many species as a river. Wetting of the floodplain soil releases an immediate surge of
nutrients: those left over from the last flood, and those that result from the rapid decomposition of organic matter
that has accumulated since then. Microscopic organisms thrive and larger species enter a rapid breeding cycle.
Opportunistic feeders (particularly birds) move in to take advantage. The production of nutrients peaks and falls
away quickly, but the surge of new growth endures for some time. This makes floodplains valuable for
agriculture. Species growing in floodplains are markedly different from those that grow outside floodplains. For
instance, riparian trees (trees that grow in floodplains) tend to be very tolerant of root disturbance and very quick-
growing compared to non-riparian trees.
Because they border water bodies, floodplains have historically been popular sites to establish settlements.
Human activities tend to concentrate in floodplains for a number of reasons: water is readily available; land is
fertile and suitable for farming; transportation by water is easily accessible; and land is flatter and easier to
develop. But human activity in floodplains frequently interferes with the natural function of floodplains. It can
affect the distribution and timing of drainage, thereby increasing flood problems. Human development can create
local flooding problems by altering or confining drainage channels. This increases flood potential in two ways: it
reduces the stream’s capacity to contain flows, and it increases flow rates or velocities downstream during all
stages of a flood event. Human activities can interface effectively with a floodplain as long as steps are taken to
mitigate the activities’ adverse impacts on floodplain functions.
9.1.3 Federal Flood Programs
National Flood Insurance Program
The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in
participating communities. For most participating communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance
Study (FIS). The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent
annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (the 500-year flood). Base flood elevations and the
boundaries of the 1-percent annual chance and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplains are shown on Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood
hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they
represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program. In recent years, FIRMs
have been digitized as Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs), which are more accessible to residents,
local governments and stakeholders.
Table 9-1 lists each municipal jurisdiction’s date of entrance into the NFIP and the effective date of its current
FIRM. As participants in the NFIP, the cities must, at a minimum, regulate development in their floodplain areas
in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before a permit to build in a floodplain area is issued, the cities must ensure that
two basic criteria are met:
• All new construction, substantial improvements, and repairs of substantial damage will be protected from
damage by the base flood.
• New floodplain development will not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other
properties.
• New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts
on threatened salmonid species.
9. Flood
9-3
Table 9-1. Jurisdictions and Date Joined NFIP
Jurisdiction NFIP Community # NFIP Entry Date Current Effective FIRM
Dublin 060705 April 14, 1981 August 3, 2009
Livermore 060008 July 5, 1977 August 3, 2009
Pleasanton 060012 December 16, 1980 August 3, 2009
Source: FEMA, 2017c
In participating communities, structures permitted or built in the planning area before NFIP and related building
code regulations went into effect are called “pre-FIRM ” structures, and structures built afterwards are called
“post-FIRM.” The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures. Communities participating in the
NFIP may adopt regulations that are more stringent than those contained in 44 CFR 60.3, but not less stringent.
Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such
structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to
decrease vulnerability. Properties built before the FIRM was adopted may be more vulnerable to flooding and
related damage because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. The first FIRMs in the planning
area were available in 1977 to 1983. The date of the current effective FIRM for all three cities is August 3, 2009.
FEMA has developed a preliminary new DFIRM for these three cities dated April 16, 2015. Although the
preliminary data is the most recent data available, until is it officially approved and adopted, it can only be used
for review and guidance purposes. Preliminary data is subject to change until that point, and as such, it is not used
to rate flood insurance policies or enforce the federal mandatory purchase requirement.
The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton are all in good standing with the NFIP. In California, the
Department of Water Resources is the coordinating agency for floodplain management. DWR works with FEMA
and local governments by providing grants and technical assistance, evaluating community floodplain
management programs, reviewing local floodplain ordinances, participating in statewide flood hazard mitigation
planning, and facilitating annual statewide workshops. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and by
DWR. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction.
FEMA Regulatory Flood Zones
FEMA defines flood hazard areas as areas expected to be inundated by a flood of a given magnitude. These areas
are determined via statistical analyses of records of river flow, storm tides, and rainfall; information obtained
through consultation with the community; floodplain topographic surveys; and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
Flood hazard areas are delineated on DFIRMs, which provide the following information:
• Locations of specific properties in relation to SFHAs
• Base flood elevations (1-percent annual chance) at specific sites
• Magnitudes of flood in specific areas
• Undeveloped coastal barriers where flood insurance is not available
• Regulatory floodways and floodplain boundaries (1-percent and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain
boundaries).
On a DFIRM, the SFHA is the land area covered by floodwaters of the base flood—an area where NFIP
floodplain management regulations must be enforced, and where mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies.
This regulatory boundary is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood-prone communities,
because many communities have maps showing the extent of the base flood and likely depths that will occur.
The base flood elevation (the water elevation of a flood that has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given
year) is one of the most important factors in estimating potential damage from flooding. A structure within a
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-4
1-percent annual chance floodplain has a 26-percent chance of undergoing flood damage during the term of a
30-year mortgage. The 1-percent annual chance flood is used by the NFIP as the basis for insurance requirements
nationwide. DFIRMs also depict 0.2-percent annual chance flood designations (500-year events).
DFIRM, FIRMs, and other flood hazard information can be used to identify the expected extent of flooding from
a 1-percent and 0.2-percent annual chance event. DFIRMS and FIRMS depict SFHAs, defined as follows:
• Zones A1-30 and AE—SFHAs that are subject to inundation by the base flood, determined using
detailed hydraulic analysis. Base flood elevations are shown within these zones. There are mandatory
flood insurance purchase requirements, and floodplain management standards apply.
• Zone A (also known as Unnumbered A-zones)—SFHAs where no base flood elevations or depths are
shown because detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed. There are mandatory flood
insurance purchase requirements, and floodplain management standards apply.
• Zone AH—Areas subject to inundation by the base flood (shallow flooding), usually areas of ponding,
where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Base flood elevations derived from detailed hydraulic
analyses are shown in this zone. There are mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, and
floodplain management standards apply.
• Zone AO—SFHAs subject to inundation by types of shallow flooding (usually sheet flow or sloping
terrain) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Average flood depths derived from detailed
hydraulic analyses are shown in this zone. There are mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements,
and floodplain management standards apply.
• Zone VE, V1-30—Areas subject to inundation by the base flood event, with additional hazards due to
storm-induced velocity wave action. Base flood elevations derived from detailed hydraulic analyses are
shown. There are mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, and floodplain management
standards apply.
• Zone V—SFHAs along the coast that are subject to inundation by the base flood event with additional
hazards associated with storm-induced waves. No base flood elevations or flood depths are shown
because detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed. There are mandatory flood insurance
purchase requirements, and floodplain management standards apply.
• Zone B and X (shaded)—Areas of moderate flood hazard and areas between the limits of the base flood
and 0.2 percent annual change flood. These zones are not SFHAs.
• Zones C and X (unshaded)—Areas of minimal flood hazard located outside the SFHA and higher than
the elevation of the 0.2-percent annual chance flood.
On the current DFIRM for Dublin, most of the city is shown as Zone X (unshaded). There are small areas of the
1-percent annual chance floodplain and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain. On the current DFIRM for
Livermore, there are large portions of Zone X (unshaded) and only small portions within the 1- percent annual
chance floodplain and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain. For Pleasanton, most of the city is shown as Zone X
(unshaded). The 1-percent annual chance floodplain covers only minor areas in Pleasanton; Pleasanton has more
0.2-percent annual chance floodplain than Dublin and Livermore
The Community Rating System
The CRS is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain management activities that exceed
the minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk
resulting from community actions meeting the following three goals of the CRS:
• Reduce flood losses.
• Facilitate accurate insurance rating.
• Promote awareness of flood insurance.
9. Flood
9-5
For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5 percent. For
example, a Class 1 community would receive a 45 percent premium discount, and a Class 9 community would
receive a 5 percent discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they receive no
discount.) The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories:
• Public information
• Mapping and regulations
• Flood damage reduction
• Flood preparedness.
Figure 9-1 shows the nationwide number of CRS communities by class as of October 2016, when there were
1,391 communities receiving flood insurance premium discounts under the CRS program.
Source: FEMA, 2016
Figure 9-1. CRS Communities by Class Nationwide as of October 2016
Although insurance premiums are one benefit of participation in the CRS, more important benefits result from
activities that save lives and reduce property damage. Communities participating in the CRS represent a
significant portion of the nation’s flood risk, as evidenced by the fact that over 68 percent of the NFIP’s policy
base is located in these communities. Communities receiving premium discounts through the CRS range from
small to large and represent a broad mixture of flood risks, including both coastal and riverine flood risks.
The Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton currently participate in the CRS program. Their CRS status is
summarized in Table 9-2. The total annual savings on flood insurance premiums within the planning area is over
$20,000. Many of the mitigation actions identified in Volume 2 of this plan are creditable activities under the
CRS program. Therefore, successful implementation of this plan offers the potential for these communities to
enhance their CRS classifications and for currently non-participating communities to join the program.
1 4 3 3
116
217
350
475
222
0
100
200
300
400
500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Number of CommunitiesCRS Class
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-6
Table 9-2. CRS Community Status in the Planning Area
Community
NFIP
Community #
CRS Entry
Date
Current CRS
Classification
% Premium Discount,
SFHA/non-SFHA
Total Premium
Savings
Livermore 060008 05/01/2015 9 5/5 $5,112
Pleasanton 060012 10/1/1992 7 15/5 $15,423
Total $20,535
Source: FEMA, 2017
9.2 HAZARD PROFILE
9.2.1 Types of Flooding Affecting the Planning Area
Flooding in the planning area typically occurs during the rainy season, between November and April. Three types
of flooding primarily affect the planning area: stormwater flooding, riverine flooding and flash floods.
Stormwater Runoff Flooding
Urban drainage systems are designed to remove surface water from developed areas as quickly as possible to
prevent flooding on streets and in other urban areas. These closed conveyance systems channel water away from
an urban area to surrounding streams, bypassing natural processes of water filtration through the ground,
containment, and evaporation of excess water. Urban drainage systems can play a role in flooding in two ways:
• Because drainage systems reduce the amount of time surface water takes to reach surrounding streams,
flooding in those streams can occur more quickly and reach greater depths than prior to development in
the area (FEMA, 2008).
• If stormwater runoff exceeds the capacity of the drainage system, then stormwater runoff flooding can
result throughout the system’s service area.
Stormwater runoff flooding can occur in areas other than delineated floodplains or along recognizable channels. It
generally occurs in flat areas, and generally increases with urbanization, which speeds accumulation of
floodwaters because of impervious areas. Shallow street flooding can occur unless channels have been improved
to account for increased flows (FEMA, 1997).
Riverine Flooding
Riverine flooding is the overbank flooding of rivers and streams. Flooding in large river systems typically results
from large-scale weather systems that generate prolonged rainfall over a wide geographic area, causing flooding
in hundreds of smaller streams, which then drain into major rivers. Shallow area flooding is a special type of
riverine flooding. FEMA defines shallow flood hazards as areas that are inundated by the 1-percent annual chance
flood with flood depths of only 1 to 3 feet. These areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheet flows of water.
Two types of flood hazards are generally associated with riverine flooding:
• Inundation—Inundation occurs when there is floodwater and debris flowing through an area that is not
normally covered by water. Such events cause minor to severe damage, depending on the velocity and
depth of flows, the duration of the flood event, the quantity of logs and other debris carried by the flows,
and the amount and type of development and personal property along the floodwater’s path.
• Channel Migration—Channel migration is erosion that results from the wearing away of banks and soils
due to flowing water. This erosion, combined with sediment deposition, causes the migration or lateral
movement of a river channel across a floodplain. A channel can also move by abrupt change in location,
called avulsion, which can shift the channel location a large distance in as short a time as one flood event.
9. Flood
9-7
Flash Flooding
The National Weather Service defines flash flooding as follows (NWS, 2009):
“[A] rapid and extreme flow of high water into a normally dry area, or a rapid water level rise in a stream
or creek above a predetermined flood level, beginning within 6 hours of the causative event (e.g., intense
rainfall, dam failure). However, the actual time threshold may vary in different parts of the country.
Ongoing flooding can intensify to flash flooding in cases where intense rainfall results in a rapid surge of
rising flood waters.”
Flash floods are capable of tearing out trees, undermining buildings and bridges, and scouring new channels. In
urban areas, flash flooding is an increasingly serious problem due to the removal of vegetation and replacement of
ground cover with impermeable surfaces such as roads, driveways, and parking lots. The greatest risk from flash
floods is that they occur with little to no warning. The major factors in predicting potential damage are the
intensity and duration of rainfall and watershed and stream steepness.
9.2.2 Past Events
Sources that provide historical information regarding previous occurrences and losses associated with flooding
events in Alameda County and the planning area include FEMA, NWS, and NOAA’s National Centers for
Environmental Information (NCEI). Between 1954 and April 2017, FEMA issued disaster (DR) declarations for
the State of California for 48 flood-related events, classified as one or a combination of the following: winter
storms, debris and mud flows, severe winter storms, severe storms, mudslides, landslides, heavy rains, and high
tides. Alameda County was included in 13 declarations, as listed in Table 9-3. Little recorded information is
available regarding previous flooding occurrences in the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. Table 9-4
lists known flood events that impacted the planning area between 1970 and April 2017.
Table 9-3. FEMA Disaster Declarations for Flood Events in Alameda County
FEMA
Declaration
Number Event Date Event Type Location
DR-4308 February 1 – February 23, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides 43 counties including Alameda County
DR-4305 January 18 – January 23, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides 23 counties including Alameda County
DR-4301 January 3 – January 12, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides 34 counties including Alameda County
DR-1646 March 29 – April 16, 2006 Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
17 counties including Alameda County
DR-1628 December 17 – January 3, 2006 Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
31 counties including Alameda County
DR-1155 December 28, 1996 – April 1, 1997 Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Landslides 48 counties including Alameda County
DR-1046 February 13 – April 19, 1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides,
Mud Flows
57 counties including Alameda County
DR-1044 January 3 – February 10, 1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides,
Mud Flows
42 counties including Alameda County
DR-758 February 12-March 10, 1986 Severe Storms & Flooding 39 counties including Alameda County
DR-677 January 21 – March 30, 1983 Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides & Tornadoes 40 counties including Alameda County
DR-1203 February 2 – April 30, 1998 Severe Winter Storms and Flooding 41 counties including Alameda County
DR-651 December 19, 1981 – January 8,
1983
Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides & High Tide 10 counties including Alameda County
DR-283 February 16, 1970 Severe Storms & Flooding 17 counties including Alameda County
Source: FEMA, 2017d
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-8
Table 9-4. Flood Events in the Tri-Valley Planning Area
Event Date Event Type
FEMA
Declaration
Number Location Description
February 21, 2017 Atmospheric
River
DR-4308 Countywide Widespread rain caused flooding, debris flow, accidents, and
overtopping of reservoir spillways. In Livermore and Pleasanton,
there were multiple road closures including westbound 580,
westbound Stanley Blvd, Happy Valley Road. Ten people were
stranded by flash flood in Livermore along Collier Canyon Road.
February 9, 2017 Atmospheric
River
DR-4308 Countywide Strong wind and heavy rain produced road flooding and debris flows.
November 30,2014 Rain and wind N/A Tri-Valley area Rain and wind brought a few downed trees and minor urban flooding.
Heavy rain produced flooding on Interstate 580 onramp in Dublin and
two westbound lanes were flooded in Livermore.
October 13, 2009 Heavy Rain and
wind
N/A Northern and
Central CA
Heavy rain and wind downed numerous trees and power lines. Heavy
rain caused major flooding on Bernal Avenue at Valley Avenue
March 29 – April 16, 2006
Severe Storms,
Flooding,
Landslides, and
Mudslides
DR-1646 Countywide Strong storms brought heavy rain to most of Alameda County causing
landslides, eroding hillsides and cracked pavement. Oversaturated
earth also caused landslide and/or erosion problems to private
properties, which spilled over onto public rights-of-way.
December 17, 2005 – January 12, 2006
Winter Storms
(Severe Storms,
Flood, Mudslides,
Landslides)
DR-1628 Bay Area
including
Alameda County
Storms were blamed for two deaths from falling trees, around 50
businesses were declared damaged, and three homes were nearly
wiped out by mudslides. The event included severe storms, flooding,
mudslides, and landslides. Estimated damage was over $100 million.
February 3,
1998
Flash Flood N/A Tri-Valley area A levee breach along Arroyo Mocha damage roads and property in
Dublin and Livermore. Estimated damage was $100,000.
December 28, 1996 –
April 1, 1997
Severe Storms,
Flooding, Mud
and Landslides
DR-1155 48 counties
including
Alameda County
300 square miles in northern California were flooded and over 12,000
people were evacuated. Levee breaks were reported across the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. Over 23,000 homes, business,
agricultural lands, bridges, and roads were damaged. Eight deaths
resulted from this event. Overall, the state had $1.8 billion in damage.
January 3 – February 10,
1995; and February 13 – April 19,
1995
Severe Winter
Storms, Flooding,
Landslides, Mud
Flows
DR-1044 and
DR-1046
42 counties
including
Alameda County
Winter storms, flooding and landslides impacted a large area of the
state. Storms in the Sacramento River Basin resulted in small stream
flooding due to drainage system failures. Over 100 stations recorded
their greatest one-day rainfall in history. Overall, there were 38
deaths, damage to homes and over $1.7 billion in damage.
February 12 – March 10, 1986
Severe Storms &
Flooding
DR-758 Bay Area
including
Alameda County
The event damaged over 12,000 homes, destroyed over 1,300
homes, and caused 13 deaths and 67 injuries in California. Damage
totaled over $407.5 million.
January 21 – March 30,
1983
Coastal Storms,
Floods, Slides &
Tornadoes
DR-677 40 counties
including
Alameda County
The state had over $500 million in damage from this event due to
heavy rains, high winds, flooding, and levee breaks.
February 10, 1970 Severe Storms &
Flooding
DR-283 Bay Area
including
Alameda County
Heavy winds, storms and flooding impacted the Bay Area, including
Alameda County. Impacted areas had over $27 million in damage.
Sources: NOAA NCEI, 2017; SPC 2016; ABAG Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2011; State of California 2013
9. Flood
9-9
9.2.3 Location
Primary Flood Sources
The factors that induce flooding in Alameda County are winter storms with heavy rainfall, steep topography, and
constricted floodways. Storms of wide-area distribution originate over the Pacific Ocean in winter and develop
with the frontal lifting of air masses along the hills of the coastal range.
City of Dublin
According to the effective 2009 FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Alameda County, the City of Dublin has flood
problems similar to those of Alameda County, with heavy winter rainfall, a steep topography, and constricted
floodways.
City of Livermore
According to the effective 2009 FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Alameda County, the principal flooding
problems in the City occur during winter. Storm runoff is concentrated rapidly by the network of tributaries that
discharge through the hills into the major streams. The tributaries have carved well-defined courses through the
hills, but upon reaching the flat Livermore Valley, the channels become shallow and inadequate for lower return-
frequency flows. Constriction of Arroyo Seco flows at the Western Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroad crossing
of the creek forces lower-frequency flood flows to spread out from these points. Another constricting hydraulic
factor is a length of channel along Arroyo Las Positas upstream from Airway Boulevard. Rapid runoff rates,
inadequate channels, and constricting structures combined with the development of some floodplain areas, make
Livermore susceptible to damage when large rainstorms occur.
City of Pleasanton
According to the effective 2009 FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Alameda County, the main flooding problem is
caused by the low capacity of the lower reaches of Arroyo De La Laguna, which causes backwater flooding in its
tributary channels.
According to the City of Pleasanton’s annex in the 2010 ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, when above-
normal rain falls over a short duration, the increased runoff and flooding is at Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Mocho,
Altamont Creek, and in areas with poor drainage.
Regulatory Floodplain
Flooding in the planning area has been documented by gage records, high water marks, damage surveys, and
personal accounts. This documentation was the basis for the FEMA’s Alameda County FIRM. Less than 5 percent
of the planning area is within the FIRM’s mapped 1-percent annual chance floodplain, as shown on Figure 9-2
and listed in Table 9-5.
All principal flooding sources are incorporated in the currently effective FIRMs. The FIRMs are the most detailed
and consistent data source available for determining flood extent. The effective 2009 Flood Insurance Study was
used in this risk assessment to map the extent and location of the flood hazard, along with map revisions prepared
through July 2016.
9.2.4 Frequency
According to NOAA NCEI, Alameda County has experienced 33 flood and flash flood events since 1996.
Table 9-6 shows these statistics, as well as the annual average number of events and the percent chance of each
flood hazard occurring in Alameda County in any given year.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & Channels1% Annual Chance (100-Year)Flood Zone0.2% Annual Chance (500-Year)Flood Zone/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, FEMA, ESRITri-Valley Area0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyFEMA Effective DFIRM FloodHazard AreasFlood hazard areas as depicted onEffective FEMA Digital Insurance RateMaps (DFIRM)Figure 9-2.
9. Flood
9-11
Table 9-5. Area in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Flood Floodplain
1-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Area (acres) % of total acreage
Dublin 368 3.70
Livermore 922 5.45
Pleasanton 557 3.59
Total 1,847 4.36
Table 9-6. Probability of Future Occurrences of Flood Events
Hazard Type
Number of Occurrences
Between 1996 and April
2017
Rate of
Occurrence
Recurrence Interval
(in years)
% Chance of Occurrence
in Any Given Year
Flash Flood 15 0.70 2.5 70%
Flood 18 0.84 2.14 84%
TOTAL 33 Over 100%
Source: NOAA NCEI, 2017a
Smaller floods may occur on a more frequent basis and be categorized under a different hazard event type, most
typically severe weather or severe storms. It is estimated that the planning area will experience the direct and
indirect impacts of flooding each year, including urban flooding and smaller floods in identified flood-prone
areas. These events may induce secondary hazards such as erosion, infrastructure deterioration or failure, utility
failures, power outages, water quality and supply concerns, and transportation delays, accidents and
inconveniences.
Statistically, a structure within a 1-percent annual chance flood area has a 26-percent chance of suffering flood
damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage.
9.2.5 Severity
The principal factors affecting flood damage are flood depth and velocity. The deeper and faster flood flows
become, the more damage they can cause. Shallow flooding with high velocities can cause as much damage as
deep flooding with slow velocity. This is especially true when a channel migrates over a broad floodplain,
redirecting high velocity flows and transporting debris and sediment. Flood severity is often evaluated by
examining peak flow; Table 9-7 lists peak flows used by FEMA to map the floodplains of the planning area.
9.2.6 Warning Time
The potential warning time a community has to respond to a flooding threat is a function of the time between the
first measurable rainfall and the first occurrence of flooding. The time it takes to recognize a flooding threat
reduces the potential warning time for a community that has to take actions to protect lives and property. Another
element that characterizes a community’s flood threat is the length of time floodwaters remain above flood stage.
Due to the sequential pattern of weather conditions needed to cause serious flooding, it is unusual for a flood to
occur without warning. Warning times for floods can be between 24 and 48 hours. Flash flooding can be less
predictable, but potential hazard areas can be warned in advanced of potential flash flooding danger. The NWS
issues watches and warnings when forecasts indicate rivers may approach bank-full levels.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-12
Table 9-7. Summary of Peak Discharges within the Planning Area
Peak Flow (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location
10-Percent
Annual Chance
2-Percent Annual
Chance
1-Percent Annual
Chance
0.2-Percent
Annual Chance
ARROYO DE LA LAGUNA
Downstream of Arroyo Del Valle 7,000 13,500 17,000 28,000
Downstream of Arroyo Mocho 6,000 12,000 15,000 25,000
ARROYO DEL VALLE
Upstream of Arroyo De La Laguna 1,860 4,150 7,000 9,080
ARROYO LAS POSITAS
Upstream of confluence with Arroyo Mocho’ 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800
At Gage (USGS No. 11176145) 2,000 4,200 5,000 6,700
ARROYO MOCHO
Upstream of Arroyo De La Laguna 4,520 11,500 13,700 20,600
Upstream of Chabot Canal 4,450 11,450 13,600 20,300
Upstream of Tassajara Creek 5,300 10,300 12,400 16,700
Downstream of Arroyo Las Positas 5,200 10,200 12,300 16,500
At USGS Gage No. 11176000 2,100 3,800 4,500 5,900
Upstream of Arroyo 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
Las Positas Near Garden Circlet 5,000 7,800 9,100a 11,900
Upstream of Tassajara Creeks 5,100 7,900 9,200a 12,100
CHABOT CANAL
At confluence with Arroyo Mocho 730 1,260 1,560 2,430
COLLIER CANYON CREEK
Near North Canyon Parkway 470 990 1,200 1,600
Downstream of Tributary 470 990 1,200 1,600
Upstream of Tributary 390 810 980 1,300
COLLIER CANYON TRIBUTARY 180 410 500 680
HEWLETT CANAL
At confluence with Chabot Canal 186 331 400 614
LINE B-2-1
At Interstate Highway 680 830 1,500 1,840 2,850
Upstream of Western Pacific RR 680 1,210 1,500 2,060
Upstream of confluence with Line B-2-3 230 420 520 800
LINE G-3
At confluence with Arroyo Mocho 540 970 1,190 1,800
LINE J (ZONE 6) (CANADA DEL ALISO)
At confluence with Line E (Zone 6)
(Laguna Creek)
160 380 550 1,000
PLEASANTON CANAL
At confluence with Arroyo Del La Laguna 280 480 580 850
TASSAJARA CREEK
At confluence with Arroyo Mocho 1,540 3,200 4,140 6,900
a. Base flood elevations in the improved reach of Arroyo Mocho between Santa Rita and El Charro Roads are based on peak flows of
12,400 cubic feet per second at Santa Rita Road and 12,300 cubic feet per second at Garden Circle. These flows do not reflect
overbank losses. The design flow for this reach of Arroyo Mocho is 12,500 cubic feet per second.
Source: FEMA FIS, 2009
9. Flood
9-13
The flood extent or severity categories used by the NWS include minor flooding, moderate flooding, and major
flooding. Each category has a definition based on property damage and public threat (NWS, 2009a):
• Minor Flooding—Minimal or no property damage, but possibly some public threat or inconvenience.
• Moderate Flooding—Some inundation of structures and roads near streams. Some evacuations of people
and/or transfer of property to higher elevations are necessary.
• Major Flooding—Extensive inundation of structures and roads. Significant evacuations of people and/or
transfer of property to higher elevations.
9.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
The most problematic secondary hazard for flooding is bank erosion, which in some cases can be more harmful
than actual flooding. This is especially true in the upper courses of rivers with steep gradients, where floodwaters
may pass quickly and without much damage, but scour the banks, edging properties closer to the floodplain or
causing them to fall in. Flooding is also responsible for hazards such as landslides when high flows over-saturate
soils on steep slopes, causing them to fail. Hazardous materials spills are also a secondary hazard of flooding if
storage tanks rupture and spill into streams, rivers or storm sewers.
9.4 EXPOSURE
Hazus was used to assess the risk and vulnerability to flooding in the planning area. The model used census data
at the block level and FEMA floodplain data, which has a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes.
Where possible, the Hazus default data was enhanced using local GIS data from local, state and federal sources.
9.4.1 Population
Population counts of those living in the floodplain in the planning area were generated by estimating percent of
residential buildings in each jurisdiction within the 10-percent, 1-percent and 0.2-percent annual chance
floodplains and multiplying this by total population in the planning area. Table 9-8 shows the results of this
analysis.
9.4.2 Property
Structures in the Floodplain
Table 9-9, Table 9-10 and Table 9-11 summarize the total area of the 10-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood
hazard areas and the number of structures in each. The Hazus model determined that there are 300 structures
within the 10-percent-annual-chance flood hazard area, 830 structures within the 1-percent-annual-chance flood
hazard area, and 8,077 structures within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood hazard area. In the 1-percent-annual-
chance flood hazard area, about 90 percent are residential, and 9 percent are commercial and industrial.
Exposed Value
Table 9-12, Table 9-13 and Table 9-14 summarize the estimated value of exposed buildings in the planning area.
This methodology estimated $717 million worth of building-and-contents exposure to the 10-percent-annual-
chance flood, representing 1.3 percent of the total replacement value of the planning area, $1.169 billion worth of
exposure to the 1-percent-annual-chance flood, representing 2.2 percent of the total replacement value of the
planning area, and $10.2 billion worth of exposure to the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood, representing
19.1 percent of the total.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-14
Table 9-8. Population Within the 10-Percent, 1-Percent and 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Areas
10-Percent Annual Chance Flood
Hazard Area
1-Percent Annual Chance Flood
Hazard Area
0.2-Percent Annual Chance Flood
Hazard Area
Population
Exposeda
% of Total
Population
Population
Exposeda
% of Total
Population
Population
Exposeda
% of Total
Population
Dublin 254 0.4% 1,183 2.0% 3,804 6.4%
Livermore 212 0.2% 212 0.2% 5,340 6.0%
Pleasanton 409 0.5% 1,276 1.7% 17,354 22.9%
Total 875 0.4% 2,671 1.2% 26,498 11.8%
a. Represents percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by estimated January 1, 2017 population from California Department of
Finance.
Table 9-9. Area and Structures in the 10-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Area in Floodplain Number of Structures in Floodplain
(acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total
Dublin 181 69 24 0 1 2 1 0 97
Livermore 839 62 15 0 0 2 1 0 80
Pleasanton 337 116 3 2 0 2 0 0 123
Total 1,357 247 42 2 1 6 2 0 300
Table 9-10. Area and Structures in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Area in Floodplain Number of Structures in Floodplain
(acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total
Dublin 368 321 54 1 1 2 1 1 381
Livermore 922 62 15 0 0 2 1 0 80
Pleasanton 557 362 3 2 0 2 0 0 369
Total 1,847 745 72 3 1 6 2 1 830
Table 9-11. Area and Structures in the 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Area in Floodplain Number of Structures in Floodplain
(acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total
Dublin 854 1,032 140 6 1 11 1 4 1,195
Livermore 2,088 1,563 60 67 0 7 1 0 1,698
Pleasanton 2,958 4,924 224 18 0 10 2 6 5,184
Total 5,901 7,519 424 91 1 28 4 10 8,077
Table 9-12. Value of Structures in the 10-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Estimated Value within the Floodplain
Structure Contents Total % of Total Replacement Value
Dublin $132,074,724 $125,014,291 $257,089,014 2.1%
Livermore $176,253,263 $162,236,748 $338,490,011 1.7%
Pleasanton $68,141,755 $53,967,801 $122,109,556 0.6%
Total $376,469,741 $341,218,840 $717,688,582 1.3%
9. Flood
9-15
Table 9-13. Value of Structures in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Estimated Value within the Floodplain
Structure Contents Total % of Total Replacement Value
Dublin $319,871,666 $281,906,825 $601,778,490 4.9%
Livermore $176,253,263 $162,236,748 $338,490,011 1.7%
Pleasanton $139,691,444 $89,742,646 $229,434,090 1.1%
Total $635,816,373 $533,886,219 $1,169,702,592 2.2%
Table 9-14. Value of Structures in the 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Estimated Value within the Floodplain
Structure Contents Total % of Total Replacement Value
Dublin $1,253,666,919 $985,964,915 $2,239,631,834 18.4%
Livermore $1,005,046,299 $894,841,929 $1,899,888,229 9.3%
Pleasanton $3,397,453,405 $2,707,341,684 $6,104,795,089 29.0%
Total $5,656,166,624 $4,588,148,528 $10,244,315,151 19.1%
Land Use in the Floodplain
Some land uses are more vulnerable to flooding, such as single-family homes, while others are less vulnerable,
such as agricultural land or parks. Table 9-15 shows the existing land use of all parcels in the 1-percent annual
chance and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, including those in public/open space uses. About 56 percent of
the parcels in the 1-percent annual chance floodplain are zoned for vacant/rights-of-way/water/open space. These
are favorable, lower-risk uses for the floodplain. This would be valuable information for gauging the future
development potential of the floodplain.
Table 9-15. Land Use Within the Floodplain
1-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Area (acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total
Residential 404 20.7% 1,122 27.6%
Commercial 321 16.4% 972 23.9%
Industrial 7 0.4% 155 3.8%
Agriculture 1 0.0% 0 0.0%
Religion / Assembly 43 2.2% 55 1.4%
Government / Institutional 58 3.0% 68 1.7%
Education 11 0.6% 80 2.0%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way /
Water / Open Space
1,106 56.7% 1,620 39.8%
Total 1,950 100.0% 4,070 100.0%
9.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Table 9-16, Table 9-17 and Table 9-18 summarize the critical facilities and infrastructure in the 10-, 1-, and 0.2-
percent annual chance flood hazard areas. Details are provided in the following sections.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-16
Table 9-16. Critical Facilities/Infrastructure in the 10-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Medical and
Health Services
Emergency
Services
Educational
Facilities
Government /
City Facilities Utilities
Transportation
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials
Other
Assets Total
Dublin 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 11
Livermore 0 0 0 1 1 13 0 0 15
Pleasanton 0 1 0 0 1 20 1 0 23
Total 0 1 0 2 2 43 1 0 49
Table 9-17. Critical Facilities/Infrastructure in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Medical and
Health Services
Emergency
Services
Educational
Facilities
Government /
City Facilities Utilities
Transportation
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials
Other
Assets Total
Dublin 1 0 0 1 1 12 0 0 15
Livermore 0 0 0 1 1 14 0 0 16
Pleasanton 0 1 0 0 2 21 2 0 26
Total 1 1 0 2 4 47 2 0 57
Table 9-18. Critical Facilities/Infrastructure in the 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Medical and
Health Services
Emergency
Services
Educational
Facilities
Government /
City Facilities Utilities
Transportation
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials
Other
Assets Total
Dublin 1 2 0 5 1 16 0 0 25
Livermore 2 1 0 1 1 26 4 0 35
Pleasanton 4 3 6 0 19 31 2 0 65
Total 7 6 6 6 21 73 6 0 125
Toxic Release Inventory Facilities
Toxic Release Inventory facilities are known to manufacture, process, store, or otherwise use certain chemicals
above minimum thresholds. If damaged by a flood, these facilities could release chemicals that cause cancer or
other human health effects, significant adverse acute human health effects, or significant adverse environmental
effects (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). Two businesses in the 1-percent annual chance floodplain
and six businesses in the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain report having Toxic Release Inventory hazardous
materials. During a flood event, containers holding these materials can rupture and leak into the surrounding area,
having a disastrous effect on the environment as well as residents.
Utilities and Infrastructure
Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can prevent access throughout the
planning area, including for emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make
repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can
be flooded or backed up, causing health problems. Underground utilities can be damaged. Dikes can fail or be
overtopped, inundating the land that they protect. The following sections describe specific types of critical
infrastructure.
Roads
The following major roads in the planning area pass through the 1-percent annual chance floodplain:
• Interstate 580
• Interstate 680
9. Flood
9-17
• State Highway 84 / Isabel Ave (Livermore)
• West Las Positas Blvd (Pleasanton)
• East Stanley Blvd (Livermore)
• Santa Rita Road (Pleasanton)
• 1st Street (Pleasanton)
• First Street (Livermore)
• Hopyard Road (Pleasanton)
• Murietta Blvd (Livermore)
• Livermore Ave (Livermore)
• Holmes Street (Livermore)
• P Street (Livermore)
• East Avenue (Livermore)
• Vasco Road (Livermore)
• Jack Londond Blvd (Livermore)
Some of these roads are built above the flood level, and others function as levees to prevent flooding. Still, in
severe flood events these roads can be blocked or damaged, preventing access to some areas.
Bridges
Flooding events can significantly impact road bridges. These are important because often they provide the only
ingress and egress to some neighborhoods. An analysis showed that there are 73 bridges that are in or cross over
the 1-percent annual chance and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Water and sewer systems can be affected by flooding. Floodwaters can back up drainage systems, causing
localized flooding. Culverts can be blocked by debris from flood events, also causing localized urban flooding.
Floodwaters can get into drinking water supplies, causing contamination. Sewer systems can be backed up,
causing wastewater to spill into homes, neighborhoods, rivers and streams.
9.4.4 Environment
Flooding is a natural event, and floodplains provide many natural and beneficial functions. Nonetheless, flooding
can impact the environment in negative ways. Migrating fish can wash into roads or over dikes into flooded
fields, with no possibility of escape. Pollution from roads, such as oil, and hazardous materials can wash into
rivers and streams. During floods, these can settle onto normally dry soils, polluting them for agricultural uses.
Human development such as bridge abutments and levees, and logjams from timber harvesting can increase
stream bank erosion, causing rivers and streams to migrate into non-natural courses.
9.5 VULNERABILITY
Many of the areas exposed to flooding may not experience serious flooding or flood damage. This section
describes vulnerabilities in terms of population, property, infrastructure and environment.
9.5.1 Population
Estimated Impacts on Persons and Households
Impacts on persons and households in the planning area were estimated for the 10-, 1-, and 2-percent annual
chance flood events through a Hazus analysis. Table 9-19 summarizes the results.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-18
Table 9-19. Estimated Flood Impact on Persons and Households
Displaced Populationa People Requiring Short-Term Sheltera
10-Percent Annual Chance Flood 109 79
1-Percent Annual Chance Flood 386 309
0.2-Percent Annual Chance Flood 11,531 10,770
a. Calculated using a Census-block level, general building stock analysis in Hazus, adjusted to reflect the estimated population.
Public Health and Safety
Floods and their aftermath present numerous threats to public health and safety:
• Unsafe food—Floodwaters contain disease-causing bacteria, dirt, oil, human and animal waste, and farm
and industrial chemicals. Their contact with food items, including food crops in agricultural lands, can
make that food unsafe to eat. Refrigerated and frozen foods are affected during power outages caused by
flooding. Foods in cardboard, plastic bags, jars, bottles, and paper packaging may be unhygienic with
mold contamination.
• Contaminated drinking and washing water and poor sanitation—Flooding impairs clean water
sources with pollutants. The pollutants also saturate into the groundwater. Flooded wastewater treatment
plants can be overloaded, resulting in backflows of raw sewage. Private wells can be contaminated by
floodwaters. Private sewage disposal systems can become a cause of infection if they or overflow.
• Mosquitoes and animals—Floods provide new breeding grounds for mosquitoes in wet areas and
stagnant pools. The public should dispose of dead animals that can carry viruses and diseases only in
accordance with guidelines issued by local animal control authorities. Leptospirosis—a bacterial disease
associated predominantly with rats—often accompanies floods in developing countries, although the risk
is low in industrialized regions unless cuts or wounds have direct contact with disease-contaminated
floodwaters or animals.
• Mold and mildew—Excessive exposure to mold and mildew can cause flood victims—especially those
with allergies and asthma—to contract upper respiratory diseases, triggering cold-like symptoms. Molds
grow in as short a period as 24 to 48 hours in wet and damp areas of buildings and homes that have not
been cleaned after flooding, such as water-infiltrated walls, floors, carpets, toilets and bathrooms. Very
small mold spores can be easily inhaled by human bodies and, in large enough quantities, cause allergic
reactions, asthma episodes, and other respiratory problems. Infants, children, elderly people and pregnant
women are considered most vulnerable to mold-induced health problems.
• Carbon monoxide poisoning—In the event of power outages following floods, some people use
alternative fuels for heating or cooking in enclosed or partly enclosed spaces, such as small gasoline
engines, stoves, generators, lanterns, gas ranges, charcoal or wood. Built-up carbon monoxide from these
sources can poison people and animals.
• Hazards when reentering and cleaning flooded homes and buildings—Flooded buildings can pose
significant health hazards to people entering them. Electrical power systems can become hazardous. Gas
leaks can trigger fire and explosion. Flood debris—such as broken bottles, wood, stones and walls—may
cause injuries to those cleaning damaged buildings. Containers of hazardous chemicals may be buried
under flood debris. Hazardous dust and mold can circulate through a building and be inhaled by those
engaged in cleanup and restoration.
• Mental stress and fatigue—People who live through a devastating flood can experience long-term
psychological impact. The expense and effort required to repair flood-damaged homes places severe
financial and psychological burdens on the people affected. Post-flood recovery can cause, anxiety, anger,
depression, lethargy, hyperactivity, and sleeplessness. There is also a long-term concern among the
affected that their homes can be flooded again in the future.
9. Flood
9-19
Current loss estimation models such as Hazus are not equipped to measure public health impacts such as these.
The best preparation for these effects includes awareness that they can occur, education of the public on
prevention, and planning to deal with them during responses to flood events.
9.5.2 Property
Structures and Contents
Hazus calculates losses to structures from flooding by looking at depth of flooding and type of structure. Impacted
structures are those with finished floor elevations below the flood event water surface elevation. These structures
are the most likely to receive significant damage in a flood event. Using historical flood insurance claim data,
Hazus estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage
functions to an inventory. For this analysis, local data on facilities was used instead of the default inventory data
provided with Hazus. The analysis is summarized in Table 9-20, Table 9-21, and Table 9-22 for the 10-, 1-, and
0.2-percent-annual-chance flood events, respectively.
Table 9-20. Loss Estimates for 10-Percent Annual Chance Floodplain
Buildings Estimated Loss Associated with Flood % of Total
Impacted Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin 32 $590,797 $2,169,503 $2,760,300 0.02%
Livermore 9 $1,869,180 $5,121,677 $6,990,857 0.03%
Pleasanton 4 $101,385 $292,115 $393,500 0.002%
Total 45 $2,561,361 $7,583,295 $10,144,656 0.02%
Note: Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. See Section 5.5 for discussion of data limitations.
Table 9-21. Loss Estimates for 1-percent Annual Chance Flood
Buildings Estimated Loss Associated with Flood % of Total
Impacted Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin 103 $2,918,583 $4,516,967 $7,435,549 0.06%
Livermore 9 $1,869,180 $5,121,677 $6,990,857 0.03%
Pleasanton 202 $5,563,985 $2,250,544 $7,814,529 0.04%
Total 314 $10,351,747 $11,889,188 $22,240,935 0.04%
Note: Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. See Section 5.5 for discussion of data limitations.
Table 9-22. Loss Estimates for 0.2-percent Annual Chance Flood
Buildings Estimated Loss Associated with Flood % of Total
Impacted Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin 381 $219,729,360 $284,954,257 $504,683,618 4.1%
Livermore 80 $95,941,930 $205,932,827 $301,874,756 1.5%
Pleasanton 369 $167,384,587 $200,293,920 $367,678,508 1.7%
Total 830 $483,055,877 $691,181,005 $1,174,236,882 2.2%
Note: Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. See Section 5.5 for discussion of data limitations.
Key results are as follows:
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-20
• There would be up to $10 million of flood loss from a 10-percent-annual-chance flood event in the
planning area. This represents 1.4 percent of the total exposure to that level of flood and less than
0.1 percent of the total replacement value for the planning area.
• There would be up to $22 million of flood loss from a 1-percent-annual-chance flood event in the
planning area. This represents 1.9 percent of the total exposure to that level of flood and less than
0.1 percent of the total replacement value for the planning area.
• There would be $1.2 billion of flood loss from a 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood event in the planning
area. This represents 11.5 percent of the total exposure to that level of flood and 2.2 percent of the total
replacement value.
Flood-Caused Debris
The Hazus analysis estimated the amount of flood-caused debris within the planning area generated by flooding,
as summarized in Table 9-23.
Table 9-23. Estimated Flood-Caused Debris
Jurisdiction
10% Annual-Chance Flood 1% Annual-Chance Flood 0.2% Annual-Chance Flood
Debris to Be
Removed
(tons)a
Estimated
Number of
Truckloadsb
Debris to Be
Removed
(tons)a
Estimated
Number of
Truckloadsb
Debris to Be
Removed
(tons)a
Estimated
Number of
Truckloadsb
Dublin 87 3 539 22 15,997 640
Livermore 538 22 538 22 11,914 477
Pleasanton 133 5 6,722 269 26,476 1,059
Total 758 30 7,799 312 54,387 2,175
a. Debris generation estimates were based on updated general building stock dataset at a Census Block analysis level.
b. Hazus assumes 25 tons/trucks.
Note: Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. See Section 5.5 for discussion of data limitations.
National Flood Insurance Program
Table 9-24 lists flood insurance statistics that help identify vulnerability in the planning area. Dublin, Livermore
and Pleasanton participate in the NFIP, with a combined 368 flood insurance policies providing $125.7 million in
insurance coverage. According to FEMA statistics, only 8 flood insurance claims were paid between January 1,
1978 and March 31, 2017, for a total of $154 thousand, an average of $19,250 per claim.
Table 9-24. Flood Insurance Statistics
Date of Entry Initial # of Flood Insurance Insurance
Total
Annual
Claims Closed 11/1978 to
3/31/2017
FIRM Effective Date Policies as of 3/31/2017 In Force Premium Number Value
Dublin 08/18/1983 121 $39,537,400 $210,497 0 0
Livermore 07/05/1977 107 $35,273,900 $104,078 0 0
Pleasanton 12/16/1980 140 $50,932,000 $104,558 8 $154,583.37
Total 368 $125,743,300 $419,133 8 $154,583.37
Repetitive Loss
A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as an NFIP-insured property that has experienced any of the
following since 1978, regardless of any changes in ownership:
• Four or more paid losses in excess of $1,000
9. Flood
9-21
• Two paid losses in excess of $1,000 within any rolling 10-year period
• Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property.
Repetitive loss properties make up only 2 percent of flood insurance policies in force nationally, yet they account
for 40 percent of the nation’s flood insurance claim payments. A report on repetitive losses by the National
Wildlife Federation found that 20 percent of these properties are outside any mapped 1-percent annual chance
floodplain.
The government has instituted programs encouraging communities to identify and mitigate the causes of
repetitive losses. FEMA-sponsored programs, such as the CRS, require participating communities to identify
repetitive loss areas. The key identifiers for repetitive loss properties are the existence of flood insurance policies
and claims paid by the policies. A repetitive loss area is the portion of a floodplain holding structures that FEMA
has identified as meeting the definition of repetitive loss. Identifying repetitive loss areas helps to identify
structures that are at risk but are not on FEMA’s list of repetitive loss structures because no flood insurance policy
was in force at the time of loss.
Based on information provided by FEMA Region IX, there are no repetitive loss structures within the city limits
of Dublin, Livermore, or Pleasanton as of July 2017.
9.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Hazus was used to estimate the flood loss potential to critical facilities exposed to the flood risk. Using
depth/damage function curves to estimate the percent of damage to the building and contents of critical facilities,
Hazus correlates these estimates into an estimate of functional down-time (the estimated time it will take to
restore a facility to 100 percent of its functionality). This helps to gauge how long the planning area could have
limited usage of facilities deemed critical to flood response and recovery. The Hazus critical facility results for
10-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood events are as follows (see: Table 9-25, Table 9-26, and Table 9-27).
• 10-percent annual chance flood event—12 facilities would be affected and on average the facilities
would receive 4.12 percent damage to the structure and 27.03 percent damage to the contents.
• 1-percent annual chance flood event—21 facilities would be affected an on average, critical facilities
would receive 7.33-percent damage to the structure and 27.78-percent damage to the contents during a
1-percent annual chance flood event.
• 0.2-percent annual chance flood event—66 facilities would be affected an on average, critical facilities
would receive 15.18-percent damage to the structure and 39.94-percent damage to the contents during a 1
percent annual chance flood event..
Table 9-25. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 10-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood
Number of Average % of Total Value Damaged
Types of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Facilities Affected Structure Content
Medical and Health Services 0 N/A N/A
Emergency Services 0 N/A N/A
Educational Facilities 0 N/A N/A
Government / City Facilities 1 3.86 23.16
Utilities 1 11.26 57.35
Transportation Infrastructure 9 0.03 N/A
Hazardous Materials 1 1.35 0.58
Total/Average 12 4.12 27.03
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-22
Table 9-26. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood
Number of Average % of Total Value Damaged
Types of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Facilities Affected Structure Content
Medical and Health Services 0 N/A N/A
Emergency Services 0 N/A N/A
Educational Facilities 0 N/A N/A
Government / City Facilities 1 4.24 25.44
Utilities 3 23.20 57.17
Transportation Infrastructure 16 0.43 N/A
Hazardous Materials 1 1.43 0.72
Total/Average 21 7.33 27.78
Table 9-27. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood
Number of Average % of Total Value Damaged
Types of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Facilities Affected Structure Content
Medical and Health Services 1 22.53 15.06
Emergency Services 1 5.21 5.96
Educational Facilities 3 11.39 57.56
Government / City Facilities 4 11.82 71.03
Utilities 7 28.79 52.95
Transportation Infrastructure 47 0.82 N/A
Hazardous Materials 3 25.67 37.07
Total/Average 66 15.18 39.94
9.5.4 Environment
The environment vulnerable to flood hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard. Loss
estimation platforms such as Hazus are not currently equipped to measure environmental impacts of flood
hazards. The best gauge of vulnerability of the environment would be a review of damage from past flood events.
Loss data that segregates damage to the environment was not available at the time of this plan. Capturing this data
from future events could be beneficial in measuring the vulnerability of the environment for future updates.
While the vulnerability assessment focuses on human vulnerability to flood events, the impact of human activities
on flooding is also worth noting. Due to negative impacts of floods, many structural and other measures have
been devised to limit how far a floodplain can extend. However, floodplains have many natural and beneficial
functions, and disruption of natural systems can have long-term consequences for entire regions. Some well-
known, water-related functions of floodplains (noted by FEMA) include:
• Natural flood and erosion control
• Provide flood storage and conveyance
• Reduce flood velocities
• Reduce flood peaks
• Reduce sedimentation
• Surface water quality maintenance
• Filter nutrients and impurities from runoff
• Process organic wastes
• Moderate temperatures of water
• Groundwater recharge
• Promote infiltration and aquifer recharge
• Reduce frequency and duration of low surface
flows.
9. Flood
9-23
Areas in the floodplain that typically provide these natural functions are wetlands, riparian areas, sensitive areas,
and habitats for rare and endangered species.
9.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
The planning partners are equipped to handle future growth within flood hazard areas. All three cities have
general plans that address frequently flooded areas in their safety elements and have committed to linking their
general plans to this hazard mitigation plan. This will create an opportunity for wise land use decisions as future
growth impacts flood hazard areas. Additionally, the three cities participant in the NFIP and have adopted flood
damage prevention ordinances in response to its requirements. They have committed to maintaining their good
standing under the NFIP through actions identified in this plan. Table 9-28 shows the future land use within the 1-
percent and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain.
Table 9-28. Future Land Use Within the Floodplain
1-Percent Annual Chance
Floodplain
0.2-Percent Annual Chance
Floodplain
Area (acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total
Residential 251 12.9% 1,429 35.1%
Commercial 170 8.7% 581 14.3%
Industrial 145 7.5% 274 6.7%
Agriculture 16 0.8% 3 0.1%
Religion / Assembly 88 4.5% 454 11.2%
Government / Institutional 62 3.2% 510 12.5%
Education 1,217 62.4% 818 20.1%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way / Water / Open Space 1,950 100.0% 4,070 100.0%
Total 251 12.9% 1,429 35.1%
9.7 SCENARIO
The primary water courses in the planning area have the potential to flood at irregular intervals, generally in
response to a succession of intense winter rainstorms. Storm patterns of warm, moist air usually occur between
early November and late March. A series of such weather events can cause severe flooding in the planning area.
The worst-case scenario is a series of storms that flood numerous drainage basins in a short time. This could
overwhelm the response and floodplain management capability within the planning area. Major roads could be
blocked, preventing critical access for many residents and critical functions. High in-channel flows could cause
water courses to scour, possibly washing out roads and creating more isolation problems.
9.8 ISSUES
The planning team has identified the following flood-related issues relevant to the planning area:
• The accuracy of the existing flood hazard mapping produced by FEMA in reflecting the true flood risk
within the planning area is questionable. This is most prevalent in areas protected by privately owned
levees and levees not accredited by the FEMA mapping process.
• The extent of the flood-protection currently provided by flood control facilities (dams, dikes and levees)
is not known due to the lack of an established national policy on flood protection standards.
• Older levees are subject to failure or do not meet current building practices for flood protection.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9-24
• The risk associated with the flood hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards such as
earthquake, landslide and wildfire. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation alternatives with
multiple objectives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards.
• More information is needed on flood risk to support the concept of risk-based analysis of capital projects.
• There needs to be a sustained effort to gather historical damage data, such as high water marks on
structures and damage reports, to measure the cost-effectiveness of future mitigation projects.
• Ongoing flood hazard mitigation will require funding from multiple sources.
• There needs to be a coordinated hazard mitigation effort between jurisdictions affected by flood hazards
within and outside of the planning area.
• Floodplain residents need to continue to be educated about flood preparedness and the resources available
during and after floods.
• The concept of residual risk should be considered in the design of future capital flood control projects and
should be communicated with residents living in the floodplain.
• The promotion of flood insurance as a means of protecting private property owners from the economic
impacts of frequent flood events should continue.
• Existing floodplain-compatible uses such as agricultural and open space need to be maintained. There is
constant pressure to convert these existing uses to more intense uses within the planning area during times
of moderate to high growth.
10-1
10. LANDSLIDE
10.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
Landslides and mudslides can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires,
volcanic eruptions or human modification of the land. They can move
rapidly down slopes or through channels, and can strike with little or no
warning at avalanche speeds.
According to the USGS, the term landslide includes a wide range of
ground movement, such as rock falls, deep failure of slopes, and
shallow debris flows. Although gravity acting on an over-steepened
slope is the primary reason for a landslide, there are other contributing
factors. Landslide hazard areas exist where characteristics such as the
following indicate a risk of downhill movement of material (USGS,
2017c):
• A slope greater than 33 percent
• A history of landslide activity during the last 10,000 years
• Stream or wave activity that has caused erosion or cut into a
bank to cause the surrounding land to be unstable
• The presence or potential for snow avalanches
• The presence of an alluvial fan, which indicates vulnerability to
the flow of debris or sediments
• The presence of impermeable soils, such as silt or clay, mixed
with granular soils such as sand and gravel.
USGS scientists also monitor stream flow, noting changes in sediment load in rivers and streams that may result
from landslides. All of these types of landslides are considered aggregately in USGS landslide mapping.
10.1.1 Landslide Types
Landslides are commonly categorized by the type of initial ground failure. Common types of slides are shown on
Figure 10-1 through Figure 10-4 (WDOE, 2014). The most common is the shallow colluvial slide, occurring
particularly in response to intense, short-duration storms. The largest and most destructive are deep-seated slides,
although they are less common than other types.
Mudslides (or debris flows) are rivers of rock, earth, organic matter and other soil materials saturated with water.
They develop in the soil overlying bedrock on sloping surfaces when water rapidly accumulates in the ground,
such as during heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. Water pressure in the pore spaces of the material increases to the
point that the internal strength of the soil is drastically weakened. The soil’s reduced resistance can then easily be
overcome by gravity, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud.
DEFINITIONS
Landslide—The movement of
masses of loosened rock and soil
down a hillside or slope. Slope failures
occur when the strength of the soils
forming the slope is exceeded by the
pressure, such as weight or
saturation, acting upon them.
Mass movement—A collective term
for landslides, debris flows, falls and
sinkholes.
Mudslide (or debris flow)—A river of
rock, earth, organic matter and other
materials saturated with water.
Mudslides develop in the soil overlying
bedrock on sloping surfaces when
water rapidly accumulates in the
ground, such as during heavy rainfall
or rapid snowmelt. Water pressure in
the pore spaces of the material
increases to the point that the internal
strength of the soil is drastically
weakened. The soil’s reduced
resistance can then easily be
overcome by gravity, changing the
earth into a flowing river of mud or
“slurry.”
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
10-2
Figure 10-1. Deep Seated Slide Figure 10-2. Shallow Colluvial Slide
Figure 10-3. Bench Slide Figure 10-4. Large Slide
A debris avalanche (Figure 10-5) is a fast-moving debris flow that travels faster than about 10 miles per hour
(mph). Speeds in excess of 20 mph are not uncommon, and speeds in excess of 100 mph, although rare, can occur.
The slurry can travel miles from its source, growing as it descends, picking up trees, boulders, cars, and anything
else in its path. Although these slides behave as fluids, they pack many times the hydraulic force of water due to
the mass of material included in them. They can be among the most destructive events in nature.
Landslides also include the following:
• Rock Falls—blocks of rock that fall away from a bedrock unit without a rotational component
• Rock Topples—blocks of rock that fall away from a bedrock unit with a rotational component
• Rotational Slumps—blocks of fine-grained sediment that rotate and move down slope
• Transitional Slides—sediments that move along a flat surface without a rotational component
• Earth Flows—fine-grained sediments that flow downhill and typically form a fan structure
• Creep—a slow-moving landslide often only noticed through crooked trees and disturbed structures
• Block Slides—blocks of rock that slide along a slip plane as a unit down a slope.
10. Landslide
10-3
Source: (Smith, n.d.)
Figure 10-5. Typical Debris Avalanche Scar and Track
10.1.2 Landslide Modeling
Two characteristics are essential to conducting an accurate risk assessment of the landslide hazard:
• The type of initial ground failure that occurs, as described above
• The post-failure movement of the loosened material (“run-out”), including travel distance and velocity.
All current landslide models—those in practical applications and those more recently developed—use simplified
hypothetical descriptions of mass movement to simulate the complex behavior of actual flow. The models attempt
to reproduce the general features of the moving mass of material through measurable factors, such as base shear,
that define a system and determine its behavior. Due to the lack of experimental data and the limited current
knowledge about the behavior of the moving flows, landslide models use simplified parameters to account for
complex aspects that may not be defined. These simplified parameters are not related to specific physical
processes that can be directly measured, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in their definition. Some, but not
all, models provide estimates of the level of uncertainty associated with the modeling approach.
Run-out modeling is complicated because the movement of materials may change over the course of a landslide
event, depending on the initial composition, the extent of saturation by water, the ground shape of the path
traveled and whether there is additional material incorporated during the event.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
10-4
10.1.3 Landslide Causes
Mass movements are caused by a combination of geological and climate conditions, as well as encroaching
urbanization. Vulnerable natural conditions are affected by human residential, agricultural, commercial and
industrial development and the infrastructure that supports it. The following factors can contribute to landslide:
• Change in slope of the terrain
• Increased load on the land, shocks and vibrations
• Change in water content
• Groundwater movement
• Frost action
• Weathering of rocks
• Removing or changing the type of vegetation covering slopes.
Excavation and Grading
Slope excavation is common in the development of home sites or roads on sloping terrain. Grading can result in
some slopes that are steeper than the pre-existing natural slopes. Since slope steepness is a major factor in
landslides, these steeper slopes can be at an increased risk for landslides. The added weight of fill placed on
slopes can also result in an increased landslide hazard. Small landslides can be fairly common along roads, in
either the road cut or the road fill. Landslides occurring below new construction sites are indicators of the
potential impacts stemming from excavation.
Drainage and Groundwater Alterations
Water flowing through or above ground is often the trigger for landslides. Any activity that increases the amount
of water flowing into landslide-prone slopes can increase landslide hazards. Broken or leaking water or sewer
lines can be especially problematic, as can water retention facilities that direct water onto slopes. However, even
lawn irrigation and minor alterations to small streams in landslide prone locations can result in damaging
landslides. Ineffective stormwater management and excess runoff can also cause erosion and increase the risk of
landslide hazards. Drainage can be affected naturally by the geology and topography of an area. Development that
results in an increase in impervious surface impairs the ability of the land to absorb water and may redirect water
to other areas. Channels, streams, flooding, and erosion on slopes all indicate potential slope problems.
Road and driveway drains, gutters, downspouts, and other constructed drainage facilities can concentrate and
accelerate flow. Ground saturation and concentrated velocity flow are major causes of slope problems and may
trigger landslides.
Changes in Vegetation
Removing vegetation from very steep slopes can increase landslide hazards. Areas that have experienced wildfire
and land clearing for development may have long periods of increased landslide hazard. In addition, woody debris
in stream channels (both natural and man-made from logging) may cause the impacts from debris flows to be
more severe.
10.1.4 Landslide Management
While small landslides are often a result of human activity, the largest landslides are often naturally occurring
phenomena with little or no human contribution. The sites of large landslides are typically areas of previous
landslide movement that are periodically reactivated by significant precipitation or seismic events. Such naturally
occurring landslides can disrupt roadways and other infrastructure lifelines, destroy private property, and cause
flooding, stream bank erosion and rapid stream channel migration.
10. Landslide
10-5
Landslides can create immediate, critical threats to public safety. Engineering solutions to protect structures on or
adjacent to large active landslides are often extremely or prohibitively expensive. In spite of their destructive
potential, landslides can serve beneficial functions to the natural environment. They supply sediment and large
wood to stream channel networks and can contribute to stream complexity and dynamic channel behavior critical
for aquatic and riparian ecological diversity. Effective landslide management should include the following
elements:
• Continuing investigation to identify natural landslides, understand their mechanics, assess their risk to
public health and welfare, and understand their role in ecological systems
• Regulation of development in or near existing landslides or areas of natural instability through the cities’
codes and ordinances and Alameda County code.
• Preparation for emergency response to landslides to facilitate rapid, coordinated action among Alameda
County, the planning area, and state and federal agencies, and to provide emergency assistance to affected
or at-risk citizens
• Evaluation of options including landslide stabilization or structure relocation where landslides are
identified as a threat to critical public structures or infrastructure
10.2 HAZARD PROFILE
10.2.1 Past Events
Landslides in the Bay Area typically occur either as a result of an earthquake or during heavy and sustained
rainfall events. Urbanized areas, like the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, and especially hilly areas of
Alameda County, have sustained damage from landslides caused by storms. Between 1980 and April 2017,
FEMA issued disaster (DR) declarations for the State of California for 10 landslide hazard-related events,
classified as one or a combination of the following events: severe winter storms, flooding, debris flow, mud flows,
landslides and mudslides, as listed in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1. FEMA Landslide Disaster Declarations in Alameda County
FEMA
Declaration Event Date Event Type Location
DR-4308 February 1 – February 23,
2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides 43 counties including Alameda County
DR-4305 January 18 – January 23, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides 23 counties including Alameda County
DR-4301 January 3 – January 12, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides 34 counties including Alameda County
DR-1646 March 29 – April 16, 2006 Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides 17 counties including Alameda County
DR-1628 December 17 – January 3,
2006
Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides 31 counties including Alameda County
DR-1155 December 28, 1996 – April 1,
1997 Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Landslides 48 counties including Alameda County
DR-1046 February 13 – April 19, 1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides 57 counties including Alameda County
DR-1044 January 3 – February 10, 1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides 42 counties including Alameda County
DR-677 January 21 – March 30, 1983 Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides & Tornadoes 40 counties including Alameda County
DR-651 December 19, 1981 – January
8, 1983 Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides & High Tide 10 counties including Alameda County
Source: FEMA, 2017e
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
10-6
Little recorded information is available regarding previous landslide occurrences in the Cities of Dublin,
Livermore and Pleasanton. Table 10-2 lists known landslide events that have impacted the planning area between
1980 and April 2017.
Table 10-2. Landslide Events in the Tri-Valley Planning Area
Event Date Event Type
FEMA
Declaration
Number Location Description
March 8, 2017 Landslide N/A Pleasanton The backyards of three homes along Foothill Road slid/eroded into
Arroyo De La Laguna Creek in Pleasanton.
February 20, 2017 Slide DR-4308 Livermore Slide blocked at least one land east bound 84 just west of Vallecitos
and Tesla Road closed from mudslide in Livermore.
January 19,
2017
Mudslides DR-4305 Tri-Valley
area/
unincorporated
county
Mudslide debris covered Palomares Road, Tesla Road, Mines Road,
and Old Altamont Pass Road.
November 2, 2015 Mudslide N/A Livermore/
unincorporated
county
Heavy rain caused mudslide on Patterson Pass Road, Tesla Road
and Corall Hollow Road, east of Livermore
April 6-20, 2006 Heavy Rain and
Debris Flows
DR-1646 Alameda
County
Heavy rains caused landslides, eroding hillsides and cracked
pavement. Landslide or erosion problems on private properties spilled
over onto county rights-of-way. Overall, the County had
approximately $10 million in damage to county roadways.
December 17,
2005 – January
12, 2006
Winter Storms DR-1628 Alameda
County
Severe storms brought flooding, mudslides, and landslides to most of
Alameda County.
February 1995 Late Winter
Storms (Severe
Winter Storms,
Flood,
Landslide,
Mudflows)
DR-1046 Statewide All California counties except Del Norte were included in this
declaration. In total, the state recorded 17 deaths; $190.6 million in
public property damage, $122.4 million in individual damage,
$46.9 million in business damage, $79 million in highway damage,
and $651.6 million in agricultural damage; with 1,322 homes
recording major damage, 267 listed as destroyed, and 2,299
recording minor damage.
Sources: NOAA NCEI, 2017b; FEMA, 2017e; Alameda County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2016b
10.2.2 Location
The best available predictor of where movement of slides and earth flows might occur is the location of past
movements. Past landslides can be recognized by their distinctive topographic shapes, which can remain in place
for thousands of years. Most landslides recognizable in this fashion range from a few acres to several square
miles. Most show no evidence of recent movement and are not currently active. A small proportion of them may
become active in any given year, with movements concentrated within all or part of the landslide masses or
around their edges.
The recognition of ancient dormant mass movement sites is important in the identification of areas susceptible to
flows and slides because they can be reactivated by earthquakes or by exceptionally wet weather. Also, because
they consist of broken materials and frequently involve disruption of groundwater flow, these dormant sites are
vulnerable to construction-triggered sliding.
10. Landslide
10-7
In 2011, the California Geological Survey conducted a statewide analysis of landslide susceptibility using a
combination of regional rock strength and slope data to create classes of susceptibility. The methodology used for
the analysis assumed, in general, that landslide susceptibility is low on very low slopes in all rock materials, and
that susceptibility increases with slope and in weak rocks. The analysis also factored in locations of past
landslides. Figure 10-6 shows the susceptibility classes—low, moderate, high, and very high/existing landslide—
in the planning area. Most of the planning area is shown as having low susceptibility, though portions of all the
cities’ boundaries are shown as having moderate to high susceptibility. The City of Pleasanton has very high
susceptibility near its western boundary.
10.2.3 Frequency
Landslides are often triggered by other natural hazards such as earthquakes, heavy rain, floods or wildfires, so
landslide frequency is often related to the frequency of these other hazards. In the planning area, landslides
typically occur during and after major storms, so the potential for landslides largely coincides with the potential
for sequential severe storms that saturate steep, vulnerable soils. As shown in Figure 10-6, the Cities of Dublin
and Livermore have a range of low to high susceptibility to deep-seated landslides; therefore, the frequency of
landslide events in these areas is considered moderate to high. The western portion of Pleasanton has a high to
very high susceptibility to deep-seated landslides; therefore having a high frequency of landslide occurrence.
10.2.4 Severity
Landslides destroy property and infrastructure and can take human lives. Slope failures in the United States result
in an average of 25 lives lost per year and an annual cost of about $1.5 billion. Landslides can pose a serious
hazard to properties on or below hillsides. When landslides occur — in response to such changes as increased
water content, earthquake shaking, addition of load, or removal of downslope support — they deform and tilt the
ground surface. The result can be destruction of foundations, offset of roads, breaking of underground pipes, or
overriding of downslope property and structures. In the planning area, landslides and mudslides are a common
occurrence and have caused damage to homes, public facilities, roads, parks, and sewer lines in particular.
10.2.5 Warning Time
Mass movements can occur suddenly or slowly. The velocity of movement may range from a slow creep of inches
per year to many feet per second, depending on slope angle, material and water content. Generally accepted
warning signs for landslide activity include the following:
• Springs, seeps, or saturated ground in areas that have not typically been wet before
• New cracks or unusual bulges in the ground, street pavements or sidewalks
• Soil moving away from foundations
• Ancillary structures such as decks and patios tilting and/or moving relative to the main house
• Tilting or cracking of concrete floors and foundations
• Broken water lines and other underground utilities
• Leaning telephone poles, trees, retaining walls or fences
• Offset fence lines
• Sunken or down-dropped road beds
• Rapid increase in creek water levels, possibly accompanied by increased turbidity (soil content)
• Sudden decrease in creek water levels though rain is still falling or just recently stopped
• Sticking doors and windows, and visible open spaces indicating frames out of plumb
• A faint rumbling sound that increases in volume as the landslide nears
• Unusual sounds, such as trees cracking or boulders knocking together.
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ238ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsNo Landslide Data AvailableSusceptibility to Deep-Seated LandslidesLowModerateHighVery High / Existing/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGS, ESRITri-Valley Area0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountySource dataset created by Wills C.J.,Perez, F., Gutierrez, C., 2011, Susceptibilityto deep-seated landslides in California:California Geological Survey Map Sheet 58Susceptibility to Deep-SeatedLandslidesFigure 10-6.
10. Landslide
10-9
Some methods used to monitor mass movements can provide an idea of the type of movement and the amount of
time prior to failure. Assessing the geology, vegetation and amount of predicted precipitation for an area can help
in predictions of what areas are at risk during general time periods. Currently, there is no practical warning system
for individual landslides. The standard operating procedure is to monitor situations on a case-by-case basis and
respond after an event has occurred.
10.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
Landslides can cause several types of secondary effects, such as blocking access to roads, which can isolate
residents and businesses and delay commercial, public and private transportation. This could result in economic
losses for businesses. Other potential problems resulting from landslides are power and communication failures.
Vegetation or poles on slopes can be knocked over, resulting in possible losses to power and communication
lines. Landslides also have the potential of destabilizing the foundation of structures, which may result in
monetary loss for residents. They also can damage rivers or streams, potentially harming water quality, fisheries
and spawning habitat.
10.4 EXPOSURE
10.4.1 Population
Population could not be examined by landslide hazard area because census block group areas do not coincide with
the hazard areas. Population was estimated using the number of residential buildings in each mapped landslide
hazard area multiplied by the 2016 estimated population per household. Using this approach, the estimated
population living in each landslide susceptibility zone is as shown in Table 10-3.
Table 10-3. Population Exposure to the Landslide Hazard
Low Landslide
Susceptibility Zonea
Moderate Landslide
Susceptibility Zoneb
High Landslide
Susceptibility Zonec
Very High Landslide
Susceptibility Zoned
Population % of Total Population % of Total Population % of Total Population % of Total
Dublin 36,175 60.6% 9,343 15.7% 14,072 23.6% 96 0.2%
Livermore 84,093 93.8% 2,911 3.2% 2,641 2.9% 3 0.0%
Pleasanton 61,748 81.3% 5,068 6.7% 8,790 11.6% 310 0.4%
Total 182,016 80.8% 17,322 7.7% 25,503 11.3% 409 0.2%
a. Categories 0 and III zones.
b. Categories V and VI zones.
c. Categories VII, VIII and IX zones.
d. Category X zone; includes existing landslides.
Source: CA DOF, 2017; California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2011
10.4.2 Property
Table 10-4 through Table 10-7 shows the number and replacement value of structures exposed to the landslide
risk, based on the California Geological Survey (CGS) definitions of landslide susceptibility. Table 10-8 shows
the general land use of planning area parcels exposed to landslides.
10.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Critical facilities exposed to the landslide hazard are summarized in Table 10-9 through Table 10-11.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
10-10
Table 10-4. Number and Value of Exposed Structures in Very High Landslide Susceptibility Zone
Estimated Value within the Very High Landslide Risk Areaa % of Total Replacement
Buildings Exposed Structure Contents Total Value
Dublin 26 $8,128,552 $4,064,276 $12,192,829 0.1%
Livermore 2 $788,088 $691,595 $1,479,683 0.0%
Pleasanton 89 $58,799,278 $29,926,859 $88,726,137 0.4%
Total 117 $67,715,918.52 $34,682,729.95 $102,398,648 0.2%
a. Category X zone; includes existing landslides.
Source: Alameda County, 2016; California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2011
Table 10-5. Number and Value of Exposed Structures in High Landslide Susceptibility Zone
Estimated Value within the High Landslide Risk Areaa % of Total
Buildings Exposed Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin 3,836 $1,489,524,312 $808,744,220 $2,298,268,532 18.9%
Livermore 876 $369,425,486 $272,196,585 $641,622,072 3.1%
Pleasanton 2,547 $1,228,283,787 $704,352,337 $1,932,636,124 9.2%
Total 7,259 $3,087,233,586.22 $1,785,293,141.96 $4,872,526,728 9.1%
a. Categories VII, VIII and IX zones.
Source: Alameda County, 2016; California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2011
Table 10-6. Number and Value of Exposed Structures in Moderate Landslide Susceptibility Zone
Estimated Value within the Moderate Landslide Risk Areaa % of Total
Buildings Exposed Structure Contents Total Replacement Value
Dublin 2,546 $1,000,800,694 $541,216,387 $1,542,017,081 12.7%
Livermore 871 $269,402,436 $151,387,931 $420,790,366 2.1%
Pleasanton 1,445 $522,514,587 $292,911,879 $815,426,465 3.9%
Total 4,862 $1,792,717,716.19 $985,516,195.87 $2,778,233,912 5.2%
a. Categories V and VI zones.
Source: Alameda County, 2016; California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2011
Table 10-7. Exposure and Value of Structures in Low Landslide Susceptibility Zone
Estimated Value within the Low Landslide Risk Areaa, b % of Total
Buildings Exposed Structure Contents Structure & Contents Replacement Value
Dublin 10,180 $4,916,181,363 $3,395,694,614 $8,311,875,977 68.3%
Livermore 25,790 $11,139,242,238 $8,304,969,307 $19,444,211,545 94.8%
Pleasanton 18,552 $10,412,338,932 $7,779,025,499 $18,191,364,431 86.5%
Total 54,522 $26,467,762,532.92 $19,479,689,420.42 $45,947,451,953 85.6%
a. Categories 0 and III zones.
Source: Alameda County, 2016; California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2011
10. Landslide
10-11
Table 10-8. Land Use in Landslide Risk Areas
Moderate Area High Area Very High Area
Land Use Area (acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total
Residential 1,174 34.5% 2,820 30.3% 256 32.4%
Commercial 52 1.5% 150 1.6% 1 0.2%
Industrial 18 0.5% 83 0.9% 1 0.1%
Agriculture 6 0.2% 17 0.2% 0 0.0%
Religion / Assembly 45 1.3% 92 1.0% 2 0.2%
Government /
Institutional
263 7.7% 427 4.6% 2 0.2%
Education 96 2.8% 97 1.0% 1 0.1%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way / Water / Open Space 1,746 51.4% 5,624 60.4% 528 66.8%
Total 3,400 100.0% 9,309 100.0% 791 100.0%
Table 10-9. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Moderate Landslide Risk Areas
Jurisdiction
Medical and
Health Services
Emergency
Services
Educational
Facilities
Government /
City Facilities Utilities
Transportation
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials
Other
Assets Total
Dublin 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4
Livermore 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
Pleasanton 1 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 13
Total 1 1 4 0 11 3 0 0 20
Table 10-10. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in High Landslide Risk Areas
Jurisdiction
Medical and
Health Services
Emergency
Services
Educational
Facilities
Government /
City Facilities Utilities
Transportation
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials
Other
Assets Total
Dublin 2 0 1 2 0 8 0 0 13
Livermore 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6
Pleasanton 0 0 1 0 24 17 2 0 44
Total 2 0 2 2 24 31 2 0 63
Table 10-11. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Very High Landslide Risk Areas
Jurisdiction
Medical and
Health Services
Emergency
Services
Educational
Facilities
Government /
City Facilities Utilities
Transportation
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials
Other
Assets Total
Dublin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Livermore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasanton 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
10-12
A significant amount of infrastructure can be exposed to mass movements:
• Roads—Access to major roads is crucial to life-safety after a disaster event and to response and recovery
operations. Landslides can block roads, causing isolation for neighborhoods, traffic problems and delays
for public and private transportation. This can result in economic losses for businesses.
• Bridges—Landslides can significantly impact road bridges. Mass movements can knock out bridge
abutments or significantly weaken the soil supporting them, making them hazardous for use.
• Power Lines—Power lines are generally elevated above steep slopes; but the towers supporting them can
be subject to landslides. A landslide could trigger failure of the soil underneath a tower, causing it to
collapse and ripping down the lines. Power and communication failures due to landslides can create
problems for vulnerable populations and businesses.
10.4.4 Environment
Environmental problems as a result of mass movements can be numerous. Landslides that fall into streams may
significantly impact fish and wildlife habitat and affect water quality. Hillsides that provide wildlife habitat can be
lost for prolonged periods of time due to landslides.
10.5 VULNERABILITY
10.5.1 Population
Due to the nature of census block group data, it is difficult to determine demographics of populations vulnerable
to mass movements. In general, all of the estimated 24,799 persons exposed to high risk landslide areas are
considered to be vulnerable. Increasing population and the fact that many homes are built on view property atop
or below bluffs and on steep slopes subject to mass movement, increases the number of lives endangered by this
hazard.
10.5.2 Property
Loss estimations for the landslide hazard are not based on damage functions, because none have been generated.
Instead, estimates of potential loss were developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent of the
assessed value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of economic impacts
based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50 percent is
considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure.
Table 10-12 shows the general building stock loss estimates in landslide risk areas.
Table 10-12. Loss Potential for Landslide
Estimated Loss Potential from Landslide
Exposed Valuea 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage
Dublin $12,164,354,419 $1,216,435,441 $3,649,306,325 $6,082,177,209
Livermore $20,508,103,666 $2,050,810,366 $6,152,431,099 $10,254,051,833
Pleasanton $21,028,153,157 $2,102,815,315 $6,308,445,947 $10,514,076,578
Total $53,700,611,242 $5,370,061,124 $16,110,183,372 $26,850,305,621
a. Exposed value based on cumulative of exposed total value in low, medium, high, and very high susceptibility
10. Landslide
10-13
10.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
There are 85 critical facilities exposed to the landslide hazard to some degree. A more in-depth analysis of the
mitigation measures taken by these facilities to prevent damage from mass movements should be done to
determine if they could withstand impacts of a mass movement.
Several types of infrastructure are exposed to mass movements, including transportation, water and sewer and
power infrastructure. Highly susceptible areas of the planning area include mountain and coastal roads and
transportation infrastructure. At this time all infrastructure and transportation corridors identified as exposed to
the landslide hazard are considered vulnerable until more information becomes available.
10.5.4 Environment
The environment vulnerable to landslide hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard.
10.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
The planning partners are equipped to handle future growth within landslide hazard areas. Landslide risk areas are
addressed in the safety elements of local general plans. All three cities have committed to linking their general
plans to this hazard mitigation plan. This will create an opportunity for wise land use decisions as future growth
impacts landslide hazard areas.
Additionally, the State of California has adopted the International Building Code (IBC) by reference in its
California Building Standards Code. The IBC includes provisions for geotechnical analyses in steep slope areas
that have soil types considered susceptible to landslide hazards. These provisions assure that new construction is
built to standards that reduce the vulnerability to landslide risk. Table 10-13 shows the future land use in the
moderate, high, and very high landslide risk areas.
Table 10-13. Future Land Use in Landslide Risk Areas
Moderate Area High Area Very High Area
Land Use
Area
(acres) % of total
Area
(acres) % of total
Area
(acres) % of total
Residential 1,491 43.8% 3,340 35.9% 257 32.6%
Commercial 36 1.1% 127 1.4% 2 0.2%
Industrial 45 1.3% 121 1.3% 1 0.1%
Agriculture 36 1.1% 352 3.8% 28 3.5%
Religion / Assembly 552 16.2% 832 8.9% 8 1.0%
Government / Institutional 25 0.7% 105 1.1% 2 0.2%
Education 1,216 35.7% 4,440 47.6% 494 62.5%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way / Water / Open Space 3,400 100.0% 9,317 100.0% 791 100.0%
Total 1,491 43.8% 3,340 35.9% 257 32.6%
10.7 SCENARIO
Major landslides in the planning area occur as a result of soil conditions that have been affected by severe storms,
groundwater or human development. The worst-case scenario for landslide hazards in the planning area would
generally correspond to a severe storm that had heavy rain and caused flooding. Landslides are most likely during
late winter when the water table is high. After heavy rains from November to December, soils become saturated
with water. As water seeps downward through upper soils that may consist of permeable sands and gravels and
accumulates on impermeable silt, it will cause weakness and destabilization in the slope. A short intense storm
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
10-14
could cause saturated soil to move, resulting in landslides. As rains continue, the groundwater table rises, adding
to the weakening of the slope. Gravity, poor drainage, a rising groundwater table and poor soil exacerbate
hazardous conditions.
Mass movements are becoming more of a concern as development moves outside of city centers into less-
developed areas. It is probable that private and public property, including infrastructure, will be affected. Mass
movements could affect bridges that pass over landslide-prone ravines and knock out rail service through the
planning area. Road obstructions caused by mass movements would create isolation problems for residents and
businesses in sparsely developed areas. Property owners exposed to steep slopes may suffer damage to property or
structures. Landslides carrying vegetation such as shrubs and trees may cause a break in utility lines, cutting off
power and communication access to residents.
10.8 ISSUES
Important issues associated with landslides in the planning area include the following:
• There are existing homes in landslide risk areas throughout the planning area. The degree of vulnerability
of these structures depends on the codes and standards the structures were constructed to. Information to
this level of detail is not currently available.
• Future development could lead to more homes in landslide risk areas.
• Mapping and assessment of landslide hazards are constantly evolving. As new data and science become
available, assessments of landslide risk should be reevaluated.
• The impact of climate change on landslides is uncertain. If climate change impacts atmospheric
conditions, then exposure to landslide risks is likely to increase.
• The risk associated with the landslide hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards such as
earthquake, flood and wildfire. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation alternatives with multiple
objectives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards.
11-1
11. SEVERE WEATHER
11.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
Severe weather refers to any dangerous meteorological phenomena
with the potential to cause damage, serious social disruption, or loss of
human life. It includes thunderstorms, downbursts, tornadoes,
waterspouts, snowstorms, ice storms, and dust storms. Severe weather
can be categorized into two groups: systems that form over wide
geographic areas are classified as general severe weather; those with a
more limited geographic area are classified as localized severe weather.
Severe weather, technically, is not the same as extreme weather, which
refers to unusual weather events at the extremes of the historical
distribution for a given area.
Severe weather conditions with the greatest potential to impact the
planning area are described in the following sections. Flooding and
landslides associated with severe weather are discussed as separate
hazards in Chapters 9 and 10. In this risk assessment, the “severe
weather” hazard refers in aggregate to the various weather conditions
profiled—severe storms, extreme heat, damaging winds and space
weather. These conditions are treated as a single hazard a for the
following reasons:
Each condition has impacted the planning area, with similar
frequencies of occurrence, based on weather records.
Each condition impacts the entire planning area, with no clearly
mapped or defined extent. Without a mapped or defined extent,
quantitative, geospatial analysis to assess exposure or vulnerability
is not available. Therefore, the risk assessment for severe weather
is qualitative and is based on the aggregate exposure and
vulnerability to all weather conditions.
11.1.1 Severe Storms
Severe storm conditions in the planning area include heavy rain
(atmospheric rivers and thunderstorms), lightning and hail. Heavy rain
refers to events where the amount of rain exceeds normal levels. The
amount of precipitation needed to qualify as heavy rain varies with
location and season. Heavy rain is distinct from climate change
analyses on increasing precipitation. It does not mean that the total
amount of precipitation at a location has increased, just that the rain is
occurring in a more intense event. More frequent heavy rain events,
DEFINITIONS
Atmospheric River—A long, narrow
region in the atmosphere that transports
most of the water vapor outside of the
tropics. These columns of vapor move
with the weather, carrying large amounts
of water vapor and strong winds. When
atmospheric rivers make landfall, they
release this vapor in the form of rain or
snow, causing flooding and mudslide
vents.
Extreme Heat—Temperatures that
hover 10ºF or more above the average
high temperature for a region and last for
several weeks. Humid or muggy
conditions occur when a “dome” of high
atmospheric pressure traps hazy, damp
air near the ground. Extremely dry and
hot conditions can provoke dust storms
and low visibility.
Thunderstorm—Typically 15 miles in
diameter and lasting about 30 minutes,
thunderstorms are marked by lightning,
heavy rain and strong winds. Lightning,
which occurs with all thunderstorms, is a
serious threat to human life. Heavy rains
over a small area in a short time can lead
to flash flooding. Strong winds, hail and
tornadoes are also dangers associated
with thunderstorms.
Tornado—Funnel clouds of varying
sizes that generate winds more than 300
miles per hour. A tornado is formed by
the turbulent mixing of layers of air with
contrasting temperature, moisture,
density and wind flow. Tornadoes can
affect an area up to a mile wide, with a
path of varying length. They can come
from lines of cumulonimbus clouds or
from a single storm cloud. They are
measured using the Fujita Scale ranging
from F0 to F6.
Windstorm—A storm featuring violent
winds. Windstorms tend to damage
ridgelines that face into the winds.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
11-2
however, can serve as indicators of changing precipitation levels. Heavy rain is most frequently measured by
tracking the frequency of events, analyzing the mean return period, and measuring the amount of precipitation in a
certain period (most typically inches of rain within a 24-hour period) (EPA, 2016).
Atmospheric River
An atmospheric river is a common weather pattern that brings southwest winds and heavy rain to California.
Atmospheric rivers are long, narrow regions in the atmosphere that transport water vapor carried away from the
tropics. These columns of vapor move with the weather, carrying large amounts of water vapor and strong winds.
When they make landfall, they often release the water vapor in the form of heavy rain or snow.
Thunderstorms
A thunderstorm is a heavy rain event that includes thunder and lightning. A thunderstorm is classified as “severe”
when it contains one or more of the following: hail with a diameter of three-quarter inch or greater, winds gusting
in excess of 50 knots (57.5 mph), or tornado. Tornadoes are not common in the planning area; only four have
been recorded in the County since 1950. All were F0-rated tornadoes except one rated EF1.
Three factors cause thunderstorms to form: moisture, rising unstable air (air that keeps rising when disturbed), and
a lifting mechanism to provide the disturbance. The sun heats the surface of the earth, which warms the air above
it. If this warm surface air is forced to rise (hills or mountains can cause rising motion, as can the interaction of
warm air and cold air or wet air and dry air) it will continue to rise as long as it weighs less and stays warmer than
the air around it. As the air rises, it transfers heat from the surface of the earth to the upper levels of the
atmosphere (the process of convection). The water vapor it contains begins to cool and it condenses into a cloud.
The cloud eventually grows upward into areas where the temperature is below freezing. Some of the water vapor
turns to ice and some of it turns into water droplets. Both have electrical charges. Ice particles usually have
positive charges, and rain droplets usually have negative charges. When the charges build up enough, they are
discharged in a bolt of lightning, which causes the sound waves we hear as thunder. Thunderstorms have three
stages:
The developing stage of a thunderstorm is marked by a cumulus cloud that is being pushed upward by a
rising column of air (updraft). The cumulus cloud soon looks like a tower (called towering cumulus) as
the updraft continues to develop. There is little to no rain during this stage but occasional lightning. The
developing stage lasts about 10 minutes.
The thunderstorm enters the mature stage when the updraft continues to feed the storm, but precipitation
begins to fall out of the storm, and a downdraft begins (a column of air pushing downward). When the
downdraft and rain-cooled air spread out along the ground, they form a gust front, or a line of gusty
winds. The mature stage is the most likely time for hail, heavy rain, frequent lightning, strong winds, and
tornadoes. The storm occasionally has a black or dark green appearance.
Eventually, a large amount of precipitation is produced and the updraft is overcome by the downdraft
beginning the dissipating stage. At the ground, the gust front moves out a long distance from the storm
and cuts off the warm moist air that was feeding the thunderstorm. Rainfall decreases in intensity, but
lightning remains a danger.
There are four types of thunderstorms:
Single-Cell Thunderstorms—Single-cell thunderstorms usually last 20 to 30 minutes. A true single-cell
storm is rare, because the gust front of one cell often triggers the growth of another. Most single-cell
storms are not usually severe, but a single-cell storm can produce a brief severe weather event. When this
happens, it is called a pulse severe storm.
11. Severe Weather
11-3
Multi-Cell Cluster Storm—A multi-cell cluster is the most common type of thunderstorm. The multi-
cell cluster consists of a group of cells, moving as one unit, with each cell in a different phase of the
thunderstorm life cycle. Mature cells are usually found at the center of the cluster and dissipating cells at
the downwind edge. Multi-cell cluster storms can produce moderate-size hail, flash floods and weak
tornadoes. Each cell in a multi-cell cluster lasts only about 20 minutes; the multi-cell cluster itself may
persist for several hours. This type of storm is usually more intense than a single cell storm.
Multi-Cell Squall Line—A multi-cell line storm, or squall line, consists of a long line of storms with a
continuous well-developed gust front at the leading edge. The line of storms can be solid, or there can be
gaps and breaks in the line. Squall lines can produce hail up to golf-ball size, heavy rainfall, and weak
tornadoes, but they are best known as the producers of strong downdrafts. Occasionally, a strong
downburst will accelerate a portion of the squall line ahead of the rest of the line. This produces what is
called a bow echo. Bow echoes can develop with isolated cells as well as squall lines. Bow echoes are
easily detected on radar but are difficult to observe visually.
Super-Cell Storm—A super-cell is a highly organized thunderstorm that poses a high threat to life and
property. It is similar to a single-cell storm in that it has one main updraft, but the updraft is extremely
strong, reaching speeds of 150 to 175 miles per hour. Super-cells are rare. The main characteristic that
sets them apart from other thunderstorms is the presence of rotation. The rotating updraft of a super-cell
(called a mesocyclone when visible on radar) helps the super-cell to produce extreme weather events,
such as giant hail (more than 2 inches in diameter), strong downbursts of 80 miles an hour or more, and
strong to violent tornadoes.
NOAA classifies a thunderstorm as a storm with lightning and thunder produced by cumulonimbus clouds,
usually producing gusty winds, heavy rain, and sometimes hail. Thunderstorms are usually short in duration
(seldom more than two hours). Heavy rains associated with thunderstorms can lead to flash flooding during the
wet or dry season. According to the American Meteorological Society Glossary of Meteorology, thunderstorms
are reported as light, medium, or heavy according to the following characteristics:
Nature of the lightning and thunder
Type and intensity of the precipitation, if any
Speed and gustiness of the wind
Appearance of the clouds
Effect on surface temperature.
Lighting
Lightning is an electrical discharge that results from the buildup of positive and negative charges within a
thunderstorm. When the buildup becomes strong enough, lightning appears as a “bolt.” This flash of light usually
occurs within the clouds or between the clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning reaches temperatures
approaching 50,000ºF instantaneously. The rapid heating and cooling of air near the lightning causes thunder.
Lightning is a major threat during a thunderstorm. In the United States, between 75 and 100 Americans are struck
and killed by lightning each year.
Hail Storms
Hail occurs when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops upward into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere
where they freeze into ice. Super-cooled water may accumulate on frozen particles near the back-side of a storm
as they are pushed forward across and above the updraft by the prevailing winds near the top of the storm.
Eventually, the hailstones encounter downdraft air and fall to the ground.
Hailstones grow two ways: by wet growth or dry growth. In wet growth, a tiny piece of ice is in an area where the
air temperature is below freezing, but not super-cooled. When the ice collides with a super-cooled drop, the water
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
11-4
does not freeze on the ice immediately. Instead, liquid water spreads across tumbling hailstones and slowly
freezes. Since the process is slow, air bubbles can escape, resulting in a layer of clear ice. Dry-growth hailstones
grow when the air temperature is well below freezing and the water droplet freezes immediately as it collides with
the ice particle. The air bubbles are “frozen” in place, leaving cloudy ice.
Hailstones can have layers if they travel up and down in an updraft, or they can have few or no layers if they are
“balanced” in an updraft. The number of layers in a hailstone indicates how many it traveled to the top of the
storm. Hailstones can begin to melt and then re-freeze together, forming large and very irregularly shaped hail.
11.1.2 Extreme Heat
Extreme heat is unexpected, unusual, or unseasonable hot weather that can create dangerous situations. It is defined
as temperatures that hover 10ºF or more above the average high temperatures for the region for several weeks.
According to the California Climate Adaptation Strategy, heat waves have claimed more lives in California than
all other declared disaster events combined. Despite this history, not a single heat emergency was proclaimed at the
state or federal level between 1960 and 2016. Heat emergencies are often slow to develop and usually hurt
vulnerable populations. It could take a number of days of oppressive heat for a heat wave to have a significant or
quantifiable impact in planning area. Heat waves do not strike victims immediately; rather, their cumulative effects
slowly take the lives of vulnerable populations.
The NWS is producing experimental forecasts called Heat Risks to assess the local heat risk in California,
Nevada, Utah, and Arizona (see Figure 11-1). The numeric (0-4) and color (green, yellow, orange, red and
magenta) scales are similar to the NWS air quality index.
11.1.3 Damaging Winds
Damaging winds are classified as those exceeding 60 mph. Damage from such winds accounts for half of all
severe weather reports in the lower 48 states and is more common than damage from tornadoes. Wind speeds can
reach up to 100 mph and can produce a damage path extending for hundreds of miles. There are seven types of
damaging winds:
Straight-line winds—Any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation; this term is used mainly
to differentiate from tornado winds. Most thunderstorms produce some straight-line winds as a result of
outflow generated by the thunderstorm downdraft.
Downdrafts—A small-scale column of air that rapidly sinks toward the ground.
Downbursts—A strong downdraft with horizontal dimensions larger than 2.5 miles resulting in an
outward burst or damaging winds on or near the ground. Downburst winds may begin as a microburst and
spread out over a wider area, sometimes producing damage similar to a strong tornado. Although usually
associated with thunderstorms, downbursts can occur with showers too weak to produce thunder.
Microbursts—A small concentrated downburst that produces an outward burst of damaging winds at the
surface. Microbursts are generally less than 2.5 miles across and short-lived, lasting only 5 to 10 minutes,
with maximum wind speeds up to 168 mph. There are two kinds of microbursts: wet and dry. A wet
microburst is accompanied by heavy precipitation at the surface. Dry microbursts, common in places like
the high plains and the intermountain west, occur with little or no precipitation reaching the ground.
Gust front—A gust front is the leading edge of rain-cooled air that clashes with warmer thunderstorm
inflow. Gust fronts are characterized by a wind shift, temperature drop, and gusty winds out ahead of a
thunderstorm. Sometimes the winds push up air above them, forming a shelf cloud or detached roll cloud.
11. Severe Weather
11-5
Source: NWS, 2017e
Figure 11-1. NWS Experimental Potential Heat Risks
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
11-6
Derecho—A derecho is a widespread thunderstorm wind caused when new thunderstorms form along the
leading edge of an outflow boundary (the boundary formed by horizontal spreading of thunderstorm-
cooled air). The word “derecho” is of Spanish origin and means “straight ahead.” Thunderstorms feed on
the boundary and continue to reproduce. Derechos typically occur in summer when complexes of
thunderstorms form over plains, producing heavy rain and severe wind. The damaging winds can last a
long time and cover a large area.
Bow Echo—A bow echo is a linear wind front bent outward in a bow shape. Damaging straight-line
winds often occur near the center of a bow echo. Bow echoes can be 200 miles long, last for several
hours, and produce extensive wind damage at the ground.
Windstorms are generally short-duration events involving straight-line winds or gusts of over 50 mph, strong
enough to cause property damage. Windstorms are especially dangerous in areas with significant tree stands and
areas with exposed property, poorly constructed buildings, mobile homes (manufactured housing units), major
infrastructure, and above-ground utility lines. A windstorm can topple trees and power lines, cause damage to
residential, commercial and critical facilities, and leave tons of debris in its wake.
11.1.4 Space Weather
Space weather refers to variations in the space environment between the sun and earth. It includes phenomena that
impact systems and technologies in orbit and on earth. Space weather can occur anywhere from the surface of the
sun to the surface of the earth. As a space weather storm leaves the sun, it passes through the sun’s corona and
into the solar wind. When it reaches earth, it energizes earth’s magnetosphere and accelerates electrons and
protons down to earth’s magnetic field lines where they collide with the atmosphere and ionosphere, particularly
at high latitudes. Each component of space weather impacts a different technology (NOAA SWPC, 2017c).
Figure 11-2 illustrates several types of space weather phenomena.
Source: NOAA, SWPC; 2017c
Figure 11-2. Space Weather Phenomena
11. Severe Weather
11-7
A solar flare occurs when magnetic energy that has built up in the solar atmosphere is suddenly released. The flare
ejects clouds of electrons, ions, and atoms through the corona of the sun into space. These clouds typically reach
earth a day or two after the event. Solar flares last from minutes to hours. Radiation is emitted across virtually the
entire electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves at the long wavelength end, through optical emission to X-rays
and gamma rays at the short wavelength end (NOAA SWPC, 2017c; NASA, 2016). Solar flares only impact the
earth when they occur on the side of the sun that faces the earth (NASA, 2016a). If the energy from a solar flare
reaches the earth, it has the potential to affect global positioning system (GPS) signals, television and radio
transmissions, and telecommunications.
11.2 HAZARD PROFILE
11.2.1 Past Events
Sources that provide historical information regarding previous occurrences and losses associated with severe
weather events in Alameda County and the planning area include FEMA, NWS, and NOAA NCEI. Between 1970
and April 2017, Alameda County was included in 12 FEMA disaster declarations for severe storms, severe winter
storms, mudslides, landslides and flooding as listed in Table 11-1. Impacts on the planning area were not
identified in the sources reviewed.
Table 11-1. FEMA Disasters for Severe Weather Events in Alameda County
FEMA
Declaration Event Date Event Type Location
DR-4308 February 1 – February 23, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides 43 counties including Alameda County
DR-4305 January 18 – January 23, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides 23 counties including Alameda County
DR-4301 January 3 – January 12, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides 39 counties including Alameda County
DR-1646 March 29 – April 16, 2006 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides,
Mudflows 17 counties including Alameda County
DR-1628 December 17, 2005 to January 3,
2006
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides,
Mudflows 30 counties including Alameda County
DR-1203 February 2 – Aril 30, 1998 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding 41 counties including Alameda County
DR-1155 December 28, 1996 – April 1, 1997 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding 48 counties including Alameda County
DR-1046 February 13 to April 19, 1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides,
Mudflows 57 counties including Alameda County
DR-1044 January 3 to February 10, 1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides,
Mudflows 42 counties including Alameda County
DR-758 February 12 – March 10, 1986 Severe Storms & Flooding 39 counties including Alameda County
DR-651 December 19, 1981 – January 8,
1983
Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides & High Tide 10 counties including Alameda County
DR-283 February 16, 1970 Severe Storms & Flooding 17 counties including Alameda County
Source: FEMA, 2017b
According to NOAA NCEI, between 1996 and April 2017, no extreme heat nor tornado events were recorded in
Alameda County. Three hail events occurred in the county, but not in the Tri-Valley planning area. Alameda
County recorded 30 high wind events in this timeframe with wind magnitude ranging between 44 knots and
96 knots, 39 strong wind events with wind magnitude between 30 knots and 48 knots, and five thunderstorm wind
events. Table 11-2 lists known severe weather events that impacted the planning area between 1970 and April
2017, along with solar flare events that occurred in North America.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
11-8
Table 11-2. Severe Weather Events in the Tri-Valley Planning Area
Event Date Event Type
FEMA
Declaration Location Description
February 7,
2017
Atmospheric
River
DR- 4308 Alameda
County, planning
area, Bay Area
An atmospheric river produced widespread roadway flooding, debris
flows, strong winds, and overtopping of reservoir spillways in the
Bay Area. Pleasanton recorded 2.45 inches of rain on Feb. 20.
January 20,
2017
Atmospheric
River
DR- 4305 Alameda
County, planning
area, Bay Area
January 10,
2017
Atmospheric
River
DR- 4301 Alameda
County, planning
area, Bay Area
An atmospheric river produced widespread roadway flooding, debris
flows, and strong winds in the Bay Area. Pleasanton recorded
2.15 inches of rain on Jan 10.
December 10
– 11, 2014
Heavy Rains and
High Winds
N/A Alameda
County, planning
area, and Bay
Area
An atmospheric river brought heavy rains and gusty winds to the
Bay Area for several days. Rainfall of 1.5 to 2 inches an hour was
reported. A flash flood warning was issued for Dublin, Livermore
and Pleasanton. Wind gusts were recorded up to 83 mph. Rainfall
totals ranged from 5.78 to 7.24 inches. Power outages occurred
across the Bay Area. Total rainfall in Pleasanton was 3.27 inches.
December
2006
Geomagnetic
Storms and Solar
Flares
N/A United States This event disabled GPS signal acquisition over the United States.
April 6-20,
2006
Heavy Rain and
Debris Flows
DR-1646 Alameda County
and planning
area
Storms brought heavy rain causing landslides, eroding hillsides and
cracked pavement. Landslides or erosion on private properties
spilled over onto county rights-of-way. Overall, the County had
approximately $10 million in damage to county roadways.
December 17,
2005 –
January 12,
2006
Winter Storms
(Severe Storms,
Flood, Mudslides,
Landslides)
DR-1628 Alameda
County, planning
area, Bay Area
Damage estimates for the region were over $100 million. Storms
were blamed for two deaths from falling trees, around 50
businesses declared damage, and three homes were nearly wiped
out by mudslides.
October 2003 Space Weather
(“Halloween
Storms of 2003”)
N/A Parts of the
Europe and the
United States
Solar flares impacted satellite-based systems and communications.
A one-hour-long power outage resulted in Sweden. Aurorae were
observed as far south as Texas.
December 28,
1996 – April 1,
1997
Severe Storms,
Flooding, Mud
and Landslides
DR-1155 48 counties
including
Alameda County
Over 12,000 people were evacuated in northern California. Levee
breaks were reported across the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Valleys. Over 23,000 homes and business, agricultural lands,
bridges, and roads were damaged. The event caused eight deaths
and $1.8 billion in damage.
March 13,
1989
Space Weather
Storm
N/A Quebec, Canada A space weather storm disrupted the hydroelectric power grid in
Quebec, Canada. This system-wide outage lasted for 9 hours and
left 6 million people without power.
February 12
– March 10,
1986
Severe Storms &
Flooding
DR-758 Bay Area
including
Alameda County
This event damaged over 12,000 homes, destroyed over 1,300
homes, and caused 13 deaths and 67 injuries in California. Damage
totaled over $407.5 million.
January 3 – 5,
1982
Landslides,
Floods, and
Marine Effects
DR-651 Bay Area
including
Alameda County
A major storm caused widespread and catastrophic landslide
damage throughout the Bay Area, resulting in numerous deaths and
over $60 million in direct costs. In Alameda County, damage was
concentrated in Oakland, Piedmont, and Berkeley. The County had
approximately $3.5 million in damage.
February 10,
1970
Severe Storms &
Flooding
DR-283 Bay Area
including
Alameda County
Heavy winds, storms and flooding impacted the Bay Area, including
Alameda County. Impacted areas had over $27 million in damage.
Source: FEMA, 2017b; NOAA NCEI, 2017b
11. Severe Weather
11-9
11.2.2 Location
All severe weather conditions profiled in this chapter have the potential to happen anywhere in the planning area.
No extent mapping is currently available.
11.2.3 Frequency
The planning area can expect to experience some type of severe weather event at least annually. Figure 11-3
shows that the planning area can experience around five thunderstorms each year (NWS, 2016). The frequency of
solar flares is difficult to estimate, and prediction of a specific future event is nearly impossible (Riley, 2012).
Source: NWS, 2016
Figure 11-3. Annual Number of Thunderstorms in the United States
11.2.4 Severity
The most common problems associated with the severe weather conditions profiled in this assessment are
immobility and loss of utilities. Fatalities are uncommon, but can occur. Roads may become impassable due to
flooding, downed trees, or a landslide. Power lines may be downed due to high winds, and services such as water
or phone may not be able to operate without power. Lightning can cause severe damage and injury. Physical
damage to homes and facilities can be caused by wind or flooding.
Atmospheric rivers or heavy precipitation, which in the planning area almost always takes the form of rain, can
have significant impacts, including crop damage, soil erosion, and increased risk of flood. These events can drop
up to 12 inches of rain over a few days and cause widespread flooding and disruption to road and air travel.
Stormwater runoff from heavy rains can also impair water quality by washing pollutants into water bodies.
Thunderstorms carry the same risks as heavy precipitation events, and depending on the type of storm, they can
also result in tornados, lightning, and heavy winds, increasing risk of injury and property damage (Keller, 2008).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
11-10
Lightning severity is typically associated with both property damage and life safety (injuries and fatalities). The
number of reported injuries from lightning is likely to be low, but planning area infrastructure losses can be up to
thousands of dollars each year. Lightning also is associated with wildfire ignitions in the planning area.
Extreme heat is the primary weather-related cause of death in the U.S over a 30-year average from 1987 through
2016. In 2016, heat claimed 94 lives, though none of them were in California (NWS, 2016). Air-conditioning is
the number one protective factor against heat-related illness and death. If a home is not air-conditioned, people
can reduce their risk for heat-related illness by spending time in public facilities that are air-conditioned. Extreme
heat is a concern to people, animals and pets as well as local nursery crops, cut flowers, and vegetable crops.
Windstorms can be a frequent problem in the planning area and have been known to cause damage to utilities.
Strong, hot, dry offshore winds locally known as “diablo winds” can be particularly dangerous. These winds can
occur at any time of year, but are especially dangerous in the driest months of summer and fall when vegetation is
at its driest. The wind speed given in wind warnings issued by the NWS is for a one-minute average; gusts may be
25 to 30 percent higher. The FEMA Winds Zones of the United States map (Figure 11-4) indicates the strength of
windstorms in the United States and the general location of the most wind activity, based on 40 years of tornado
data and 100 years of hurricane data collected by FEMA. The planning area, along with most of the Western
United States, is in Wind Zone I, where wind speeds can reach up to 130 mph.
Source: FEMA, 2010
Figure 11-4. Wind Zones in the United States
Solar flares can lead to long-term power grid outages. Moderate solar storms have affected transformers as they
are not very resilient to long electromagnetic pulses (Global Resilience Network, 2016). Recent events impacting
the United States have disrupted the power grid, shut down satellites and air traffic precision navigation, and
11. Severe Weather
11-11
disabled GPS signals. Power outages induced by space weather can be life-threatening to those dependent on
electricity for life support.
11.2.5 Warning Time
Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a severe weather event. This can give several days of warning
time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of the storm. Some storms may
come on more quickly and have only a few hours of warning time. The San Francisco Bay Area Weather Forecast
Office of the NWS monitors weather stations and issues watches and warnings when appropriate to alert
government agencies and the public of possible or impending weather events. The watches and warnings are
broadcast over NOAA weather radio and are forwarded to the local media for retransmission using the Emergency
Alert System.
Space weather prediction in the United States is provided primarily by the Space Weather Prediction Center and
the U.S. Air Force’s Weather Agency. The Space Weather Prediction Center draws on a variety of data sources,
both space- and ground-based, to provide forecasts, watches, warnings, alerts, and summaries to civilian and
commercial users.
11.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
The most significant secondary hazards associated with severe weather are floods, falling and downed trees,
mudslides, landslides and downed power lines. Rapidly melting snow combined with heavy rain can overwhelm
both natural and man-made drainage systems, causing overflow and property destruction. Landslides occur when
the soil on slopes becomes oversaturated and fails.
11.4 EXPOSURE
11.4.1 Population
A lack of clearly defined extent mapping for the severe weather conditions profiled in this chapter prevents a
detailed analysis of exposure and vulnerability. However, it can be assumed that the entire planning area is
exposed to some extent to all severe weather conditions profiled. Certain areas are more exposed due to
geographic location and local weather patterns. Populations living at higher elevations with large stands of trees
or power lines may be more susceptible to wind damage and black out, while populations in low-lying areas are at
risk for possible flooding.
11.4.2 Property
According to the County Assessor, there are 66,760 buildings within the census tracts that define the planning
area. Most of these buildings are residential. It is estimated that 36 percent of the residential structures were built
without the influence of a structural building code that would mitigate the severe weather conditions profiled in
this assessment. All of these buildings are considered to be exposed to the severe weather hazard, but structures in
poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations (located on hilltops or exposed open areas) may risk the
most damage. The frequency and degree of damage will depend on specific locations.
11.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
All critical facilities exposed to flooding (Section 9.4.3) are also likely exposed to severe weather. Additional
facilities on higher ground may also be exposed to wind damage or damage from falling trees. The most common
problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities. Downed power lines can cause blackouts, leaving
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
11-12
large areas isolated. Phone, water and sewer systems may not function. Roads may become impassable from
secondary hazards such as mudslides and landslides.
11.4.4 Environment
The environment is highly exposed to severe weather events. Natural habitats such as streams and trees are
exposed to the elements during a severe storm and risk major damage and destruction. Prolonged rains can
saturate soils and lead to slope failure. Flooding events caused by severe weather or snowmelt can produce river
channel migration or damage riparian habitat. Storm surges can erode beachfront bluffs and redistribute sediment
loads.
11.5 VULNERABILITY
11.5.1 Population
Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-
threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Power outages can be life
threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a significant
concern. These populations face isolation and exposure during severe weather events and could suffer more
secondary effects of the hazard. Population vulnerabilities to specific severe weather conditions are as follows:
Damaging Winds—Debris carried by extreme winds and trees felled by gusty conditions can contribute
directly to loss of life as well as increase the vulnerability of people by damaging buildings where people
take shelter. Utility lines brought down by winds have been known to cause fires and create the possibility
of lethal electric shock.
Extreme Heat—Individuals with physical or mobility constraints, cognitive impairments, economic
constraints, or social isolation are typically at greater risk to the adverse effects of extreme heat. Some
medical conditions, such as heat stroke, are directly attributable to extreme heat, while others may be
exacerbated by it, resulting in medical emergencies.
Severe Storms—Nationally, lighting is one of the leading causes of weather-related fatalities, though
lightning strikes are less common in the west than in other areas of the country. The majority of injuries
and deaths associated with lighting occur when people are outdoors; however, almost one-third of
lightning-related injuries occur indoors. Males are five times more likely than females to be struck by
lighting and people between the ages of 15 and 34 account for 41 percent of all lightning strike victims.
Space Weather —The sun’s activities cause extreme space weather events that can affect the City’s
population, mainly by power black-out events
11.5.2 Property
All property is vulnerable during the severe weather conditions profiled in this chapter, but properties in poor
condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. Those in higher elevations and on
ridges may be more prone to wind damage. Those that are located under or near overhead lines or near large trees
may be vulnerable to falling ice or may be damaged in the event of a collapse.
Loss estimations for the severe weather hazard are not based on damage functions, because no such damage
functions have been generated. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent and 50
percent of the assessed value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of potential
economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess
of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of
the structure. Table 11-3 lists the loss estimates.
11. Severe Weather
11-13
Table 11-3. Loss Estimates for Severe Weather
Estimated Loss Potential from Severe Weather
Exposed Value (Structure and Contents) 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage
Dublin $12,164,354,419 $1,216,435,442 $3,649,306,326 $6,082,177,209
Livermore $20,508,103,666 $2,050,810,367 $6,152,431,100 $10,254,051,833
Pleasanton $21,028,153,157 $2,102,815,316 $6,308,445,947 $10,514,076,578
Total $53,700,611,242 $5,370,061,124 $16,110,183,373 $26,850,305,621
11.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Incapacity and loss of roads are the primary transportation failures resulting from severe weather, mostly
associated with secondary hazards. Landslides caused by heavy prolonged rains can block roads. High winds can
cause significant damage to trees and power lines, blocking roads with debris, incapacitating transportation,
isolating populations, and disrupting ingress and egress. Snowstorms in higher elevations can significantly impact
the transportation system and the availability of public safety services. Of particular concern are roads providing
access to isolated areas and to the elderly.
Prolonged obstruction of major routes due to landslides, snow, debris or floodwaters can disrupt the shipment of
goods and other commerce. Large, prolonged storms can have negative economic impacts for an entire region.
Severe windstorms, downed trees, and ice can create serious impacts on power and above-ground communication
lines. Freezing of power and communication lines can cause them to break, disrupting electricity and
communication. Loss of electricity and phone connection would leave certain populations isolated because
residents would be unable to call for assistance.
Electric power losses caused by severe weather can be estimated using standard values for loss of service for
utilities published in FEMA’s 2009 Benefit Cost Analysis Reference Guide. These figures provide estimated costs
associated with the loss of power in relation to the populations in planning area (Table 11-4). The loss-of-use
estimates for power failure associated with severe weather are presented as a cost per person per day of loss. The
estimated loss of use provided for each jurisdiction represents the loss of service of the indicated utility for one
day for 10 percent of the population. These figures do not take into account physical damage to utility equipment
and infrastructure.
Table 11-4. Loss of Use Estimates for Power Failure
Jurisdiction
2016 Population
Estimatea
Estimated Affected
Population 10%
Electric Loss of Use Estimate ($126
per person per day)b
Dublin 57,349 5,735 $722,597
Livermore 88,138 8,814 $1,110,539
Pleasanton 74,982 7,498 $944,773
Total 220,469 22,047 $2,777,909
a. CA DOF, 2016
b. FEMA, 2009
11.5.4 Environment
The vulnerability of the environment to severe weather is the same as the exposure.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
11-14
11.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use
practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The planning partners have
adopted the International Building Code in response to California mandates. This code is equipped to deal with
the impacts of severe weather events. Land use policies identified in general plans within the planning area also
address many of the secondary impacts (flood and landslide) of the severe weather hazard. With these tools, the
planning partners are well equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe weather.
11.7 SCENARIO
Severe weather impacts can be significant, particularly when secondary hazards occur. A worst-case event would
involve prolonged high winds during a winter storm caused by an atmospheric river event. Such an event would
have both short-term and longer-term effects. Initially, schools and roads would be closed due to power outages
caused by high winds and downed tree obstructions. Prolonged rain could produce flooding, overtopped culverts
with ponded water on roads. Flooding and debris could further obstruct roads and bridges, further isolating
residents.
11.8 ISSUES
Important issues associated with a severe weather in the planning area include the following:
Older building stock in the planning area is built to low code standards. These structures could be highly
vulnerable to severe weather events such as windstorms.
The cities may need to open cooling centers during extreme heat events.
Redundancy of power supply and communications equipment must be evaluated.
The capacity for backup power generation is limited.
Dead or dying trees as a result of drought conditions are more susceptible to falling during severe storm
events.
Public education on dealing with the impacts of severe weather needs to continue to be provided so that
citizens can be better informed and prepared for severe weather events.
Debris management (downed trees, etc.) must be addressed, because debris can impact the severity of
severe weather events, requires coordination efforts, and may require additional funding.
The effects of climate change may result in an increase of heavy rain or more atmospheric storm events,
and will likely lead to increased temperatures and changes in overall precipitation amounts.
12-1
12. WILDFIRE
NOTE: “In October, 2017 Mendocino, Napa and Sonoma Counties experienced simultaneous wildland-urban
interface fires that spread into suburban residential and commercial occupancies. There were over 7000
structures destroyed and 42 lives lost. These fires are currently under investigation, and conclusive information is
not available to support the wildfire risk assessment for this plan. While these fires did not directly impact the
planning area for this plan, they are likely to influence the understanding and assessment best management
practices for wildfire in California and abroad in the future. Future updates to this chapter will utilize bets
available data and science that is likely to be influenced by conclusions and observations from these events.
12.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that
requires fire suppression. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning or by
human activity such as smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson.
The potential for wildfire is primarily influenced by the following
factors:
• Fuel, which may include living and dead vegetation on the
ground, along the surface as brush and small trees, and above
the ground in tree canopies.
• Topography, which includes both slope and elevation.
• Air conditions, including temperature, relative humidity, wind
speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation amount and
duration, and the stability of the atmosphere.
Fire hazards present a considerable risk to vegetation and wildlife habitats. Short-term loss caused by a wildfire
can include the destruction of timber, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and watersheds. Long-term effects include
smaller timber harvests, reduced access to affected recreational areas, and destruction of cultural and economic
resources and community infrastructure. Vulnerability to flooding increases due to the destruction of watersheds.
The potential for significant damage to life and property exists in areas designated as “wildland urban interface
(WUI) areas,” where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas.
12.1.1 Local Conditions Related to Wildfire
According to Alameda County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP, 2012), the planning area has a
Mediterranean-like climate with no summer rains and potential high winds. Non-native and invasive weedy
vegetation has replaced more fire resistant and ecologically stable native species in many places. In addition,
highly flammable homes are located in high fire hazard zones
“Red flag” weather in the planning area features the strong, hot, dry offshore winds locally known as “diablo
winds.” These winds carry extremely dry air at high velocity and can push a fire down or up a slope quickly. They
can occur at any time of year, but are especially dangerous in the driest months of summer and fall.
DEFINITIONS
Wildfire—Fires that result in
uncontrolled destruction of forests,
brush, field crops, grasslands, and
real and personal property in non-
urban areas. Because of their
distance from firefighting resources,
they can be difficult to contain and can
cause a great deal of destruction.
Wildland urban interface area—An
area susceptible to wildfires and
where wildland vegetation and urban
or suburban development occur
together. An example would be
smaller urban areas and dispersed
rural housing in forested areas.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
12-2
12.1.2 Wildfire Protection Responsibility in California
Hundreds of agencies have fire protection responsibility for wildland and WUI fires in California, and
primary legal (and financial) responsibility for wildfire protection is divided by local, state, tribal, and federal
organizations. In many instances, two fire organizations have dual primary responsibility on the same parcel of
land—one for wildfire protection, and the other for structural or “improvement” fire protection. According to
the 2013 California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, this layering of responsibility and resulting dual policies,
rules, practices, and legal ordinances can cause conflict or confusion. To address wildfire jurisdictional
responsibilities, the California state legislature in 1981 adopted Public Resource Code Section 4291.5 and
Health and Safety Code Section 13108.5 establishing the following responsibility areas:
• Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs)—FRAs are fire-prone wildland areas that are owned or managed
by a federal agency such as the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Department of Defense. Primary financial and rule-making
jurisdictional authority rests with the federal land agency. In many instances, FRAs are interspersed with
private land ownership or leases. Fire protection for developed private property is usually not the
responsibility of the federal land management agency; structural protection responsibility is that of a local
government agency.
• State Responsibility Areas (SRAs)—SRAs are lands in California where California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has legal and financial responsibility for wildfire protection and
where CAL FIRE administers fire hazard classifications and building standard regulations. SRAs are
defined as lands that meet the following criteria:
Are county unincorporated areas
Are not federally owned
Have wildland vegetation cover rather than agricultural or ornamental plants
Have watershed or range/forage value
Have housing densities not exceeding three units per acre.
Where SRAs contain built environment or development, the responsibility for fire protection of those
improvements (non-wildland) is that of a local government agency.
• Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs)—LRAs include land in cities, cultivated agriculture lands, non-
flammable areas in unincorporated areas, and lands that do not meet the criteria for SRA or FRA. LRA
fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, and counties, or by
CAL FIRE under contract to local governments. The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton are
located in incorporated LRAs. LRAs may include flammable vegetation and WUI areas where the
financial and jurisdictional responsibility for improvement and wildfire protection is that of a local
government agency.
SRAs were originally mapped in 1985, and LRAs were originally mapped in 1996. During that time, many local
governments made similar designations under their own authority. CAL FIRE recognized the need to remap both
SRAs and LRAs with more recent data and technology to create more accurate zone designations.
California’s SB 1241 (adopted in 2012) requires local governments to update the safety elements in their general
plans to recognize wildfire risks in SRAs and “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones” (based on consistent
statewide criteria and the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas). SB 1241 correlates
strongly with AB 2140, which requires local jurisdictions to adopt a federally approved hazard mitigation plan
through reference in the safety elements of their general plans. This bill also notes the requirement for the safety
element to include information and policies on unreasonable risk from potential hazards, including fire. These
bills are both designed to encourage integration within and between jurisdictions to enhance mitigation and
12. Wildfire
12-3
prevention efforts. Information from a local general plan safety element should be considered with the
development of a hazard mitigation plan, response procedures, evacuation planning, and long-term development.
12.2 HAZARD PROFILE
The 2013 California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan describes wildfire hazard and risk as follows:
“The diversity of WUI settings and disagreement about alternative mitigation strategies has led
to confusion and different methods of defining and mapping WUI areas. One major
disagreement has been caused by terms such as “hazard” and “risk” being used
interchangeably. Hazard is the physical condition that can lead to damage to a particular asset or
resource. The term “fire hazard” is related to those physical conditions related to fire and its
ability to cause damage, specifically how often a fire burns a given locale and what the fire is like
when it burns (its fire behavior). Thus, fire hazard only refers to the potential characteristics of
the fire itself.
Risk is the likelihood of a fire occurring at a given site (burn probability) and the associated
mechanisms of fire behavior that cause damage to assets and resources (fire behavior). This
includes the impact of fire brands (embers) that may be blown some distance igniting fires well
away from the main fire”.
12.2.1 Past Events
According to the 2016 Alameda County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, wildfires are common in the Bay Area,
with large wildfires recorded in 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1970, 1981, 1985, 1988, and 1991. However, none of
these fires occurred in the Tri-Valley planning area. Between 1954 and April 2017, Alameda County was
included in two FEMA major disaster (DR) fire management assistance declarations (DR-919 Oakland Hills Fire
in 1991 and DR-295 Buckingham Norfolk Fire in 1970) but neither of these affected the planning area. With
drought conditions in recent years, wildfires have occurred near the planning area, though none have caused
sufficient damage to trigger a state or federal disaster declaration. The following wildfires of over 10 acres were
recorded near the planning area in recent years (CAL FIRE, 2017):
• August 22, 2015—Burned 2,700 acres off Tesla Road near Correll Hollow between Livermore and Tracy.
This fire took four days to contain with 18 fire personnel and five fire engines.
• June 25, 2015—Burned 53 acres off Tesla Road, southeast of Livermore.
• October 4, 2013—Burned 150 acres along Highland Road near Livermore.
• July 6, 2013, Fallon Fire—Burned 38 acres off Fallon Road and Camino Tasaajara near Dublin. The fire
was contained within one day by Alameda County Fire Department.
• June 8, 2013, Vasco Fire—Burned 240 acres off Vasco Road and North Vasco Road, north of Livermore.
The fire was contained within one day.
12.2.2 Location
CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program has modeled and mapped wildfire hazard zones using a
science-based and field-tested computer model that designates moderate, high or very high fire hazard severity
zones (FHSZ). The FHSZ model is built from existing CAL FIRE data and hazard information based on factors
such as the following (CAL FIRE, 2017a):
• Fuel—Fuel may include living and dead vegetation on the ground, along the surface as brush and small
trees, and above the ground in tree canopies. Lighter fuels such as grasses, leaves and needles quickly
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
12-4
expel moisture and burn rapidly, while heavier fuels such as tree branches, logs and trunks take longer to
warm and ignite. Trees killed or defoliated by forest insects and diseases are more susceptible to wildfire.
• Weather—Relevant weather conditions include temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction,
cloud cover, precipitation amount and duration, and the stability of the atmosphere. Of particular
importance for wildfire activity are wind and thunderstorms:
Strong, dry winds produce extreme fire conditions. Such winds generally reach peak velocities during
the night and early morning hours.
The thunderstorm season typically begins in June with wet storms, and turns dry with little or no
precipitation reaching the ground as the season progresses into July and August.
• Terrain—Topography includes slope and elevation. The topography of a region influences the amount
and moisture of fuel; the impact of weather conditions such as temperature and wind; potential barriers to
fire spread, such as highways and lakes; and elevation and slope of land forms (fire spreads more easily
uphill than downhill).
The model also is based on frequency of fire weather, ignition patterns, and expected rate-of spread. It accounts
for flying ember production, which is the principal driver of the wildfire hazard in densely developed areas. A
related concern in built-out areas is the relative density of vegetative fuels that can serve as sites for new spot fires
within the urban core and spread to adjacent structures. The model refines the zones to characterize fire exposure
mechanisms that cause ignitions to structures. Significant land-use changes need to be accounted for through
periodic model updates. Figure 12-1 shows the FHSZ mapping for Alameda County. Table 12-1 lists the total area
mapped in each zone.
Table 12-1. Record of Fire Affecting Planning Area
Area Burned, 1878 – 2016
FHSZ Category Total Area in Zone (acres) Acres Percent of Total
Moderate 10,564 115 1.09%
High 9,455 498 5.26%
Very High 472 0 0.00%
Source: CAL FIRE, 2016
12.2.1 Frequency
Wildfire frequency can be assessed through review of the percent of a given area that has been burned in previous
wildfire events. Table 12-1 summarizes CAL FIRE records of fires from 1878 to 2016. About 3 percent of the
mapped wildfire risk zones in the planning area have burned in that 138-year period.
12.2.2 Severity
Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, and natural resources.
Given the immediate response times to reported fires, the likelihood of injuries and casualties is minimal. Smoke
and air pollution from wildfires can be a health hazard, especially for children, the elderly and those with
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. First responders are exposed to dangers from the initial incident and after-
effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. In addition, wildfire can lead to ancillary impacts such as
landslides in steep ravine areas and flooding due to the impacts of silt in local watersheds.
12. Wildfire
12-5 Source: CAL FIRE, 2007 Figure 12-1. CAL FIRE FRAP Map for Alameda County
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
12-6
The largest WUI fire in the Bay Area, and one of the worst wildland fires in the United States, occurred in 1991 in
the Oakland Hills of Alameda County. The fire resulted in $1.7 billion in losses and received a FEMA disaster
declaration. The fire spread across 1,520 acres, destroyed 3,354 homes and 456 apartments, injured 150 people
and took the lives of 25 people (Alameda County, 2016a). There are no recorded incidents of loss of life from
wildfires in the planning area.
CAL FIRE’s mapped fire hazard severity zones define the application of mitigation strategies to reduce risk
associated with wildfires. Figure 12-2 shows fire hazard severity zones for the Tri-Valley planning area.
12.2.3 Warning Time
Wildfires are often caused by humans, intentionally or accidentally. There is no way to predict when one might
break out. Since fireworks often cause brush fires, extra diligence is warranted around the Fourth of July when the
use of fireworks is highest. Dry seasons and droughts are factors that greatly increase fire likelihood. Dry
lightning may trigger wildfires. Severe weather can be predicted, so special attention can be paid during weather
events that may include lightning. Reliable National Weather Service lightning warnings are available on average
24 to 48 hours prior to a significant electrical storm.
If a fire does break out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within days or hours. A fire’s peak
burning period generally is between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. Once a fire has started, fire alerting is reasonably rapid in
most cases. The rapid spread of cellular and two-way radio communications in recent years has further
contributed to a significant improvement in warning time.
12.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
Wildfires can in some cases generate secondary effects that cause more widespread and prolonged damage than
the fire itself. Fires can cause direct economic losses in the reduction of harvestable timber and indirect economic
losses in reduced tourism. Wildfires can contaminate reservoirs, destroy transmission lines and contribute to
flooding. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff, which can weaken soils and
cause slope failures. Major landslides can occur several years after a wildfire. Most wildfires burn hot and for
long durations that can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the
ground. This increases the runoff generated by storm events, thus increasing the chance of flooding.
12.4 EXPOSURE
12.4.1 Population
Population could not be examined by FHSZ because the boundaries of census block groups do not coincide with
the zone boundaries. However, population was estimated using the structure count of buildings in each mapped
FHSZ and multiplying by the 2016 estimated average population per household (CA DOF, 2016). Table 12-2
presents the results.
12.4.2 Property
The number of homes in the various wildfire hazard zones within the planning area and their values are
summarized in Table 12-3 through Table 12-5. Table 12-6 shows the general land use of parcels exposed to the
wildfire hazard in the planning area.
§¨¦680§¨¦580City ofDublinCity ofPleasantonCity ofLivermoreMunicipal BoundariesDublin San Ramon ServicesDistrictAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsWildfire Severity ZoneModerateHighVery High/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CalFIRE,ESRITri-Valley Area0241MilesContra Costa CountyAlameda CountyWildfire Severity ZonesFigure 12-2.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
12-8
Table 12-2. Population within Wildfire Hazard Areas
Moderate FHSZ High FHSZ Very High FHSZ
Population
Exposeda
% of Total
Population Exposed
Population
Exposeda
% of Total
Population Exposed
Population
Exposeda
% of Total
Population Exposed
Dublin 23,087 38.7% 6,402 10.7% 0 0.0%
Livermore 7,140 8.0% 6,642 7.4% 0 0.0%
Pleasanton 5,942 7.8% 11,528 15.2% 2,492 3.3%
Total 36,170 16.1% 24,572 10.9% 2,492 1.1%
a. Exposed population calculated as percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by estimated population on January 1, 2017,
from California Department of Finance.
Table 12-3. Exposure and Value of Structures in Very High Wildfire Hazard Areas
Buildings Value Exposed
Exposeda Structure Contents Total % of Total Replacement Value
Dublin 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Livermore 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Pleasanton 708 $255,482,500 $129,473,890 $384,956,390 1.8%
Total 708 $255,482,500 $129,473,890 $384,956,390 0.7%
a. Fire hazard severity data downloaded from CAL FIRE website in May 2016.
Table 12-4. Exposure and Value of Structures in High Wildfire Hazard Areas
Buildings Value Exposed
Exposeda Structure Contents Total % of Total Replacement Value
Dublin 1,744 $631,760,619 $341,680,204 $973,440,823 8.0%
Livermore 2,038 $863,648,160 $655,619,139 $1,519,267,300 7.4%
Pleasanton 3,313 $1,749,485,861 $1,018,950,914 $2,768,436,776 13.2%
Total 7,095 $3,244,894,640 $2,016,250,257 $5,261,144,898 9.8%
a. Fire hazard severity data downloaded from CAL FIRE website in May 2016.
Table 12-5. Exposure and Value of Structures in Moderate Wildfire Hazard Areas
Buildings Value Exposed
Exposeda Structure Contents Total % of Total Replacement Value
Dublin 6,300 $2,650,676,069 $1,451,005,773 $4,101,681,842 33.7%
Livermore 2,234 $1,267,065,382 $1,011,668,475 $2,278,733,857 11.1%
Pleasanton 1,705 $755,916,113 $459,120,197 $1,215,036,310 5.8%
Total 10,239 $4,673,657,564 $2,921,794,444 $7,595,452,009 14.1%
a. Fire hazard severity data downloaded from CAL FIRE website in May 2016.
12. Wildfire
12-9
Table 12-6. Land Use Within the Wildfire Hazard Areas
Moderate FHSZ High FHSZ Very High FHSZ
Land Use Area (acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total
Residential 2,189 20.7% 3,496 37.0% 332 70.4%
Commercial 363 3.4% 450 4.8% 0 0.0%
Industrial 236 2.2% 56 0.6% 0 0.0%
Agriculture 24 0.2% 25 0.3% 0 0.0%
Religion / Assembly 133 1.3% 59 0.6% 5 1.1%
Government / Institutional 1,314 12.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Education 248 2.3% 85 0.9% 3 0.7%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way / Water / Open Space 6,056 57.3% 5,284 55.9% 131 27.8%
Total 10,564 100.0% 9,455 100.0% 472 100.0%
12.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Table 12-7 identifies critical facilities exposed to the wildfire hazard in the planning area.
Table 12-7. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Wildfire Hazard Areas
Medical and
Health Services
Emergency
Services
Educational
Facilities
Government /
City Facilities Utilities
Transportation
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials
Other
Assets Total
Moderate Hazard Zone
Dublin 0 5 2 3 0 8 0 0 18
Livermore 0 0 3 0 6 12 3 0 24
Pleasanton 1 0 4 0 4 5 2 0 16
High Hazard Zone
Dublin 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
Livermore 1 0 1 0 1 6 0 0 9
Pleasanton 1 1 0 0 33 9 1 0 45
Very High Hazard Zone
Dublin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Livermore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasanton 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 7
Total 5 6 11 3 49 42 6 0 122
Currently there are six registered Toxic Release Inventory hazardous material containment sites in wildfire risk
zones. During a wildfire event, these materials could rupture due to excessive heat and act as fuel for the fire,
causing rapid spreading and escalating the fire to unmanageable levels. In addition they could leak into
surrounding areas, saturating soils and seeping into surface waters, and have a disastrous effect on the
environment.
In the event of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to the majority of infrastructure. Most roads and
railroads would be without damage except in the worst scenarios. Power lines are the most at risk to wildfire
because most are made of wood and susceptible to burning. In the event of a wildfire, pipelines could provide a
source of fuel and lead to a catastrophic explosion.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
12-10
12.4.4 Environment
Fire is a natural and critical ecosystem process in most terrestrial ecosystems, dictating in part the types, structure,
and spatial extent of native vegetation. However, wildfires can cause severe environmental impacts:
• Damaged Fisheries—Critical fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation, and
changes in water quality.
• Soil Erosion—The protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter is removed, leaving
the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion occurs, causing landslides and
threatening aquatic habitats.
• Spread of Invasive Plant Species—Non-native woody plant species frequently invade burned areas. When
weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad landscapes, and become difficult
and costly to control.
• Disease and Insect Infestations—Unless diseased or insect-infested trees are swiftly removed, infestations
and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active management actions are needed
to remove diseased or infested trees.
• Destroyed Endangered Species Habitat—Catastrophic fires can have devastating consequences for
endangered species.
• Soil Sterilization—Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil nutrients may be
lost. It can take decades or even centuries for ecosystems to recover from a fire. Some fires burn so hot
that they can sterilize the soil.
Many ecosystems are adapted to historical patterns of fire occurrence. These patterns, called “fire regimes,”
include temporal attributes (e.g., frequency and seasonality), spatial attributes (e.g., size and spatial complexity),
and magnitude attributes (e.g., intensity and severity), each of which have ranges of natural variability. Ecosystem
stability is threatened when any of the attributes for a given fire regime diverge from its range of natural
variability.
12.5 VULNERABILITY
Structures, above-ground infrastructure, critical facilities and natural environments are all vulnerable to the
wildfire hazard. There is currently no validated damage function available to support wildfire mitigation planning.
Except as discussed in this section, vulnerable populations, property, infrastructure and environment are assumed
to be the same as described in the section on exposure.
12.5.1 Population
There are no recorded incidents of loss of life from wildfires within the planning area. Given the immediate
response times to reported fires, the likelihood of injuries and casualties is minimal; therefore, injuries and
casualties were not estimated for the wildfire hazard.
Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard, especially for sensitive populations,
including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Smoke generated by
wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor, and
minerals), gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides), and toxics (formaldehyde, benzene).
Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the efficiency (or
temperature) of combustion, and the weather. Public health impacts associated with wildfire include difficulty in
breathing, odor, and reduction in visibility.
Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to the
dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke.
12. Wildfire
12-11
12.5.2 Property
Loss estimations for wildfire are not based on damage functions, because no such functions have been generated.
Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent of the assessed value of
exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of economic impact based on an estimate of
the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be
substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 12-8 lists the
loss estimates for the general building stock for jurisdictions that have an exposure to a fire hazard severity zone.
Table 12-8. Wildfire Loss Potential
Loss Potential from Wildfire
Exposed Value (Structure and contents) 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage
Dublin $5,075,122,665 $507,512,266 $1,522,536,799 $2,537,561,332
Livermore $3,798,001,157 $379,800,115 $1,139,400,347 $1,899,000,578
Pleasanton $4,368,429,476 $436,842,947 $1,310,528,842 $2,184,214,737
Total $13,241,553,297 $1,324,155,329 $3,972,465,989 $6,620,776,648
12.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Critical facilities of wood frame construction are especially vulnerable to wildfire. In the event of wildfire, there
would likely be little damage to most infrastructure. Most roads and railroads would be without damage except in
the worst scenarios. Power lines are the most at risk from wildfire because most poles are made of wood and
susceptible to burning. Fires can create conditions that block or prevent access and can isolate residents and
emergency service providers. Wildfire typically does not have a major direct impact on bridges, but it can create
conditions in which bridges are obstructed. Many bridges in areas of high to moderate fire risk are important
because they provide the only ingress and egress to large areas and in some cases to isolated neighborhoods.
12.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
The highly urbanized portions of the planning area have little or no wildfire risk exposure. Urbanization tends to
alter the natural fire regime, and can create the potential for the expansion of urbanized areas into wildland areas.
The expansion of the wildland urban interface can be managed with strong land use and building codes. The
planning area is well equipped with these tools and this planning process has assessed capabilities with regards to
the tools. As the planning area experiences future growth, it is anticipated that the exposure to this hazard will
remain as assessed or even decrease over time due to these capabilities. Table 12-9 shows the future land use
within the moderate, high, and very high FHSZ.
12.7 SCENARIO
A major wildfire in the planning area might begin with a wet spring, adding to fuels already present on the forest
floor. Flashy fuels would build throughout the spring. A dry summer could follow the wet spring, exacerbated by
diablo winds. Carelessness with combustible materials or a tossed lit cigarette, or a sudden lighting storm could
trigger a multitude of small isolated fires.
The embers from these smaller fires could be carried miles by hot, dry winds. The deposition zone for these
embers would be deep in the forests and interface zones. Fires that start in flat areas move slower, but wind still
pushes them. It is not unusual for a wildfire pushed by wind to burn the ground fuel and later climb into the crown
and reverse its track. This is one of many ways that fires can escape containment, typically during periods when
response capabilities are overwhelmed. These new small fires would most likely merge. Suppression resources
would be redirected from protecting the natural resources to saving more remote subdivisions.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
12-12
Table 12-9. Future Land Use Within the Wildfire Hazard Areas
Moderate FHSZ High FHSZ Very High FHSZ
Land Use
Area
(acres) % of total
Area
(acres) % of total
Area
(acres) % of total
Residential 2,409 22.8% 4,077 43.1% 408 86.4%
Commercial 298 2.8% 284 3.0% 7 1.4%
Industrial 940 8.9% 141 1.5% 0 0.0%
Agriculture 644 6.1% 313 3.3% 0 0.0%
Religion / Assembly 2,333 22.1% 159 1.7% 4 0.9%
Government / Institutional 167 1.6% 19 0.2% 0 0.0%
Education 3,774 35.7% 4,468 47.2% 53 11.2%
Vacant / Rights-of-Way / Water / Open Space 10,566 100.0% 9,462 100.0% 472 100.0%
Total 2,409 22.8% 4,077 43.1% 408 86.4%
While local fire districts would be extremely useful in the urban interface areas, they have limited wildfire
capabilities or experience, and they would have a difficult time responding to the ignition zones. Even though the
existence and spread of the fire is known, it may not be possible to respond to it adequately, so an initially
manageable fire can become out of control before resources are dispatched.
12.8 ISSUES
The major issues for wildfire are the following:
• Public education and outreach to people living in or near the fire hazard zones should include information
about and assistance with mitigation activities such as defensible space, and advance identification of
evacuation routes and safe zones.
• Wildfires could cause multiple secondary natural hazards.
• Climate change could affect the wildfire hazard.
• Future growth into interface areas should continue to be managed, particularly in the western hillside area
of Pleasanton.
• Area fire districts need to continue to train on wildland-urban interface events.
• Vegetation management activities. This would include enhancement through expansion of the target areas
as well as additional resources.
• Regional consistency of higher building code standards such as residential sprinkler requirements and
prohibitive combustible roof standards.
13-1
13. CLIMATE CHANGE
13.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
13.1.1 What Is Climate Change?
Climate, consisting of patterns of temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind and seasons, plays a fundamental
role in shaping natural ecosystems and the human economies and cultures that depend on them. “Climate change”
refers to changes over a long period of time. Worldwide, average temperatures have increased 1.7ºF since 1880
(NASA, 2017). Although this change may seem small, it can lead to large changes in climate and weather.
The warming trend and its related impacts are caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, resulting
in a warming effect. Carbon dioxide is the most commonly known greenhouse gas, but methane, nitrous oxide
and fluorinated gases also contribute to warming. Emissions of these gases come from a variety of sources, such
as the combustion of fossil fuels, agricultural production, changes in land use and volcanic eruptions. According
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), carbon dioxide concentration measured about 280 parts per
million (ppm) before the industrial era began in the late 1700s and reached 401 ppm in 2015 (EPA, 2016) (see
Figure 13-1). In addition, the concentration of methane has almost doubled, and nitrous oxide is being measured
at a record high of 328 parts per billion (ppb) (EPA, 2016a). In the United States, electricity generation is the
largest source of these emissions, followed by transportation (EPA, 2016b).
Scientists are able to place this rise in carbon dioxide in a longer historical context through the measurement of
carbon dioxide in ice cores. According to these records, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the
highest that they have been in 650,000 years. According to NASA, this trend is of particular significance “because
most of it is very likely human-induced and [it is] proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300
years”. There is broad scientific consensus (97 percent of scientists) that climate-warming trends are very likely
due to human activities (NASA, 2017). Unless emissions of greenhouse gases are substantially reduced, this
warming trend and its associated impacts are expected to continue.
Climate change will affect the people, property, economy and ecosystems of the planning area in a variety of
ways. Climate change impacts are most frequently associated with negative consequences, such as increased flood
vulnerability or increased heat-related illnesses/public health concerns; however, other changes may present
opportunities. The most important effect for the development of this plan is that climate change will have a
measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.
13.1.2 How Climate Change Affects Hazard Mitigation
An essential aspect of hazard mitigation is predicting the likelihood of hazard events in a planning area. Typically,
predictions are based on statistical projections from records of past events. This approach assumes that the
likelihood of hazard events remains essentially unchanged over time. Thus, averages based on the past
frequencies of, for example, floods are used to estimate future frequencies: if a river has flooded an average of
once every 5 years for the past 100 years, then it can be expected to continue to flood an average of once every
5 years.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
13-2
Source: EPA, 2016
Figure 13-1. Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations over Time
For hazards that are affected by climate conditions, the assumption that future behavior will be equivalent to past
behavior is not valid if climate conditions are changing. As flooding is generally associated with precipitation
frequency and quantity, for example, the frequency of flooding will not remain constant if broad precipitation
patterns change over time. Specifically, as hydrology changes, storms currently considered to be a 1-percent-
annual-chance event might strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. The risks of, landslide,
severe storms, extreme heat and wildfire are all affected by climate patterns as well. For this reason, an
understanding of climate change is pertinent to efforts to mitigate natural hazards. Information about how climate
patterns are changing provides insight on the reliability of future hazard projections used in mitigation analysis.
This chapter summarizes current understandings about climate change in order to provide a context for the
recommendation and implementation of hazard mitigation measures.
13.1.3 Current Indicators of Climate Change
The major scientific agencies of the United States and the world—including NASA, NOAA and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—agree that climate change is occurring. Multiple
temperature records from all over the world have shown a warming trend. The IPCC has stated that the warming
of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC, 2014). Sixteen of the 17 warmest years on record occurred since
2001, and 2016 was the warmest year on record (NASA, 2016b).
Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by other changes in weather and climate. Many places have
experienced changes in rainfall resulting in more intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves
(IPCC, 2014). The planet’s oceans and glaciers have also experienced changes: oceans are warming and
becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. Global sea level has risen approximately 6.7
inches, on average, in the last 100 years (NASA, 2017). This has already put some coastal homes, beaches, roads,
bridges, and wildlife at risk (USGCRP, 2009).
13. Climate Change
13-3
NASA currently maintains information on the vital signs of the planet. At the time of the development of this
plan, the following trends and status of these signs are as follows (NASA, 2017a):
• Carbon Dioxide—Increasing trend, currently at 406.17 parts per million
• Global Temperature—Increasing trend, increase of 1.7 ºF since 1880
• Arctic Ice Minimum—Decreasing trend, 13.3 percent per decade
• Land Ice—Decreasing trend, 287.0 gigatonnes per year
• Sea Level—Increasing trend, 3.4 millimeters (0.04 inches) per year.
13.1.4 Projected Future Impacts
The Third National Climate Assessment Report for the United States indicates that impacts resulting from climate
change will continue through the 21st century and beyond. Although not all changes are understood at this time
and the impacts of those changes will depend on global emissions of greenhouse gases and sensitivity in human
and natural systems, the following impacts are expected in the United States:
• Temperatures will continue to rise
• Growing seasons will lengthen
• Precipitation patterns will change
• Droughts and heat waves will increase
• Hurricanes will become stronger and more intense
• Sea level will rise 1-4 feet by 2100
• The Arctic may become ice free.
The California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide outlines the following climate change impact concerns for
Bay Area communities (Cal EMA et al., 2012):
• Increased temperature
• Reduced precipitation
• Sea level rise—coastal inundation and erosion
• Public health—heat and air pollution
• Reduced agricultural productivity
• Inland flooding
• Reduced tourism.
Some of these changes are direct or primary climatic changes, such as increased temperature, while others are
indirect climatic changes or secondary impacts, such as heat wave frequency, resulting from these direct changes.
Some direct changes may interact with one another to create unique secondary impacts. These primary and
secondary impacts may then result in impacts on human and natural systems. The primary and secondary impacts
likely to affect the planning area are summarized in Table 13-1.
Climate change projections contain inherent uncertainty, largely derived from the fact that they depend on future
greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Generally, the uncertainty in greenhouse gas emissions is addressed by the
presentation of differing scenarios: low-emissions or high-emissions scenarios. In low-emissions scenarios,
greenhouse gas emissions are reduced substantially from current levels. In high-emissions scenarios, greenhouse
gas emissions generally increase or continue at current levels. Uncertainty in outcomes is generally addressed by
averaging a variety of model outcomes.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
13-4
Table 13-1. Summary of Primary and Secondary Impacts
Primary Impact Secondary Impact Example Human and Natural System Impacts
Increased temperature Heat wave • Increased frequency of illness and death
• Increased stress on mechanical systems, such as HVAC systems
Increased temperature and changes in precipitation Changed seasonal patterns • Reduced agricultural productivity
• Reduced tourism
Increased temperature and/or reduced precipitation Drought • Reduced agricultural productivity
• Decreased water supply
Reduced Snowpack • Decreased water supply
• Reduced tourism
Wildfire • Increased incidence of landslide or mudslide
• Reduced tourism
• Increase in air pollution and related health impacts
Sea level rise Permanent inundation of
previously dry land • Loss of assets and tax base
• Loss of coastal habitat
Larger area impacted by extreme
high tide • More people and structures impacted by storms
• Increased incidence of loss of utilities and lifeline systems
Increased coastal erosion • Loss of assets and tax base
Saltwater intrusion into freshwater
systems • Decreased water supply
• Ecosystem disruption Sea level rise
Changes in wind patterns Increased extreme events,
including severe storms and fires • More frequent disruption to systems resulting from severe storms
Ocean acidification • Decreased biodiversity in marine ecosystems
Source: Adapted and expanded from California Adaptation Planning Guide: Planning for Adaptive Communities
Despite this uncertainty, climate change projections present valuable information to help guide decision-making
for possible future conditions. The following sections summarize information developed for the planning area by
Cal-Adapt, a resource for public information on how climate change might impact local communities, based on
the most current data available. The projections are averaged across Alameda County and include information
from two emissions scenarios, which were developed by the IPCC (Cal-Adapt, 2017):
• Low Emissions Scenario—Emissions peak around 2040 and then decline (this was designated Scenario
B1 in previous IPCC analyses but is Scenario RCP 4.5 under more recent IPCC analyses)
• High Emissions Scenario—Emissions continue to rise strongly through 2050 and plateau around 2100
(this was designated Scenario A2 in previous IPCC analyses but is Scenario RCP 8.5 under more recent
IPCC analyses).
Temperature
The historical (1961-1990) average maximum temperature in Tri-Valley planning area was 69.9ºF and the
average minimum temperature was 44.6ºF. While average temperatures may fluctuate from year-to-year, and may
differ from one municipality to the next, the trend for the planning area indicates that average temperatures are
increasing (see Figure 13-2). The annual average maximum temperature increased by 7.7ºF when comparing 1961
to 1990 and 2070 to 2099 records. Average temperatures are expected to continue to rise. Table 13-2 shows the
estimated average temperatures for 2050 and 2099 under the low and high emission scenario.
13. Climate Change
13-5
Source: Cal-Adapt, 2017
Figure 13-2. Observed and Projected Average Temperatures in Tri-Valley planning area
Table 13-2. Average Temperature Projections in Tri-Valley planning area
2050 Projection (°F) 2099 Projection (°F)
Average
Temperature
Difference from
Historical Average
Average
Temperature
Difference from
Historical Average
Emission Scenario Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min.
Low Emissions (RCP 4.5) 73.9 50.1 +4.0 +5.5 76.23 49.3 +6.3 +4.7
High Emissions (RCP 8.5) 74.8 51.0 +4.9 +6.4 80.6 56.4 +10.7 +11.8
Extreme Heat
The extreme heat day temperature threshold for the planning area is 98.3°F. The historical average (1961-1990)
number of extreme heat days is 4.3 days. In the low emissions scenario, there are projected to be an annual
average of 13 days with temperatures over the extreme heat day threshold between 2017 and 2050 and between
2051 and 2099. In the high emissions scenario, there are projected to be an annual average of 20 days with
temperatures over the extreme heat day threshold between 2017 and 2050 and an average of 19 days per year
between 2051 and 2099 (see Figure 13-3).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
13-6
Source: Cal-Adapt, 2017
Figure 13-3. Projected Number of Extreme Heat Days by Year
Precipitation
Cal-Adapt shows that the historical annual mean precipitation (1961-1990) for the Tri-Valley planning area was
21.1 inches. Under the low and high emission scenario, annual precipitation is expected to average 22.75 inches
from 2017 to 2050 and 29.22 inches from 2051 to 2099. In general, most precipitation is expected to continue to
fall during the winter. Small changes in precipitation patterns in the state will have the potential to cause
significant disruption to built and natural systems.
Snowpack
While there are no snow-water equivalency measurements for the planning area, Cal-Adapt indicates that changes
in precipitation patterns may result in a reduction in snowpack. For example, Sierra Nevada snowpack may be
reduced by as much as 70 to 90 percent.
Wildfire
Wildfire risk is expected to change in the coming decades (see Figure 13-4). Under both high- and low-emissions
scenarios, the change in area burned in planning area decreases by 10 to 20 percent by 2050.
Sea Level Rise
Sea levels have been rising over the past several decades and are expected to continue to rise. Sea level rise is
mostly attributed to two factors: the expansion of water as it warms (thermal expansion) and the melting of ice
sheets and glaciers. As average ocean temperatures continue to increase, thermal expansion will continue and can
be projected with some degree of certainty. Less certain is how quickly ice sheets will melt, accounting for most
of the uncertainty in projections.
13. Climate Change
13-7
Source: Cal-Adapt, 2017
Figure 13-4. Projected Changes in Fire Risk, Relative to 2010 Levels
Sea level rise will cause currently dry areas to be permanently or chronically inundated. Temporary inundation
from extreme tide events and storm surge also will change. Unlike many other impacts resulting from climate
change, sea level rise will have a defined extent and location. This allows for a more-detailed risk assessment to
be conducted for this climate change impact. Although the extent and timing of sea level rise is still uncertain,
conducting an assessment of potential areas at risk provides information appropriate for planning purposes.
13.1.5 Responses to Climate Change
Communities and governments worldwide are working to address, evaluate and prepare for climate changes that
are likely to impact communities in coming decades. Generally, climate change discussions encompass two
separate but inter-related considerations: mitigation and adaptation. The term “mitigation” can be confusing,
because it’s meaning changes across disciplines:
• Mitigation in restoration ecology and related fields generally refers to policies, programs or actions that
are intended to reduce or to offset the negative impacts of human activities on natural systems. Generally,
mitigation can be understood as avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, or
compensating for known impacts (CEQ, 1978).
• Mitigation in climate change discussions is defined as “a human intervention to reduce the impact on the
climate system.” It includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas sources and emissions and enhance
greenhouse gas sinks (EPA, 2013).
• Mitigation in emergency management is typically defined as the effort to reduce loss of life and property
by lessening the impact of disasters (FEMA, 2013).
In this chapter, mitigation is used as defined by the climate change community. In the other chapters of this
hazard mitigation plan, mitigation is primarily used in an emergency management context.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
13-8
The IPCC defines adaption as “the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects.” Mitigation
and adaptation are related, as the world’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will affect the degree of
adaptation that will be necessary. Some actions can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support adaptation
to likely future conditions. Some adaptation actions also help communities reach other community goals (referred
to as co-benefits). The ability to adapt to changing conditions is often referred to as adaptive capacity, which is
“the ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage
of opportunities, or to respond to consequences” (IPCC, 2014).
Societies across the world are facing the need to adapt to changing conditions and to identify ways to increase
their adaptive capacity. Some efforts are already underway. Farmers are altering crops and agricultural methods to
deal with changing rainfall and rising temperature; architects and engineers are redesigning buildings; planners
are looking at managing water supplies to deal with droughts or flooding.
Adaptive capacity goes beyond human systems, as some ecosystems show a remarkable ability to adapt to change
and to buffer surrounding areas from the impacts of change. Forests can bind soils and hold large volumes of
water during times of plenty, releasing it through the year; floodplains can absorb vast volumes of water during
peak flows; coastal ecosystems can hold out against storms, attenuating waves and reducing erosion. Other
ecosystem services—such as food provision, timber, materials, medicines and recreation—can provide a buffer to
societies in the face of changing conditions. Ecosystem-based adaptation is the use of biodiversity and ecosystem
services as part of an overall strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. This includes
the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of specific ecosystems that provide key services.
Assessment of the current efforts and adaptive capacity of the planning partners participating in this hazard
mitigation plan are included in the jurisdiction-specific annexes in Volume 2.
13.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
The following sections provide information on how each natural hazard of concern for this planning process may
be impacted by climate change and how these impacts may alter current exposure and vulnerability for the people,
property, critical facilities and the environment in the planning area.
13.2.1 Dam Failure
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
On average, changes in California’s annual precipitation levels are not expected to be dramatic; however, small
changes may have significant impacts for water resource systems, including dams. Dams are designed partly
based on assumptions about a river’s flow behavior, expressed as hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can
have significant effects on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. If the hygrograph changes, it is
conceivable that the dam can lose some or all of its designed margin of safety, also known as freeboard. If
freeboard is reduced, dam operators may be forced to release increased volumes earlier in a storm cycle in order
to maintain the required margins of safety. Such early releases of increased volumes can increase flood potential
downstream.
According to the California Department of Water Resources, flood flows on many California rivers have been
record setting since the 1950s. This means that water infrastructure, such as dams, have been forced to manage
flows for which they were not designed. The California Division of Safety of Dams has indicated that climate
change may result in the need for increased safety precautions to address higher winter runoff, frequent
fluctuations of water levels, and increased potential for sedimentation and debris accumulation from changing
erosion patterns and increases in wildfires. According to the Division, climate change also will impact the ability
of dam operators to estimate extreme flood events (DWR, 2017b).
13. Climate Change
13-9
Dams are constructed with safety features known as “spillways.” Spillways are put in place on dams as a safety
measure in the event of the reservoir filling too quickly. Spillway overflow events, often referred to as “design
failures,” result in increased discharges downstream and increased flooding potential. Although climate change
will not increase the probability of catastrophic dam failure, it may increase the probability of design failures.
These types of conditions were observed during the emergency spillway failure of Oroville dam in California in
the spring of 2017 (see Figure 13-5).
Figure 13-5. Oroville Dam Emergency Spillway Failure in Spring 2017
Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
Population
Population exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard are unlikely to change as a result of climate
change. However, if areas previously protected by accredited levees are mapped in a special flood hazard area, the
number of people residing in flood hazard areas may increase.
Property
Property exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard are unlikely to change as a result of climate change.
However, if areas previously protected by accredited levees are mapped in a special flood hazard area, the assets
considered to be exposed to the flood hazard may increase.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
13-10
Critical facilities
The exposure and vulnerability of critical facilities are unlikely to change as result of climate change. Dam
owners and operators are sensitive to the risk and may need to alter maintenance and operations to account for
changes in the hydrograph and increased sedimentation.
Environment
The exposure and vulnerability of the environment to dam failure are unlikely to change as a result of climate
change. Ecosystem services may be used to mitigate some factors that could increase the risk of design failures,
such as increasing the natural water storage capacity in watersheds above dams.
Economy
Changes in the dam failure hazard related to climate change are unlikely to affect the local economy.
13.2.2 Drought
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
The long-term effects of climate change on regional water resources are unknown, but global water resources are
already experiencing the following stresses without climate change:
• Growing populations
• Increased competition for available water
• Poor water quality
• Environmental claims
• Uncertain reserved water rights
• Groundwater overdraft
• Aging urban water infrastructure.
With a warmer climate, droughts could become more frequent, more severe, and longer-lasting. According to the
National Climate Assessment, “higher surface temperatures brought about by global warming increase the
potential for drought. Evaporation and the higher rate at which plants lose moisture through their leaves both
increase with temperature. Unless higher evapotranspiration rates are matched by increases in precipitation,
environments will tend to dry, promoting drought conditions” (NCA, 2014a).
Because future changes in precipitation patterns are still uncertain, the potential impacts and likelihood of drought
are uncertain. That being said, DWR has already noted the impact of climate change on statewide water resources
by charting changes in snowpack and river flow. As temperatures rise and more precipitation comes in the form of
rain instead of snow, these changes will likely continue or grow even more significant. DWR estimates that the
Sierra Nevada snowpack, which provides a large amount of the water supply for the planning area and other parts
of the state, will experience a 48- to 65-percent reduction from historic April 1 averages by the end of the century
(DWR, 2017b). Increasing temperatures may also increase net evaporation from reservoirs by 15 to 37 percent
(DWR, 2013). The planning area’s water supply is also derived from groundwater resources. Increased incidence
of drought may cause a drawdown in these resources without allowing opportunity for aquifer recharge.
13. Climate Change
13-11
Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
Population
Population exposure and vulnerability to drought are unlikely to increase as a result of climate change. While
greater numbers of people may need to engage in behavior change, such as water saving efforts, significant life or
health impacts are unlikely.
Property
Property exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of increased drought resulting from climate change,
although this would most likely occur in non-structural property such as landscaping. It is unlikely that structure
exposure and vulnerability would increase as a direct result of drought, although secondary impacts of drought,
such as wildfire, may increase and threaten structures.
Critical facilities
Critical facility exposure and vulnerability are unlikely to increase as a result of increased drought resulting from
climate change; however, critical facility operators may be sensitive to changes and need to alter standard
management practices and actively manage resources, particularly in water-related service sectors.
Environment
The vulnerability of the environment may increase as a result of increased drought resulting from climate change.
Ecosystems and biodiversity in the Bay Area are already under stress from development and water diversion
activities. Prolonged or more frequent drought resulting from climate change may further stress the ecosystems in
the region, which include many special status species.
Economy
Increased incidence of drought could increase the potential for impacts on the local economy. Increased drought
may impact the wine industry and related tourism activities.
13.2.3 Earthquake
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown. Some scientists say that melting
glaciers could induce tectonic activity. As ice melts and water runs off, tremendous amounts of weight are shifted
on the earth’s crust. As newly freed crust returns to its original, pre-glacier shape, it could cause seismic plates to
slip and stimulate volcanic activity, according to research into prehistoric earthquakes and volcanic activity.
NASA and USGS scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern Alaska may be opening the way for future
earthquakes (NASA, 2004).
Secondary impacts of earthquakes could be magnified by climate change. Soils saturated by repetitive storms or
heavy precipitation could experience liquefaction or an increased propensity for slides during seismic activity due
to the increased saturation. Dams storing increased volumes of water due to changes in the hydrograph could fail
during seismic events.
Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
Because impacts on the earthquake hazard are not well understood, increases in exposure and vulnerability of the
local resources are not able to be determined.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
13-12
13.2.4 Flood
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
Use of historical hydrologic data has long been the standard of practice for designing and operating water supply
and flood protection projects. For example, historical data are used for flood forecasting models and to forecast
snowmelt runoff for water supply. This method of forecasting assumes that the climate of the future will be
similar to that of the period of historical record. However, the hydrologic record cannot be used to predict changes
in frequency and severity of extreme climate events such as floods. Scientists project greater storm intensity with
climate change, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding. High frequency flood events (e.g. 10-year floods) in
particular will likely increase with a changing climate. What is currently considered a 1-percent-annual-chance
flood may strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. Going forward, model calibration must
happen more frequently, new forecast-based tools must be developed, and a standard of practice that explicitly
considers climate change must be adopted.
Climate change is already impacting water resources, and resource managers have observed the following:
• Historical hydrologic patterns can no longer be solely relied upon to forecast the water future.
• Precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, increasing the uncertainty for water supply and quality,
flood management and ecosystem functions.
• Extreme climatic events will become more frequent, necessitating improvement in flood protection,
drought preparedness and emergency response.
The amount of snow is critical for water supply and environmental needs, but so is the timing of snowmelt runoff
into rivers and streams. Rising snowlines caused by climate change will allow more mountain areas, such as the
Sierra Nevada watersheds, to contribute to peak storm runoff. Changes in watershed vegetation and soil moisture
conditions will likewise change runoff and recharge patterns. As stream flows and velocities change, erosion
patterns will also change, altering channel shapes and depths, possibly increasing sedimentation behind dams, and
affecting habitat and water quality. With potential increases in the frequency and intensity of wildfires due to
climate change, there is potential for more floods following fire, which increase sediment loads and water quality
impacts.
Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
Population and Property
Population and property exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the
flood hazard. Runoff patterns may change, resulting in flooding in areas where it has not previously occurred.
Critical Facilities
Critical facility exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the flood hazard.
Runoff patterns may change, resulting in risk to facilities that have not historically been at risk from flooding.
Additionally, changes in the management and design of flood protection critical facilities may be needed as
additional stress is placed on these systems. Planners will need to factor a new level of safety into the design,
operation, and regulation of flood protection facilities such as dams and bypass channels, as well as the design of
local sewers and storm drains.
13. Climate Change
13-13
Environment
The exposure and vulnerability of the environment may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the
flood hazard. Changes in the timing and frequency of flood events may have broader ecosystem impacts that alter
the ability of already stressed species to survive.
Economy
If flooding becomes more frequent, there may be impacts on the local economy. More resources may need to be
directed to response and recovery efforts, and businesses may need to close more frequently due to loss of service
or access during flood events.
13.2.5 Landslide
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
Climate change may impact storm patterns, increasing the probability of more frequent, intense storms with
varying duration. Increase in global temperature is likely to affect the snowpack and its ability to hold and store
water. Warming temperatures also could increase the occurrence and duration of droughts, which would increase
the probability of wildfire, reducing the vegetation that helps to support steep slopes. All of these factors would
increase the probability for landslide occurrences.
Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
Population and Property
Population and property exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase as a result of climate change
impacts on the landslide hazard. Landslide events may occur more frequently, but the extent and location should
be contained within mapped hazard areas or recently burned areas.
Critical facilities
Critical facility exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase as a result of climate change impacts on
the landslide hazard; however, critical facility owners and operators may experience more frequent disruption to
service provision as a result of landslide hazards. For example, transportation systems may experience more
frequent delays if slides blocking these systems occur more frequently. In addition, increased sedimentation
resulting from landslides may negatively impact flood control facilities, such as dams.
Environment
Exposure and vulnerability of the environment would be unlikely to increase as a result of climate change, but
more frequent slides in river systems may impact water quality and have negative impacts on stressed species.
Economy
Changes to the landslide hazard resulting from climate change are unlikely to result in impacts on the local
economy.
13.2.6 Severe Weather
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
Climate change presents a challenge for risk management associated with severe weather. The number of
weather-related disasters during the 1990s was four times that of the 1950s, and cost 14 times as much in
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
13-14
economic losses. The science for linking the severity of specific severe weather events to climate change is still
evolving; however, a number of trends have been recorded that indicate how climate change may be impacting
these events. According to the U.S. National Climate Change Assessment (2014), there were more than twice as
many high temperature records as low temperatures records broken between 2001 and 2012, and heavy rainfall
events are becoming more frequent and more severe.
The increase in average surface temperatures can also lead to more intense heat waves that can be exacerbated in
urbanized areas by what is known as urban heat island effect. The evidence suggests that heat waves are already
increasing, especially in western states. According to information on Cal-Adapt provided above, extreme heat
days are likely to increase in the planning area.
Climate change impacts on other severe weather events such as thunderstorms and high winds are still not well
understood.
Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
Population and Property
Population and property exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase as a direct result of climate
change impacts on the severe weather hazard. Severe weather events may occur more frequently, but exposure
and vulnerability will remain the same. Secondary impacts, such as the extent of localized flooding, may increase,
impacting greater numbers of people and structures.
Critical Facilities
Critical facility exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase as a result of climate change impacts on
the severe weather hazard; however, critical facility owners and operators may experience more frequent
disruption to service provision. For example, more frequent and intense storms may cause more frequent
disruptions in power service.
Environment
Exposure and vulnerability of the environment would be unlikely to increase; however, more frequent storms and
heat events and more intense rainfall may place additional stress on already stressed systems.
Economy
Climate change impacts on the severe weather hazard may impact the local economy through more frequent
disruption to services, such as power outages.
13.2.7 Wildfire
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
Wildfire is determined by climate variability, local topography, and human intervention. Climate change has the
potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and
vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. Increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger
by warming and drying out vegetation.
Changes in climate patterns may impact the distribution and perseverance of insect outbreaks that create dead
trees (increase fuel). When climate alters fuel loads and fuel moisture, forest susceptibility to wildfires changes.
Climate change also may increase winds that spread fires. Faster fires are harder to contain, and thus are more
likely to expand into residential neighborhoods.
13. Climate Change
13-15
Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
Population
According to Cal-Adapt projections, wildfire risk in the vicinity of the planning area may actually decrease over
the next century. Other areas of California and the western United States are expected to have increased risk to
wildfire, with increases in annual acres burned. Although planning area residents may not experience increased
risk to wildfire directly, secondary impacts, such as poor air quality may increase.
Property and Critical Facilities
If wildfire risk decreases, the exposure and vulnerability of property and critical facilities would remain the same.
Environment
It is possible that the exposure and vulnerability of the environment will be impacted by changes in wildfire risk
due to climate change. Natural fire regimes may change, resulting in more or less frequent or higher intensity
burns. These impacts may alter the composition of the ecosystems in areas in and surrounding planning area.
Economy
As the risk from wildfire is currently projected to decrease, direct impacts on the economy would not be likely.
13.3 ISSUES
The major issues for climate change are the following:
• Planning for climate change related impacts can be difficult due to the inherent uncertainty in projected
future impacts.
• Average temperatures are expected to continue to increase in the planning area, which may lead to a host
of primary and secondary impacts, such as an increased incidence of heat waves.
• Expected changes in precipitation patterns are poorly understood and could have significant impacts on
the water supply and flooding in the planning area.
• Some impacts of climate change are poorly understood, such as potential impacts on the frequency and
severity of earthquakes and thunderstorms.
• Atmospheric river events may result in stormwater flooding after stormwater management systems are
overwhelmed.
14-1
14. PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
14.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
An outbreak or an epidemic exists when there are more cases of
a particular disease than expected in a given area, or among a
specific group of people, over a particular period of time. In an
outbreak or epidemic, it is presumed that the cases are related to
one another or that they have a common cause (CDC, 2011).
This chapter describes commonly recognized public health
hazards that are a concern to the planning area.
14.1.1 Vector-Borne
Tick-Borne Illnesses
Ticks are small, insect-like creatures most often found in
naturally vegetated areas. They feed by attaching to animals
and humans, sticking their mouthparts into the skin, and
sucking blood for up to several days. Ticks do not fall from
trees, jump or fly. Most species are found on wild grasses and
low plants. Adult ticks wait at the ends of grass or other foliage
for a host to brush by so they may attach. Sometimes ticks carry
bacteria or viruses that can be transmitted to a person while the tick is attached and feeding. There are 47 species
of ticks in California, but only eight are known to commonly bite humans:
• Western blacklegged tick (Ixodes pacificus)
• American dog tick (Dermacentor variabilis)
• Pacific Coast tick (Dermacentor occidentalis)
• Wood tick (Dermacentor andersoni)
• Brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus)
• Ornithodoros hermsi
• Ornithodoros parkeri
• Ornithodoros coriaceus.
Tularemia
Tularemia, named after Tulare County in California where it was first described in 1911, is a tick-borne disease of
animals and humans caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis. Tularemia is similar to plague, but is
typically spread differently. While plague is usually spread to humans by fleas, humans usually become infected
with Tularemia by tick and deer fly bites, skin contact with infected animals, ingestion of contaminated water or
meat, or inhalation of contaminated dusts or aerosols. Symptoms vary depending upon the route of infection.
Rabbits, hares, and rodents are especially susceptible and often die in large numbers during outbreaks. Although
Tularemia can be life-threatening, most infections can be treated successfully with antibiotics. Steps to prevent
Tularemia include use of insect repellent, wearing gloves when handling sick or dead animals, and not mowing
over dead animals. Naturally occurring infections have been reported in all U.S. states except Hawaii.
DEFINITIONS
Epidemic—The spread of an infectious disease
beyond a local population, reaching people in a wider
geographical area. Several factors determine whether
an outbreak will become an epidemic: the ease with
which the disease spreads from vectors, such as
animals, to people and the ease with which it spreads
from person to person.
Influenza—A viral infection that attacks the
respiratory system; commonly called flu.
Infectious diseases—Diseases caused by
pathogenic microorganisms, such as bacteria,
viruses, parasites or fungi, that can be spread, directly
or indirectly, from one person to another.
Pandemic—A worldwide epidemic.
Vector—An organism (such as an insect or rodent)
that transmits pathogens that cause disease
Vector-borne illness—Diseases transmitted to
people from insects and other animals. These include,
but are not limited to, Hanta Virus, Plague, Tularemia,
Lyme Disease, West Nile Virus and the Zika Virus.
Zoonotic diseases—Infectious diseases of animals
that can cause disease when transmitted to humans.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
14-2
Lyme Disease
Lyme disease, named after the city in Connecticut where it was first identified in 1975, is a tick-borne disease
caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, which normally lives in mice, squirrels and other small animals. It
is transmitted among these animals and to humans through the bites of certain species of ticks. In the northeastern
and north-central United States, the black-legged tick (or deer tick, Ixodes scapularis) transmits Lyme disease. In
the Pacific coastal United States, the disease is spread by the western black-legged tick (Ixodes pacificus). Other
major tick species found in the United States have not been shown to transmit the disease.
Typical symptoms include fever, headache, fatigue, and a skin rash. If left untreated, infection can spread to
joints, the heart, and the nervous system. Lyme disease is diagnosed based on symptoms, physical findings (e.g.,
rash), and the possibility of exposure to infected ticks. Laboratory testing is helpful in later stages of the disease.
Most cases of Lyme disease can be treated successfully with a few weeks of antibiotics. Steps to prevent Lyme
disease include using insect repellent, removing ticks promptly, landscaping, and integrated pest management.
The ticks that transmit Lyme disease can occasionally transmit other tick-borne diseases as well.
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever
Rocky Mountain spotted fever is a potentially fatal tick-borne disease caused by the bacterium Rickettsia
rickettsii. It is transmitted to humans by the bite of an infected American dog tick (Dermacentor variabilis),
Rocky Mountain wood tick (Dermacentor andersoni), or brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus).
Typical symptoms include fever, headache, abdominal pain, vomiting, and muscle pain. A rash may also develop,
but is often absent in the first few days, and in some patients, never develops. Rocky Mountain spotted fever can
be a severe or even fatal illness if not treated in the first few days of symptoms. It can be treated successfully with
a few weeks of antibiotics. Steps to prevent the disease include using insect repellent, removing ticks promptly,
landscaping, and integrated pest management. The ticks that transmit Rocky Mountain spotted fever can
occasionally transmit other tick-borne diseases as well.
Mosquito-Borne Illnesses
Mosquito-borne diseases are diseases that are spread through the bite of an infected female mosquito. There are
approximately 48 species of mosquitos in California that can carry disease. West Nile Virus and Zika Virus are a
concern for the planning area and described below.
West Nile Virus
West Nile virus (WNV) is a potentially serious mosquito-borne disease that may affect residents in the planning
area. Experts believe WNV is established as a seasonal epidemic in North America that flares up in the summer
and continues into the fall. As of January 2017, human-infection cases of the virus had been reported in all states
of the continental U.S. except Maine; Delaware and New Hampshire reported only non-human infections.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 80 percent of people infected with
WNV show no symptoms. The remainder have symptoms such as fever, headache, and body aches, nausea,
vomiting, and sometimes swollen lymph glands or a skin rash on the chest, stomach and back. Symptoms can last
for as short as a few days, though even healthy people have become sick for several weeks. About 1 percent of
people infected with WNV will develop severe illness, with symptoms that can include high fever, headache, neck
stiffness, stupor, disorientation, coma, tremors, convulsions, muscle weakness, vision loss, numbness and
paralysis. These symptoms may last several weeks, and neurological effects may become permanent. There is no
specific treatment for WNV infection. In more severe cases, people may need to go to the hospital where they can
receive supportive treatment including intravenous fluids, help with breathing and nursing care.
14. Public Health Emergency
14-3
WNV is a recent disease to affect California. Mosquitoes transmit the virus to birds, livestock and humans. WNV
season is between June and November in the planning area. During WNV season, Alameda County’s mosquito
abatement program works to limit risks to residents by monitoring ponds and other possible mosquito breeding
sites; trapping to detect high numbers of mosquitoes; treating sewer catch-basins to prevent breeding; collecting
birds for testing; and educating residents and owners about removing standing water from private property to limit
mosquito breeding and mosquito bites (Alameda County Public Health Department, 2017).
Zika Virus
Zika is a mosquito-borne disease transmitted by yellow fever mosquito (Aedes aegypti) and the Asian tiger
mosquito (Aedes albopictus). An Aedes mosquito can only transmit Zika virus after it bites a person who has this
virus in their blood. The most common symptoms of Zika are fever, rash, joint pain, and conjunctivitis (red eyes).
The illness is usually mild, with symptoms lasting for several days to a week after being bitten by an infected
mosquito. People usually do not get sick enough to go to the hospital, and they rarely die of Zika. For this reason,
many people might not realize they have been infected. However, Zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause
a serious birth defect called microcephaly (abnormally small head and brain), as well as other severe fetal brain
defects. Once a person has been infected, he or she is likely to be protected from future infections. Zika virus is
not spread through casual contact, but can be spread by infected men to their sexual partners. There is a growing
association between Zika and Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a disease affecting the nervous system.
The mosquitos that carry Zika are not native to California, but infestations have been reported in multiple counties
in California, but not in Alameda County or the Tri-Valley planning area (CDPH, 2017). Thus far in California,
Zika virus infections have been documented only in people who were infected while traveling outside the United
States or through sexual contact with an infected traveler. From 2015 to the publishing of this document there has
been no local mosquito-borne transmission of Zika virus in California.
14.1.2 Infectious Diseases
Influenza
Influenza, commonly called flu, is a viral infection that attacks the respiratory system. This disease is capable of
claiming thousands of lives and adversely affecting critical infrastructure and key resources. An influenza
pandemic has the ability to reduce the health, safety, and welfare of the essential services workforce; immobilize
core infrastructure; and induce fiscal instability. The risk of a global influenza pandemic has increased over the
last several years.
Pandemic influenza is different from seasonal influenza (or “the flu”) because outbreaks of seasonal flu are
caused by viruses that are already among people. Pandemic influenza is caused by an influenza virus that is new
to people and is likely to affect many more people than seasonal influenza. In addition, seasonal flu occurs every
year, usually during the winter season, while the timing of an influenza pandemic is difficult to predict. Pandemic
influenza is likely to affect more people than the seasonal flu, including young adults. A severe pandemic could
change daily life for a time, including limitations on travel and public gatherings.
The CDC’s Influenza Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports the World Health
Organization’s global network of National Influenza Centers (NIC). The Influenza Division also conducts
epidemiologic research, including vaccine studies and serologic assays and provides international outbreak
investigation assistance (CDC, 2011).
Seasonal Influenza
Seasonal epidemics of the flu typically occur in the fall and winter. The CDC estimates that the 2015-2016 flu
season for California was moderate compared to previous years; however, more influenza-associated deaths were
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
14-4
reported than the 2014-2015 season. Laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated deaths among patients under 65
have been reportable in California since the 2009 influenza pandemic. For the 2015-2016 flu season, there were
144 fatal cases of influenza-related illness statewide among those under 65, well below the 404 fatal cases during
the 2013-2014 influenza season (CDPH, 2017).
Swine Flu (H1N1)
In April 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a health advisory on an outbreak of influenza-like
illness caused by a new subtype of influenza A (A/H1N1) in Mexico and the United States. The disease spread
rapidly, with the number of confirmed cases rising to 2,099 by May 7, despite aggressive measures taken against
the disease by the Mexican government. On June 11, the WHO declared an H1N1 pandemic, marking the first
global pandemic since the 1968 Hong Kong flu. On October 25, the U.S. declared H1N1 a national emergency.
On August 10, 2010, the WHO declared an end to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic globally. The pandemic was mild
compared to the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, which caused 100 million deaths worldwide—a total of 3 percent
of the world’s total population.
H1N1 viruses and seasonal influenza viruses are co-circulating in many parts of the world. It is likely that the
2009 H1N1 virus will continue to spread for years to come, like a regular seasonal influenza virus.
Avian Flu (H5N1/H7N9)
The highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza virus is an influenza A subtype that occurs mainly in birds, causing
high mortality among birds and domestic poultry. Outbreaks of highly pathogenic H5N1 among poultry and wild
birds are ongoing in a number of countries such as Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.
H5N1 virus infections of humans are rare and most cases have been associated with direct poultry contact during
poultry outbreaks. Rare cases of limited human-to-human spread of H5N1 virus may have occurred, but there is
no evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission. Nonetheless, because all influenza viruses have the
ability to change and mutate, scientists are concerned that H5N1 viruses one day could be able to infect humans
more easily and spread more easily from one person to another, potentially causing another pandemic.
While the H5N1 virus does not now infect people easily, infection in humans is much more serious when it occurs
than is infection with H1N1. More than half of people reported infected with H5N1 have died.
Infections in humans and poultry by a new avian influenza A virus (H7N9) continue to be reported in China.
While mild illness in human cases has been seen, most patients have had severe respiratory illness and some have
died. The only case identified outside of China was recently reported in Malaysia. Source investigation by
Chinese authorities is ongoing. Many of the people infected with H7N9 are reported to have had contact with
poultry. However, some cases reportedly have not had such contact. Close contacts of confirmed H7N9 patients
are being followed to determine whether any human-to-human spread of H7N9 is occurring. No sustained person-
to-person spread of the H7N9 virus has been found at this time. However, based on previous experience with
avian flu viruses, some limited human-to-human spread of this the virus would not be surprising.
As of the publication of this document, H5N1 and the new H7N9 virus have not been detected in people or birds
in the United States.
Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers
Viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) are a group of illnesses caused by four families of viruses (Ebola, Marburg,
Lassa fever, and yellow fever). VHF describes a multisystem syndrome (multiple systems in the body are
affected). Characteristically, the overall vascular system is damaged and the body’s ability to regulate itself is
impaired. These symptoms are often accompanied by hemorrhage (bleeding); however, the bleeding itself is
14. Public Health Emergency
14-5
rarely life-threatening. While some types of hemorrhagic fever viruses can cause relatively mild illnesses, many
cause severe, life-threatening disease.
The viruses that cause VHFs are distributed over much of the globe. However, because each virus is associated
with one or more particular host species, the virus and the disease it causes are usually seen only where the host
species live. Some hosts, such as the rodent species carrying several of the New World arenaviruses, live in
geographically restricted areas. Therefore, the risk of getting VHFs caused by these viruses is restricted to those
areas. Other hosts range over continents, such as the rodents that carry viruses that cause the hantavirus
pulmonary syndrome in North and South America, or the rodents that carry viruses that cause hemorrhagic fever
with renal syndrome in Europe and Asia.
The only VHF discussed in detail for this hazard mitigation plan is Ebola.
Ebola
The 2014 Ebola virus outbreak was unprecedented in geographical reach and impact on health care systems across
the globe. This was the largest and deadliest Ebola virus outbreak ever recorded. It was the first time the West
African countries of Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Mali, and Senegal saw the virus. Ebola is more
common in Central African countries, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan, where it was first
discovered in 1976. It was also the first time that Ebola made it to the United States and Europe, prompting
world-wide preparedness and response efforts. Figure 14-1 shows areas that ultimately were affected. The
outbreak was closely monitored and traveler screenings were developed for those returning from West Africa.
Source: World Health Organization
Figure 14-1. 2014 Distribution of Ebola Virus Outbreaks in Humans and Animals
In August 2014, two U.S. healthcare workers returned to the United States for treatment for Ebola. The case that
most impacted the health care system in the United States was a patient diagnosed with Ebola in Dallas, Texas
who died due to Ebola in October 2014. The nurse who provided care for him later tested positive for Ebola. This
caused responses across the country from hospitals, emergency medical teams, fire departments and public health
agencies to enhance isolation precautions, develop emergency policies, train with personal protective equipment
and conduct multi-agency emergency exercises in case the spread of Ebola became a pandemic.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
14-6
Before the 2014 outbreak, only 2,200 cases of Ebola had been recorded and 68 percent were fatal. Twenty percent
of new Ebola infections were linked to burial traditions in which family and community members wash and touch
dead bodies before burial. In Guinea, 60 percent of Ebola infections were linked to traditional burial practices. As
of the date of this plan, there have been no reported Ebola cases in California.
Enterovirus
Non-polio enteroviruses are very common. There are more than 100 non-polio enteroviruses. One of the more
common types is Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68). First identified in California in 1962, it causes about 10 to 15
million infections and tens of thousands of hospitalizations each year in the United States. Most people who get
infected with this virus do not get sick or they only have mild illness, like the common cold. This virus spreads
from person-to-person when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or touches a surface that is then touched by
others (CDC, 2016).
In the summer and fall of 2014, the United States experienced a nationwide outbreak of EV-D68 associated with
severe respiratory illness. From mid-August 2014 to January 15, 2015, 1,153 people in 49 states and the District
of Columbia were diagnosed with respiratory illness caused by EV-D68. Almost all of the confirmed cases were
among children, many of whom had asthma or a history of wheezing. There likely were many thousands of mild
EV-D68 infections for which people did not seek medical treatment/or get tested (CDC, 2016a).
Norovirus
Norovirus is a highly contagious virus that causes acute gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach and
intestines). It can spread quickly in closed and crowded environments such as hospitals, nursing homes, daycare
centers, schools and cruise ships. Norovirus is the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis in the United
States. Every year, it causes an estimated 19 to 21 million cases of acute gastroenteritis. While it is possible to
become infected with norovirus year-round, norovirus infection happens most often from November to April.
There can be a higher incidence of norovirus illnesses in years when a new strain of the virus is going around
(CDPH, 2016).
Norovirus is found in the feces and vomit of infected people and can spread easily from person to person. People
can become infected in several ways, including:
• Having direct contact with another person who is infected (for example, caring for or sharing foods or
eating utensils with someone who is ill)
• Eating food or drinking liquids contaminated with norovirus, such as food touched by an ill food handler
or undercooked seafood that has been harvested from contaminated waters
• Touching contaminated surfaces or objects and then touching the mouth before hand washing.
The CDPH and local health departments monitor norovirus outbreaks. Although healthcare providers are not
required to report individual cases of norovirus to the local health department, outbreaks are reportable. When
outbreaks are reported, CDPH and local health departments investigate to confirm and identify the strain of
norovirus, find the cause of the outbreak, prevent further infections, and educate the public (CDPH, 2016).
14.2 HAZARD PROFILE
The severity of human health hazards is dependent upon the hazard and the population exposed to it. As the
population increases, so does the risk of exposure to hazards. The key to reducing the disease hazard is isolation
so that the exposed population does not continue to spread the hazard to the uninfected population. For disease
and weather-related human health hazards, promoting education and personal preparedness will help to mitigate
and reduce the severity of the hazard.
14. Public Health Emergency
14-7
14.2.1 Past Events
Vector-Borne
The following is a summary of recent vector-borne disease outbreak events:
• In Alameda County, between 2006 and 2015, there were 35 confirmed cases of Lyme disease and six
reported cases of West Nile Virus (CDPH, 2015).
• As of September 16, 2016, 18 Zika cases were reported in Alameda County, all from returning travelers.
Infectious Diseases
• In the United States during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, there were 60 million confirmed cases of
the disease, 270,000 people hospitalized due to the illness and 12,000 deaths. In California, there were
4,134 people hospitalized due to the illness and 596 deaths. In Alameda County, there were 243
confirmed cases, with 29 deaths (CDPH, 2011).
• The most recent data for influenza in the State of California is for the 2015-2016 flu season. The CDPH
recorded 144 fatal and 355 non-fatal ICU cases of influenza. In Alameda County, there were 5 fatal and
19 non-fatal ICU cases recorded for the same period. Overall, the influenza season was more moderate
than the previous three seasons (CDPH, 2016a).
• California was impacted by the Enterovirus D68 outbreak in 2014. By October 2014, there were 32
reported cases in the state. Two of those cases were reported in Alameda County (Seipel, 2014).
• In 2015, California experienced a norovirus outbreak. Between October and December, there were 32
confirmed cases of norovirus (CDPH, 2015).
14.2.2 Location
All of the planning area is susceptible to the human health hazards discussed in this chapter. While some hazards,
such as Lyme disease, can have a geographic presence within the planning area, other diseases can cause exposure
to the planning area from outside the local region. Planning area residents who travel can become exposed to
diseases while abroad and bring the diseases back with them, potentially placing the region at risk for exposure.
Extreme weather poses an equal human health hazard across the planning area.
14.2.3 Frequency
Predicting the future occurrences of disease outbreaks is difficult; however, based on the history of past
occurrences, it is likely that the planning area will be impacted in the future. An increase in population and
population density in the planning area have the potential to increase residents’ exposure and susceptibility to
outbreaks. Infected mosquitos and ticks will continue to inhabit and impact the planning area.
14.2.4 Severity
The severity of the human health hazard varies from individual to individual. Typically, young children and older
adults are more susceptible to acquiring communicable diseases due to developing or diminishing immune
systems. These populations often experience the most severe of symptoms, as their immune systems are not
capable of fighting off infection or efficiently regulating temperature. In general, severity varies depending on the
pathology of the disease, the health of the infected, and the availability of treatments for alleviating symptoms or
curing the disease.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
14-8
14.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
The largest secondary impact caused by human health hazards is economic. Large outbreaks of any human health
hazard could reduce the work force significantly, causing businesses and agencies to close or be greatly impacted.
Another secondary impact is stigmatization. The fear of the human health hazard and fear of the unknown can
lead to isolation, violence and self-inflicted injury. Hospitals and health care providers can be overwhelmed with
the “worried well” seeking care and comfort. Providing key and critical information can reduce and mitigate this
secondary risk.
14.4 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY
14.4.1 Population
All citizens in the planning area could be susceptible to the human health hazards discussed in this chapter. A
large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have
devastating effects on the population of the planning area. The young and the elderly, those with compromised
immune systems, and those with specialized medical needs are considered the most vulnerable.
14.4.2 Property
None of the health hazards discussed in this chapter would have significant measurable impact on the structural
environment or property of the planning area.
14.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
None of the health hazards discussed in this chapter would have significant measurable impact on the critical
facilities or infrastructure of the planning area.
14.4.4 Environment
None of the health hazards discussed in this chapter would have significant measurable impact on the
environment of the planning area. While many of the vectors of the health hazards discussed in this chapter rely
on local or regional environments for their survival, the human health hazard that they carry or potentially
transmit would have no significant measurable impact on the environment.
14.4.5 Economy
The economic impact of a human health hazard could be localized to a single region or population, or could be
widespread. The impact could be significant, depending on the hazard, number of cases and the availability of
resources to care for those affected by the hazard. Other financial impacts could be absorbed or managed by the
organization affected.
14.5 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
The potential for communicable diseases, vector-borne diseases or extreme weather in the planning area is not
likely to lessen or prohibit growth or development.
14. Public Health Emergency
14-9
14.6 SCENARIO
A worst-case human health scenario for the planning area would be an epidemic or large-scale incident of any of
the human health hazards discussed in this chapter. Medical treatment facilities in the planning area would be
overwhelmed and taxed beyond their capabilities as the numbers of patients escalates. Impacts on the work force
could have acute and long-term economic impacts on the planning area’s primary employers. First responders
would be exposed to the human health hazards, which could deplete the medical work force and could have
profound impact on the potential escalation of the scenario.
14.7 ISSUES
Important issues associated with the human health hazards include but are not limited to the following:
• Prevention through vaccination and personal emergency and disaster preparation will help to reduce the
impacts of human health hazards.
• Medical and response personnel need to be integrated in a unified command to provide care when needed
in response to human health hazards.
• Medical and response personnel must be adequately trained and supplied.
• Up-to-date and functional all-hazard contingency planning should be carried out.
• A system needs to be in place to inform the public with a unified message about the human health hazard.
• Health agencies and facilities require surge capacity management and adaptation to the rising number and
needs of the region.
15-1
15. HUMAN-CAUSED HAZARDS
15.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
Although the DMA does not require an assessment of
human-caused hazards, this plan includes human-caused
hazards for the following reasons:
• The planning partners take a proactive approach
to disaster preparedness in order to protect the
public safety of all citizens.
• Preparation for and response to a human-caused
disaster will involve much of the same staff
training, critical decision-making, and
commitment of resources as for a natural hazard.
• The hazard mitigation planning effort is an
opportunity to inform the public about all
hazards, including human-caused hazards.
• The likelihood of a human-caused hazard in the
planning area is greater than several of the
identified natural hazards in this plan.
Human -caused hazards fall into the following categories:
• Intentional, criminal, malicious acts, including
acts of terrorism, cyber threats, civil unrest, riots,
and active threats.
• Technological incidents that arise accidentally
from human activities such as the manufacture,
transportation, storage and use of hazardous
materials; pipeline failure and release; and
transportation.
15.1.1 Intentional Hazards
In dealing with intentional human-caused hazards, the unpredictability of human beings must be considered.
People with a desire to perform criminal acts may seek out targets of opportunity that may not fall into established
lists of critical areas or facilities. First responders train not only to respond to organized terrorism events, but also
to respond to random acts by individuals who, for a variety of reasons ranging from fear to emotional trauma to
mental instability, may choose to harm others and destroy property.
While education, heightened awareness, and early warning of unusual circumstances may deter crime and
terrorism, intentional acts that harm people and property are possible at any time. Public safety entities must react
to the incident, locate, isolate and neutralize further damage, and conduct investigate to bring criminals to justice.
DEFINITIONS
Active threats—Shootings, secondary explosives,
and/or chemical or biological threats.
Acts of terrorism—The unlawful use or threatened
use of force or violence against people or property
with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies
or governments. Terrorism is either foreign or
domestic, depending on the origin, base, and
objectives of the terrorist or organization.
Civil unrest—Groups of people purposely choosing
not to observe a law, regulation or rule, usually to
bring attention to a cause, concern or agenda.
Cyber threat—An intentional and malicious action to
compromise the digital infrastructure of a person or
organization, often for financial or terror-related
reasons.
Hazardous material—A substance or combination of
substances that, because of quantity, concentration,
physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may
cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an
increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating
reversible illness, or pose a present or potential
hazard to human life, property, or the environment.
Technological hazards—Hazards from accidents
associated with human activities such as the
manufacture, transportation, storage and use of
hazardous materials.
Weapons of mass destruction—Chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive
weapons associated with terrorism.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-2
Terrorism
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) categorizes terrorism in the United States as one of two types:
• Domestic terrorism involves groups or individuals acting without foreign direction against the
government or population, such as the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in
Oklahoma City. The FBI is the primary response agency for domestic terrorism. The FBI coordinates
domestic preparedness activities of the United States to limit acts posed by terrorists.
• International terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are foreign-based and/or
directed by countries or groups outside the United States, or whose activities transcend national
boundaries. Examples include the 1997 bombing of Mobil Oil’s headquarters, the 1983 bombing of the
U.S. Capitol, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and the September 11, 2001 attacks at the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The three key elements to defining a terrorist event are as follows:
• Actions involve the use of illegal force.
• Actions are intended to intimidate or coerce.
• Actions are committed in support of political or social objectives.
Terrorism evokes strong emotional reactions, ranging from anxiety to fear to anger to depression. Those involved
with terrorism response are trained to deal with the public’s emotional reaction swiftly as response to the event
occurs. The area of the event must be clearly identified in all emergency alert messages to prevent those not
affected by the incident from overwhelming local emergency rooms and response resources, thereby reducing
service to those actually affected. The public will be informed clearly and frequently about what government
agencies are doing to mitigate the impacts of the event. The public will also be given clear directions on how to
protect the health of individuals and families.
Terrorism involves the use of weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical, nuclear and
radiological weapons; arson, incendiary, explosive and armed attacks; industrial sabotage and intentional
hazardous materials releases; agro-terrorism; and cyberterrorism (FEMA 386-7). In the case of chemical,
biological and radioactive agents, their presence may not be immediately obvious, making it difficult to determine
when and where they may have been released, who has been exposed, and what danger is present for first
responders and emergency medical technicians. The following are potential methods used by terrorists that could
affect the Alameda County and the planning area as a direct target or collaterally:
• Conventional bomb
• Biological agent
• Chemical agent
• Nuclear bomb
• Radiological agent
• Arson/incendiary attack
• Armed attack
• Cyber -terrorism
• Agro-terrorism
• Intentional hazardous material release.
Table 15-1 provides a hazard profile summary for terrorism-related hazards. Most terrorist events in the United
States have been bombing attacks, involving detonated or undetonated explosive devices, tear gas, pipe bombs,
and firebombs.
The effects of terrorism can vary from loss of life and injuries to property damage and disruptions in services such
as electricity, water supplies, transportation, or communications. Terrorist acts may have an immediate effect or a
delayed effect. Terrorists often choose targets that offer limited danger to themselves and areas with relatively
easy public access. Foreign terrorists look for visible targets where they can avoid detection before and after an
attack such as international airports, large cities, major special events, and high-profile landmarks.
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-3
Table 15-1. Event Profiles for Terrorism
Hazard
Application
Modea Hazard Durationb
Static/Dynamic
Characteristicsc
Mitigating and Exacerbating
Conditionsd
Conventional Bomb Detonation of
explosive device on or
near target; delivery
via person, vehicle, or
projectile.
Instantaneous;
additional secondary
devices, or
diversionary activities
may be used,
lengthening the
duration of the hazard
until the attack site is
clear.
Extent of damage is
determined by type and
quantity of explosive.
Effects generally static
other than cascading
consequences,
incremental structural
failure, etc.
Over-pressure at a given location is inversely
proportional to the cube of the distance from
the blast; thus, each extra length of distance
provides progressively more protection.
Terrain, forestation, structures, etc. can
absorb and/or deflect energy and debris.
Exacerbating conditions include ease of
access to target; lack of barriers and
shielding; poor construction; and ease of
concealment of device.
Chemical Agent Liquid/aerosol
contaminants
dispersed using
sprayers or other
aerosol generators;
liquids vaporizing
from puddles/
containers; or
munitions.
Hours to weeks,
depending on the
agent and the
conditions in which it
exists.
Contamination can be
carried out of the initial
target area by persons,
vehicles, water, and wind.
Chemicals may be
corrosive or otherwise
damaging over time if not
remediated.
Air temperature can affect evaporation of
aerosols. Ground temperature affects
evaporation of liquids. Humidity can enlarge
aerosol particles, reducing inhalation hazard.
Precipitation can dilute and disperse agents
but can spread contamination. Wind can
disperse vapors but also cause target area to
be dynamic. The micro-meteorological effects
of buildings and terrain can alter travel and
duration of agents. Shielding in the form of
sheltering in place can protect people and
property from harmful effects.
Arson/ Incendiary
Attack
Initiation of fire or
explosion on or near
target via direct
contact or remotely
via projectile.
Generally minutes to
hours.
Extent of damage is
determined by type and
quantity of device,
accelerant, and materials
present at or near target.
Effects generally static
other than incremental
structural failure, etc.
Mitigation includes fire detection and
protection systems and fire-resistive
construction. Inadequate security can allow
easy access to target, easy concealment of
an incendiary device, and undetected
initiation of a fire. Non-compliance with fire
and building codes or failure to maintain fire
protection systems can increase the
effectiveness of a fire weapon.
Armed Attack Tactical assault or
sniping from remote
location, or random
attack in response to
fear, emotion or
mental instability.
Generally minutes to
days.
Varies based on the
perpetrators’ intent and
capabilities.
Inadequate security can allow easy access to
target, easy concealment of weapons, and
undetected initiation of an attack.
Radiological Agent Radioactive
contaminants
dispersed using
sprayers/ aerosol
generators, or by
point or line sources
such as munitions.
Seconds to years,
depending on material
used.
Initial effects will be
localized to site of attack;
depending on
meteorological conditions,
subsequent behavior of
radioactive contaminants
may be dynamic.
Duration of exposure, distance from source of
radiation, and the amount of shielding
between source and target determine
exposure to radiation.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-4
Hazard
Application
Modea Hazard Durationb
Static/Dynamic
Characteristicsc
Mitigating and Exacerbating
Conditionsd
Biological
Agent
Liquid or solid
contaminants
dispersed with
sprayers or by point
or line sources such
as munitions, covert
deposits, and moving
sprayers.
Hours to years,
depending on the
agent and the
conditions in which it
exists.
Contamination can be
spread via wind and water,
depending on the agent
used and the effectiveness
with which it is deployed.
Infection can spread via
humans or animals.
Altitude of release above ground can affect
dispersion; sunlight is destructive to many
bacteria and viruses; light to moderate wind
will disperse agents but higher winds can
break up aerosol clouds; the micro-
meteorological effects of buildings and terrain
can influence aerosolization and travel of
agents.
Agro-terrorism Direct, generally
covert contamination
of food supplies or
introduction of pests
and/or disease agents
to crops and livestock.
Days to months. Varies by type of incident.
Food contamination events
may be limited to specific
distribution sites, whereas
pests and diseases may
spread widely. Generally
no effects on built
environment.
Inadequate security can facilitate adulteration
of food and introduction of pests and disease
agents to crops and livestock.
Nuclear Bomb Detonation of nuclear
device underground,
at the surface, in the
air, or at high altitude.
Light/heat flash and
shock wave last for
seconds; radiation
and fallout can last for
years.
Electromagnetic pulse
from a high-altitude
detonation lasts for
seconds and affects
only unprotected
electronic systems.
Initial light, heat, and blast
effects of a subsurface,
ground or air burst are
static and determined by
the device’s characteristics
and employment; fallout of
radioactive contaminants
may be dynamic,
depending on
meteorological conditions.
Harmful effects of radiation can be reduced
by minimizing the time of exposure. Light,
heat, and blast energy decrease
logarithmically as a function of distance from
seat of blast. Terrain, forestation, structures,
etc. can provide shielding by absorbing
and/or deflecting radiation and radioactive
contaminants.
Intentional Hazardous
Material
Release (fixed facility or transportation)
Solid, liquid, and/or
gaseous
contaminants
released from fixed or
mobile containers
Hours to days. Chemicals may be
corrosive or otherwise
damaging over time.
Explosion and/or fire may
be subsequent.
Contamination may be
carried out of the incident
area by persons, vehicles,
water and wind.
Weather conditions directly affect how the
hazard develops. The micro-meteorological
effects of buildings and terrain can alter travel
and duration of agents. Shielding in the form
of sheltering in place can protect people and
property from harmful effects. Non-
compliance with fire and building codes, as
well as failure to maintain existing fire
protection and containment features, can
substantially increase the damage from a
hazardous materials release.
a. Application Mode—The human acts or unintended events necessary to cause the hazard to occur.
b. Duration—The length of time the hazard is present. For example, the duration of a tornado may be just minutes, but a chemical
warfare agent such as mustard gas, if un-remediated, can persist for hours or weeks under the right conditions.
c. Dynamic or Static Characteristics—The tendency of a hazard or its effects to expand, contract, or remain confined in time,
magnitude, and space. For example, the physical destruction caused by an earthquake is generally confined to the place in which it
occurs, and it does not usually get worse unless aftershocks or other cascading failures occur; in contrast, a cloud of chlorine gas
leaking from a storage tank can change location by drifting with the wind and can diminish in danger by dissipating over time.
d. Mitigating and Exacerbating Conditions—Mitigating conditions are characteristics of the target and its physical environment that
can reduce the effects of a hazard. For example, earthen berms can provide protection from bombs; exposure to sunlight can render
some biological agents ineffective; and effective perimeter lighting and surveillance can minimize the likelihood of someone
approaching a target unseen. In contrast, exacerbating conditions are characteristics that can enhance or magnify the effects of a
hazard. For example, depressions or low areas in terrain can trap heavy vapors, and a proliferation of street furniture (trash
receptacles, newspaper vending machines, mail boxes, etc.) can provide hiding places for explosive devices.
Source: FEMA 386-7 (2003a)
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-5
The effects of terrorism can include injuries, loss of life, property damage, or disruption of services such as
electricity, water supplies, transportation, or communications. Effects may be immediate or delayed. Terrorists
often choose targets that offer limited danger to themselves and areas with relatively easy public access. Foreign
terrorists look for visible targets where they can avoid detection before and after an attack, such as international
airports, large cities, major special events, and high-profile landmarks.
In dealing with terrorism, the unpredictability of human beings must be considered. People with a desire to
perform such acts may seek out targets of opportunity that do not fall into established lists of critical areas or
facilities. First responders train to respond not only to organized terrorism events, but also to random acts by
individuals who, for a variety of reasons—ranging from fear to emotional trauma to mental instability—choose to
harm others and destroy property. While education, heightened awareness, and early warning of unusual
circumstances may deter terrorism, intentional acts that harm people and property are possible at any time. Public
safety entities must react to the threat, locating, isolating, and neutralizing further damage and investigating
potential scenes and suspects to bring criminals to justice.
Active Threats
Active threats may include active shootings, secondary explosives, and/or chemical or biological threats.
Active Shooter
Active shooter attacks are typically motivated by the desire to maximize human casualties. They are differentiated
from other attack types by the indiscriminate nature of the victim’s targets of opportunity rather than actions
directed toward a specific target. Active shooter attacks have evolved over the last decade ranging from “lone
wolf” shooters who act alone and without any organizational affiliation to organized groups acting in concert to
achieve a specific objective. Current active shooter threat force tactics commonly employ a blend of lone shooters
and multi-person teams as part of a larger assault.
Active shooters may use small arms, light weapons, or a combination of the two depending on the type of attack.
Small arms refers to revolvers, automatic pistols, rifles, shotguns, assault rifles, light machine guns, etc. Light
weapons refer to medium caliber and explosive ordinance, grenade launchers, rocket propelled grenades, etc.
With additional planning and preparation, attackers can increase their likelihood of success in also including a
wider array of weapons, to include improvised explosive devices.
Biological Threats
Biological hazards include disease-causing microorganisms and pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses. The
distinguishing characteristic of these substances is their ability to multiply within a host and cause an infection.
Some bacteria and viruses can spread from one individual to another. Infections typically occur as a result of
airborne exposure, skin contact, or ingestion. In general, exposure to bacteria and viruses can occur through
inhalation (as is the case with airborne B. anthracis spores, which cause anthrax), ingestion of contaminated food
or water (the case with E. coli, which causes gastrointestinal infection), contact with infected individuals, or
contact with contaminated surfaces (which may be harboring, for example, viruses that cause influenza). As a
result, domestic and transnational threat groups have considered targeting heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems of large commercial buildings.
Anthrax has been used as a weapon for nearly 100 years and is one of the most likely agents to be used in a
biological threat. Its spores are easily found in nature, can be produced in a lab, and can last for a long time. It can
be released quietly and without anyone knowing. Microscopic spores can be put into powders, sprays, food, and
water. Due to their size, one may not be able to see, smell or taste them (CDC, 2016b). Terrorists may release
anthrax spores in public places. In 2001, letters containing powdered anthrax spores were sent through the U.S.
mail, causing skin and lung anthrax in 22 people. Five people died, all due to lung anthrax.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-6
If a biological attack were to occur within the planning area, a large number of personnel could be impacted.
Buildings in the impacted area and transportation infrastructure might be closed for investigation and cleanup.
These areas would not be accessible until cleanup is completed, which would impact the businesses. Hospitals
could become overwhelmed with people coming in fearing contamination. Residents and businesses may need to
shelter in place in the area of the attack.
Chemical Threats
Chemical weapons are often classified according to their effect on the body, based on the primary organ system
affected by exposure. They are poisonous vapors, aerosols, liquids, and solids that have toxic effects on humans,
animals, and plants. Exposure pathways include inhalation, skin contact, ingestion or injection. Depending on the
severity of exposure, impacts may include temporary illness or injury, permanent medical conditions, or death. An
attack using chemical threats can come without warning. Signs of a chemical release include difficulty breathing;
eye irritation; losing coordination; nausea; or a burning sensation in the nose, throat and lungs (Ready.gov, 2016).
Harmful chemicals that could be used in an attack include the following:
• Chemical weapons developed for military use (warfare agents)
• Toxic industrial and commercial chemicals that are produced, transported, and stored in the making of
petroleum, textiles, plastics, fertilizers, paper, foods, pesticides, household cleaners, and other products
• Chemical toxins of biological origin such as ricin (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2004).
There have been reports of chlorine found in explosive devices, mortars, rockets, and missiles. Chlorine has been
used in the past, mainly in blunt, terrorist-style attacks. Some experts believe that groups are trying to advance
their technology for deploying the chemical in combat operations (Tilghman, 2015). Chlorine is an acutely toxic
industrial compound that can cause severe coughing, pulmonary, eye and skin irritation, and even death at higher
concentrations (USACHPPM, 2015).
A chemical release in the planning area could lead to closed down streets and major transportation routes
(including bridges) for extended periods of time, causing transportation delays and traffic. Many homes and
businesses would also be impacted as they would need to be evacuated for an extended period of time. There
could also be impact on the environment and/or natural resources that would require cleanup. Hazardous material
response teams and fire-rescue would be needed to respond to the incident and coordinate cleanup efforts.
Explosive Devices
Improvised explosive device (IED) attacks are the favored method of terrorist groups around the world. The
evolution in explosive materials, firing devices, and their ease of concealment and delivery has increased the
effectiveness of this hazard. IED attacks are typically motivated by the desire to maximize human casualties.
Explosive incidents account for 70 percent of all terrorist attacks worldwide. These types of attacks range from
small-scale letter bombs to large- scale attacks on specific buildings. According to the FBI, 172 improvised
explosive devices were reported in the United States between October 2012 and April 2013.
IEDs generally consist of TNT equivalent explosives (e.g. black or smokeless powder) in a container (e.g.
galvanized pipe, paint can, etc.). These propellants are easily purchased on the commercial market. IEDs may also
contain added shrapnel to induce greater casualties or shaped charges that direct the force of the explosive
towards the target. Devices may be hidden in everyday objects such as briefcases, flowerpots or garbage cans, or
on the person of the attacker in the case of suicide bombers. The most commonly used container is galvanized
pipe, followed by PVC pipe. When shrapnel is added to the device, the type of shrapnel varies; BBs and other
small pieces of hardware are common, as is glass or gravel.
An attack using IEDs or other explosive devices within the planning area has potential large-scale consequences
that may require multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional coordination. Depending on the location of the attack,
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-7
businesses and other venues may be closed for investigation and due to damage. If the attack occurred in or near
residences, evacuations and/or sheltering may occur.
Fire as a Weapon
The use of fire for criminal, gang, and terrorist activities, as well as targeting first responders, is not new. The
World Health Organization estimates that 195,000 people die each year from fire, while according to the Global
Terrorism Database an average of 7,258 people die annually from terrorism, and that includes deaths in conflict
zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq (Stewart, 2013).
Cyber Threats
A cyber threat is an intentional and malicious crime that compromises the digital infrastructure of a person or
organization, often for financial or terror-related reasons. Such attacks vary in nature and are perpetrated using
digital mediums or sometimes social engineering to target human operators. Generally, attacks last minutes to
days, but large-scale events and their impacts can last much longer. As information technology continues to grow
in capability and interconnectivity, cyber threats become increasingly frequent and destructive.
Cyber threats differ by motive, attack type and perpetrator profile. Motives range from the pursuit of financial
gain to political or social aims. Cyber threats are difficult to identify and comprehend. Types of threats include
using viruses to erase entire systems, breaking into systems and altering files, using someone’s personal computer
to attack others, or stealing confidential information. The spectrum of cyber risks is limitless, with threats having
a wide-range of effects on the individual, community, organization, and nation.
Cyber-Attacks
Public and private computer systems are likely to experience a variety of cyber-attacks, from blanket malware
infection to targeted attacks on system capabilities. Cyber-attacks specifically seek to breach computer security
measures designed to protect an individual or organization. The initial attack is followed by more severe attacks
for the purpose of causing harm, stealing data, or financial gain. Organizations are prone to different types of
attacks that can be either automated or targeted in nature. Table 15-2 describes the most common cyber-attack
mechanisms faced by organizations today.
With millions of threats created each day, the importance of protection against cyber-attacks becomes a necessary
function of everyday operations for individuals, government facilities, and businesses. The increasing dependency
on technology for vital information storage and the often automated method of infection means higher stakes for
the success of measurable protection and education. Cyber-attacks may lead to widespread business interruptions
and likely considerable repair and response costs. A cyber-attack could cause sewage pump stations to fail, which
could result in contaminated beaches, unsanitary conditions and/or potentially unsafe water supply.
Since 2013, a new type of cyber-attack is becoming increasingly common against individuals and small- and
medium-sized organizations. This attack is called cyber ransom. Cyber ransom occurs when an individual
downloads ransom malware, or ransomware, often through phishing or drive-by download, and the subsequent
execution of code results in encryption of all data and personal files stored on the system. The victim then
receives a message that demands a fee in the form of electronic currency or cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, for
the decryption code (Figure 15-1). In October 2015, the FBI said that commonly used ransomware is so difficult
to override, that victims should pay the ransom to retrieve their data (Danielson, 2015).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-8
Table 15-2. Common Mechanisms for Cyber-attacks
Type Description
Socially Engineered Trojans Programs designed to mimic legitimate processes (e.g. updating software, running antivirus software). When the
victim runs the fake process, the Trojan is installed on the system.
Unpatched Software Nearly all software has weak points that may be exploited by malware. Most common software exploitations occur
with Java, Adobe Reader, and Adobe Flash. These vulnerabilities are often exploited as small amounts of
malicious code are often downloaded via drive-by download.
Phishing Malicious email messages that ask users to click a link or download a program. Phishing attacks may appear as
legitimate emails from trusted third parties.
Password Attacks Third party attempts to crack a user’s password and gain access to a system. Password attacks do not typically
require malware, but rather stem from software applications on the attacker’s system. These applications may use
a variety of methods to gain access, including generating large numbers of generated guesses, or dictionary
attacks, in which passwords are systematically tested against all of the words in a dictionary.
Drive-by Downloads Malware is downloaded unknowingly by the victims when they visit an infected site.
Denial of Service Attacks Attacks that focus on disrupting service to a network in which attackers send high volumes of data until the
network becomes overloaded and can no longer function.
Man in the Middle Man-in-the-Middle attacks mirror victims and endpoints for online information exchange. In this type of attack, the
attacker communicates with the victims, who believe they are interacting with a legitimate endpoint website. The
attacker is also communicating with the actual endpoint website by impersonating the victim. As the process goes
through, the attacker obtains entered and received information from both the victim and endpoint.
Malvertising Malware downloaded to a system when the victim clicks on an affected ad.
Advanced Persistent Threat An attack in which the attacker gains access to a network and remains undetected. Advanced Persistent Threat
attacks are designed to steal data instead of cause damage.
Source: Danielson, 2015
Figure 15-1. Pop-Up Message Indicating Ransomware Infection
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-9
If an attack were to occur that impacted the planning area, multi-jurisdictional response would need to be
coordinated, in accordance with local and county emergency operations plans. To reduce the planning area’s
vulnerability, cyber security should be improved by providing network defense intelligence and conducting
regular evaluations of network security posture and readiness. Additionally, the planning area should provide
education on cyber threats and cyber-attack measurements.
Cyberterrorism
Cyberterrorism is the use of computers and information, particularly over the Internet, to recruit others to an
organization’s cause, cause physical or financial harm, or cause a severe disruption of infrastructure service. Such
disruptions can be driven by religious, political, or other motives. Like traditional terrorism tactics, cyberterrorism
seeks to evoke very strong emotional reactions, but it does so through information technology rather than a
physically violent or disruptive action. Cyberterrorism has three main types of objectives (Kostadinov, 2012):
• Organizational—Cyberterrorism with an organizational objective includes specific functions outside of
or in addition to a typical cyber-attack. Terrorist groups today use the internet on a daily basis. This daily
use may include recruitment, training, fundraising, communication, or planning. Organizational
cyberterrorism can use platforms such as social media as a tool to spread a message beyond country
borders and instigate physical forms of terrorism. Additionally, organizational goals may use systematic
attacks as a tool for training new members of a faction in cyber warfare.
• Undermining—Cyberterrorism with undermining as an objective seeks to hinder the normal functioning
of computer systems, services, or websites. Such methods include defacing, denying, and exposing
information. While undermining tactics are typically used due to high dependence on online structures to
support vital operational functions, they typically do not result in grave consequences unless undertaken
as part of a larger attack. Undermining attacks on computers include the following (Waldron, 2011):
Directing conventional kinetic weapons against computer equipment, a computer facility, or
transmission lines to create a physical attack that disrupts the reliability of equipment.
Using electromagnetic energy, most commonly in the form of an electromagnetic pulse, to create an
electronic attack against computer equipment or data transmissions. By overheating circuitry or
jamming communications, an electronic attack disrupts the reliability of equipment and the integrity
of data.
Using malicious code directed against computer processing code, instruction logic, or data. The code
can generate a stream of malicious network packets that disrupt data or logic by exploiting
vulnerability in computer software, or a weakness in computer security practices. This type of cyber-
attack can disrupt the reliability of equipment, the integrity of data, and the confidentiality of
communications (Wilson, 2008)
• Destructive—The destructive objective for cyberterrorism is what organizations fear most. Through the
use of computer technology and the Internet, the terrorists seek to inflict destruction or damage on
tangible property or assets, and even death or injury to individuals.
Civil Unrest
Civil disturbance refers to groups of people purposely choosing not to observe a law, regulation or rule, usually in
order to bring attention to their cause, concern or agenda. Disturbances may take the form of small gatherings or
large groups blocking or impeding access to planning area municipality facilities or businesses to actions directed
at intimidating staff, visitors, and causing property damage. Civil disturbances can arise from a number of causes
for a variety of reasons. Protests intended to be a peaceful demonstration to the public and the government can
escalate into general chaos.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-10
The circumstances surrounding civil disturbance may be spontaneous or may result from escalating tensions
within an institutional facility, community or the larger society. This was the case in Ferguson, MO and other
recent national examples, where local police activities resulted in a massive community response that began as
protest but evolved into less controlled, potentially violent response from community members. Civil disorder can
erupt anywhere, but the most likely locations are areas with large population groupings or gatherings. Civil
disorder can also occur near locations where a “trigger event” occurred, as was the case in Ferguson.
The following types of large gatherings are typically associated with civil disturbances:
• Crowds:
A casual crowd is identified as individuals or small groups with nothing in common to bind them
together. If they have an agenda, it is their own. Casual crowds are made up of individuals or small
groups occupying the same common place.
Sighting crowds are people gathering for an event. People migrating to sporting events, gathering to
observe a fire or accident, and those that attend music concerts are all types of sighting crowds.
Individuals or small groups gather at these events for the same purpose. It is the event and/or one’s
curiosity that compels a crowd to come together.
Agitated crowds have responses based on the elements (people, space, and event). Individuals with
strong emotional feelings within a crowd can quickly spread and influence the rest of the crowd. As
more people within the crowd become emotionally involved, a sense of unity may develop, causing
changes in the overall demeanor of the crowd. Yelling, screaming, and name-calling are all associated
with an agitated crowd.
• Mobs—Mobs have all the elements found in the crowd types described above, but also display
aggressive, physical, and sometimes violent actions. Under these conditions, individuals within a crowd
will often say or do things they usually would not do. Extreme acts of violence and property damage are
often part of mob activities. They consist of, or involve, the elements of people and groups being mixed
together and becoming fluid. Mobs are usually emotional, loud, tumultuous, violent, and lawless. There
are different levels of mobs (Alvarez and Bachman, 2007):
An aggressive mob is one that attacks, riots, and terrorizes. The object of violence may be a person,
property, or both. An aggressive mob is distinguished from an aggressive crowd only by lawless
activity. Examples of aggressive mobs are the inmate mobs in prisons and jails, mobs that act out
their frustrations after political defeat, or violent mobs at political protests or rallies.
An escape mob is attempting to flee from something such as a fire, bomb, flood, or other catastrophe.
Members of escape mobs are generally difficult to control and can be characterized by unreasoning
terror.
An acquisitive mob is one motivated by a desire to acquire something. Riots caused by other factors
often turn into looting sprees. This mob exploits an authority’s lack of control in safeguarding
property.
An expressive mob is one that expresses fervor or revelry following some sporting event, religious
activity, or celebration. Members experience a release of pent up emotions in highly charged
situations.
A flash mob is a large group of people who gather in some predetermined location, perform some
brief action, and then quickly disperse. Youth flash mobs in Boston, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, New
York, Kansas City, Missouri, Orange, New Jersey, and elsewhere in the United States have resulted
in violence, vandalism, injuries, and arrests.
• Riots—A riot is form of civil disorder characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance
against authority, property, or people. Riots typically involve vandalism and the destruction of property,
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-11
public or private. The property targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those
involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, government institutions, and religious buildings.
Civil disorders can result in numerous secondary hazards. Depending on the size and scope of the incident, civil
disturbance may lead to widespread urban fire, utility failure, transportation interruption, and environmental
hazards. Civil disorders can be a secondary hazard after a severely destructive disaster. This may include looting,
blocking of roadways, which may impact emergency response vehicles, and demonstrations.
15.1.2 Technological Hazards
Technological hazards are associated with human activities such as the manufacture, transportation, storage and
the use of hazardous materials. Incidents related to these hazards are assumed to be accidental, with unintended
consequences. Technological hazards in the planning area can be categorized as follows:
• Hazardous materials incidents
• Pipeline and utility failure
• Transportation accidents.
Hazardous Materials Incidents
Hazardous materials are substances that are considered severely harmful to human health and the environment, as
defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Many hazardous materials are commonly used substances that are
harmless in their normal uses but dangerous if released. The EPA designates more than 800 substances as
hazardous and identifies many more as potentially hazardous due to their characteristics and the circumstances of
their release.
If released or misused, hazardous substances can cause death, serious injury, long-lasting health effects, and
damage to structures, other properties, and the environment. Many products containing hazardous substances are
used and stored in homes, and these products are shipped daily on highways, railroads, waterways, and pipelines.
The following are the most common type of hazardous material incidents:
• Fixed-Facility Hazardous Materials Incident—This is the uncontrolled release of materials from a
fixed site capable of posing a risk to health, safety and property. It is possible to identify and prepare for a
fixed-site incident because federal and state laws require those facilities to notify state and local
authorities about what is being used or produced at the site.
• Hazardous Materials Transportation Incident— A hazardous materials transportation incident is any
event resulting in uncontrolled release of materials during transport that can pose a risk to health, safety,
and property as defined by Department of Transportation Materials Transport regulations. Transportation
incidents are difficult to prepare for because there is little if any notice about what materials could be
involved should an accident happen. Hazardous materials transportation incidents can occur at any place
within the country, although most occur on the interstate highways or major federal or state highways, or
on the major rail lines. In addition to materials such as chlorine that are shipped throughout the country by
rail, thousands of shipments of radiological materials, mostly medical materials and low-level radioactive
waste, take place via ground transportation across the United States. Many incidents occur in sparsely
populated areas and affect very few people.
• Interstate Pipeline Hazardous Materials Incident—A significant number of interstate natural gas,
heating oil, and petroleum pipelines run through California. These are used to provide natural gas to the
utilities in California and to transport these materials from production facilities to end-users.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-12
CERCLA, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and California law require responsible
parties to report hazardous material releases if certain criteria is met. CERCLA requires that all releases of
hazardous substances (including radionuclides) exceeding reportable quantities be reported by the responsible
party to the National Response Center. If an accidental chemical release exceeds the Right-to-Know Act
applicable minimal reportable quantity, the facility must notify state emergency response commissions and local
emergency planning committees for any area likely to be affected by the release, and provide a detailed written
follow-up as soon as practicable. Information about accidental chemical releases must be made available to the
public.
Pipeline and Utility Failure
Raw Materials Pipelines
Transmission and distribution pipelines provide two differing services. Transmission pipelines transport raw
material for further refinement. These pipes are large and far reaching, operating under high pressure. Distribution
pipelines provide processed materials to end users. These are smaller in diameter, some as small as a half an inch,
and operate under lower pressure.
Although pipelines are the safest and most reliable way to transport natural gas, crude oil, liquid petroleum
products, and chemical products, there is still an inherent risk due to the nature of the hazardous materials.
Pipelines are regulated by the Office of the State Fire Marshal. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration enforces oil and gas pipeline safety regulations. The federal government enforces hazardous
material transport pursuant to its interstate commerce regulation authority. Pipelines are also monitored by system
control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems that measuring flow rate, temperature and pressure. The SCADA
system transfers real-time data via satellite from the pipelines to a control center where the valves, pumps, and
motors are remotely operated. If tampering with the pipeline occurs, an alarm sounds. The ensuing valve reaction
is instantaneous, with the alarm system isolating any rupture and setting off a chain reaction that shuts down
pipeline pumps and alerts pipeline operators within seconds.
Failures of distribution and transmission pipelines can occur when pipes corrode, are damaged during excavation,
are incorrectly operated, or are damaged by other forces. More serious accidents occur on distribution pipelines
than on any other type due to their number, intricate networking, and location in highly populated areas.
Water
Water disruption is a secondary impact from a natural disaster or intentional act. A breach in the pipelines that
carry water through the planning area would have significant temporary impacts on the cities until alternative
water sources are pumped and treated. Long-term disruption would have significant impacts on residences and
businesses in the planning area if demand exceeds secondary supplies and water conservation measures do not
provide enough relief to reduce demand to equal the secondary supplies.
Wastewater
Disruption of the planning area’s wastewater collection and wastewater treatment plants would have significant
citywide and regional impacts. Such disruption could result if the system were to be overwhelmed by a significant
storm or discharge of materials in such quantities that the treatment plant could not adequately treat the waste.
Natural hazards such as earthquake or flood, major power outages, or terrorism directed at the facilities and
systems could disrupt the process of collecting and treating millions of gallons of sewage. Wastewater treatment
plants may also have emergencies internal to the plant such as oxygen deficiencies that render them incapable of
treating waste. The disruption of service may also have significant environmental impacts on the waterways
adjacent to the treatment plants.
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-13
Petroleum Refineries
A petroleum refinery’s main job is to separate crude oil into its many parts, which are then reprocessed into
products. The type, number, and size of process units at a particular refinery depends on factors such as the type
of crude oil and the products made. The units making up a refinery are tanks, furnaces, distillation towers,
reactors, heat exchangers, pumps, pipes, fittings, and valves. Products include the following:
• Fuels, such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, kerosene, jet fuel, bunker fuel oil, and liquefied petroleum gas
• Solvents, including benzene, toluene, xylene, hexane, and heptane, which are used in paint thinners, dry-
cleaning solvents, degreasers, and pesticide solvents
• Lubricating oils and insulating, hydraulic, and medicinal oils
• Petroleum wax
• Greases, which are primarily a mixture of various fillers
• Asphalt.
These products can be hazardous not only in their final state but as they are being processed and refined. The
principal hazards at refineries are fire and explosion. Refineries process a multitude of products with low flash
points. Although systems and operating practices are designed to prevent such catastrophes, they can occur. In a
refinery, hazardous chemicals can come from many sources and in many forms. In crude oil, there are not only the
components sought for processing, but impurities such as sulfur, vanadium, and arsenic compounds. The oil is
split into many component streams that are further altered and refined to produce the final product range. Most, if
not all, of these component stream chemicals are inherently hazardous to humans, as are the other chemicals
added during processing. Hazards include fire, explosion, toxicity, corrosiveness, and asphyxiation.
At refineries, the potential for fires, explosions, releases of flammable or toxic materials, or other accidents that
could cause injuries, fatalities, or spills could occur and would be primarily associated with the flammable vapors
and other flammable materials transported as cargo by tankers visiting the marine terminal. Damage prevention
measures include routine inspection and maintenance, corrosion protection, continuous monitoring and control
technologies, public awareness programs, and integrity management and emergency response plans.
Transportation Accidents
Transportation accidents are incidents involving air, road or rail travelers resulting in death or serious injury. The
potential for transportation accidents that block ingress, egress, and movement through the planning area is
significant, as is the likelihood of hazardous material incidents resulting from a traffic or rail accident.
15.2 HAZARD PROFILE
15.2.1 Past Events
Intentional Hazards
Terrorism Events
The Bay Area has not experienced a regional terrorism event. However, the 2016 hosting of the Super Bowl in
Santa Clara County increased mainstream exposure of the Bay Area for potential future terrorist events. The 2012
Alameda County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) identifies two incidents in the county (Alameda County
EOP, 2012):
• September 9, 2003—A bombing at Shaklee Corp in Pleasanton was attributed to a faction of the Animal
Liberation Front.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-14
• August 8, 2003—Two bombings at the Chiron Corp in Emeryville were attributed to a faction of the
Animal Liberation Front.
Cyber Threats
In December 2015, University of California at Berkeley experienced a massive cyber-attack that left upwards of
80,000 people exposed to cyber-crime. The university is one of the largest employers in the Bay Area, and this
cyber-attack reached beyond jurisdictional and county lines to affect the entire Bay Area.
On December 1, 2014, a global cyber-attack shut down web access to agenda, minutes, and video for many Bay
Area government agencies, including Alameda County. The San Francisco-based company Granicus, which
provides web services for government agencies nationwide, reported the outage (Johnson, 2014).
Civil Unrest
The 2012 Alameda County EOP and other resources identify the following civil unrest incidents (Alameda
County EOP, 2012):
• November 24 – December 10, 2014—After a grand jury decision in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson,
MO, there was a 17-day revolt in Oakland that resulted in marches, blocked roadways, looting of
businesses, destruction of property, and arrests.
• October 20, 2011— Occupy Oakland protesters took to the streets in Oakland over economic inequality,
corporate excess, and homelessness. Hundreds of participants set up tents in Frank Ogawa Plaza. Some
arrests were made for disruptive behavior; however, for the most part, the protest remained peaceful.
• January 7, 2009—This was the most notorious civil disturbance in Alameda County and occurred as a
response to shooting by a Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer. It began as a peaceful protest but turned
into a destructive riot resulting in trash can fires, multiple cars set on fire, broken storefront windows, and
looting of stores.
Over the years, fights and lock-downs occur and some develop into full-scale threatening riots at the Alameda
County Jail, Santa Rita, in Dublin. One occasion was August 26, 2010, when an inmate was killed. Security
measures have not completely stopped the violence perpetrated on inmates and staff. The Federal Correctional
Facility in Dublin is a low security federal correctional institution for female inmates that has not had recorded
riots or fatalities.
In Pleasanton on September 9, 2016, hundreds of protesters gathered and 23 were arrested for civil disobedience
at the Alameda County Fairgrounds. They gathered to protest the “militarization of police” at an event called
Urban Shield, an annual law enforcement preparedness training.
Technological Hazards
Hazardous Materials
Although hazardous material incidents can happen almost anywhere, certain areas are at higher risk. Jurisdictions
near roadways that are frequently used for transporting hazardous materials and jurisdictions with industrial
facilities that use, store, or dispose of such materials all have an increasing potential for major incidents, as do
jurisdictions crossed by certain railways, waterways, airways and pipelines. Hazardous materials are transported
through the planning area via highways and pipelines. The planning area’s level of exposure to hazardous
materials can be understood by examining the type of businesses, commercial traffic routes, and highway
exposure.
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-15
Alameda County and its incorporated cities have experienced many accidental hazardous materials incidents. On
November 7, 2007, a container ship struck a pier bumper at the western span of the Bay Bridge, which caused
58,000 gallons of bunker fuel to be released into the water. Oil slicks, oil globs, and oiled and dead wildlife were
reported around the Bay and Pacific coastline. Beaches, marines and other shoreline areas were closed for cleanup
in Alameda County and surrounding areas. In 2009, an oil tanker, located south of the Bay Bridge, was being
fueled when human errors caused the tanks to overflow. This released 400 gallons of fuel into the bay and led to
birds being oiled and approximately 6 miles of East Bay being oiled, specifically Bay Farm Island and Alameda
Island (Alameda County EOP, 2012).
Table 15-3 lists the number of hazardous material incidents reported to Cal OES Warning Center by year and spill
site type between 2012 through 2016. Additional historical hazardous material spill report data is available on Cal
OES website. The records show that a total of 166 hazardous materials spills occurred over 5-year timeframe in
Tri-Valley planning area.
Table 15-3. Hazard Materials Spills in Tri-Valley Planning Area Reported to Cal OES (2012-2016)
Spill Site 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Airport 0 0 0 0 0 0
Industrial Plant 0 2 0 2 0 4
Merchant/Business 3 5 3 6 6 23
Military Base 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oil Field 0 0 0 1 0 1
Other 3 5 2 2 5 17
Pipeline 0 0 0 2 1 3
Rail Road 0 1 2 2 1 6
Refinery 0 1 0 0 0 1
Residence 2 1 1 0 7 11
Road 15 11 18 14 10 68
School 0 0 0 0 0 0
Service Station 5 6 9 7 1 28
Treatment/Sewage Facility 0 1 0 0 0 1
Utilities/Substation 0 0 1 0 0 1
Waterways 1 0 0 0 1 2
Total 29 33 36 36 32 166
Source: Cal OES, 2017
Pipeline Incidents
Accidents involving underground pipelines in Alameda County have caused injury, fatalities and property
damage. Recent events have involved natural gas lines in Oakland, Union City, Berkeley, and Livermore. In
particular, on September 9, 2010 a natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno (San Mateo County) killed eight
people and reduced the Crestmoor neighborhood to ashes. There have been incidents involving hazardous liquids
as well, including an event on May 20, 2016 involving crude oil in Tracy (PHSMA, 2016).
According to Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHSMA), between 2010 to July 2017,
there was one reported natural gas pipeline incident in the planning area. The incident occurred on June 11, 2012
in Livermore, when Pacific Gas & Electric had an unintentional release of gas (PHSMA, 2016).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-16
Transportation Accidents
According to the 2012 Alameda County EOP, the County has not experienced an incident of a commercial flight
or large plane. However, a number of general aviation aircraft incidents have occurred. These types of incidents
are typically localized and somewhat contained.
Alameda County has experienced train derailments in the past. Recent events have been small, with minimal
damage. In August 2004, a non-hazmat car derailed and two tank cars carrying methanol were damaged. Material
release was not reported. In July 2005, a train derailed near a Kinder Morgan pipeline, which had to be shut down
in case of any release (Alameda County EOP, 2012).
Between 1990 and 2016, there have been two aviation fatality incidents in Livermore, none in Dublin and
Pleasanton as reported by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The following is information
regarding recent incidents in the planning area (NTSB, 2017):
• May 9, 2010, Livermore—A Piper PA-280235 pilot used visual flight into instrument meteorological
conditions which resulted in a collision with obstacles and terrain. Two fatalities occurred.
• May 1, 2007, Livermore—A Beech 36 collided with terrain nine miles from the Livermore airport. It
resulted in two fatalities.
The California Office of Traffic Safety provides the total number of fatal and injury collisions on local city streets
between 2010 through 2014 (see Table 15-4). Over this five-year period, 3,744 fatal and injury collisions have
occurred in the Tri-Valley planning area.
Table 15-4. Total Fatal and Injury Collision Data for Tri-Valley Planning Area
Jurisdiction 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Dublin 103 94 112 87 131 527
Livermore 271 275 267 268 472 1,553
Pleasanton 305 216 283 320 540 1,664
Total 679 585 662 675 1,143 3,744
Source: California Office of Traffic Safety, 2017
The only railway accident reported in recent years occurred on March 8, 2016 when a commuter train detailed
after it struck a downed tree on the tracks. The incident occurred in Niles Canyon, south of the City of Pleasanton,
where two train cars derailed and one plunged into a creek. It occurred at night and only nine people were injured
(San Francisco CBS Local, 2016).
15.2.2 Location
Intentional Hazards
Terrorism, Civil Unrest, and Active Threats
The State of California and Office of Homeland Security have identified numerous high-profile targets for
potential terrorists in California. Large population centers, high-visibility tourist attractions, and critical
infrastructure accessible to the public present security challenges of an ongoing nature in California. The network
of highways, railways, ports, and airports used to transport significant amounts of hazardous materials poses a
significant technological hazards threat. Multiple incidents may happen simultaneously, and all typically require a
multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional response.
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-17
In particular, the Santa Rita County Jail and Federal Correctional Facility, both in Dublin, are locations where
civil unrest may occur. Also, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory are
U.S. Department of Energy national labs are critical facilities that may have active threats.
Cyber Threats
Both public and private operations in the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton are threatened on a near-
daily basis by the millions of currently engineered cyber-attacks developed to automatically seek technological
vulnerabilities. Possible cyberterrorist targets include the banking industry, power plants, air traffic control
centers, and water systems; especially facilities that rely on computers, computer systems, and programs for their
operations.
Technological Hazards
Hazardous Materials Release
Hazardous materials are stored before and after they are transported to their intended use. This may include
service stations that store gasoline and diesel fuel in underground storage tanks; hospitals that store radioactive
materials, flammable materials and other hazardous substances; or manufacturers, processors, distributors, and
recycling plants for chemical industries that store a variety of chemicals on site (FEMA, 2013). For the purpose of
this plan, fixed sites include buildings or property where hazardous materials are manufactured or stored, and are
regulated under various programs by the EPA.
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-
keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain
substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. TSCA addresses
the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint. According to TSCA, there are no facilities with these substances in the
planning area (EPA, 2017a).
Facilities identified in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information databases (RCRA Info) were
also reviewed for this plan. Hazardous waste information is contained in RCRA Info, a national program
management and inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. In general, entities that generate, transport,
treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste are required to provide information about their activities to state
environmental agencies. These agencies pass on the information to regional and national EPA offices. This
regulation is governed by the RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. There
are 73 RCRA facilities in Dublin, 162 facilities in Livermore, and 132 facilities in Pleasanton (EPA, 2017b).
Petroleum Refineries
There are five petroleum refinery operations along the Bay Area’s Contra Costa-Solano refinery belt.
Pipelines and Utilities
Distribution pipelines run through highly populated areas providing refined materials for public use and
consumption. Large gas distribution lines, called “mains,” along with much smaller service lines that travel to
homes and businesses, account for the vast majority of underground pipeline system.
Figure 15-2 shows gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines as well as the locations of accidents and
incidents within the planning area. Both natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines traverse the planning area. The
primary operator of the gas transmission pipelines is Northern California Power Agency and Pacific Gas &
Electric. The primary operator for the hazardous liquid pipeline is Shell Pipeline Company (PHMSA, 2017a).
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-18
Source: PHMSA National Pipeline Mapping System, 2017
Figure 15-2. Gas Transmission and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Near the Planning Area
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7), a water wholesaler, provides treated drinking water to four major retailers in the
Valley area that serve approximately 240,000 people and businesses. The wholesale water has three sources:
South Bay Aqueduct that originates from the California State Water Project; Lake Del Valle storage reservoir that
is approximately 10 miles from Livermore; and groundwater from local wells (Zone 7, 2017) (see Figure 7-6).
Transportation Incidents
Incidents involving hazardous materials in transit or incidents occurring on roads and rail can occur through a
variety of vehicles in and around the planning area. In the City of Dublin, there are 193 miles of road and no
commuter train or transportation rails. In the City of Livermore, there are 348 miles of roadway, 12 miles of
railroad and the Altamont Commuter express commuter train. In the City of Pleasanton, there are 340 miles of
roadway, 6 miles of commuter train, and 8 miles of transportation rail (ABAG Local HMP Annex, 2010).
The Tri-Valley planning area is serviced by the Livermore Municipal Airport. It was a 5,255-foot main paved
runway and a second 2,700-foot unlighted training runway. The nearest airports with scheduled airline service are
Oakland, San Jose, and Stockton.
The main artery through the planning area is Interstate 580, which feeds traffic from the Bay Area to the Central
Valley of California.
Union Pacific Railroad freight line traverses the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and Amtrak passenger train
has a station in Livermore. The Altamont Commuter Express commuter train stops in Livermore and Pleasanton.
It extends from Stockton to San Jose.
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-19
15.2.3 Frequency
Intentional Hazards
Terrorism, Civil Unrest, and Active Threats
As of 2016, California’s economy was the largest of any state in the United States. The planning area’s proximity
to San Francisco and Silicon Valley presents unique conditions for terrorist attacks. The transportation, energy,
and communications systems that cross the planning area have impacts on the local, regional, and even national
economy. In general, the risks of a terrorist event involving a WMD are as follows:
• Chemical—The risk of a chemical event is present in the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton.
The agricultural community in Alameda County uses and stores significant amounts of chemicals for
peaceful and productive means that could be used in destructive ways.
• Explosives—Pipe bomb and suspicious package events have occurred in Alameda County in the past.
While none of the events has been specifically identified as a WMD-related attack, the elements
necessary to construct a WMD are readily available. Additionally, the agricultural communities maintain
sufficient products and quantities for use in explosive events.
• Radiological/Nuclear—The major transportation arteries for vehicles or rail that cross through the
planning area contribute to the risk of a radiological event. Such products can unknowingly pass through
any one of the regional transportation corridors.
• Biological—Anthrax incidents that occurred in the United States in October 2001 demonstrate the
potential for spreading terror through biological WMDs. The introduction of Newcastle disease in the
United States demonstrates how an agent can be introduced to livestock, causing harm to public health
and the economy.
• Combined Hazards—WMD agents can be combined to have a greater total effect. When combined, the
impacts of the event can be immediate and longer-term. Casualties will likely suffer from both immediate
and long-term burns and contamination. Given the risks associated with chemical agents in Alameda
County, the possibility exists for such a combined event to occur.
Cyber Threats
Cyber-attacks are experienced on a daily basis, often without being noticed. Up-to-date virus protection software
used in both public and private sectors prevent most cyber-attacks from becoming successful. Programs that
promote public education to that end are also an effective way in which to mitigate cyber threats.
Cyberterrorism is much less common than cyber-attacks, and the frequency is unknown.
Technological Hazards
Hazardous material incidents may occur at any time in the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, given the
presence of transportation routes bisecting the planning area, the location of businesses and industry that use
hazardous materials, the presence of scattered illegitimate businesses such as clandestine drug laboratories at any
given time, and the improper disposal of hazardous waste.
15.2.4 Severity
The severity of human-caused hazards could range from a minor transportation accident or power outage to a full-
scale terrorist attack.
The term mass casualty incident (MCI) is often applied to transportation accidents involving air and rail travel, as
well as multi-vehicle highway accidents. However, MCIs may also result from hazardous materials incidents or
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-20
acts of violence, such as shootings or hostage situations. Effects may include serious injuries, loss of life, and
associated property damage. Because large numbers of patients may be involved, significant MCIs may tax local
emergency medical and hospital resources, and therefore require a regional response. MCIs may occur throughout
the planning area, day or night, at any time of the year: Interstate 580 offer the potential for MCIs because of the
heavy volume of traffic, although no highway or surface street in the City is exempt from this hazard.
The railroad tracks traversing Alameda County, carrying Amtrak passengers as well as freight, also face the risk
of an MCI, as do the air corridors above the county. Severe weather may play a role in roadway, air, or rail
accidents. MCIs may also result from acts of violence or terrorism, which could include a chemical, biological or
radiological incident, contaminating persons and requiring mass decontamination.
Hazardous Materials
Table 15-5 shows the number of injuries and fatalities associated with hazardous material spills reported to Cal
OES Warning Center between 2012 through 2016. Additional historical hazardous material spill report data is
available on the Cal OES website. The records show that eight people were injured and five fatalities occurred in
a 5-year timeframe in planning area.
Table 15-5. Injuries and Fatalities from Hazardous Materials Spills in Tri-Valley Planning Area
Severity 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number of Injuries 2 1 3 0 2 8
Number of Fatalities 0 1 3 1 0 5
Total 2 2 6 1 2 13
Source: Cal OES, 2017
Hazardous material releases also affect the environment through contamination of soil, but data are not available
on the area that has been affected by such contamination.
15.2.5 Warning Time
Very few terrorism incidents—fewer than 5 percent—are preceded by a warning. Technological accidents occur
without predictability under circumstances that give responders little time to prepare.
15.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
The largest secondary impact caused by human-caused hazards would be economic, and could be significant:
• The cost of a terrorist act would be felt in terms of loss of life and property, disruption of business activity
and long-term emotional impacts. Recovery would take significant resources and expense at the local
level.
• Computer security breaches associated with data and telecommunications losses can have significant
economic impact.
• Pipeline and tank failure impacts can include both the cost of community recovery for the area
surrounding the failure site and the cost of disruption of services for the transported material.
• Hazardous materials releases have the potential to cause major disruptions to local businesses that house
hazardous materials. Additionally, a hazardous materials release could cause businesses to close if they
are located in the path of the hazardous materials flow.
• The economic impacts should a transportation facility be rendered impassable would be significant. The
loss of a roadway or railway would have serious effects on the local economy and ability to provide
services. Loss of major travel routes would result in loss of commerce, and could impact the ability to
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-21
provide emergency services to citizens by delaying response times or limiting routes for equipment such
as fire apparatus, police vehicles, and ambulances. The ability to receive fuel deliveries would also be
impacted. The effects of re-routed traffic could have a serious impact on local roadways.
15.4 EXPOSURE
15.4.1 Population
A human-caused hazard event could range from an isolated accident to a highly coordinated attack by multiple
agents upon multiple targets. Large-scale incidents have the potential to kill or injure many citizens in the
immediate vicinity, and may also affect people a relative distance from the initial event. Variables affecting
exposure for a WMD attack and a hazardous material accident include the physical and chemical properties of the
WMD, the ambient temperature, wind speed, wind direction, barometric pressure, and humidity.
Computer models can provide general data to first responders to advise evacuations or sheltering in place. With so
many variables to determine “toxic endpoints” as defined by the California Environmental Protection Agency,
distances are difficult to forecast. In general, those close to transportation corridors or businesses with acutely
hazardous materials are more at risk for some sort of effect. Each chemical incident will be different and the
scenarios are too numerous to describe in this plan.
Hazardous materials pose a significant risk to emergency response personnel. All potential first responders and
follow-on emergency personnel must be properly trained to the level of emergency response actions required of
their individual position at the response scene. Hazardous materials also pose a serious long-term threat to public
health and safety, property and the environment.
15.4.2 Property
The planning area is located in Alameda County, among the fastest growing counties in California, making it a
higher profile target for terrorism. Additionally, the planning area’s proximity to San Francisco and Silicon Valley
make it vulnerable to secondary and cascading effects of a possible terrorist threat.
15.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Terrorism events can pose a serious long-term threat to damaging critical facilities and infrastructure. In
particular, the industrial corridor along the northern and northwestern portions of the county are highly visible
targets. The high-profile buildings in the planning area include the Federal Correctional Facility, the Alameda
County Jail - Santa Rita, and Camp Parks, which are all in Dublin. Additionally, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory are considered high profile critical facilities within the planning area.
Critical facilities are limited to City facilities, Alameda County facilities, and other government facilities, private
utility infrastructure and administrative offices, and medical facilities.
Critical facilities may house hazardous materials and rail, highways, and interstates transport hazardous materials
on a daily basis. The exposure of critical facilities and infrastructure to a terrorism event or hazardous material
incident is based on the facility’s criticality and physical vulnerability:
• Criticality is a measure of the potential consequence of an accidental or terrorist event as well as the
attractiveness of the facility to a potential adversary or threat. The criticality for each critical facility is
based on the factors shown in Table 15-6.
• Vulnerability is a measure of the physical opportunity for an accident or an adversarial attack. This
assessment takes into consideration physical design, existing countermeasures, and site layout. The
vulnerability for each critical facility is based on the criteria shown in Table 15-7.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-22
Table 15-6. Criticality Factors
Criterion Low Criticality Medium Criticality High Criticality
Awarenessa Not known/Neighborhood City/Region/County State/National
Hazardous
Materialsb
None / limited and secure Moderate to large and secure Large, minimum or no security
Collateral Damage
Potentialc
None or low Moderate/immediate area or
within 1 mile radius
High/immediate area or within 1
mile radius
Site Populationd 0 – 300 301 – 1,000 1,001 or greater
Public/ Emergency
Functione
No emergency function, or could be
used for emergency function in the future
Support emergency function—
redundant site
Emergency function—critical
service with or without redundancy
a. Awareness—How aware is the public of the existence of the facility, site, system, or location?
b. Hazardous Materials—Are flammable, explosive, biological, chemical and/or radiological materials present on site?
c. Collateral Damage Potential—What are the potential consequences for the surrounding area if the asset is attacked or damaged?
d. Site Population—What is the potential for mass causalities, based on the capacity of the facility.
e. Public or Emergency Functions—Does the facility perform a function during an emergency? Is this facility or function capable of being
replicated elsewhere?
Table 15-7. Vulnerability Criteria
Criterion Low Vulnerability Medium Vulnerability High Vulnerability
Accessibilitya Remote location, secure
perimeter, tightly controlled access
Controlled access, protected or
unprotected entry
Open access, unrestricted,
patrolling security, sign restrictions
Automobile
Proximityb
Not within 75’ – 100’ Not within 25’ – 50’ Adjacent or not within 10’
Asset Mobilityc Moves or is relocated frequently Moves or is relocated occasionally Permanent/Fixed
Proximity to other
Critical Facilitiesd
Greater than 1.5 – 2 miles Greater than 3/4 - 1 mile Within 1/2 – 3/4 mile
Secure Designe No areas for concealment of
packages, air intakes are on roof,
access ways are not under the
structure.
Area of concealment present, greater
than 25’ from the structure; Air intakes
located at least 10’ above ground, may
have under structure access drives.
Areas of concealment within 25’,
air intakes at ground level, under
structure access drives.
a. Accessibility—How accessible is the facility or site to the public?
b. Automobile Proximity—How close can an automobile get to the facility? How vulnerable is the facility to a car bomb attack?
c. Asset Mobility—Is the facility or asset’s location fixed or mobile? If mobile, how often is it moved, relocated, or repositioned?
d. Proximity to other critical facilities—If the facility is close to other critical facilities then there could be an increased probability of the
facility receiving collateral damage.
e. Secure design—General evaluation of areas of obstruction, air intake locations, parking lot and road design and locations and other
site design aspects.
15.4.4 Environment
The risk of human-caused hazards to the environment is considerable. Hazardous materials spilled along roads or
railways could easily pollute rivers, streams, wetlands, riparian areas and adjoining fields. Other hazardous
materials released into the air could severely impact plant and animal species. Reducing the risk exposure to the
built environment can also mitigate potential losses to the natural environment.
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-23
15.5 VULNERABILITY
15.5.1 Population
Although human-caused hazards have not resulted in a large number of deaths in this area, this type of hazard can
be deadly and widespread. Injuries and casualties were not estimated for this hazard. Any individuals exposed to
human-caused hazards are considered to be at risk, particularly those working as first responder professionals.
15.5.2 Property
All structures in the planning area are physically vulnerable to a human-caused hazard. The emphasis on
accessibility, the opportunity for roof access, driveways underneath some structures, unmonitored areas, the
proximity of many structures to transportation corridors and underground pipelines, and the potential for a
terrorist to strike any structure randomly all have an impact on the vulnerability of structures.
15.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
The U.S Office of Homeland Security’s 2003 National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical
Infrastructure of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets lays a foundation to work together to prepare and protect
critical infrastructure and key assets nationwide from terrorist events. Critical facilities and infrastructure entities
know their vulnerabilities to terrorism. They have executed numerous preparedness plans and exercises for years
and fortified their facilities to minimize their vulnerability.
The impact of a hazardous material spill or transportation incident will likely be localized to the particular facility,
hospital, airport, railroad, road, or highway. The potential losses to existing development vary because of the
variable nature of the hazardous material spill, but costs from product loss, property damage and decontamination
and other costs can add up to millions of dollars.
15.5.4 Environment
The environment vulnerable to a human-caused hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard.
While human-caused disasters have caused significant damage to the environment, estimating damage can be
difficult. Loss estimation platforms such as Hazus are not equipped to measure environmental impacts of these
types of hazards. The best gauge of vulnerability of the environment would be a review of damage from past
human-caused hazard events. Loss data for damage to the environment were not available at the time of this plan
update. Capturing this data from future events could be beneficial in measuring the vulnerability of the
environment for future updates.
Most hazardous materials incidents are localized and are quickly contained or stabilized. Depending on the
characteristic of the hazardous material or the volume of product involved, the affected area can be as small as a
room in a building or as large as many square miles that require soil remediation. More widespread effects occur
when a product contaminates the municipal water supply or water system such as a river, lake, or aquifer. Such
environmental damage can linger for decades.
15.5.5 Economic impacts
Economic impacts from human-caused hazards could be significant. The cost of a terrorist act would be felt in
terms of loss of life and property, disruption of business activity and long-term emotional impacts. Recovery
would take significant resources at the local level.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
15-24
Utility losses could cause a reduction in employment, wholesale and retail sales, utility repairs, and increased
medical risks. The planning area may lose sales tax and property taxes, and the finances of private utility
companies and the businesses that rely on them would be disrupted.
The economic impact of data and telecommunications losses can be great, as computer security breaches, crime
conducted via the world wide web such as identify theft, and many more forms of human-caused economic losses
occur daily. Millions of dollars are lost each year as criminals and cyberterrorists steal sensitive information and
funds from individuals and organizations.
The economic impacts would be significant if a transportation facility were rendered impassable. The loss of a
roadway or railway would have serious effects on the planning area’s economy and ability to provide services.
Loss of travel routes on Interstate 580 would result in loss of commerce, and may impact the planning area’s
ability to provide emergency services to its citizens by delaying response times or limiting routes for egress to
critical healthcare facilities or ingress of equipment such as fire apparatus, police vehicles, and ambulances. Fuel
deliveries would also be impacted. The effects of re-routed traffic could also have a serious impact on local
roadways. Heavy traffic on routes through the planning area already occur at peak commute times when Interstate
580 is congested.
15.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
The potential for human-caused hazards is not likely to lessen or prohibit development in the planning area. The
threat of human-caused hazards and the availability of Homeland Security Funds will influence future
development of critical facilities.
15.7 SCENARIO
Two human-caused hazard scenarios could have a significant impact on the planning area:
• The first scenario would involve hazardous materials being transported via rail, pipeline, or highway
(Interstate 580) across the planning area. The release of hazardous materials via intentional or
unintentional means could impact large population centers within the planning area. Advance knowledge
of these shipments and their contents would play a role in preparedness for this scenario, thus reducing its
potential impact. The biggest issue in response to hazardous material is material identification and
containment.
• The second scenario would be a large-scale cyber-attack on Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton city
servers. Such an attack would require the planning area governments to revert to non-network based
operations and put a strain on daily operations. If such an attack would last for an extended period of
time, fiscal operations may be impacted.
15.8 ISSUES
Future actions needed at the local level to address human-caused hazards include but are not limited to the
following:
• Continue all facets of emergency preparedness training for police, fire, public works, and city
manager/public information staff in order to respond quickly in the event of a human-caused disaster.
Enhance awareness training for all employees to recognize threats or suspicious activity in order to
prevent an incident from occurring.
• Work with the private sector to enhance and create business continuity plans in the event of an
emergency.
15. Human-Caused Hazards
15-25
• Encourage local businesses to adopt information technology and telecommunications recovery plans.
• Prepare and present the human-caused hazard risk and preparedness program to the public through
meetings, town hall gatherings, and preparedness fairs and outreach.
• Maintain any and all citizen advisory groups and periodically e-mail emergency preparedness information
including human-caused hazard preparedness instructions and reminders.
• Work proactively with hazardous materials facilities to follow best management practices:
Placards and labeling of containers
Emergency plans and coordination
Standardized response procedures
Notification of the types of materials being transported through the planning area at least annually
Random inspections of transporters as allowed by each company
Installation of mitigating techniques along critical locations
Routine hazard communication initiatives
Consideration of using safer alternative products.
• Continue all facets of the hazardous materials team training and response through commitment of
resources from the Fire Department budget.
• Work with the private sector to enhance and create business continuity plans in the event of an
emergency.
• Coordinate with planning area school districts to ensure that their emergency preparedness plans include
preparation for human-caused incidents.
16-1
16. RISK RANKING
A risk ranking was performed for the natural hazards of concern described in this plan. This risk ranking assesses
the probability of each hazard’s occurrence as well as its likely impact on the people, property, and economy of
the planning area, using methodologies promoted by FEMA. The results are used in establishing mitigation
priorities.
When available, estimates of risk were generated with data from Hazus or GIS using methodologies promoted by
FEMA, based on the hazard profiles and exposure and vulnerability evaluations presented in Chapters 6 through
14. For hazards of concern with less quantitative datasets, qualitative assessments were used. As appropriate,
results were adjusted based on local knowledge and other information not captured in the quantitative
assessments. The hazards of interest were not ranked for the following reasons:
• A key component of risk as defined for the planning effort is probability of occurrence. While it is
possible to assign a recurrence interval for natural hazards because of historical occurrence, it is not
feasible to assign recurrence intervals for the other hazards of interest, which lack such historical
precedent.
• Federal hazard mitigation planning regulations do not require the assessment of non-natural hazards
(44 CFR, 201.6). It is FEMA’s position that this is a local decision.
All planning partners used the same methodology to rank risk for impacts on their jurisdictions (see Volume 2 for
these rankings). The risk ranking at the planning partner scale was used to inform the action plan development
process for each partner. Planning partners were directed to identify mitigation actions addressing hazards that, at
a minimum, had a “high” risk ranking (see Section 16.3). Actions that address hazards with a “medium”, “low” or
no hazard ranking are considered optional by this planning process.
This chapter summarizes the planning-area-wide risk ranking prepared by the planning team using aggregate
results of the risk assessment. The risk ranking methodology and results were reviewed, discussed and approved
by the Steering Committee via facilitated brainstorming sessions.
16.1 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
The probability of occurrence of a hazard is indicated by a probability factor based on likelihood of annual
occurrence:
• High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3)
• Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =2)
• Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =1)
• No exposure—There is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0)
The assessment of hazard frequency is generally based on past hazard events in the area. Table 16-1 summarizes
the probability assessment for each hazard of concern for this plan.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
16-2
Table 16-1. Probability of Hazards
Hazard Event Probability (high, medium, low) Probability Factor
Dam Failure Low 1
Drought High 3
Earthquake High 3
Flood High 3
Landslide Medium 2
Severe Weather High 3
Wildfire High 3
16.2 IMPACT
Hazard impacts were assessed in three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property and impacts on the
local economy. Numerical impact factors were assigned as follows:
• People—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard
event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for
simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be
equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. It should be noted that planners can use an element of
subjectivity when assigning values for impacts on people. Impact factors were assigned as follows:
High—50 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
Medium—25 percent to 49 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
Low—25 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
• Property—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the
hazard event:
High—30 percent or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor
= 3)
Medium—15 percent to 29 percent of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact
Factor = 2)
Low—14 percent or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor
= 1)
No impact—None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
• Economy—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the
hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to
the total assessed value of the property exposed to the hazard. For some hazards, such as wildfire,
landslide and severe weather, vulnerability was considered to be the same as exposure due to the lack of
loss estimation tools specific to those hazards. Loss estimates separate from the exposure estimates were
generated for the earthquake and flood hazards using Hazus.
High—Estimated loss from the hazard is 20 percent or more of the total exposed property value
(Impact Factor = 3)
Medium—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent to 19 percent of the total exposed property
value (Impact Factor = 2)
Low—Estimated loss from the hazard is 9 percent or less of the total exposed property value (Impact
Factor = 1)
No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
16. Risk Ranking
16-3
The impacts of each hazard category were assigned a weighting factor to reflect the significance of the impact.
These weighting factors are consistent with those typically used for measuring the benefits of hazard mitigation
actions: impact on people was given a weighting factor of 3; impact on property was given a weighting factor of
2; and impact on the economy was given a weighting factor of 1.
Table 16-2, Table 16-3 and Table 16-4 summarize the impacts for each hazard.
Table 16-2. Impact on People from Hazards
Hazard Event Impact (high, medium, low) Impact Factor Multiplied by Weighting Factor (3)
Dam Failure High 3 9
Drought No impact 0 0
Earthquake High 3 9
Flood Low 1 3
Landslide Medium 2 6
Severe Weather Medium 2 6
Wildfire Medium 2 6
Table 16-3. Impact on Property from Hazards
Hazard Event Impact (high, medium, low) Impact Factor Multiplied by Weighting Factor (2)
Dam Failure High 3 6
Drought No Impact 0 0
Earthquake High 3 6
Flood Low 1 2
Landslide Medium 2 4
Severe Weather Medium 2 4
Wildfire Medium 2 4
Table 16-4. Impact on Economy from Hazards
Hazard Event Impact (high, medium, low) Impact Factor Multiplied by Weighting Factor (1)
Dam Failure High 3 3
Drought Medium 2 2
Earthquake High 3 3
Flood Low 1 1
Landslide High 3 3
Severe Weather Low 1 1
Wildfire Medium 2 2
16.3 RISK RATING AND RANKING
The risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the probability factor by the sum of the weighted
impact factors for people, property and operations, as summarized in Table 16-5.
Based on these ratings, a category of high, medium or low was assigned to each hazard. The hazards ranked as
being of highest concern are the earthquake and wildfire hazards. Hazards ranked as being of medium concern are
dam failure, flood, landslide and severe weather. The hazard ranked as being of lowest concern is drought.
Table 16-6 shows the hazard risk ranking.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
16-4
Table 16-5. Hazard Risk Rating
Hazard Event Probability Factor Sum of Weighted Impact Factors Total (Probability x Impact)
Dam Failure 1 9+6+3 =18 18
Drought 3 0+0+2 = 2 6
Earthquake 3 9+6+3 = 18 54
Flooding 3 3+2+1 = 6 18
Landslide 2 6+4+3 = 13 26
Severe Weather 3 6+4+1 = 11 33
Wildfire 3 6+4+2 = 12 36
Table 16-6. Hazard Risk Ranking
Hazard Rating Number Category
Earthquake 54 High
Wildfire 36 High
Severe Weather 33 Medium
Landslide 26 Medium
Flood 18 Medium
Dam Failure 18 Medium
Drought 6 Low
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
PART 3—MITIGATION STRATEGY
17-1
17. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR
Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). The Steering Committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable
objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public
involvement strategy. The guiding principle, goals, objectives and actions in this plan all support each other.
Goals were selected to support the guiding principle. Objectives were selected that met multiple goals. Actions
were prioritized based on the action meeting multiple objectives.
17.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLE
A guiding principle focuses the range of objectives and actions to be considered. This is not a goal because it does
not describe a hazard mitigation outcome. The Steering Committee selected the following guiding principle for
the 2017 planning effort:
Through community partnerships, establish a plan to reduce the vulnerability to hazards in order to
protect the health, safety, welfare, environment and economy of the planning area.
17.2 GOALS
The following are the eight mitigation goals for this plan:
9. Ensure that hazards are identified and considered in land use decisions.
10. Improve local emergency management capability.
11. Promote community awareness, understanding, and interest in hazard mitigation policies and programs.
12. Incorporate hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy and standard practice.
13. Reduce community exposure and vulnerability to hazards where the greatest risk exists.
14. Increase resilience of infrastructure and critical facilities.
15. Promote an adaptive and resilient planning area that responds proactively to future conditions.
16. Develop and implement mitigation strategies that identify the best alternative to protect natural resources,
promote equity, and use public funds in an efficient and cost effective manner.
The effectiveness of a mitigation strategy is assessed by determining how well these goals are achieved.
17.3 OBJECTIVES
Each selected objective meets multiple goals, serving as a stand-alone measurement of the effectiveness of a
mitigation action, rather than as a subset of a goal. The objectives also are used to help establish priorities. The
objectives are as follows:
1. Develop and provide updated information to improve the understanding of the locations, potential
impacts, and linkages among threats, hazards, vulnerability, and measures needed to protect life safety
health, property and the environment.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
17-2
2. Use local general plan, zoning, and subdivision requirements to help establish resilient and sustainable
communities.
3. Improve systems that provide warning and emergency communications.
4. Encourage the retrofit of vulnerable structures in the planning area.
5. Consider programs that incentivize risk reduction.
6. Reduce repetitive property losses due to all hazards by updating land use, design, and construction
policies.
7. Continually build linkages and promote dialog about emergency management within the public and
private sectors.
8. Incorporate risk reduction considerations in new and updated infrastructure and development plans to
reduce the impacts of natural hazards.
9. Inform the public, including underrepresented community groups, on the risk of exposure to natural
hazards and ways to increase the public’s capability to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate
the impacts of these events.
10. Identify projects that simultaneously reduce risk while increasing planning area resilience and
sustainability.
11. Where feasible and cost-effective, research, develop, and promote adoption of building and development
laws, regulations, and ordinances exceeding the minimum levels needed for life safety.
12. Encourage hazard mitigation measures that promote and enhance natural processes, minimize adverse
impacts on the ecosystem, and promote social equity.
18-1
18. MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
18.1 MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES
Catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives were developed that present a broad range of alternatives to be
considered for use in the planning area, in compliance with 44 CFR (Section 201.6(c)(3)(ii)). One catalog was
developed for each hazard of concern evaluated in this plan. The catalogs present alternatives that are categorized
in two ways:
• By who would have responsibility for implementation:
Individuals (personal scale)
Businesses (corporate scale)
Government (government scale).
• By what the alternative would do:
Manipulate the flooding hazard
Reduce exposure to the flooding hazard
Reduce vulnerability to the flooding hazard
Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for the flooding hazard.
Hazard mitigation actions recommended in this plan were selected from among the alternatives presented in the
catalogs. The catalogs provide a baseline of mitigation alternatives that are backed by a planning process, are
consistent with the established goals and objectives, and are within the capabilities of the planning partners to
implement. Some of these actions may not be feasible based on the selection criteria identified for this plan. The
purpose of the catalog was to provide a list of what could be considered to reduce risk of the flood hazard within
the planning area. Actions in the catalog that are not included for the partnership’s action plan were not selected
for one or more of the following reasons:
• The action is not feasible.
• The action is already being implemented.
• There is an apparently more cost-effective alternative.
• The action does not have public or political support.
The catalogs for each hazard are presented in Table 18-1 through Table 18-7.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
18-2
Table 18-1. Alternatives to Mitigate the Dam Failure Hazard
Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure to the
hazard:
Relocate out of dam
failure inundation
areas.
• Reduce vulnerability to
the hazard:
Elevate home to
appropriate levels.
• Increase the ability to
respond to or be
prepared for the hazard:
Learn about risk
reduction for the dam
failure hazard.
Learn the evacuation
routes for a dam failure
event.
Educate yourself on
early warning systems
and the dissemination
of warnings.
• Manipulate the hazard:
Remove dams.
Remove levees.
Harden dams.
• Reduce exposure to
the hazard:
Replace earthen
dams with hardened
structures.
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Flood-proof facilities
within dam failure
inundation areas.
• Increase the ability to
respond to or be
prepared for the hazard:
Educate employees
on the probable
impacts of a dam
failure.
Develop a continuity
of operations plan.
• Manipulate the hazard:
Remove dams.
Remove levees.
Harden dams.
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Replace earthen dams with hardened structures
Relocate critical facilities out of dam failure inundation areas.
Consider open space land use in designated dam failure inundation
areas.
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Adopt higher regulatory floodplain standards in mapped dam failure
inundation areas.
Retrofit critical facilities within dam failure inundation areas.
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for the hazard:
Map dam failure inundation areas.
Enhance emergency operations plan to include a dam failure
component.
Institute monthly communications checks with dam operators.
Inform the public on risk reduction techniques
Adopt real-estate disclosure requirements for the re-sale of property
located within dam failure inundation areas.
Consider the probable impacts of climate in assessing the risk
associated with the dam failure hazard.
Establish early warning capability downstream of listed high hazard
dams.
Consider the residual risk associated with protection provided by dams
in future land use decisions.
Develop comprehensive planning policies that encourage wise land use
in hazard prone areas.
Develop a post-disaster recovery plan that addresses the dam failure
hazard.
Develop a debris management plan.
18. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity
18-3
Table 18-2. Alternatives to Mitigate the Drought Hazard
Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure to the
hazard:
None
• Reduce vulnerability to the
hazard:
Drought-resistant landscapes
Reduce water system losses
Modify plumbing systems
(through water saving kits)
• Increase the ability to respond
to or be prepared for the
hazard:
Practice active water
conservation
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
None
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Drought-resistant
landscapes
Reduce private water
system losses
• Increase the ability to
respond to or be prepared for the hazard:
Practice active water
conservation
• Manipulate the hazard:
Groundwater recharge through stormwater management
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Identify and create groundwater backup sources
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Reduce water system losses
Distribute water saving kits
Increase use of recycled water
Diversify water supply diversion points
Develop recycled water projects
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for the
hazard:
Enhance hazard mapping based on data and science
Public education on drought resistance
Identify alternative water supplies for times of drought; mutual
aid agreements with alternative suppliers
Implement drought contingency plan
Develop criteria “triggers” for drought-related actions
Improve accuracy of water supply forecasts
Prioritize groundwater projects for competitive funding
Develop a post-disaster recovery plan that addresses the
drought hazard
Develop a debris management plan
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
18-4
Table 18-3. Alternatives to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard
Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Locate outside of hazard area (off
soft soils)
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Retrofit structure (anchor house
structure to foundation)
Secure household items that can
cause injury or damage (such as
water heaters, bookcases, and
other appliances)
Build to higher design
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for the hazard:
Practice “drop, cover, and hold”
Develop household mitigation plan,
such as creating a retrofit savings
account, communication capability
with outside, 72-hour self-
sufficiency during an event
Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
Become informed on the hazard
and risk reduction alternatives
available.
Develop a post-disaster action plan
for your household
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Locate or relocate mission-
critical functions outside
hazard area where possible
• Reduce vulnerability to the
hazard:
Build redundancy for critical
functions and facilities
Retrofit critical buildings and
areas housing mission-
critical functions
• Increase the ability to
respond to or be prepared for
the hazard:
Adopt higher standard for
new construction; consider
“performance-based design”
when building new structures
Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
Inform your employees on
the possible impacts of
earthquake and how to deal
with them at your work
facility.
Develop a continuity of
operations plan
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Locate critical facilities or functions outside hazard
area where possible
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Harden infrastructure
Provide redundancy for critical functions
Adopt higher regulatory standards
Identify projects that limit transportation downtime
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for
the hazard:
Enhance hazard mapping based on data and
science
Provide technical information and guidance
Enact tools to help manage development in hazard
areas (e.g., tax incentives, information)
Include retrofitting and replacement of critical
system elements in capital improvement plan
Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster
opportunities
Warehouse critical infrastructure components such
as pipe, power line, and road repair materials
Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan
Initiate triggers guiding improvements (such as
<50% substantial damage or improvements)
Further enhance seismic risk assessment to target
high hazard buildings for mitigation opportunities.
Develop a post-disaster action plan that includes
grant funding and debris removal components.
Identify food security strategies, including
distribution priorities
Develop comprehensive planning policies that
encourage wise land use in hazard prone areas.
Develop a post-disaster recovery plan that
addresses the earthquake hazard.
Develop a debris management plan.
18. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity
18-5
Table 18-4. Alternatives to Mitigate the Flooding Hazard
Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the
hazard:
Clear storm
drains and
culverts
Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce exposure
to the hazard:
Locate outside of
hazard area
Elevate utilities
above base flood
elevation
Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
vulnerability to the
hazard:
Raise structures
above base flood
elevation
Elevate items
within house
above base flood
elevation
Build new homes
above base flood
elevation
Flood-proof
structures
• Increase the ability
to respond to or be
prepared for the
hazard:
Buy flood
insurance
Develop
household plan,
such as retrofit
savings,
communication
with outside, 72-
hour self-
sufficiency during
and after an
event
• Manipulate the
hazard:
Clear storm drains
and culverts
Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce exposure to
the hazard:
Locate critical
facilities or
functions outside
hazard area
Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
vulnerability to the
hazard:
Build redundancy
for critical
functions or retrofit
critical buildings
Provide flood-
proofing when new
critical
infrastructure must
be located in
floodplains
• Increase the ability
to respond to or be
prepared for the hazard:
Keep cash
reserves for
reconstruction
Support and
implement hazard
disclosure for sale
of property in risk
zones.
Solicit cost-sharing
through
partnerships with
others on projects
with multiple
benefits.
• Manipulate the hazard:
Maintain drainage system
Institute low-impact development techniques on property
Dredging, levee construction, and providing regional retention areas
Structural flood control, levees, channelization, or revetments.
Stormwater management regulations and master planning
Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses in developing watersheds to
control increases in runoff
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Locate or relocate critical facilities outside of hazard area
Acquire or relocate identified repetitive loss properties
Promote open space uses in identified high hazard areas via techniques such
as: planned unit developments, easements, setbacks, greenways, sensitive
area tracks.
Adopt land development criteria such as planned unit developments, density
transfers, clustering
Institute low impact development techniques on property
Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses in developing watersheds to
control increases in runoff
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Harden infrastructure, bridge replacement program
Provide redundancy for critical functions and infrastructure
Adopt higher regulatory standards.
Stormwater management regulations and master planning.
Adopt “no-adverse impact” floodplain management policies that strive to not
increase the flood risk on downstream communities.
Preserve natural spaces that serve as buffers against flood
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for the hazard:
Enhance hazard mapping based on data and science
Provide technical information and guidance
Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas (stronger controls, tax
incentives, and information)
Incorporate retrofitting or replacement of critical system elements in capital
improvement plan
Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster opportunities
Warehouse critical infrastructure components
Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan
Consider participation in the Community Rating System
Maintain and collect data to define risks and vulnerability
Train emergency responders
Create an elevation inventory of structures in the floodplain
Develop and implement a public information strategy
Charge a hazard mitigation fee
Integrate floodplain management policies into other planning mechanisms within
the planning area.
Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the flood hazard
Consider the residual risk associated with structural flood control in future land
use decisions
National Flood Insurance Program compliance
Adopt a Stormwater Management Master Plan
Comprehensive planning policies-Wise land use in hazard prone areas
Develop a post-disaster recovery plan that addresses the flood hazard
Develop a debris management plan
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
18-6
Table 18-5. Alternatives to Mitigate the Landslide Hazard
Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
Stabilize slope (dewater,
armor toe)
Reduce weight on top of slope
Minimize vegetation removal
and the addition of impervious
surfaces.
• Reduce exposure to the
hazard:
Locate structures outside of
hazard area (off unstable land
and away from slide-run out
area)
• Reduce vulnerability to the
hazard:
Retrofit home
• Increase the ability to respond
to or be prepared for the
hazard:
Institute warning system, and
develop evacuation plan
Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
Educate yourself on risk
reduction techniques for
landslide hazards
• Manipulate the hazard:
Stabilize slope (dewater, armor
toe)
Reduce weight on top of slope
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Locate structures outside of
hazard area (off unstable land
and away from slide-run out
area)
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Retrofit at-risk facilities
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for the hazard:
Institute warning system, and
develop evacuation plan
Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
Develop a continuity of
operations plan
Educate employees on the
potential exposure to landslide
hazards and emergency
response protocol.
• Manipulate the hazard:
Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe)
Reduce weight on top of slope
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Acquire properties in high-risk landslide areas.
Adopt land use policies that prohibit the placement of
habitable structures in high-risk landslide areas.
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Adopt higher regulatory standards for new
development within unstable slope areas.
Armor/retrofit critical infrastructure against the impact
of landslides.
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for
the hazard:
Enhance hazard mapping based on data and science
Provide technical information and guidance
Enact tools to help manage development in hazard
areas: better land controls, tax incentives, information
Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster
opportunities
Warehouse critical infrastructure components
Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan
Educate the public on the landslide hazard and
appropriate risk reduction alternatives.
Develop comprehensive planning policies that
encourage wise land use in hazard prone areas.
Develop a post-disaster recovery plan that addresses
the landslide hazard.
Develop a debris management plan.
18. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity
18-7
Table 18-6. Alternatives to Mitigate the Severe Weather Hazard
Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
None
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Insulate house
Provide redundant heat and power
Insulate structure
Plant appropriate trees near home
and power lines (“Right tree, right
place” National Arbor Day
Foundation Program)
• Increase the ability to respond to
or be prepared for the hazard:
Trim or remove trees that could
affect power lines
Promote 72-hour self-sufficiency
Obtain a NOAA weather radio.
Obtain an emergency generator.
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
None
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Relocate critical
infrastructure (such as power
lines) underground
Reinforce or relocate critical
infrastructure such as power
lines to meet performance
expectations
Install tree wire
• Increase the ability to
respond to or be prepared for the hazard:
Trim or remove trees that
could affect power lines
Create redundancy
Equip facilities with a NOAA
weather radio
Equip vital facilities with
emergency power sources.
Prioritize utility recovery
based on safety and critical
infrastructure needs
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
None
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Harden infrastructure such as locating utilities
underground
Trim trees back from power lines
Designate snow routes and strengthen critical road
sections and bridges
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for
the hazard:
Enhance hazard mapping based on data and
science
Support programs such as “Tree Watch” that
proactively manage problem areas through use of
selective removal of hazardous trees, tree
replacement, etc.
Establish and enforce building codes that require all
roofs to withstand snow loads
Increase communication alternatives
Modify land use and environmental regulations to
support vegetation management activities that
improve reliability in utility corridors.
Modify landscape and other ordinances to
encourage appropriate planting near overhead
power, cable, and phone lines
Provide NOAA weather radios to the public
Develop a post-disaster recovery plan that
addresses the severe weather hazards
Develop a debris management plan
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
18-8
Table 18-7. Alternatives to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard
Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
Clear potential fuels on property
such as dry overgrown
underbrush and diseased trees
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Create and maintain defensible
space around structures
Locate outside of hazard area
Mow regularly
• Reduce vulnerability to the
hazard:
Create and maintain defensible
space around structures and
provide water on site
Use fire-retardant building
materials
Create defensible spaces
around home
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for the hazard:
Employ techniques from the
National Fire Protection
Association’s Firewise
Communities program to
safeguard home
Identify alternative water
supplies for fire fighting
Install/replace roofing material
with non-combustible roofing
materials.
• Manipulate the hazard:
Clear potential fuels on
property such as dry
underbrush and
diseased trees
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Create and maintain
defensible space around
structures and
infrastructure
Locate outside of hazard
area
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Create and maintain
defensible space around
structures and
infrastructure and
provide water on site
Use fire-retardant
building materials
Use fire-resistant
plantings in buffer areas
of high wildfire threat.
• Increase the ability to
respond to or be
prepared for the hazard:
Support Firewise
community initiatives.
Create /establish stored
water supplies to be
utilized for firefighting.
• Manipulate the hazard:
Clear potential fuels on property such as dry underbrush
and diseased trees
Implement best management practices on public lands.
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Create and maintain defensible space around structures
and infrastructure
Locate outside of hazard area
Enhance building code to include use of fire resistant
materials in high hazard area.
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Create and maintain defensible space around structures
and infrastructure
Use fire-retardant building materials
Use fire-resistant plantings in buffer areas of high wildfire
threat.
Consider higher regulatory standards (such as Class A
roofing)
Establish biomass reclamation initiatives
• Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for the hazard:
Enhance hazard mapping based on data and science
More public outreach and education efforts, including an
active Firewise program
Possible weapons of mass destruction funds available to
enhance fire capability in high-risk areas
Identify fire response and alternative evacuation routes
Seek alternative water supplies
Become a Firewise community
Use academia to study impacts/solutions to wildfire risk
Establish/maintain mutual aid agreements between fire
service agencies.
Create/implement fire plans
Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk
associated with the wildfire hazard in future land use
decisions
Develop comprehensive planning policies that encourage
wise land use in hazard prone areas.
Develop a post-disaster recovery plan that addresses the
wildfire hazard.
Develop a debris management plan.
18. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity
18-9
18.2 ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
Adaptive capacity is defined as “the ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to
potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences” (IPCC, 2014b). This term is
typically used while discussing climate change adaptation; however, it is similar to the alternatives presented in
the tables for building local capacity. In addition to hazard-specific capacity building, the following list provides
general alternatives that planning partners considered to build capacity for adapting to both current and future
risks (Cal EMA, et al., 2012a and 2012b):
• Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects.
• Establish a climate change adaptation and hazard mitigation public outreach and education program.
• Build collaborative relationships between regional entities and neighboring communities to promote
complementary adaptation and mitigation strategy development and regional approaches.
• Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation
strategy effectiveness.
• Increase participation of low-income, immigrant, non-English-speaking, racially and ethnically diverse,
and special-needs residents in planning and implementation.
• Ask local employers and business associations to participate in local efforts to address climate change
and natural hazard risk reduction.
• Conduct a communitywide assessment and develop a program to address health, socioeconomic, and
equity vulnerabilities.
• Focus planning and intervention programs on neighborhoods that currently experience social or
environmental injustice or bear a disproportionate burden of potential public health impacts.
• Use performance metrics and data to evaluate and monitor the impacts of climate change and natural
hazard risk reduction strategies on public health and social equity.
• Develop coordinated plans for mitigating future flood, landslide, and related impacts through concurrent
adoption of updated general plan safety elements and local hazard mitigation plans.
• Implement general plan safety elements through zoning and subdivision practices that restrict
development in floodplains, landslide, and other natural hazard areas.
• Identify and protect locations where native species may shift or lose habitat due to climate change
impacts (sea level rise, loss of wetlands, warmer temperatures, and drought).
• Collaborate with agencies managing public lands to identify, develop, or maintain corridors and linkages
between undeveloped areas.
• Promote economic diversity.
• Incorporate consideration of climate change impacts as part of infrastructure planning and operations.
• Conduct a climate impact assessment on community infrastructure.
• Identify gaps in legal and regulatory capabilities and develop ordinances or guidelines to address those
gaps.
• Identify and pursue new sources of funding for mitigation and adaptation activities.
• Hire new staff or provide training to current staff to ensure an adequate level of administrative and
technical capability to pursue mitigation and adaptation activities.
19-1
19. AREA-WIDE ACTION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION
19.1 ACTIONS INCLUDED IN PLAN
The Steering Committee reviewed the catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives and selected area-wide actions to
be included in a hazard mitigation action plan. The selection of area-wide actions was based on the risk
assessment of identified hazards of concern and the defined hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Table 19-1
lists the recommended hazard mitigation actions that make up the action plan. The timeframe indicated in the
table is defined as follows:
• Short Term = to be completed in 1 to 5 years
• Long Term = to be completed in greater than 5 years
• Ongoing = currently being funded and implemented under existing programs.
19.2 BENEFIT-COST REVIEW
The action plan must be prioritized according to a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed projects and their
associated costs (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(3)(iii)). The benefits of proposed projects were weighed against
estimated costs as part of the project prioritization process. The benefit/cost analysis was not of the detailed
variety required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. A less formal approach was used because some projects may not
be implemented for up to 10 years, and associated costs and benefits could change dramatically in that time.
Therefore, a review of the apparent benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters
were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to the costs and benefits of these
projects.
Cost ratings were defined as follows:
• High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue
through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).
• Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment
of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple
years.
• Low —The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an
ongoing existing program.
Benefit ratings were defined as follows:
• High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.
• Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or
project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.
• Low —Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
19-2
Table 19-1. Action Plan
Applies to New or
Existing Assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agencies
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action AW-1—Continue to maintain a planning area-wide hazard mitigation website that will store the hazard mitigation plan and provide
the public an opportunity to monitor plan implementation progress. Each planning partner can support this action by including an action in
its own action plan of creating a link to the planning-area-wide hazard mitigation website.
New and Existing All Hazards 1,7,9 City of Pleasanton Low General Funds Ongoing
Action AW-2— Leverage public outreach partnering capabilities in the planning area (such as Community Emergency Response Teams)
to promote a uniform and consistent message on the importance of proactive hazard mitigation.
New and Existing All Hazards 1,7,9 Livermore Pleasanton Fire Low District Funds Ongoing
Action AW-3— Coordinate mitigation planning and project efforts in the planning area to leverage all resources available to the planning
partnership.
New and Existing All Hazards 7,10 Designated POC for each
Planning Partner
Low General Funds for each
planning partner
Short Term
Action AW-4— Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures in hazard-prone areas to protect the
structures from future damage, with repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties as a priority. Seek opportunities to leverage
partnerships in the planning area in these pursuits.
Existing All Hazards 4,5,11 Designated POC for each
Planning Partner
High FEMA Grant Funding Long Term
Action AW-5— Continue to update hazard mapping with best available data and science as it evolves, within the capabilities of the
partnership. Support FEMA’s RiskMAP initiative.
New and Existing All Hazards 1,7,9 Designated POC for each
Planning Partner
Medium FEMA mitigation grant funding,
FEMA’s Cooperating
Technical Partners program,
Planning Partner capital
improvement program funding
Long term
Action AW-6— To the extent possible based on available resources, provide coordination and technical assistance in applying for grant
funding.
New and Existing All Hazards 7,10 Alameda County OES,
ALCOEMA
Low General Funds, FEMA Grant
Funding (eligible pre-award
costs)
Short term
Action AW-7— Maintain a steering committee as a working body over time to monitor progress of the hazard mitigation plan, provide
technical assistance to planning partners, manage data, and oversee the update of the plan according to schedule. This body will
continue to operate under the ground rules established at its inception.
New and Existing All Hazards 7,10 Designated POC for each
Planning Partner
Low General Funds Ongoing
Action AW-8— All planning partners will collaborate and share information to support the development of debris management plans for
the planning area. While each planning partner will be responsible for the development of their own plans, they will attempt to standardize
the content and format based on a regional template.
New and Existing All Hazards 1,7,10,12 Designated POC for each
Planning Partner
Medium General Funds Short term
a. Ongoing indicates continuation of an action that is already in place. Short-term indicates implementation within five years. Long-term
indicates implementation after five years.
Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over medium,
medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly.
For many of the strategies identified in this action plan, financial assistance may be available through the HMGP
or PDM programs, both of which require detailed benefit/cost analyses. These analyses will be performed on
projects at the time of application using the FEMA benefit-cost model. For projects not seeking financial
19. Area-Wide Action Plan and Implementation
19-3
assistance from grant programs that require detailed analysis, “benefits” can be defined according to parameters
that meet the goals and objectives of this plan.
19.3 AREA-WIDE ACTION PLAN PRIORITIZATION
Table 19-2 lists the priority of each area-wide action. A qualitative benefit-cost review was performed for each of
these actions. The priorities are defined as follows:
• High Priority—A project that meets multiple objectives (i.e., multiple hazards), has benefits that exceed
cost, has funding secured or is an ongoing project and meets eligibility requirements for the HMGP or
PDM grant program. High priority projects can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years).
• Medium Priority—A project that meets goals and objectives, that has benefits that exceed costs, and for
which funding has not been secured but that is grant eligible under HMGP, PDM or other grant programs.
Project can be completed in the short term, once funding is secured. Medium priority projects will
become high priority projects once funding is secured.
• Low Priority—A project that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, that has benefits that do not exceed the
costs or are difficult to quantify, for which funding has not been secured, that is not eligible for HMGP or
PDM grant funding, and for which the time line for completion is long term (1 to 10 years). Low priority
projects may be eligible for other sources of grant funding from other programs.
Table 19-2. Prioritization of Area-Wide Mitigation Actions
Action #
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is project
Grant
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Priority (High,
Medium,
Low)
AW-1 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
AW-2 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
AW-3 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
AW-4 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium
AW-5 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High
AW-6 2 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
AW-7 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
AW-8 4 Medium Medium Yes No Yes High
19.4 PLAN ADOPTION
A hazard mitigation plan must document that it has been formally adopted by the governing bodies of the
jurisdictions requesting federal approval of the plan (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(5)). For multi-jurisdictional plans,
each jurisdiction requesting approval must document that is has been formally adopted. This plan will be
submitted for a pre-adoption review to Cal OES and FEMA Region IX prior to adoption. Once pre-adoption
approval has been provided, all planning partners will formally adopt the plan. DMA compliance and its benefits
cannot be achieved until the plan is adopted. Copies of the resolutions adopting this plan for all planning partners
can be found in Appendix C of this volume.
19.5 ANALYSIS OF AREA-WIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS
Each recommended action was classified based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves.
Table 19-3 shows the classification based on this analysis. Mitigation types used for this categorization are as
follows:
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
19-4
Table 19-3. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Planning Area Actions That Address the Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Prevention
Property
Protection
Public Education
and Awareness
Natural Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Dam Failure 3,5,6 4 1,2,5,7 - 8 -
Drought 3,5,6 4 1,2,5,7 - 8 -
Earthquake 3,5,6 4 1,2,5,7 - 8 -
Flooding 3,5,6 4 1,2,5,7 - 8 -
Landslide 3,5,6 4 1,2,5,7 - 8 -
Severe Weather 3,5,6 4 1,2,5,7 - 8 -
Wildfire 3,5,6 4 1,2,5,7 - 8 -
• Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings
are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital
improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations.
• Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal
of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm
shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
• Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and
ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and
school-age and adult education.
• Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions
of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed
management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation.
• Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard
event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
• Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard.
Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
19.6 PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
A hazard mitigation plan must present a plan maintenance process that includes the following (44 CFR Section
201.6(c)(4)):
• A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan
over a five-year cycle
• A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other
planning mechanisms, such as general or capital improvement plans, when appropriate
• A discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
The plan maintenance strategy is the formal process that will ensure that the Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan
remains an active and relevant document and that the planning partners maintain their eligibility for applicable
funding sources. It includes the following:
• A process for monitoring and evaluating the plan and producing an updated plan every five years. The
plan’s format allows sections to be reviewed and updated when new data become available, resulting in a
plan that will remain current and relevant.
19. Area-Wide Action Plan and Implementation
19-5
•A plan for how public participation will be integrated throughout the plan maintenance and
implementation process.
•Guidance for incorporating the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan into existing planning
mechanisms and programs, such as comprehensive land-use planning processes, capital improvement
planning, and building code enforcement and implementation.
Pursuant to 44CFR 201.6(c)(4)(i), the plan maintenance matrix shown in Table 19-4 provides a synopsis of
responsibilities for plan monitoring, evaluation, and update, which are discussed in further detail in the sections
below.
19.6.1 Plan Monitoring and Implementation
The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on its monitoring, implementation, and incorporation of
its action items into partner jurisdictions’ existing plans, policies and programs. Together, the action items in the
plan provide a framework for activities that the Planning Partnership can implement over the next 5 years. The
planning team and the Steering Committee have established goals and objectives and have prioritized mitigation
actions that will be implemented through existing plans, policies, and programs. The planning partners will have
individual responsibility for overseeing the plan monitoring and implementation strategy, with primary
responsibility identified in each jurisdictional annex plans (see planning partner annexes in Volume 2) and
summarized in Table 19-4. At a minimum, the planning partners will track and report the status of the
jurisdiction-specific hazard mitigation actions for inclusion into the Midterm Progress Report, described in
Section 19.6.3.
19.6.2 Plan Evaluation
Evaluating how well a plan achieves intended goals and objectives ensures that the Planning Partnership remains
cognizant of the continued short- to long-term efforts to reduce hazard impacts. Establishing a schedule for
monitoring ensures that the hazard mitigation plan will remain a living document that provides benchmarks for
building more resilient communities. Plan evaluation will be achieved through the assessment of the status of
actions as submitted by planning partners for the development of the Midterm Progress Report described in
Section 19.6.3.
19.6.3 Midterm Progress Report
Each planning partner will evaluate the progress of its individual action plan at the midterm of the period between
the completion of this plan and the next update. This progress report should be completed within two and a half
years of plan approval, or upon initiation of an accelerated plan update as described under Section 19.6.4,
whichever occurs first. The review will include the following:
•Summary of any hazard events that occurred during the performance period and the impact these events
had on the planning area
•Review of mitigation success stories
•Review of continuing public involvement
•Brief discussion about why targeted strategies were not completed
•Re-evaluation of the action plan to determine if the timeline for identified projects needs to be amended
(such as changing a long-term project to a short-term one because of new funding)
•Recommendations for new projects
•Changes in or potential for new funding options (grant opportunities)
•Impact of any other planning programs or actions that involve hazard mitigation.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
19-6
Table 19-4. Plan Maintenance Matrix
Task Approach Timeline Lead Responsibilitya
Support
Responsibility
Monitoring Preparation of status updates and
action implementation tracking as
part of submission for Midterm
Progress Report.
2-1/2 years after the
adoption and final
approval of the plan
by FEMA. Actual
reporting period TBD
Dublin City Manager Jurisdictional points of
contact identified in
Volume 2 annexes Livermore City Manager
Pleasanton General Manager
DSRDS General Manager
Dublin USD Maintenance and
Operations Supervisor
Livermore
Valley JUSD
Deputy Superintendent
Evaluation Review the status of previous
actions as submitted by the
monitoring task lead and support to
assess the effectiveness of the plan;
compile the Midterm Progress
Report; assess appropriate action for
preparing 2021/2022 hazard
mitigation plan update.
2-1/2 years after final
plan approval by
FEMA, or upon
comprehensive
update to General
Plan or major disaster
City of Dublin
City of Livermore
City of Pleasanton
Dublin/San Ramon Services District
Dublin Unified School District
Livermore Valley Joint Unified
School District
Jurisdictional points of
contacts identified in
Volume 2 annexes
Update b The Tri-Valley partnership will
reconvene the planning partners, at
a minimum, every 5 years to guide a
comprehensive update to review and
revise the plan.
Every 5 years or upon
comprehensive
update to General
Plan or major disaster
The governing body for all planning
partners covered by this plan
Jurisdictional point of
contacts identified in
Volume 2 annexes
Grant Monitoring and Coordination
As grant opportunities present
themselves, the Tri-Valley planning
partners will consider options to
pursue grants to fund actions
identified in this plan
As grants become
available
ALCOEMA provides a regional
platform for grant notification and
coordination
Jurisdictional point of
contacts identified in
Volume 2 annexes
Continuing Public Involvement
The principle means for providing
the public access to the
implementation of this plan will be
the Tri-Valley HMP website:
https://www.tri-valley-hmp.com/
Annually Livermore-Pleasanton Fire District All planning partners
will provide a link to
LHMP website on
their jurisdictional
websites
Plan Integration Integrate relevant information from
LHMP into other plans and programs
where viable and opportunities arise
Ongoing The governing body for all planning
partners covered by this plan
Jurisdictional point of
contacts identified in
Volume 2 annexes
a. Responsible lead party may designate an alternate
b. The approach to the plan update process may change based on partnership decisions made during the evaluation phase and the
preparation of the midterm progress report as described in Section 19.6.2 and Section 19.6.3.
The Steering Committee has created a template to guide the planning partners in preparing a progress report (see
Appendix D). The progress report template may be used as a tool for annual progress reporting at the discretion of
the planning partners and based on available jurisdictional resources. The completed report should be distributed
as follows:
• Posted on the hazard mitigation website dedicated to the hazard mitigation plan
• Provided to the local media through a press release
• Presented to planning partner governing bodies to inform them of the progress of actions implemented
during the reporting period.
19. Area-Wide Action Plan and Implementation
19-7
Progress reporting is not a federal requirement. However, it may enhance the Planning Partnership’s opportunities
for funding. While failure to implement this component of the plan maintenance strategy will not jeopardize a
planning partner’s compliance under the DMA, it may jeopardize its opportunity to partner and leverage funding
opportunities with other partners. Upon completion, the mid-term progress report will be posted to the hazard
mitigation plan website which will invite the public to provide to provide comment on its content.
19.6.4 Plan Update
Local hazard mitigation plans must be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval in order to
remain eligible for benefits under the DMA (44 CFR, Section 201.6(d)(3)). The planning partners intend to update
the hazard mitigation plan on a five-year cycle from the date of initial plan adoption. This cycle may be
accelerated to less than five years based on the following triggers:
•A presidential disaster declaration that impacts the planning area
•A hazard event that causes loss of life
•A comprehensive update of a planning partner’s general plan.
The update will, at a minimum, include the following elements:
•The update process will be convened through a steering committee.
•The hazard risk assessment will be reviewed and, if necessary, updated using best available information
and technologies.
•The action plans will be reviewed and revised to account for any actions completed, dropped, or changed
and to account for changes in the risk assessment or new policies identified under other planning
mechanisms (such as the comprehensive plan).
•The draft update will be sent to appropriate agencies and organizations for comment.
•The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the update prior to adoption.
•Planning partner governing bodies will adopt the updated plan.
When developing the Midterm Progress Report, jurisdictional partners will evaluate the appropriate course of
action for a plan update. The progress report will recommend a process for updating the plan based on available
resources, regional initiatives, and overall timing. Options for updating this plan include the following:
•Development of an updated multi-jurisdictional plan similar to the current plan
•Development of single jurisdictional plans
•Participation in development of an operational-area initiative led by Alameda County.
19.6.5 Grant Monitoring and Coordination
The Alameda County Emergency Managers’ Association (ALCO EMA) provides an opportunity to maintain
awareness of current and future grant opportunities. Currently, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin/San
Ramon Services District participate in ALCO EMA through the Alameda County Fire Department’s contracted
emergency management services. All planning partners have agreed to continue to coordinate with each other as
grant opportunities arise.
19.6.6 Continuing Public Involvement
The public will continue to be apprised of the plan’s progress through the hazard mitigation website and by
distribution of the midterm progress report to the media. The website will house the final plan and become the
central source of information about the plan, the partnership, plan implementation and the platform for the public
to provide comment on plan directive and initiatives. This website will also house the mid-term progress report as
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
19-8
discussed under section 19.6.3 and will be set up such that the public can provide comment on the reports content
and conclusions. All planning partners have agreed to provide links to the website on their individual websites.
The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire District has agreed to maintain the hazard mitigation plan website. Copies of the
plan will be distributed to local libraries. Upon initiation of future update processes, a new public involvement
strategy will be initiated based on guidance from a new steering committee. This strategy will be based on the
needs and capabilities of the Planning Partnership at the time of the update.
The public outreach strategy used during development of the current update, as described in Section 3.8.1,
provides a framework for public engagement through the planning process. It can be adapted for continued public
outreach through the plan performance period.
19.6.7 Integration with Other Planning Mechanisms
The information on hazard, risk, vulnerability, and mitigation contained in this plan is based on the best science
and technology available at the time this plan was prepared. The comprehensive plans of the planning partners are
considered to be integral parts of this plan. The planning partners, through adoption of comprehensive plans and
zoning ordinances, have planned for the impact of natural hazards. The plan development process provided them
with the opportunity to review and expand on policies contained within these planning mechanisms. The planning
partners used their comprehensive plans and the hazard mitigation plan as complementary documents that work
together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure to the citizens of the planning area. An update to a
comprehensive plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan.
All municipal planning partners committed to linking the hazard mitigation plan to their comprehensive plans by
identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and
programs to be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
•Emergency response plans
•Capital improvement programs
•Municipal codes
•Community design guidelines
•Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
•Stormwater management programs
•Water system vulnerability assessments
•Master fire protection plans.
Specific activities identified for incorporating mitigation into other planning mechanisms can be found in each
jurisdictional annex located in Volume 2 of this hazard mitigation plan. Some action items in this plan can be
implemented through creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved
public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this
plan, that information will be incorporated via the update process.
References-1
REFERENCES
Alameda County. 2012. Alameda County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Retrieved from Alameda
County Fire Department.
Alameda County. 2012. Alameda County Emergency Operations Plan. Accessed 2017.
https://www.acgov.org/ready/documents/EmergencyOperationsPlan.pdf.
Alameda County. 2016. Tax assessor data. Alameda County Assessor’s Office.
Alameda County. 2016a. Alameda County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Access April 2017.
Alameda County. 2017. Alameda County Library. “Tri-City Local History Resources”. Accessed 2017.
http://guides.aclibrary.org/content.php?pid=117063&sid=1016667.
Alameda County. 2017. Alameda County Public Health Department. “West Nile Virus”. Accessed 2017.
http://www.acphd.org/west-nile-virus.aspx.
Alameda County Community Development Agency (CDA). 2005. Historical and Cultural Resource Survey,
Alameda County. Accessed 2017. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/documents/.pdf.
Alameda Creek Alliance. 2017. “Map of the Alameda Creek Watershed.” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.alamedacreek.org/learn-more/map-watershed.php.
Alvarez, A. and Bachman, R. 2007. “Violence: The Enduring Problem.” Sage Publications, Inc. November 2.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2010. Annex to 2010 ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Taming Natural Disasters. Accessed 2017. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/2011mitigation/2010annex/.
Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 2013. “Introduction to Dams.” Dam Safety 101. Accessed 2017.
http://www.damsafety.org/news/?p=e4cda171-b510-4a91-aa30-067140346bb2.
Brown, W. et al. 2001. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). “Hazard Maps Help Save Lives and Property.” 2001.
Accessed 2017. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1996/fs183-96/fs183-96.pdf.
Cal-Adapt. 2017. “Exploring California’s Climate Change Research.” Accessed June 2017. http://cal-adapt.org/.
California Code of Regulations (CCR). 2017.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=WAT&tocTitle=+Water+Code+-+WAT.
California Department of Conservation. 2010. “The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act.” Accessed
2017. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap.
California Department of Finance, (CA DOF) 2016.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php “Forecasting.” Accessed April 2017.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Reference-2
California Department of Finance, (CA DOF) 2017.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php “Forecasting.” Accessed April 2017.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/.
California Department of Finance, (CA DOF) 2017a.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php “Forecasting.” Accessed April 2017.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2017. “Incident Information.” Accessed April
2017. http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_archived.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2017a. “FRAP Maps.” FRAP Projects.
Accessed April 2017. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2015. Retrieved from Vector-Borne Disease Section Annual
Report 2015: https://archive.cdph.ca.gov/programs/vbds/Documents/VBDSAnnualReport15.pdf
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2016. “Norovirus (Norwalk Virus)”. Accessed 2017.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Pages/Norovirus.aspx.
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2016a. Retrieved from Influenza and Other Respiratory
Diseases Surveillance Report, 2015-2016 Season:
https://archive.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Documents/CA%20Year%20End%20Flu%20Summary_2015-
2016_final.pdf.
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2017. “Annual Reports”.
https://archive.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Pages/Influenza(Flu).aspx
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2005. The California Water Plan. Accessed May 2017.
http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2009/0310final/v4c06a01_cwp2009.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2010. California Drought Contingency Plan. Accessed May
2017.
http://www.water.ca.gov/waterplan/docs/cwpu2013/Final/vol4/drought/01California_Drought_Contigency_Plan.p
df.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2013. The California Water Plan Update. Accessed May
2017. http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2013/Final/Vol2_SanFranciscoBayRR.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2013a. The California Water Plan Update. Accessed May
2017. http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2013/Final/Vol2_SanFranciscoBayRR.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2017. “State Hydrologic Data.” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.watersupplyconditions.water.ca.gov.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Division of Safety of Dams. 2017. “Statutes and Regulations
Pertaining to Supervision of Dams and Reservoirs”.
http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/statutes_regulations/index.cfm.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Division of Safety of Dams. 2017a. “Listing of Dams.”
Accessed 2017. http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/damlisting/index.cfm.
References
References-3
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2017b. Climate Change page of California DWR website.
http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/.
California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) et al. 2012. “California Climate Adaptation Planning
Guide.” Accessed 2017. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/APG_Understanding_Regional_Characteristics.pdf.
California Employment Development Department (CA EDD). 2017. “Unemployment Rate and Labor Force.”
Accessed May 2017. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/unemployment-and-labor-force.html.
California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2011. “Landslide Inventory and Deep Landslide Susceptibility Map.”
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/landslides#landslideprograms.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2013. State of California Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Accessed 2017. http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/plan/state_multi-
hazard_mitigation_plan_shmp.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2013a. State of California Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Accessed 2017. http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/plan/state_multi-
hazard_mitigation_plan_shmp.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2013b. State of California Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Accessed 2017. http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/plan/state_multi-
hazard_mitigation_plan_shmp.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2017. California State Warning Center
Hazardous materials spill report data. http://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/warning-center.
California Office of Governor (CA.gov). 2017. “Governor Brown Lifts Drought Emergency, Retains Prohibition
of Wasteful Practices.” https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19748
California Office of Traffic Safety. 2017. Retrieved from OTS Collision Rankings:
http://www.ots.ca.gov/Media_and_Research/Rankings/default.asp.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2011. “Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice,
Third Edition: An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics.” Accessed 2017.
http://www.cdc.gov/ophss/csels/dsepd/ss1978/index.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. “Drought and Health.” Accessed February 2017.
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/drought/.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016. “Enterovirus D68”. Accessed 2017.
http://www.cdc.gov/non-polio-enterovirus/about/ev-d68.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016a. “Non-Polio Enterovirus”. Accessed 2017.
https://www.cdc.gov/non-polio-enterovirus/.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016b. “A History of Anthrax.” Accessed 2017.
http://www.cdc.gov/anthrax/resources/history/.
City of Dublin General Plan. 2014. “City of Dublin General Plan”. Accessed 2017.
http://dublin.ca.gov/171/General-Plan.
City of Dublin. 2017. “Drought Information.” Accessed 2017. http://dublin.ca.gov/1503/Drought-Information.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Reference-4
City of Livermore General Plan. 2014. “City of Livermore General Plan”. Accessed 2017.
http://www.ci.livermore.ca.us/citygov/cd/planning/general.asp.
City of Livermore. 2017. “Water Service”. Accessed May 2017.
http://www.cityoflivermore.net/citygov/pw/public_works_divisions/wrd/service/default.asp.
City of Livermore. 2017a. “Why Conserve Water?” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.cityoflivermore.net/citygov/pw/public_works_divisions/wrd/conserve/default.htm.
City of Pleasanton General Plan. 2015. “City of Pleasanton General Plan.” Accessed 2017.
http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/cd/planning/general.asp.
City of Pleasanton. 2017. “City Newsletter and Annual Report Section”. Accessed May 2017.
http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/hottopics/newsletter.asp.
City of Pleasanton. 2017a. “Utility Billing” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/os/service/utlbilling.asp.
City-Data.com. 2017. “Residential Building Permits.” Accessed May 2017. http://www.city-data.com/
Danielson, T. 2015. “How to avoid the curse of ransomware.” Accessed April 2017.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ransomware-is-everywhere-but-this-software-can-save -you -2015-10.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). Public Law 106-390. 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121 note et seq. October 30,
2000.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2017. “Water, wastewater, recycled water”. Accessed May 2017.
http://www.dsrsd.com/.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1977. “Executive Order 11988 and 11990.” Accessed 2017.
https://www.fema.gov/laws-executive-orders.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. “FEMA’s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (MHIRA).” Accessed 2016. http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2214.
Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA. 2001. Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and
Determining your Risks. FEMA (386-2). August 2001
Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA. 2002. Getting Started; Building support for Mitigation
Planning. FEMA (386-1). September 2002
Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA. 2003. Developing the Mitigation Plan; Identifying Mitigation
Actions and Implementing Strategies. FEMA (386-3). April 2003
Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA. 2003a. Integrating Manmade Hazards Into Mitigation
Planning. FEMA (386-7). September 2003.
Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA. 2004. Using Hazus for Risk Assessment, How to Guide. FEMA
(433). August 2004
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004a. Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. Accessed 2017.
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1516-20490-7951/fema-333.pdf.
References
References-5
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004b. National Response Plan, Cyber Incident Annex.
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1825-25045-8307/cyber_incident_annex_2004.pdf
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). June 2009. Benefit Cost Analysis Reference Guide.
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1736-25045-7076/bca_reference_guide.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Study (FIS). 2009. “Flood Insurance Study
for Alameda County and Incorporated Areas, CA.”
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2010. “Wind Zones in the United States.”
http://www.fema.gov/safe-rooms/wind-zones-united-states.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2013. “Why Dams Fail.” Accessed 2017.
http://www.fema.gov/why-dams -fail.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. “Executive Order 13690 Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard.” Accessed 2017. https://www.fema.gov/federal-flood-risk-management-standard-ffrms.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016. “NFIP Community Rating System Communities and
their Classes.” Accessed March 2017. https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-
status-book.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017. “Disaster Declarations-Open Government Dataset.”
Accessed May 2017. https://www.fema.gov/disasters.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017a. “Disaster Declarations-Open Government Dataset.”
Accessed May 2017. https://www.fema.gov/disasters.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017b. “Disaster Declarations-Open Government Dataset.”
Accessed May 2017. https://www.fema.gov/disasters.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017b “NFIP Community Status Book.” Accessed April
2017. https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017c. “Policy and Claim Statistics for Flood Insurance.”
Accessed January 2017. https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017d. “Disaster Declarations-Open Government Dataset.”
Accessed May 2017. https://www.fema.gov/disasters.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017e. “Disaster Declarations-Open Government Dataset.”
Accessed May 2017. https://www.fema.gov/disasters.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IX. 2017. “Report of Repetitive Losses.”
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2016. “Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects.” Accessed May 2017. https://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-
guide.asp
Global Resilience Network. 2016. “The Sky is Falling: Space Weather EMP’s, Solar Flares & Grid Resilience.”
Accessed 2017.
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55b670ece4b004b66c56e8ca/t/56c77bcb8259b508f2d01577/1455913932039
/SpaceWeatherandGridResilience_ThomasPopik_01122016.pdf.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Reference-6
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Parts A, B and Annexes.” Accessed 2017. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.
Johnson, A. 2014. “East Bay Government Websites Affect by Global Cyber Attack.” Patch San Leandro December 2.
Accessed 2017. http://patch.com/california/sanleandro/east-bay-government-websites-affect-global-cyber -attack.
Keller, Edward A., and Robert H. Blodgett. Natural Hazards: Earth’s Processes as Hazards, Disasters, and
Catastrophes. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
Kostadinov, D. 2012. “Cyberterrorism Defined (as distinct from “Cybercrime”).” Accessed 2017.
http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/cyberterrorism-distinct-from-cybercrime/.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2004. “NASA Earth Observatory News.” Accessed
2017. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25145.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2016. “Solar Storm and Space Weather—Frequently
Asked Questions.” Accessed 2017. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2016a. “Welcome to the Solar Flare Theory Education
Web Pages.” Accessed 2017. http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/frame1.htm.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2016b. “NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest
Year on Record Globally.” Accessed 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-
warmest-year-on-record-globally.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2017. “Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the
Planet.” Accessed May 2017. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2017a. “Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the
Planet.” Accessed May 2017. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/.
National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), Drought Impact Reporter. 2017. “Drought Impact Report for
Alameda County.” Accessed May 2017. http://drought.unl.edu/MonitoringTools/DroughtImpactReporter.aspx.
National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC). 2017a. “Drought Affecting People.” Accessed February 2017.
http://drought.unl.edu/droughtbasics/ensoandforecasting.aspx.
National Climate Assessment (NCA). 2014. Third National Climate Assessment Report for the United States.
Accessed May 2017. http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/climate-change-impacts-united-states-third-
national-climate-assessment-0.
National Climate Assessment (NCA). 2014a. “Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” Accessed May
2017. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017. “National Centers for Environmental
Information Storm Events Database (NCEI).” Accessed May 2017. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017a. “National Centers for Environmental
Information Storm Events Database (NCEI).” Accessed May 2017. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017b. “National Centers for Environmental
Information Storm Events Database (NCEI).” Accessed May 2017. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/.
References
References-7
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017c. “Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC).”
Accessed May 2017. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena.
NOAA, National Weather Service (NWS). 2009. “National Weather Service Glossary.” Accessed 2017.
http://w1.weather.gov/glossary/.
NOAA, National Weather Service (NWS). 2009a. “National Weather Service Glossary.” Accessed 2017.
http://w1.weather.gov/glossary/.
NOAA, National Weather Service (NWS). 2016. “Introduction to Thunderstorms.” Accessed 2017.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tstorms/tstorms_intro.html.
NOAA, National Weather Service (NWS). 2016. Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services. “Weather
Fatalities.” Accessed 2017. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml.
NOAA, NWS. 2017. “Climate Prediction Center, Palmer Crop Moisture Index.” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml.
NOAA, NWS. 2017a. “Climate Prediction Center, Palmer Z Index.” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml.
NOAA, NWS. 2017b. “Climate Prediction Center, Palmer Drought Severity Index.” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml.
NOAA, NWS. 2017c. “Climate Prediction Center, Palmer Hydrological Drought Index.” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml.
NOAA, NWS. 2017d. “Climate Prediction Center, Standard Precipitation Index.” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/Drought/Monitoring/spi.shtml.
NOAA, NWS. 2017e. “Experimental NWS Potential Heat Risks.” Accessed May 2017.
https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/wrh/heatrisk/?wfo=lox#.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 2017. Aviation Accident Database & Synopses. Accessed 2017.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHSMA). 2016. “Distribution, Transmission &
Gathering, LNG, and Liquid Accident and Incident Data.” Data & Statistics. Accessed 2017.
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats/distribution-transmission-and-gathering-lng-and-liquid-
accident-and-incident-data.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHSMA). 2017. “National Pipeline Mapping System.”
Accessed 2017. https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/.
Ready.gov. 2016. “Chemical threats.” Accessed 2017. https://www.ready.gov/chemical-threats.
Riley, P. 2012. “On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events.” Accessed 2017.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011SW000734/abstract.
San Francisco CBS Local. 2016. Retrieved from CBS Local:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/07/commuter-train-derails-in-niles-canyon/.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Reference-8
Smith, J. K. (n.d.). California Department of Conservation. “Hazards from Mudslides... Debris Avalanches and
Debris Flows in Hillside and Wildfire Areas.” Accessed April 2017.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_33.
Stanford University National Performance of Dams Program. 2017. “NPDP Dams Database.” Accessed 2017.
https://npdp.stanford.edu/dams_database.
Stewart, S. 2013. “Fire: The Overlooked Threat.” Accessed 2017. https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/fire-
overlooked-threat.
Tilghman, A. 2015. “New Islamic State weapon: chlorine gas.” Accessed 2016.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/03/18/chlorine-attacks/24914087/.
Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2017. “Planning Process”. https://www.tri-valley-hmp.com/
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM). 2015. “Chlorine Improvised
Explosive Devices and Preventive Medicine Actions.” Accessed 2017.
https://mesl.apgea.army.mil/mesl/account/EHFileDownload%3FfileString%3D/webu03/meslp/webUploads/EH/m
oduleI/59476N.pdf+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1996. “Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential
Classification System for Dams.”
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2017. National Inventory of Dams. Accessed May 2017.
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/national-inventory-of-dams.
U.S. Census. 2010. http://censtats.census.gov/data/CA/05006081.pdf.
U.S. Census. 2016. “2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Accessed 2017.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
U.S. Census. 2016a. “2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Accessed 2017.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
U.S. Census. 2016b. “2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Accessed 2017.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
U.S. Census. 2016c. “2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Accessed 2017.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
U.S. Census. 2016d. “2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Accessed 2017.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
U.S. Census. 2016e. “2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Accessed 2017.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency. 2017. “Disaster Resource Center.” Accessed
May 2017. https://www.usda.gov/topics/disaster.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2005. “Final Rule, 7
Code of Federal Rules Part 624. Emergency Watershed Protection Program.” Accessed May 2017.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/landscape/ewpp/.
References
References-9
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2003. National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical
Infrastructure of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security and National Academies. 2004. Chemical Attack Fact Sheet: Warfare
Agents, Industrial Chemicals, and Toxins. Accessed 2017. https://www.dhs.gov/publication/chemical-attack-fact-
sheet.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Climate Change Indicators in the United States.” Accessed
2017. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-
gases.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016a. “Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program.”
https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/learn-about-toxics-release-inventory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016b. “Climate Change Indicators in the United States.” 2016.
EPA 430-R-16-004. www.epa.gov/climate-indicators.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Surf Your Watershed.” Accessed April 2017.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/county.cfm?fips_code=06013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017a. Envirofacts TSCA Info.
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/tsca/tsca_search.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017b. Retrieved from Envirofacts RCRA Info.
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/search.html.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1987. The Morgan Hill, California, Earthquake of April 24, 1984, U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1639.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1989. The Severity of an Earthquake. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1989-
288-913. Accessed 2017. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severity_text.html.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. “Summary Distribution of Slides and Earth Flows in the San Francisco
Bay Region, California.” Open-File Report 97-745 C. Assessed 2017. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-
745/sfbr-sef-dbdesc.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. “Map showing principal debris-flow source areas in the San Francisco
Bay region, California.” Open-File Report 97-745 E. Accessed 2017. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-
745/sfbr-df-dbdesc.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. An Atlas of ShakeMaps for Selected Global Earthquakes. U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 2008-1236. Prepared by Allen, T.I., Wald, D.J., Hotovec, A.J., Lin, K., Earle, P.S. and
Marano, K.D.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. “PAGER—Rapid Assessment of an Earthquake’s Impact. U.S. Geological
Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3036”.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. “Global Seismographic Network.” Earthquake Hazards Program.
Accessed April 2017. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/gsn/.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014a. “Global Seismographic Network.” Earthquake Hazards Program.
Accessed April 2017. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/gsn/.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Reference-10
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. “Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043”.
Accessed 2017. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016a. “Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043”.
Accessed 2017. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016b. “Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043”.
Accessed 2016. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016c. “Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043”.
Accessed 2016. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016d. “Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043”.
Accessed 2016. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016e. “Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043”.
Accessed 2016. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “Soil Type and Shaking Hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area.”
Earthquake Hazards Program. Accessed 2017. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/soiltype/.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017a. “Search Earthquake Archives.” Earthquake Hazards Program. Accessed
2016. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017b. “The San Andreas and Other Bay Area Faults.” Accessed April 2017.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1906calif/virtualtour/bayarea.php.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017c. “Landslides 101.” Accessed April 2017.
https://landslides.usgs.gov/learn/ls101.php.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “California Drought.” Accessed January 2017.
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017a. “Measuring Earthquakes FAQs.” Accessed February 2017.
https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9828/3357.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017c. “Land Subsidence Monitoring Network.” Accessed April 2017.
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/bay-delta-subsidence.html
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.”
Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.). Cambridge University Press. Accessed 2016.
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf.
Waldron, K. 2011. “How Vulnerable is New Jersey to Cyber Terrorism?” Accessed 2016. http://nj1015.com/how-
vulnerable-is-new-jersey-to-cyber-terrorism-audio/.
Washington Department of Ecology. (2014). “About Landslides.”
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/landslides/about/about.html.
Water-Wise Gardening Tri-Valley. 2017. “Gardening tips for drought conditions.” Accessed May 2017.
http://www.trivalleywaterwise.com/.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2017 “Temperature and Precipitation Summaries.” Accessed April 2017.
References
References-11
Wilson and Clay. 2008. “Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyber terrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for
Congress.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32114.pdf.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2014. “Geographic distribution of Ebola virus disease outbreaks in humans
and animals.” Accessed 2017. http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/ebola-map-humans-animals-2014.png?ua=1.
Zone 7 Water Agency. (Zone 7). 2014. 2014 Annual Report. Accessed May 2017.
http://www.zone7water.com/publications-reports/reports-planning-documents.
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). 2015. 2015 Annual Report. Accessed May 2017.
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). 2015. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed May 2017.
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). 2017. http://www.zone7water.com/.
Glossary-1
GLOSSARY
ACRONYMS
ABAG—Association of Bay Area Governments
CCR—California Code of Regulations
CDBG-DR—Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery
CEQA—California Environmental Quality Act
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CIP—Capital Improvement Plan
CRS—Community Rating System
DFIRM—Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
DHS—Department of Homeland Security
DMA —Disaster Mitigation Act
DTSC—Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR—Department of Water Resources
EMA—Emergency Management Agency (California state)
EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA—Endangered Species Act
FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC—Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FIRM—Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS—Flood Insurance Study
FRA—Federal Responsibility Area
GIS—Geographic Information System
Hazus—Hazards, United States
HMA—Hazard Mitigation Assistance
HMGP—Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
IBC—International Building Code
IRC—International Residential Code
LRA—Local Responsibility Area
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Glossary-2
MM—Modified Mercalli Scale
NCA—National Climate Assessment
NEHRP—National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NFIP—National Flood Insurance Program
NIMS—National Incident Management System
NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NWS—National Weather Service
OES—Office of Emergency Services
PDM—Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program
PDI—Palmer Drought Index
PGA—Peak Ground Acceleration
PHMSA—Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PHDI—Palmer Hydrological Drought Index
SEMS—Standardized Emergency Management System
SFHA—Special Flood Hazard Area
SPI—Standardized Precipitation Index
SRA—State Responsibility Area
USGCRP—U.S. Global Change Research Program
USGS—U.S. Geological Survey
WNV—West Nile virus
DEFINITIONS
Acre-Foot: An acre-foot is the amount of water it takes to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. This measure is used
to describe the quantity of storage in a water reservoir. An acre-foot is a unit of volume. One acre foot equals
7,758 barrels; 325,829 gallons; or 43,560 cubic feet. An average household of four will use approximately 1 acre-
foot of water per year.
Asset: An asset is any man-made or natural feature that has value, including people; buildings; infrastructure,
such as bridges, roads, sewers, and water systems; lifelines, such as electricity and communication resources; and
environmental, cultural, or recreational features such as parks, wetlands, and landmarks.
Base Flood: The flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also known as the
“100-year” or “1% chance” flood. The base flood is a statistical concept used to ensure that all properties subject
to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are protected to the same degree against flooding.
Basin: A basin is the area within which all surface water—whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs, or other
sources—flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is defined by natural
topography, such as hills, mountains, and ridges. Basins are also referred to as “watersheds” and “drainage
basins.”
Glossary
Glossary-3
Benefit: A benefit is a net project outcome and is usually defined in monetary terms. Benefits may include direct
and indirect effects. For the purposes of benefit-cost analysis of proposed mitigation measures, benefits are
limited to specific, measurable, risk reduction factors, including reduction in expected property losses (buildings,
contents, and functions) and protection of human life.
Benefit/Cost Analysis: A benefit/cost analysis is a systematic, quantitative method of comparing projected
benefits to projected costs of a project or policy. It is used as a measure of cost effectiveness.
Building: A building is defined as a structure that is walled and roofed, principally aboveground, and
permanently fixed to a site. The term includes manufactured homes on permanent foundations on which the
wheels and axles carry no weight.
Capability Assessment: A capability assessment provides a description and analysis of a community’s current
capacity to address threats associated with hazards. The assessment includes two components: an inventory of an
agency’s mission, programs, and policies, and an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. A capability
assessment is an integral part of the planning process in which a community’s actions to reduce losses are
identified, reviewed, and analyzed, and the framework for implementation is identified. The following capabilities
were reviewed under this assessment:
Legal and regulatory capability
Administrative and technical capability
Fiscal capability
Community Rating System (CRS): The CRS is a voluntary program under the NFIP that rewards participating
communities (provides incentives) for exceeding the minimum requirements of the NFIP and completing
activities that reduce flood hazard risk by providing flood insurance premium discounts.
Critical Area: An area defined by state or local regulations as deserving special protection because of unique
natural features or its value as habitat for a wide range of species of flora and fauna. A sensitive/critical area is
usually subject to more restrictive development regulations.
Critical Facility: Facilities and infrastructure that are critical to the health and welfare of the population. These
become especially important after any hazard event occurs. For the purposes of this plan, critical facilities include:
Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water
reactive materials;
Hospitals, nursing homes, and housing likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to
avoid death or injury during a hazard event.
Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers
that are needed for disaster response before, during, and after hazard events, and
Public and private utilities, facilities and infrastructure that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal
services to areas damaged by hazard events.
Government facilities.
Dam: Any artificial barrier or controlling mechanism that can or does impound 10 acre-feet or more of water.
Dam Failure: Dam failure refers to a partial or complete breach in a dam (or levee) that impacts its integrity.
Dam failures occur for a number of reasons, such as flash flooding, inadequate spillway size, mechanical failure
of valves or other equipment, freezing and thawing cycles, earthquakes, and intentional destruction.
Debris Flow: Dense mixtures of water-saturated debris that move down-valley; looking and behaving much like
flowing concrete. They form when loose masses of unconsolidated material are saturated, become unstable, and
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Glossary-4
move down slope. The source of water varies but includes rainfall, melting snow or ice, and glacial outburst
floods.
Debris Slide: Debris slides consist of unconsolidated rock or soil that has moved rapidly down slope. They occur
on slopes greater than 65 percent.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA); The DMA is Public Law 106-390 and is the latest federal legislation
enacted to encourage and promote proactive, pre-disaster planning as a condition of receiving financial assistance
under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The DMA emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. Under the
DMA, a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster hazard
mitigation grant program (HMGP) were established.
Drainage Basin: A basin is the area within which all surface water- whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs or
other sources- flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is defined by natural
topography, such as hills, mountains and ridges. Drainage basins are also referred to as watersheds or basins.
Drought: Drought is a period of time without substantial rainfall or snowfall from one year to the next. Drought
can also be defined as the cumulative impacts of several dry years or a deficiency of precipitation over an
extended period of time, which in turn results in water shortages for some activity, group, or environmental
function. A hydrological drought is caused by deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. A
socioeconomic drought impacts the health, well-being, and quality of life or starts to have an adverse impact on a
region. Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate and occurs almost everywhere.
Earthquake: An earthquake is defined as a sudden slip on a fault, volcanic or magmatic activity, and sudden
stress changes in the earth that result in ground shaking and radiated seismic energy. Earthquakes can last from a
few seconds to over 5 minutes, and have been known to occur as a series of tremors over a period of several days.
The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. Casualties may
result from falling objects and debris as shocks shake, damage, or demolish buildings and other structures.
Exposure: Exposure is defined as the number and dollar value of assets considered to be at risk during the
occurrence of a specific hazard.
Extent: The extent is the size of an area affected by a hazard.
Fire Behavior: Fire behavior refers to the physical characteristics of a fire and is a function of the interaction
between the fuel characteristics (such as type of vegetation and structures that could burn), topography, and
weather. Variables that affect fire behavior include the rate of spread, intensity, fuel consumption, and fire type
(such as underbrush versus crown fire).
Fire Frequency: Fire frequency is the broad measure of the rate of fire occurrence in a particular area. An
estimate of the areas most likely to burn is based on past fire history or fire rotation in the area, fuel conditions,
weather, ignition sources (such as human or lightning), fire suppression response, and other factors.
Flash Flood: A flash flood occurs with little or no warning when water levels rise at an extremely fast rate
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): FIRMs are the official maps on which the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has delineated the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
Flood Insurance Study: A report published by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration for a
community in conjunction with the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map. The study contains such background
data as the base flood discharges and water surface elevations that were used to prepare the FIRM. In most cases,
a community FIRM with detailed mapping will have a corresponding flood insurance study.
Glossary
Glossary-5
Floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by flood waters from any source. A flood insurance rate
map identifies most, but not necessarily all, of a community’s floodplain as the Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA).
Floodway: Floodways are areas within a floodplain that are reserved for the purpose of conveying flood
discharge without increasing the base flood elevation more than 1 foot. Generally speaking, no development is
allowed in floodways, as any structures located there would block the flow of floodwaters.
Floodway Fringe: Floodway fringe areas are located in the floodplain but outside of the floodway. Some
development is generally allowed in these areas, with a variety of restrictions. On maps that have identified and
delineated a floodway, this would be the area beyond the floodway boundary that can be subject to different
regulations.
Freeboard: Freeboard is the margin of safety added to the base flood elevation.
Frequency: For the purposes of this plan, frequency refers to how often a hazard of specific magnitude, duration,
and/or extent is expected to occur on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100-year frequency is expected to
occur about once every 100 years on average and has a 1 percent chance of occurring any given year. Frequency
reliability varies depending on the type of hazard considered.
Fujita Scale of Tornado Intensity: Tornado wind speeds are sometimes estimated on the basis of wind speed
and damage sustained using the Fujita Scale. The scale rates the intensity or severity of tornado events using
numeric values from F0 to F5 based on tornado wind speed and damage. An F0 tornado (wind speed less than 73
miles per hour (mph)) indicates minimal damage (such as broken tree limbs), and an F5 tornado (wind speeds of
261 to 318 mph) indicates severe damage.
Goal: A goal is a general guideline that explains what is to be achieved. Goals are usually broad-based, long-term,
policy-type statements and represent global visions. Goals help define the benefits that a plan is trying to achieve.
The success of a hazard mitigation plan is measured by the degree to which its goals have been met (that is, by the
actual benefits in terms of actual hazard mitigation).
Geographic Information System (GIS): GIS is a computer software application that relates data regarding
physical and other features on the earth to a database for mapping and analysis.
Hazard: A hazard is a source of potential danger or adverse condition that could harm people and/or cause
property damage.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): Authorized under Section 202 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the HMGP is administered by FEMA and provides grants to states, tribes,
and local governments to implement hazard mitigation actions after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of
the program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to disasters and to enable mitigation activities to be
implemented as a community recovers from a disaster
Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Program (Hazus): Hazus is a GIS-based program used to support
the development of risk assessments as required under the DMA. The Hazus software program assesses risk in a
quantitative manner to estimate damage and losses associated with natural hazards. Hazus is FEMA’s nationally
applicable, standardized methodology and software program and contains modules for estimating potential losses
from earthquakes, floods, and wind hazards. Hazus has also been used to assess vulnerability (exposure) for other
hazards.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Glossary-6
Hydraulics: Hydraulics is the branch of science or engineering that addresses fluids (especially water) in motion
in rivers or canals, works and machinery for conducting or raising water, the use of water as a prime mover, and
other fluid-related areas.
Hydrology: Hydrology is the analysis of waters of the earth. For example, a flood discharge estimate is developed
by conducting a hydrologic study.
Intensity: For the purposes of this plan, intensity refers to the measure of the effects of a hazard.
Inventory: The assets identified in a study region comprise an inventory. Inventories include assets that could be
lost when a disaster occurs and community resources are at risk. Assets include people, buildings, transportation,
and other valued community resources.
Landslide: Landslides can be described as the sliding movement of masses of loosened rock and soil down a
hillside or slope. Fundamentally, slope failures occur when the strength of the soils forming the slope exceeds the
pressure, such as weight or saturation, acting upon them.
Lightning: Lightning is an electrical discharge resulting from the buildup of positive and negative charges within
a thunderstorm. When the buildup becomes strong enough, lightning appears as a “bolt,” usually within or
between clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning instantaneously reaches temperatures approaching 50,000ºF.
The rapid heating and cooling of air near lightning causes thunder. Lightning is a major threat during
thunderstorms. In the United States, 75 to 100 Americans are struck and killed by lightning each year (see
http://www.fema.gov/hazard/thunderstorms/thunder.shtm).
Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the complete failure of soils, occurring when soils lose shear strength and flow
horizontally. It is most likely to occur in fine grain sands and silts, which behave like viscous fluids when
liquefaction occurs. This situation is extremely hazardous to development on the soils that liquefy, and generally
results in extreme property damage and threats to life and safety.
Local Government: Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special
district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is
incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or
instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village
or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity.
Magnitude: Magnitude is the measure of the strength of an earthquake, and is typically measured by the Richter
scale. As an estimate of energy, each whole number step in the magnitude scale corresponds to the release of
about 31 times more energy than the amount associated with the preceding whole number value.
Mass movement: A collective term for landslides, debris flows, sinkholes and lahars.
Mitigation: A preventive action that can be taken in advance of an event that will reduce or eliminate the risk to
life or property.
Mitigation Actions: Mitigation actions are specific actions to achieve goals and objectives that minimize the
effects from a disaster and reduce the loss of life and property.
Objective: For the purposes of this plan, an objective is defined as a short-term aim that, when combined with
other objectives, forms a strategy or course of action to meet a goal. Unlike goals, objectives are specific and
measurable.
Glossary
Glossary-7
Peak Ground Acceleration: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the highest amplitude of ground
shaking that accompanies an earthquake, based on a percentage of the force of gravity.
Preparedness: Preparedness refers to actions that strengthen the capability of government, citizens, and
communities to respond to disasters.
Presidential Disaster Declaration: These declarations are typically made for events that cause more damage than
state and local governments and resources can handle without federal government assistance. Generally, no
specific dollar loss threshold has been established for such declarations. A Presidential Disaster Declaration puts
into motion long-term federal recovery programs, some of which are matched by state programs, designed to help
disaster victims, businesses, and public entities.
Probability of Occurrence: The probability of occurrence is a statistical measure or estimate of the likelihood
that a hazard will occur. This probability is generally based on past hazard events in the area and a forecast of
events that could occur in the future. A probability factor based on yearly values of occurrence is used to estimate
probability of occurrence.
Repetitive Loss Property: Any NFIP-insured property that, since 1978 and regardless of any changes of
ownership during that period, has experienced:
Four or more paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00; or
Two paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00 within any 10-year period since 1978 or
Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property.
Return Period (or Mean Return Period): This term refers to the average period of time in years between
occurrences of a particular hazard (equal to the inverse of the annual frequency of occurrence).
Riverine: Of or produced by a river. Riverine floodplains have readily identifiable channels. Floodway maps can
only be prepared for riverine floodplains.
Risk: Risk is the estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a
community. Risk measures the likelihood of a hazard occurring and resulting in an adverse condition that causes
injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate, or low likelihood of
sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to occurrence of a specific type of hazard. Risk also can be
expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard.
Risk Assessment: Risk assessment is the process of measuring potential loss of life, personal injury, economic
injury, and property damage resulting from hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability of people, buildings,
and infrastructure to hazards and focuses on (1) hazard identification; (2) impacts of hazards on physical, social,
and economic assets; (3) vulnerability identification; and (4) estimates of the cost of damage or costs that could be
avoided through mitigation.
Risk Ranking: This ranking serves two purposes, first to describe the probability that a hazard will occur, and
second to describe the impact a hazard will have on people, property, and the economy. Risk estimates are based
on the methodology used to prepare the risk assessment for this plan. The following equation shows the risk
ranking calculation:
Risk Ranking = Probability + Impact (people + property + economy)
Robert T. Stafford Act: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public
Law 100-107) was signed into law on November 23, 1988. This law amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Glossary-8
(Public Law 93-288). The Stafford Act is the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities,
especially as they pertain to FEMA and its programs.
Special Flood Hazard Area: The base floodplain delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. The SFHA is
mapped as a Zone A in riverine situations and zone V in coastal situations. The SFHA may or may not encompass
all of a community’s flood problems
Stakeholder: Business leaders, civic groups, academia, non-profit organizations, major employers, managers of
critical facilities, farmers, developers, special purpose districts, and others whose actions could impact hazard
mitigation.
Stream Bank Erosion: Stream bank erosion refers to the erosion, sloughing or undercutting of a river, stream or
drain. It is natural for streams to meander through erosion processes. Generally, stream bank erosion is a problem
where development has limited meandering, where streams have been channelized, or where stream bank
structures (bridges, culverts, etc.) are in places where they can cause damage to downstream areas. Stabilizing
these areas can help protect watercourses from sedimentation, prevent damage to adjacent lands, control unwanted
meander, and improve fish and wildlife habitat.
Steep Slope: Different communities and agencies define it differently, depending on what it is being applied to,
but generally a steep slope is a slope in which the percent slope equals or exceeds 25%. For this study, steep slope
is defined as slopes greater than 33 percent.
Sustainable Hazard Mitigation: This concept includes the sound management of natural resources, local
economic and social resiliency, and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the largest
possible social and economic context.
Thunderstorm: A thunderstorm is a storm with lightning and thunder produced by cumulonimbus clouds.
Thunderstorms usually produce gusty winds, heavy rains, and sometimes hail. Thunderstorms are usually short in
duration (seldom more than 2 hours). Heavy rains associated with thunderstorms can lead to flash flooding during
the wet or dry seasons.
Tornado: A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between and in contact with a cloud and the
surface of the earth. Tornadoes are often (but not always) visible as funnel clouds. On a local scale, tornadoes are
the most intense of all atmospheric circulations, and winds can reach destructive speeds of more than 300 mph. A
tornado’s vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter, and damage paths can be up to 1 mile wide and 50
miles long.
Vulnerability: Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible an asset is to damage. Vulnerability depends
on an asset’s construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damage, the
vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example, many
businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power. Flooding of an electric substation would affect not only the
substation itself but businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than
direct effects.
Watershed: A watershed is an area that drains downgradient from areas of higher land to areas of lower land to
the lowest point, a common drainage basin.
Wildfire: These terms refer to any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression.
The potential for wildfire is influenced by three factors: the presence of fuel, topography, and air mass. Fuel can
include living and dead vegetation on the ground, along the surface as brush and small trees, and in the air such as
tree canopies. Topography includes both slope and elevation. Air mass includes temperature, relative humidity,
wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation amount, duration, and the stability of the atmosphere at the
Glossary
Glossary-9
time of the fire. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning and, most frequently, by human activity including smoking,
campfires, equipment use, and arson.
Windstorm: Windstorms are generally short-duration events involving straight-line winds or gusts exceeding 50
mph. These gusts can produce winds of sufficient strength to cause property damage. Windstorms are especially
dangerous in areas with significant tree stands, exposed property, poorly constructed buildings, mobile homes
(manufactured housing units), major infrastructure, and aboveground utility lines. A windstorm can topple trees
and power lines; cause damage to residential, commercial, critical facilities; and leave tons of debris in its wake.
Zoning Ordinance: The zoning ordinance designates allowable land use and intensities for a local jurisdiction.
Zoning ordinances consist of two components: a zoning text and a zoning map.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix A. Public Outreach Materials
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
A-2
SURVEY, SURVEY RESULTS
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Questionnaire
A range of natural and human-caused disasters can affect any community. The Cities of Livermore,
Pleasanton and Dublin and their special district planning partners work diligently to mitigate threats
and prepare for disasters. Natural disasters are those hazards that occur as a force of nature, such
as a flood or earthquake. Non-natural disasters are those that occur as part of an intentional act or
failure of technology. For the purpose of this plan, non-natural hazards also include health hazards,
such as epidemics.
To maintain a high level of preparedness, we need your help to identify and plan for future disasters
by completing this survey.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Survey!
1. Survey Introduction
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
1
First, this set of questions is about your experience and knowledge of natural hazards and steps
your household has taken to prepare for disasters:
2. Hazard Knowledge
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
1. Which of the following natural hazard events have you experienced in the Tri-Valley planning area?
(Check all that apply)
Dam/Levee Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Flood
Landslide & Mass Movements
(sinkholes, geologic hazards)
Severe Weather (high wind, heavy rain,
lightning, etc.)
Wildfire
None
Other (please specify)
Not concerned
Somewhat
concerned Concerned Very concerned
Extremely
concerned
Dam/Levee Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Flood
Landslide & Other Earth
Movements
(sinkholes,geologic
hazard)
Severe Weather (wind,
lightning, fog, heavy
rains, solar flare, etc.)
Wildfire
Other Natural Hazard
If you are concerned about a natural hazard not listed above, please specify.
2. How concerned are you about the following natural hazards in the Tri-Valley planning area? (Please
check one for each hazard)
2
3. How would you expect to be notified in case of an immediate threat caused by a local hazard.
Select all that apply.
Television
Radio
Facebook
Twitter
Nextdoor
Nixle
Public Notification System
Alameda County Alert
Other (please specify)
4. Which of the following steps has your household taken to prepare for a local hazard event?
(Check all that apply)
Received first aid/CPR training
Made a fire escape plan
Designated a meeting place
Identified utility shutoffs
Prepared a disaster supply kit
Installed smoke detectors on each level
of the house
Stored food and water
Stored flashlights and batteries
Stored a battery-powered radio
Stored a fire extinguisher
Stored medical supplies (first aid kit,
medications)
Registered to receive emergency alerts
Purchased additional Insurance
Other (please specify)
5. How prepared is your household to get along without electricity or natural gas for one to five days?
Not at all prepared Somewhat prepared Very prepared
3
Please tell us about where you live and work:
3. Location
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
If you live in Unincorporated County, please provide the name of your community.
6. Where do you live?*
Dublin
Livermore
Pleasanton
Alameda County (Unincorporated)
I do not live in the Tri-Valley Planning
area
7. Where do you work?
Dublin
Livermore
Pleasanton
Alameda County (Unincorporated)
I work outside of the Tri-Valley planning
area
I am unemployed/retired
4
Please tell us about where you live and if the potential impacts of natural or human-caused hazards
influenced your decision:
4. Location (continued)
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
8. Do you own or rent your place of residence?
Own Rent
9. When you moved into your home, did you consider the impact a disaster could have on your home?
Yes No
10. If you received real estate disclosure information when you moved into your current residence, did your
real estate agent or landlord explain the implications of living in a hazard risk zone and did you understand
the information presented?
Yes No
11. Is your home located in any of the following hazard areas (check all that apply):
FEMA Designated Floodplain
Dam Failure Zone
High Liquefaction Zone
Near an Active Fault (within 1 mile)
Wildfire Prone Area
Landslide/Sinkhole Area
Other (please specify)
12. Do you have hazard- specific insurance (check all that apply)?
Flood Insurance Earthquake Insurance Not Sure
Other Insurance (please specify)
5
Please tell us about yourself. This information will aid the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Workgroup in evaluating the responses to this questionnaire. The answers will be used only for the
preparation of this Plan and will not be provided to any other group or interest.
5. About You
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
13. Is English the primary language spoken in your home?
Yes
No (please specify)
14. Which of the following digital media outlets do you use and/or subscribe to receive news and
information about the Tri-Valley Planning Area?
Select all that apply.
Facebook
Twitter
Nextdoor
E-mail and/or text messages
Nixle
Local News
Other (please specify)
15. Please indicate how you feel about the following statement:
It is the responsibility of government (local, state and federal) to provide education and programs that
promote citizen actions that will reduce exposure to the risks associated with natural hazards.
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
6
16. Please provide any additional comments you would like to share with the LHMP Steering Committee.
17. If you would like to receive information regarding upcoming public events, other participatory
opportunities regarding hazard mitigation, or general preparedness information, please provide your email
address below.
7
A. Public Outreach Materials
A-3
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARIES
MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday – March 7, 2017; 9:00am to 11:00am
Location: Regional Meeting Room, 100 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Steering Committee No.1
Project Name: Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
In Attendance
(See Attachment):
Attendees: Susan Frost, Cary Fukada, John Richards, Hazel Wetherford, Dan
Stevenson, Mike Benzien, Julie Carter, John Lawrence, Tracy Hein, Lincoln
Casimere, Shweta Bonn, Adam Weinstein
Phoned in: Marla Blagg, Joe Testa, Bruce Bird
Planning Team: Rob Flaner
Not Present: N/A
Summary Prepared by: Rob Flaner (3/20/2017)
Quorum – Yes or No N/A – Steering Committee not finalized
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda
•Mr. Rob Flaner opened the meeting and facilitated group
introductions.
•Distributed handouts included: Agenda; Draft Steering
Committee Charter; Work Plan and timeline, Planning Partner
expectations document
•The agenda was reviewed and no modifications were made.
Project Overview
After introductions, Mr. Flaner went through a PowerPoint presentation
that provided an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000.
He noted that per DMA 2000 requirements, hazard mitigation plans
(HMP) are needed to be eligible for certain types of federal grant
funding opportunities. He provided a history of hazard mitigation
planning in the 3 cities and noted that this process represent a
functional reset for the Cities and their planning partners. The
presentation provided an overview of the 7-phase work plan that will
follow the Community Rating System (CRS) planning script to maximize
the CRS credit potential for participating Cities (Pleasanton and
Livermore). The presentation concluded by introducing the role of the
Meeting Summary
2
Item Action
Steering Committee and identified the next planning steps to be
conducted.
Should We expand the Partnership?
Under the next segment of the agenda, Mr. Flaner presented to the SC
the options for expansion of the coverage of the plan to include special
purpose districts within the planning area. Mr. Flaner explained that
section 201.4 of 44CFR redefined the definition of “local government” to
include special purpose districts that have junior taxing authority. This
puts districts in the same position as municipal governments in that they
must have participated in the development of, and adopted a hazard
mitigation plan to be eligible for pre/post disaster hazard mitigation
grant funding.
The topic of discussion transition to what special purpose districts would
be likely candidates to participate in the Tri-Valley effort. Mr. Flaner
explained the Dublin/San Ramon CSD had already expressed interest in
this effort based on a referral from Contra Costa County. Mr. Flaner also
explained that there would be no extra cost to the current contracts for
this planning effort to expand, that responsibility to meet planning
partner expectations would lie with each committed district. It was the
general consensus of the group that the planning partnership should be
expanded with the most like candidates being: the school districts,
water/waste water service providers and the Livermore Area Parks and
Recreation District. Mr. Flaner asked for members of the SC to provide
him with contact information for the targeted districts so that he can
send them an introductory e-mail along with the planning partner
expectations package prior to the next SC meeting. This dissemination
will establish a turn-around time for the Districts to commit to the
process.
The Steering Committee’s Role
Mr. Flaner turned attention to establishing the ground rules for the
Steering Committee. He provided the group with a proposed draft
Charter which they reviewed. Mr. Flaner requested that the group
discuss the specific composition and rules of the HMP SC. He began by
discussing who should be the Chair and Vice Chair. Ms. Hazel
Wetherford from the City of Dublin volunteered to be the Chair and Mr.
Adam Weinstein from the City of Pleasanton volunteered as Vice-chair.
Other key components of the Charter approved by the SC include:
•Hazel Wetherford will act as the spokesperson for the process
•The quorum was established as 50%+1, or 12 members.
Planning Team to send out e-mail
to districts targeted for expansion
explaining the options available
to participate in the Tri-Valley
planning effort prior to next SC
meeting.
Meeting Summary
3
Item Action
•The proxy protocol will be followed for alternates
•The reoccurring meeting date will be the 2nd Tuesday of every
month from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM
•The meeting Location will be the Reginal Meeting Room at
Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
•A public comment protocol will be followed that mirrors
standard process for city council meetings.
Mr. Flaner will finalize the Charter and will make available for public
review via the website discussed below.
Plan Review
Mr. Flaner reiterated that this planning process was being viewed as a
“functional reset” for those local governments that had prior coverage
under the ABAG plan. Many planning components such as goals,
objectives, public outreach strategy will be developed from scratch as
hazard mitigation planning moves from a Bay Area regional focus to one
specifically focused on the Tri-Valley panning area. The principal starting
point for this process will be a review of The CA State Hazard Mitigation
Plan. Section 2501.6 44CFR requires that Local Hazard Mitigation Plans
integrate and be consistent with key planning goals identified in the
State Hazard Mitigation Plan. The State mitigation plan should be used
to frame the hazards of concern to be addressed by the Tri-Valley plan
and the goals and objectives. To prepare for the next SC meeting that
will be dedicated to goal setting and hazard identification, Mr. Flaner
assigned homework to the SC. The homework involved a review of the
CA State Hazard Mitigation Plan to gain a better understanding of:
•The State’s identified goals for Hazard mitigation
•The hazards the State plan identifies the Tri-Valley Planning area
is susceptible to.
Public Involvement Strategy
Mr. Flaner expanded on earlier discussion regarding the requirement for
public engagement throughout the entire planning process. This will be
accomplished for this effort by the identification of a comprehensive
public engagement strategy that will utilize multiple media within the
existing capabilities of the assembled planning partnership. This strategy
will be identified and approved by the SC via the panning process. The
cornerstone of this strategy will be the development of a website that will
house the plan and its support document. The website will be the “one-
Planning Team to finalize the
Charter based on direction from
this meeting, and will post on the
TVLHMP website.
The SC to review the CA State
Hazard mitigation plan to identify:
• The State’s identified goals for
Hazard mitigation
• The hazards the State plan
identifies the Tri-Valley Planning
area is susceptible to.
Meeting Summary
4
Item Action
stop-shop” for all things hazard mitigation within the Tri-Valley planning
area. The Planning team has already developed a site framework on the
“WIX” platform that will become activated as soon as information
becomes available to post.
Action Items for Next Meeting
Action items identified for the next meeting include the following:
•Confirm hazards of Concern
•Identify a Vision/Mission
•Goal Setting
•Phase 1 Public Outreach
MEETING SUMMARY
Attachment: Sign-in Sheet
Meeting Summary
2
MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday – April 11, 2017; 9:00am to 11:00am
Location: Regional Meeting Room, 100 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Steering Committee No.2
Project Name: Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
In Attendance
(See Attachment):
Attendees: Susan Frost, Cary Fukada, John Richards, Hazel Wetherford, Dan
Stevenson, Tracy Hein, Shweta Bonn, Adam Weinstein, Stan Kolodzie, Steve
Stewart, Joe Testa
Phoned in: None
Planning Team: Rob Flaner
Not Present: N/A
Summary Prepared by: Rob Flaner (4/14/2017)
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda
•Mr. Rob Flaner opened the meeting and facilitated group
introductions.
•Distributed handouts included: Agenda; Meeting Summary, Final
SC Charter, SB-379 Summary, Draft Press release, example
survey, example vision/mission statements
•The agenda was reviewed and no modifications were made.
•The meeting summary was approved as amended.
•There were no members of the public present
•The final Charter was approved as amended.
Hazards of Concern
Rob Flaner facilitated discussion on which hazards of concern the plan
should address. At the last SC meeting, the committee was asked to
review the CA State Hazard mitigation Plan to see:
a. What hazards the state plan assessed
b. What hazards the state plan said the Tri-Valley planning
area was susceptible to.
Rob explained that the first order of business was to decide whether the
plan should include non-natural/human caused hazards. Section 201.6
Meeting Summary
2
Item Action
44CFR states that local hazard mitigation plans “shall”assess the risk from
natural hazards within a planning area, and they “may” assess other
hazards of interest. So it is considered optional to include non-
natural/human caused hazards in the risk assessments for local hazard
mitigation plans. So Rob asked the committee to share their thoughts on
this question.
Rob explained that he had done plans both ways over the years, but it is
important to note that you cannot assess the 2 types of hazards in the
same context. FEMA has defined “risk” as Probability x Impact. The
probability of an event is the possible recurrence of an event based on
historical record. The impact is based on the impact of a hazard on the
people, property and economy of a planning area. The fundamental
difference between assess risk on natural vs. non-natural hazards
following this definition is probability. There is sufficient historical record
of natural hazards events to assign recurrence intervals or probabilities
based on historical record. These type of records do not exist for non-
natural hazards. We know that a 100-year flood event is a flood that has
a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. There is no such thing as a
100-year terrorism event.
So after discussion, there was consensus among the SC that the plan
should include non-natural/human caused hazards. The principle driver
for this decision was to acknowledge the potential exposure to these type
events and to acknowledge the other plans and programs within the
planning area that are specific to these type hazards. The plan will fully
assess and rank the risk to the natural hazards of concern and will profile
the other non-natural/human caused hazards of interest.
Next, the discussion shifted to which hazards the plan will include. For the
natural hazards, the plan will assess and rank the following hazards:
•Dam Failure
•Drought
•Earthquake
•Flood
•Landslide
•Severe Weather
•Wildfire
Hazus will be used to model the impacts from the Dam Failure,
Earthquake and Flood hazards. Multiple event scenarios will be modeled
for each of these hazards as follows:
•Dam Failure- Del Valle and san Antonio reservoirs
Meeting Summary
3
Item Action
•Earthquake- a “Haywired”, Greenville, Southern Calaveras,
Mt. Diablo and San Andreas fault scenarios from
shakemaps provided by USGS.
•Flood-10, 100 and 500-year flood events.
For non-natural/human caused hazards, the SC determined that the plan
should profile the following hazards:
•Terrorism-Including Cyber and Agricultural terrorism
•Hazardous Materials- both rail and Highway
•Pipeline hazards (oil and gas, natural gas)
•Oil and Gas mining
•Human Health-including pandemic
•Jails- both County and federal
•Transportation- Airport
Public Involvement Strategy
Rob in formed the SC that the website was up and running. The website
address is: https://www.tri-valley-hmp.com/ . Rob previewed the site
and asked all jurisdictions to link to the site on their individual web sites.
Rob also stated that he would like to get a press release out ASAP to
advertise the planning process and the website. Rob asked the group
who would be good public information offices to work through. Hazel
Weatherford from Dublin recommended their PIO, Lori Taylor, and Stan
Kolodzie from DSRCSD recommended their PIO, Sue Stevenson. It was
recommended by the group that Lori had a well-established network of
PIO’s within the planning area and that she would be able to lead the
coordination of all press releases. Hazel asked Rob if he could provide a
“word” version of the draft press release so that it could be put in to the
proper city format.
Next, Rob presented a draft copy of a hazard mitigation survey that is
currently being used in the Contra Costa County planning effort. Rob
explained to the EC that surveys are a good way to gauge the public’s
perception of risk and will be an integral part of the public engagement
strategy for the Tri-Valley planning effort. As homework, Rob asked for
the SC to review the draft survey and to mark up any changes the SC
would like to see made. The SC will finalize a Tri-Valley survey as an
action item at their May SC meeting
Goal Setting
Rob explained to the SC that it is required under section 201.6 44CFR for
LHMP’s to have a clearly defined set of goals. Rob explained that many
planning efforts expand on this requirement and include a vision or
Planning partners to link to the
LHMP website on their individual
websites
Rob to send copy of “word”
version of the press release to
Hazel
Homework: SC to review draft
survey and be prepared to finalize
a Tri-Valley survey at the next SC
meeting.
Meeting Summary
4
Item Action
mission statement and a set of measurable objectives. While not
required, these planning components can add depth and versatility to a
LHMP. Rob explained that it is Tetra Tech’s recommendation that the
Tri-Valley plan include: a vision/mission statement, goals and objectives.
These would be linear planning components that each would stand on
their own merit and would be selected based upon their ability to
support the upper tier component. So, for example, once a
vision/mission statement was determined, goals would be identified
that define that vision/mission. Then objectives would be identified on
the basis of their ability to support multiple goals. Then actions would be
identified and prioritized based on their ability to meet multiple
objectives. The SC agreed with this approach for the Tri-Valley plan.
Rob provided the SC with a handout that provided 11 example
vision/mission statements from other planning efforts around the
country. The SC was asked to review the statements to identify what
type of vision/mission statement they wanted for the Tri-Valley Plan. It
was determined that there was not sufficient time at this meeting to
confirm a vision/mission statement for the plan, so the SC was given
homework to review and refine recommendations for a vision/mission
statement. It was also suggested that these statements be reviewed for
consistency with to vision/mission statements of the general plans for
the 3 cities. To expedite this process, Rob asked for the SC to provide
their recommendations to Rob via e-mail by close of business, Friday
April 21, 2017.
Rob explained that the next step after confirming a vision/mission
statement would be to identify to goals for the plan. This will be done by
the completion of a goal setting exercise using Survey Monkey, where
the SC will review a catalog of goals statements and each member of the
SC will chose 5 statements they feel should be in the plan. Those goal
statements that receive the most votes will be the basis for the goals
selected for the plan. Rob explained that it is imperative that all SC
members complete the exercise so that the goals selected for
consideration can be based on a quorum consensus.
Rob stated that he would really like to have goals identified for the plan
before the phase 1 public meetings. So to meet this objective, Rob will
SC to provide Rob their
recommendations for
vision/mission statements via e-
mail by Friday April 21, 2017.
Rob to deploy the goal setting
exercise prior to May SC meeting
Meeting Summary
5
Item Action
deploy the goal setting exercise prior to the May SC meeting so that the
goals can be confirmed at that meeting.
Action Items for Next Meeting
Action items identified for the next meeting include the following:
•Confirm hazard mitigation survey
•Confirm vision/mission statement
•Confirm Goals
•Define critical facilities/infrastructure
•Introduce objectives exercise
MEETING SUMMARY
Attachment: Sign-in Sheet
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday – May 16, 2017; 9:00am to 11:00am
Location: Regional Meeting Room, 100 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Steering Committee No.3
Project Name: Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
In Attendance
(See Attachment):
Attendees: Susan Frost, John Richards, Julie Carter, Shweta Bonn, Adam
Weinstein, Stan Kolodzie, Joe Testa, Marla Blagg (phone in), Lincoln
Casimere (phone in)
Phoned in: None
Planning Team: Rob Flaner
Not Present: N/A
Summary Prepared by: Rob Flaner (6/1/2017)
Quorum – Yes or No No
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda
Mr. Rob Flaner opened the meeting and facilitated group
introductions.
There was not sufficient attendance for a quorum.
Distributed handouts included: Agenda; Meeting Summary,
example mission/vision statements, sample critical facility
definitions, goal setting exercise
The agenda was reviewed and no modifications were made.
Approval of meeting summary was tabled until the next meeting
due to lack of a quorum.
There were no members of the public present
Lori Taylor from the City of Dublin is retiring and will need to be
replaced as PIO for this planning effort. It was recommended by
the SC that Lori Dunne from the City of Pleasanton would assume
the role as public information coordinator for this process.
Goal Setting
The confirmation of a vision mission statement for the plan was tabled
at the last meeting for further discussion at this meeting. The SC
reviewed the example statements and recommended the following:
Meeting Summary
2
Item Action
Through community partnerships, establish a plan to reduce the
vulnerability to hazards in order to protect the health, safety, welfare,
environment and economy of the planning area.
Due to the lack of a quorum, confirmation of this mission/vision
statement was tabled until the June meeting.
Prior to the meeting, Rob had sent out a goal setting exercise to the
Committee. Hard copies of the exercise were provided at the meeting.
Rob explained that the purpose of the exercise was to review a catalog
of goal statements. The SC was asked to identify at least 5 of the goal
statements that they feel best support the mission/vision that had been
identified for the plan. Members in attendance that had not completed
the exercise on-line were given time to complete the exercise at the
meeting. Six surveys were completed at the meeting the results of the
survey will be presented at the next meeting with the intent to finalize
the goals for the plan by a quorum vote.
Rob then explained that the next step after goal confirmation would be
to identify a series of objectives that will meet multiple goals. This will
be done by survey in the same context as goal setting.
Public Involvement Strategy
Rob reiterated that the website was up and running and asked if the
individual planning partners had in fact created links to the website. Not
all planning partners had yet established links to the website. Rob ask
that this be confirmed before the next meeting. A press release on the
planning process had been distributed and there was some response to
the release. The “Independent” published a piece on the planning
process on May 4th as did the Dublin Patch on May 18th. Rob stressed
that any and all press coverage of the plan and the process is a good
thing and asked that the SC continue to get the word out.
The proposed hazard survey was reviewed once again by the committee
and additional edits were made. However, due to the lack of a quorum,
the final survey could not be approved. Approval and deployment of the
final survey was tabled until the next meeting in June.
Critical Facilities
Rob explained that one of the principle objectives for the Disaster
Mitigation acts is to make the nation’s critical facilities and
infrastructure more resilient. He explained that it is a principle objective
for hazard mitigation grants to show how a proposed project will benefit
identified critical facilities and infrastructure. The planning requirements
for DMA compliant plans specify that planning efforts “define” what are
Planning team to tabulate goal
setting exercise results for review
at next meeting.
Planning team to revise survey
prior to next SC meeting and
distribute to SC prior to next
meeting for their review.
Meeting Summary
3
Item Action
critical facilities and infrastructure specific to a defined planning area. So
the next step for the SC is to define critical facilities and infra-structure
for the planning area. Rob provided a handout that provided examples
of critical facility/infrastructure definitions from across the country.
Discussion then ensued on variations of the examples that best suited
the Tri-Valley planning area. It was decided that the following definition
would be appropriate for this planning effort:
A Critical Facility is infrastructure or a facility that is critical to the health
and welfare of the population. These become especially important after
any hazard/natural disaster event occurs. For the purposes of the Tri-
Valley Planning Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, Critical Facilities include:
Essential Facilities:
o Medical and Shelter Facilities—Facilities likely to be used as
a sheltering or community assembly location, and structures
likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently
mobile to avoid death or injury during and after a
hazard/natural disaster event including but not limited to:
Hospitals, schools, skilled nursing facilities, board and care
homes, pharmacies, clinics, fairgrounds, community centers,
ambulance services, and veterinary hospitals.
o Emergency Response—Public and private facilities that are
needed for response and recovery activities before, during,
and after a hazard/natural disaster event including but not
limited to: Emergency Operations Centers, public safety
answering points, police stations, fire stations, local, state
and federal resource agencies, and emergency response
staging sites.
o Recovery facilities—debris clearing and disposal, car rentals,
buses, financial institutions, survival and building supplies
o Utilities and Infrastructure—Public and private utility
facilities and essential services that are vital to maintaining
or restoring normal services to impacted areas before,
during, and after a hazard/natural disaster event including
but not limited to: All transportation infrastructure,
municipal water pumps and wells, water treatment plants,
water storage, sewage treatment facilities, lift stations,
water and sewer mainlines, substations, electric power
Meeting Summary
4
Item Action
generating and transmission infrastructure, retail and
wholesale fuel transmission infrastructure and transport and
storage facilities, telecommunications, repeater stations,
radio stations and towers, airport services, standby power-
generating equipment, public works corporation yards and
grocery stores.
Hazardous Facilities:
o Major Dams and Levees
o Risk Management Plan (RMP) Hazmat Sites—Hazmat sites
are structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly
volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive
materials. This includes all RMP Hazmat sites including but
not limited to facilities that use, or store acutely hazardous
materials as defined by California Code of Regulations Title
19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5, Section 2770.5.
o Additional Hazmat Sites—Hazmat sites may additionally
include: Nuclear materials storage sites, wholesale fuel
facilities, hazardous materials yards, industrial facilities .
Once again, this definition could not be approved due to the lack of a
quorum and its approval was tabled until the next meeting.
National Policy Briefing
Rob provide the SC a briefing on some national policy changes that he
had learned about at a national flood conference he attended 2 week
prior to this meeting. These points are summarized as follows:
FMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance program: Due to the continuing
resolution extending the national budget, there will be
congressional appropriations for the Pre-disaster mitigation grant
program (PDM and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grant
programs. PDM has been authorized for $100 million and FMA was
authorized for $175 million. This is good news as both of these
programs had been cut in the President’s proposed budget. This
may be the last time these programs are funded for a while.
Disaster deductible concept for Public Assistance: There is a lot of
political support for a major overhaul of the “Public Assistance (PA)
program. The current model is based on a damage threshold that is
population based. There is a lot of support for a “disaster
deductible” concept that established a deductible for each state that
Meeting Summary
5
Item Action
can be bought down by tracking successful mitigation actions that
have reduced risk. This concept puts a premium on being able to
identify and track successful mitigation projects. This would have a
large impact on states like CA that would have very high deductibles
due to its population.
NFIP reauthorization: Reauthorization of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) is slated for October 2017. The current
administration is very heavily supporting of the concept of
privatizing the NFIP. The NFIP in is current state is significantly
flawed. There are many who feel that these flaws could be corrected
by privatizing the program. But what about the programmatic
aspects of the NFIP? Is the private sector going to monitor
compliance with the programmatic aspects of the NFIP? Are those
programmatic aspects even needed? The answers to these
questions could have a significant impact on the way the nation’s
floodplains and managed.
Moonshots 2023: The Flood Insurance and Mitigation
Administration (a branch of FEMA referred to as FIMA) has a new
mission. It has been termed “Moonshots 2023”. The ultimate goal of
Moonshots 2013 is to double the flood insurance coverage of the
nation by 2023, regardless of who is managing the program. This
program will built upon innovation with 3 cornerstones, explore,
build and finish. It has established very ambitious goals for flood risk
management and mitigation as a whole over the next 6 years.
Action Items for Next Meeting
Action items identified for the next meeting include the following:
Approve Mission/Vision
Approve Goals
Approve Critical Facilities definition
Approve final survey
Introduce objectives exercise
Set round 1 public meeting schedule
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Attachment: Sign-in Sheet
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday – June 13, 2017; 9:00am to 11:00am
Location: Regional Meeting Room, 100 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Steering Committee No. 4
Project Name: Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
In Attendance:
(See Attachment):
Shweta Bonn, Susan Frost, Cary Fukada, Tracy Hein, Stan Kolodzie, John
Richards, Adam Weinstein, Hazel Wetherford
Phoned in: None
Planning Team: Rob Flaner, Tommie Jean Valmassy
Summary Prepared by: Tommie Jean Valmassy
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda
Rob Flaner opened the meeting and facilitated group introductions.
There were not enough steering committee members present for a
quorum.
Distributed handouts included: Agenda, Meeting Summary #3, Risk
Assessment Data Dictionary for Spatial Analysis, Goal Exercise Results,
Draft Community Survey.
The agenda was reviewed and no modifications were made.
Planning Process
There was not sufficient attendance for a quorum. There have been several
meetings without a quorum, preventing approval and progress on project
milestones. Mr. Flaner said the quorum was established as 50% of planning
members plus 1, which means 10 attendees are needed for a quorum. This
is the fourth meeting and some members have yet to attend. It was
determined that the quorum should be 50% plus 1 jurisdictional member.
There are four jurisdictions, so a quorum is now three of the four
jurisdictions. Based on the change, there is now a quorum for the meeting.
Since a quorum was established, the group provided some minor edits to
the notes from Meeting No. 3, and approved them as final pending
incorporation of edits.
New Quorum is set at three.
Update and finalize the notes
from meeting No. 3.
Meeting Summary
2
Item Action
Once a quorum was established, the group voted to approve the Mission
and Vision statements, as presented in the notes from meeting No. 3.
Risk Assessment Update
Mr. Flaner reviewed the Risk Assessment Data Dictionary for Spatial
Analysis. This includes a description and data source for general building
stock, critical facilities, flood, earthquake, landslide, dam and reservoir
failure, wildfire, demographics, and current/future land use.
The costs associated with hazards will be costs to repair or replace, not a
current assessed value. There is a formula that includes square footage and
occupancy, and factors in anticipated down time for a building or structure.
Mr. Flaner said the risk assessment will include five different earthquake
scenarios because fault and magnitude variances will make a difference in
risk.
For wildfire scenarios, Tetra Tech is using Cal Fire Fire and Resource
Assessment Program (FRAP) data, which is limited because it focuses on
resource planning areas. Mr. Flaner asked Tracy Hein if she is aware of a
community wildfire protection plan (CWPP). Ms. Hein is not aware of one
but will ask.
In relation to flood data, FEMA tracks repetitive losses. A repetitive loss is a
property with two or more losses worth over $1,000 since 1978. Because
the Tri-Valley does not have a lot of flood issues, there likely are not
repetitive loss properties.
For landslides, Tetra Tech will use data from the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), unless any communities have their own landslide
data.
Demographic data will be gathered through the American Community
Survey (ACS). The U.S. Census Bureau only completes a full census every ten
years, so the most recent data is 2010. Tetra Tech will use ACS data because
it is more recent.
Mr. Flaner said Buildable Lands is vacant land that, based on zoning, could
be built. He asked if any of the Tri-Valley planning departments have
Mission and Vision are
approved for the plan. A clean
copy will be provided to the
group.
Tracy Hein will find out if there
is a CWPP
If your jurisdiction has landslide
data provide it to Mr. Flaner.
Meeting Summary
3
Item Action
buildable lands data. Vacant land is also easy to define. More ambiguous is
“underutilized land.” Mr. Flaner said Tetra Tech needs whatever data is
available, but will not do an analysis to confirm the correct category of land.
Goal Setting
See handout for the top ten goals, established based on steering committee
members completing a survey. Typically plans have five to seven goals. The
team went through the goals and created the following final list:
1.) Ensure that hazards are identified and considered in land use decisions.
2.) Improve local emergency management capability.
3.) Promote community awareness, understanding, and interest in hazard
mitigation policies and programs.
4.) Incorporate hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy and
standard practice.
5.) Reduce community exposure and vulnerability to hazards where the
greatest risk exists.
6.) Increase resilience of infrastructure and critical facilities.
7.) Promote an adaptive and resilient planning area that responds
proactively to future conditions.
8.) Develop and implement mitigation strategies that identify the best
alternative to protect natural resources, promote equity, and use public
funds in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Critical Facilities
A definition was prepared during the May meeting. The team reviewed the
text and made minor adjustments. The definition was approved.
Mr. Flaner shared a copy of the HAZUS hazard zone data. This is default data
and not accurate. He will email the spreadsheet to the committee and needs
responses with updated information about hazard zones. This data will be
combined with the critical facilities inventory so the plan can focus on
critical facilities within hazard zones.
Public Involvement Strategy
Mr. Flaner provided a draft community survey. This is a key element in FEMA
required public involvement. Surveys should be completed before phase I
outreach meetings are held later this summer.
Goals are approved as final and
will be included in the plan.
The definition for critical
facilities was approved as final
pending incorporation of minor
edits, and will be included in
the plan.
Meeting Summary
4
Item Action
The team reviewed the survey and provided minor edits. Mr. Flaner will
finalize the survey today and distribute a weblink to the steering committee.
It is important that the group get as many survey responses as possible. Each
city and agency should share the link through all of their social network
accounts and share with anyone they know who lives or works in the Tri-
Valley.
Other public involvement will include meetings or workshops. If there are
established meetings taking place in late July or early August, it will be
beneficial to get on their docket or agenda.
Next Steps
The next meeting will be Tuesday, July 11, 2017. The meeting was adjourned
at 11:00 a.m.
Mr. Flaner will email a link to
the final community survey.
All cities and agencies should
share the survey with the
community as broadly as
possible, as soon as possible.
Identify opportunities to hold a
workshop in conjunction with
an established meeting, or get
on the agenda of an
established meeting. Report
back at the July steering
committee meeting.
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Attachment: Sign-in Sheet
MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday – July 11, 2017; 9:00am to 11:00am
Location: Dublin Public Library Program Room, 200 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Steering Committee No. 5
Project Name: Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
In Attendance:
(See Attachment):
Shweta Bonn, Brian Fritz, Cary Fukada, Stan Kolodzie, John Richards, Joe
Testa, Adam Weinstein, Hazel Wetherford
Phoned in: Lincoln Casimere
Planning Team: Rob Flaner, Tommie Jean Valmassy
Summary Prepared by: Tommie Jean Valmassy
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda
Rob Flaner opened the meeting and facilitated group introductions.
Distributed handouts included: Agenda; Meeting Summary #4;
Objectives Exercise Results; Risk Rankings for floods, wildfires, and
landslides; and Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex.
The agenda was reviewed and no modifications were made.
Planning Process
Notes from meeting #4 were approved pending incorporation of comments
provided prior to this meeting by Ms. Wetherford.
Risk Assessment Update
Mr. Flaner presented the risk data for risks including 100 year flood, 500
year flood, wildfire, and landslides. The earthquake risk data are still being
run. A new “shake map” from the US Geological Survey was recently made
available, so that will be used to run scenarios for five scenarios, including
the Hayward fault. This risk data will be used to rank risk hazards in each
jurisdiction. Mr. Flaner said risk is a calculation of probability multiplied by
impact. This data estimates the impact to people and the economy.
Update and finalize the notes
from meeting No. 4.
Ms. Valmassy will email the
spreadsheet with full risk data
to the planning committee.
Meeting Summary
2
Item Action
It was noted the flood data does not include dam failure scenarios, and is
based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain
areas.
Mr. Flanner said wildfire hazard data will need to be updated. For example,
Tilden Park is a park so it is not included in the Fire Resources and
Assessment Program (FRAP) data. However, wildland urban interface (WUI)
can be added to FRAP data to ensure such areas are considered.
Mr. Flaner said there are no standards for landslide risk, so that is difficult
to map and model. There can be some significant possible impacts from
landslides, so he will likely recommend including actions related to that
hazard in the hazard mitigation plan.
Objective Setting
Mr. Flaner presented the results of the survey about objectives. He noted
only five people took the survey. Meeting attendees went through the draft
list of objectives. They were removed, combined, and reduced to a final list
of 12 objectives. The updated list was emailed to the steering committee
during the meeting, and will be voted on during the August meeting.
Jurisdictional Annex Process
An email was sent with the template for the jurisdictional annex section of
the plan. Please review the instructions and complete the section for your
jurisdiction.
Public Involvement Strategy
To-date, 211 surveys have been completed, primarily from Pleasanton
residents. There is currently no end date for the survey. The goal is to gather
as many completed surveys as possible before the team starts preparing
their plans. The team requested Mr. Flaner resend the link for the survey so
they can share it on social media outlets. The Tetra Tech team will be at the
Dublin Farmer’s Market on July 27 to conduct outreach and encourage
participation in the survey. A press release about the plan and the public
survey should be issued. Mr. Flaner will coordinate that with Tracy Hein.
Cary Fukada suggested Tetra Tech attend the First Wednesday event in
Pleasanton. His Community Emergency Response Team (C.E.R.T.) has a table
with space that can be made available.
Review the updated objectives
list and be prepared to vote on
it at the next meeting.
Complete the jurisdictional
template that was emailed on
July 11, 2017. Send completed
form to Mr. Flaner.
Mr. Flaner will re-send the
public survey link. Committee
members will share it broadly.
Meeting Summary
3
Item Action
Plan Maintenance Schedule
Progress reporting is not required, however, you will received credit for
conducting progress reports during your next required update of the hazard
mitigation plan. Mr. Flanner said many jurisdictions conduct annual
updates, while others conduct mid-term updates, typically during year three
of the plan.
Mr. Flaner said updates can include reviewing the action list and making
updates on a website or to a city council about what has been accomplished.
The benefits to updating the plan including identifying grant opportunities
while conducting the update, keeping communication open between
various jurisdictions, making the mandatory 5-year full updates easier, and
keeping the play dynamic.
Committee members said annual progress reports are not feasible for their
resources, but mid-term updates make sense. Mr. Flaner will write the plan
maintenance strategy to include a mid-term update.
Next Steps
The next meeting will be Tuesday, August 8, 2017. The meeting was
adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
MEETING SUMMARY
Attachment: Sign-in Sheet
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday – August 8, 2017; 9:00am to 11:00am
Location: Dublin Public Library Program Room, 200 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Steering Committee No. 6
Project Name: Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
In Attendance:
Colter Andersen, Shweta Bonn, Brian Fritz, Cary Fukada, Tracy Hein, Stan
Kolodzie, Steve Riley, Joe Testa, Adam Weinstein, Hazel Wetherford
Phoned in: Caryn Thornburg, Stanford Health Care
Planning Team: Rob Flaner, Tommie Jean Valmassy
Summary Prepared by: Tommie Jean Valmassy
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda
Rob Flaner opened the meeting and facilitated group introductions.
Distributed handouts included: Agenda; Meeting Summary #5; Risk
Assessment Update; Plan Maintenance Strategy; Instructions for
Completing Municipality Annex and District Annex; Loss matrix.
The agenda was reviewed and no modifications were made.
Planning Process
Approval of notes from meeting #5 was postponed until the next meeting.
The objectives for the plan were sent out after the previous meeting, and
there was no further input. The committee voted to approve the
objectives as final.
Risk Assessment Update
Mr. Flaner said the risk assessment is complete. For the earthquake data,
results are presented as an aggregate. The full spreadsheet was emailed
to the steering committee, and each fault has a separate tab so you can
view each scenario separately. The information for all of the risks will be
put into a risk ranking model, and presented in the hazard mitigation plan
Meeting Summary
2
Item Action
by ranking. This will help you focus on developing actions to mitigate the
hazards that pose the greatest risk to your city or district. Mr. Flaner said
many actions in the plan will be multi-objective, meaning they address
multiple risk scenarios. Theoretically, when the plan is updated in five
years, the risks should be lower because of mitigation activities.
Cary Fukada (citizen) asked if it is possible to make future improvements
to the model that is used for the risk ranking. Mr. Flaner said his team will
give the model to someone selected by the steering committee and show
them how to use it. Mr. Flaner said the plan must be dynamic to capture
actions taken. FEMA will move to a system where you can buy-down your
deductible for FEMA funding by quantifying the impact of your actions. All
FEMA-approved actions must include a cost/benefit analysis, and the
benefit must outweigh the cost.
Draft Plan Maintenance Strategy
Mr. Flaner presented a draft of the plan maintenance strategy, to be
included in the hazard mitigation plan, based on the discussion at the last
steering committee meeting. He noted that Pleasanton and Livermore are
part of the “Community Ready” system, which requires annual progress
reporting. So regardless of what is in this hazard mitigation plan, they
must complete annual progress reports. However, for this plan, the
steering committee agreed to mid-term progress reporting. What is
currently missing is language about who will coordinate the mid-term
progress reporting. After some discussion, it was agreed that the
Livermore/Pleasanton Fire District will be responsible for initiating the
progress report. However, actually completing the report will be the
responsibility of the partners. A progress report template will be included
in the plan. Other events may trigger an update of the plan, such as a large
disaster. Those will also be noted in the plan.
The progress reports are reviewed by the state and by FEMA. One
requirement of the plan is ongoing public involvement. A mechanism to
meet that requirement is to talk about the plan with your city council.
Include the plan on the city council agenda so the public is aware of the
topic, and provide updates on progress during your meetings.
Another way to include public outreach is maintaining and updating the
website that has been created for this project. After some discussion,
Adam Weinstein said the City of Pleasanton will coordinate the website.
Complete the jurisdictional
template that was emailed on
July 11, 2017. Send completed
form to Mr. Flaner.
Mr. Flaner will re-send the
public survey link. Committee
members will share it broadly.
Review your capital
improvement plans. If any of
the projects mitigate risks
identified in this plan, make
sure to include them in the
action list.
The plan maintenance
strategy will be finalized and
included in the hazard
mitigation plan.
Meeting Summary
3
Item Action
There were some other minor edits to the plan maintenance strategy, and
it was approved pending incorporation of those updates and edits.
Mr. Flaner noted FEMA provides disaster funding for pre-disaster actions
as well as post-disaster actions. The purpose of the plan is pre-disaster
actions to mitigate a disaster before it happens. Your capital improvement
plans (CIP) are likely already funded. However, they should be included in
the plan because they may mitigate risks we have identified. If a CIP
repairs something that is vulnerable, make sure you include it in your
action list. You will be completing some actions even if you do not receive
a FEMA grant for them. But you should still track them as part of the plan,
because they are mitigating risk.
For post-disaster actions, the event does not necessarily have to have
directly impacted your area. If an event has impacted the state, then you
may be able to receive funding. California has declared a disaster for the
past eleven years running. Each of those declarations comes with funding
for the state.
Jurisdictional Annex Process
The hazard mitigation plan will be two volumes. Volume I is applicable to
all of the partners. Volume II is separated into sections for each
jurisdiction. It is the individual risk rankings, assessment of core
capabilities, and actions. The instructions for preparing Volume II were
distributed at this meeting. When you are preparing your section of
Volume II, do NOT do it alone! Work with other departments, carefully
read the instructions, and reach out to the Tetra Tech contact provide on
the instructions, Kristin Gelino, with any questions you have.
Mr. Flaner noted that to be eligible for a FEMA grant, you must be
compliant with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If your flood
prevention code is older than 2004, you are likely not in compliance. Work
with your planning department to get this information. Updating your
flood prevention code may be one of the key actions you include in this
plan.
Public Involvement Strategy
To date, 413 surveys have been completed: 119 for Dublin; 27 for
Livermore; 267 for Pleasanton. Push it out on social media as much as
possible. The goal is to have a total of at least 1,000 surveys completed.
The link is: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Tri-ValleyHMP
Complete your jurisdictional
annex for Volume II. Work
with as many departments as
possible to ensure good
information, staff familiarity
with the plan, and ease the
workload.
Share the survey via social
media. Encourage co-workers,
family, and friends in your
Meeting Summary
4
Item Action
The Tetra Tech team was at the Dublin Farmer’s Market on July 27 to
conduct outreach and encourage participation in the survey. A HAZUS
station to run earthquake risk was run for individuals who provided their
address. The team ran approximately 13 HAZUS reports and handed out
information the on survey to 93 people. Mr. Flaner said his team may be
able to attend another event between now and the end of September.
The event would ideally have a power source so a HAZUS station could be
run. Ideas offered included the Livermore Farmer’s Market or a station at
the library; the Pleasanton Farmer’s Market, the Dublin Splatter event,
and the Pleasanton Fire Expo (held in October). Mr. Flaner will work to
confirm two of the events for his team.
Next Steps
The committee needs to determine how this plan falls under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Several planning partners said they
prefer categorical exemption. Mr. Flaner said that is what he would
recommend, as well. Partners should confer with the CEQA decision-
makers in their jurisdiction and confirm categorical exemption is
acceptable.
The timeline includes plan submittal by the end of October; public
comment needs to begin in early October. It should be taken to the city
councils for approval AFTER it is conditionally approved by FEMA. Share
information with your city council in advance; do whatever leg work is
necessary now to make approval easy.
The next meeting will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
obstacles (SWOO) analysis. Invite your planning and public works
department representatives, or anyone else who can help with the SWOO
brainstorming. The meeting will be Tuesday, September 12, 2017.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
jurisdiction to complete it as
well.
The Tetra Tech team will work
to support outreach at two
additional community events
before the end of September.
Discuss CEQA categorical
exemption with your decision-
makers and let Mr. Flaner
know if that is acceptable for
this hazard mitigation plan.
Discuss the plan with your city
council now so they know
what to expect and can easily
approve it.
Invite other departments to
the next steering committee
meeting to help brainstorm
strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, obstacles.
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Attachment: Sign-in Sheet
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday – September 12, 2017; 9:00am to 11:00am
Location: Dublin Civic Center Regional Meeting Room, 200 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Steering Committee No. 7
Project Name: Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
In Attendance:
Martha Battaglia, Shweta Bonn, Susan Frost, Cary Fukada, Pamela Lung,
John Richards, Cheri Sheets, Joe Testa, Caryn Thornburg, Adam Weinstein,
Hazel Wetherford, Shannon Young
Planning Team: Rob Flaner, Tommie Jean Valmassy
Summary Prepared by: Tommie Jean Valmassy
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda
Rob Flaner opened the meeting and facilitated group introductions.
Distributed handouts included: Agenda; Meeting Summary #6.
The agenda was reviewed and no modifications were made.
There were no public comments.
Planning Process
Meeting notes from meeting #5 and meeting #6 were approved as final.
Risk Assessment Update
Mr. Flaner said his team is still compiling the critical facilities data.
Technical difficulties require the team to re-run the facility hazards data
for multiple scenarios. Mr. Flaner will email it, but noted it is protected
information and is confidential and for internal use only.
Cary Fukada (citizen) asked about the capability to update information in
the future. Mr. Flaner said projects in the plan require a benefit/cost
analysis (BCA) that can include things like avoiding lost time. Because the
BCA has to be done using FEMA’s software, it requires expertise to ensure
your project shows a benefit. Mr. Flaner noted that Contra Costa County
has several individuals trained to do BCA with FEMA software, and they
support the entire county. It may be advisable to do the same in the Tri-
Valley. Mr. Flaner added that the state of California may provide BCA
Minutes for meetings #5 and
#6 will be finalized.
Mr. Flaner will email the
updated risk assessment data,
which should be kept
confidential, when it is
available.
Meeting Summary
2
Item Action
assistances, and BCA preparation costs are often reimbursable when
applying for a grant.
Mr. Flaner noted that new information about risk and vulnerability can be
added to the plan via plan maintenance. For example, the FEMA flood
maps are outdated, but they were the best available data at the time.
Zone 7 is paying to have maps updated, but they will not be ready for use
in this plan.
Jurisdictional Annex Process
While all three cities participating in the plan have provided their
information for Volume II, Tetra Tech has not received any updates from
the districts. Please reach out to Kristin Gelino (Tetra Tech, not present) if
you have questions about how to complete the information. Mr. Flaner
noted the information that is being requested and the comments Tetra
Tech provides are based on recent FEMA reviews. He added that their
reviews can be inconsistent, so Mr. Flaner’s team are doing their best to
address everything to avoid numerous FEMA comments on the draft
hazard mitigation plan.
Public Involvement Strategy
Tommie Jean Valmassy (Tetra Tech) will attend the Pleasanton and
Livermore Farmer’s markets in September. She will host a Hazus station,
which is a FEMA program that estimates potential losses from
earthquakes, floods, and other disasters. In addition, the community will
be encouraged to take the public survey.
To date, 472 surveys have been completed. The goal is to have a total of
at least 1,000 surveys completed. The survey will be available through the
public comment period on the draft plan, and the survey link is:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Tri-ValleyHMP
Strengths, Weaknesses, Obstacles, Opportunities (SWOO)
The committee discussed and prepared a SWOO list. The list will be
presented in the hazard mitigation plan under mitigation actions.
Next Steps
The meeting will be Tuesday, October 10, 2017.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Livermore will share its draft
updated flood map
information when it is
available.
Continue to share the survey
via social media. Encourage
co-workers, family, and
friends in your jurisdiction to
complete it as well.
Meeting Summary
3
Item Action
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday – October 10, 2017; 9:00am to 11:00am
Location: Dublin Civic Center Regional Meeting Room, 200 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Steering Committee No. 8
Project Name: Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
In Attendance:
Shweta Bonn, Susan Frost, Cary Fukada, Obaird Khan, Stan Kolodzie, John
Richards, Cheri Sheets, Joe Testa, Caryn Thornburg, Adam Weinstein, Hazel
Wetherford, Shannon Young
Planning Team: Rob Flaner, Tommie Jean Valmassy
Summary Prepared by: Tommie Jean Valmassy
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda
Hazel Wetherford called the meeting to order and initiated group
introductions.
Distributed handouts included: Agenda; Meeting Summary #7,
Mitigation Best Practices Catalog, Risk Ranking Results, and Survey
Results Data.
The agenda was reviewed and no modifications were made.
There were no public comments.
Planning Process
Meeting notes from meeting #7 were approved as final.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Obstacles, Opportunities (SWOO)
Rob Flaner reviewed the Mitigation Best Practices Catalog, which contains
the SWOO results from the previous steering committee meeting. This
catalog will be presented in Chapter 18 of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. If
you identify a risk and need an action to address it, look at the SWOO list.
It is organized by who can take the action (government, private sector,
individuals.) This list provides broad-scale actions that can be taken; you
can make them more specific for your plan.
Minutes for meeting #7 will be
finalized and put on the
website.
Review the SWOO list and
contact Mr. Flaner if you have
additions.
Meeting Summary
2
Item Action
Jurisdictional Annex Process
It is time to begin phase 3. You need to have completed phases 1 and 2.
Kristin Gelino (Tetra Tech) will send you your phase 3 template, and it will
include all of the information you provided for phases 1 and 2. Please
address any yellow highlighted items. The level of detail that Mr. Flaner
and his team request from you is based on direct experience trying to get
other plans approved by the state of California and by FEMA. There are
embedded comments in the Word file you will get that instruct that you
MUST add information, or you SHOULD add information. If you must, it is
required by the state or FEMA. If it is suggested, please try. Use the
comment box to let Mr. Flaner and his team know if you addressed a
comment.
Mr. Flaner reviewed the phase 3 template for jurisdictions and for
municipalities. The instructions are long, but will answer most questions
so review them thoroughly before you reach out for help. However,
definitely reach out for help if you are having difficulties.
Some specific details to include:
For hazard event history, you will have to do some investigating.
Google the local newspaper to find out dates and impact of events.
If you had to close a road or respond in any way to an event, that
was an impact.
Do NOT send back an empty Natural Events table.
If you had an active fire season do not list the date of each fire. You
can do a calendar year line item, such as 13 fires in 2014.
Damage assessment is an optional field, but if you can complete it,
please do. You should have numbers for recent events that were
declared.
Mr. Flaner reviewed the risk ranking portion of the hazard mitigation plan.
The ranking uses a formula defined by FEMA and includes quantitative
data. The highest possible risk is 54. The data is weighted, such that risk
to people and life safety is multiplied by a factor of 3. If you have evidence
that an event has happened more frequently than is modeled here, then
you can change the risk. However, you need to note why you changed the
risk and be prepared to show backup.
Sometimes events in other jurisdictions can cause impact to you. For
example, if a dam fails, that could cause flooding. However, if the dam is
not in your area, you cannot show risk from dams. You can show potential
flooding or landslides as a risk if that is relevant.
Complete Phase 3 when you
receive it. Use the full
instructions and toolkit
provided and see the tips in
these notes. Start right away
and identify those who will
help you with different
sections and input. This must
be a team effort for your
city/jurisdiction.
Meeting Summary
3
Item Action
Mr. Flaner reviewed the Mitigation Action Plan portion of the document.
For any risk that is ranked as medium or high, you must show at least 1
action and list what hazards it addresses. DO NOT COMPLETE THIS ALONE.
Use your planners, police and fire, public works, and even reach out to
citizens and homeowners groups if applicable. Keep track of all of your
resources and information sources.
Public Involvement Strategy
Since the last meeting, Tommie Jean Valmassy (Tetra Tech) attended two
public events:
9/16 Pleasanton Farmers Market: Ran 40 Hazus Reports, Handed
out 85 survey flyers
9/21 Livermore Farmers Market: Ran 35 Hazus Reports, Handed out
45 survey flyers
Start comment period Monday, November 27 at the latest. That will allow
for submittal to the state by December 15. Comment period would end
December 8. There will be 2 public meetings during that time. ACTION:
Check your council meeting dates. Susan Frost and Stan Kolodzie each said
they may be able to get a plan presentation on their agendas.
Mr. Flaner handed out the survey results. These will be included in the
plan.
Volume 1 Internal Draft Review
Volume 1 of the plan will be ready for internal review on October 20,
2017. Please review it by November 14. It is almost 400 pages long, so
review the parts you are most interested in. Many of the sections you
have already seen because they have been crafted and shared at these
steering committee meetings. You will receive a Word file so you can
easily review and track changes. This one will not include maps.
Next Steps
The next meeting will be Tuesday, November 14, 2017. This is Ms.
Wetherford’s last meeting before she is on maternity leave. The
committee thanked her for her hard work. She will have a replacement
attending meetings in her absence.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
Assess the status of your
phase 3 document by
November 3, 2017. Report to
Mr. Flaner how far you are
and how you will complete it
by November 17, 2017.
Check your council meeting
dates to see if there will be a
meeting between November
27 and December 8.
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday – November 14, 2017; 9:00am to 11:00am
Location: Dublin Civic Center Regional Meeting Room, 200 Civic Dr., Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Steering Committee No. 8
Project Name: Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
In Attendance:
Shweta Bonn, Julie Carter, Susan Frost, Cary Fukada, Joe Testa, Caryn
Thornburg,
Planning Team: Rob Flaner, Tommie Jean Valmassy
Summary Prepared by: Tommie Jean Valmassy
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions, Review Agenda
Julie Carter called the meeting to order and initiated group
introductions.
Distributed handouts included: Agenda; Meeting Summary #8, and
the template for the Area-Wide Action Plan and Implementation.
The agenda was reviewed and no modifications were made.
There were no public comments.
Meeting notes from meeting #8 were approved as final.
Planning Process
Rob Flaner said the deadline for participants to submit Phase III for
incorporation into the Hazard Mitigation Plan is this Friday, November 17.
He noted several districts, including two school districts, submitted letters
of intent to participate, but have yet to turn in phase I or phase II. Mr.
Flaner has reached out to designated contacts, but has had no response.
If someone does not turn in their sections, the steering committee will
have to decide whether to move forward without them. It was agreed that
if those districts do not submit their portions of the plan on time, the
group will move forward without them to avoid unnecessary delay in the
process.
Minutes for meeting #8 will be
finalized and put on the
website.
Review the SWOO list and
contact Mr. Flaner if you have
additions.
Meeting Summary
2
Item Action
When preparing actions a debris management plan is a great action and
is applicable to most hazards. Consider adding this to your action plan if
you do not already have it included. Talk to your public works
department about their plans; roads, bridges, stormwater projects are
all eligible. With the recent wildfires, it is worth considering projects
related to that as well.
Volume I Review
Rob Flaner said Volume I was delivered for review via Dropbox. There are
two files; one is in Microsoft Word, and reviewers should provide edits in
track changes, then save the file with your last name at the end. The
second file is a PDF and includes figures. It was noted that some of the
figures in Volume I are incomplete. They will be updated and resent for
review. Any comments must be sent by November 24.
Area Wide Actions
Mr. Flaner provide a template of area-wide actions from another
jurisdiction. The committee used those to determine the following area-
wide actions summarized below.
1. Maintain a project website. [To be hosted by City of Pleasanton on
the Wix platform.]
2. Support Livermore/Pleasanton Community Emergency Response
Team (C.E.R.T.)
3. Coordinate mitigation planning, and designation a point of contact
(POC) for each partner.
4. [Item 4 in the template will not be part of the Tri-Valley area-wide
actions because it is in the individual action plans.]
5. Continue to update hazard mapping. Designate a POC for each
partner.
6. Coordinate on hazard mitigation planning. The team would like to list
Alameda County Office of Emergency Services (OES) as the lead for
this action. Ms. Carter will ask their permission.
7. Maintain this steering committee outside of plan maintenance.
8. Create an action that each jurisdiction will coordinate and share
information as the plan is being prepared. Can give you a regionalized
concept that can be deployed individually.
Public Involvement Strategy
The public survey is still open, but there have been no additional
responses since the last meeting.
Incomplete Volume I figures
will be updated and resent for
review.
Submit comments on Volume
1 no later than November 24.
Mr. Flaner will determine the
final public comment period
on the draft Hazard Mitigation
Plan once the status of phase
III submittals is assessed.
Julie Carter will ask Alameda
County OES to be the lead on
coordinating hazard mitigation
efforts between jurisdictions.
Meeting Summary
3
Item Action
Mr. Flaner reviewed the timeline, which is to begin the public comment
period Monday, November 27 at the latest. That will allow for submittal
to the state by December 15. Comment period would end December 8.
There will be 2 public meetings during that time. If participants need
more time to complete their phase III submittals, those dates may slip. It
was determined that everyone will submit what they have on November
17, and Mr. Flaner will determine whether it is adequate for state
approval, or if the deadline needs to be extended in order to gather more
information.
Susan Frost said she has presentation of the plan on her City Council
meeting for December 11. If the dates for public comment period slips,
presenting to her council may not be possible within an adjusted public
comment period. For any meeting, Mr. Flaner will provide a PowerPoint
presentation and talking points.
Next Steps
Mr. Flaner said this is the final scheduled Steering Committee meeting.
This Hazard Mitigation Plan will be regionalized and specific, and a useful
document. He thanked all of the members for their participation and
cooperation, and noted his team will continue to work with them until the
plan reaches final state and FEMA approval. Please reach out to the team
with any questions.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
A-4
PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARIES
PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT BUILDING
DEC. 22, 2017 6:00 – 7:00 PM
1 Comment was received and is summarized below:
Respondent was Mike Grant of Dublin CA
This Tri-Valley resident was concerned that the Plan did not list the Nielsen Elementary School at 7500
Amarillo Blvd. as a post-disaster shelter. He suggested that the Nielsen Elementary School be retrofit to
strengthen the structure for post-disaster shelter. This resident said he was involved in task forces doing
post-disaster planning for human-caused disasters throughout Alameda County. The gentleman also
asked which agency was responsible for the prevention of floods from the creek through Dublin.
Rob Flaner of Tetratech responded that the LHMP is a pre-disaster mitigation tool that identifies risk
from natural disasters; and reduces losses in property damage and human lives through identifying and
funding projects to correct deficiencies before natural disasters. As such, listing post-disaster
emergency shelters is somewhat outside the boundaries of the LHMP. However, the suggestion to use
Nielsen Elementary School as a post-disaster emergency shelter will be included in the public comments.
In response to the question which agency responsible for flood protection in Dublin; Zone 7 Water
Agency of Alameda County is responsible for maintaining the stream beds and stream banks in Dublin to
prevent floods.
Livermore City Council, January 8, 2017 regular meeting.
Agenda Item 6.01. Discussion and Direction regarding the update to the 2017 Tri-Valley Hazard
Mitigation Plan
There we about 20 members of the public present.
Susan Frost, Special Projects Coordinator, gave a presentation on the draft 2017 TVHMP. There were no
questions from the Council regarding the draft plan. The Council commented that we should be
encouraging other agencies in the planning area, such as the school district and park district, to
participate in the plan since it provides greater opportunities for coordination and grant eligibility. This
is important given the damage the City experienced from flooding last winter of almost $12 million.
However, there are fewer FEMA grant opportunities than previously. The information provided in
Volume 1, Planning Process and Community Profile, provides a lot of interesting and useful information
about the area.
No comments were received from the public.
Motion to accept the 2017 Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan by Councilmember Carling, seconded by
Councilmember Spedowfski, approved 5-0.
A. Public Outreach Materials
A-5
ARTICLES PUBLISHED BASED ON PRESS RELEASES
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements
A-6
A. Public Outreach Materials
A-7
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix B. Risk Assessment Mapping
Methodology
B-1
B. RISK ASSESSMENT MAPPING METHODOLOGY
DAM INUNDATION MAPPING
The Del Valle dam inundation area data are provided by the City of Pleasanton, GIS Division. These data
originate from the California Office of Emergency Services.
EARTHQUAKE MAPPING
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Liquefaction susceptibility data are provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments and originate from the
U.S. Geological Survey as Open-File Report 2006-1037. The report presents a map and database of Quaternary
deposits and liquefaction susceptibility for the urban core of the San Francisco Bay region. Much of the land
adjacent to the Bay and the major rivers and streams is underlain by unconsolidated deposits that are particularly
vulnerable to earthquake shaking and liquefaction of water-saturated granular sediment. The mapping uses
geomorphic expression, pedogenic soils, inferred depositional environments, and geologic age to define and
distinguish the map units. The report is the product of cooperative work by the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) and National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological
Survey, William Lettis and & Associates, Inc. (WLA), and the California Geological Survey. (USGS, 2006)
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soils
Soil classification data provided by the California Department of Conservation. The data is based on surficial
geology published at a scale of 1:250,000. The surficial geologic units were grouped into composite units with
similar average shear wave velocity to 30 meters depth (Vs30) values. This data was prepared as part of the
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map of California (Petersen et. al., 1999)
Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides
Landslide susceptibility data provided by the California Geological Survey.
The map, and associated data, show the relative likelihood of deep-seated landsliding based on regional estimates
of rock strength and steepness of slopes. On the most basic level, weak rocks and steep slopes are most likely to
generate landslides. The map uses detailed information on the location of past landslides, the location and relative
strength of rock units, and steepness of slope to estimate susceptibility to deep-seated landsliding (0 to X, low to
high). The USGS 2009 National Elevation Dataset (NED) with 10-m grid size was used as the basemap. This
landslide susceptibility map is intended to provide infrastructure owners, emergency planners and the public with
a general overview of where landslides are more likely to occur. (Wills, et. al., 2011)
Shake Maps
A shake map is designed as a rapid response tool to portray the extent and variation of ground shaking throughout
the affected region immediately following significant earthquakes. Ground motion and intensity maps are derived
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
B-2
from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors (accelerometers), with interpolation based on
both estimated amplitudes where data are lacking, and site amplification corrections. Color-coded instrumental
intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli
intensity. For this plan, shake maps were prepared for five earthquake scenarios:
An earthquake on the Calaveras (North Central South) fault with the following characteristics:
Magnitude: 7.0
Epicenter: N37.74 W121.95
Depth: 6 km
An earthquake on the Northern San Andreas fault with the following characteristics:
Magnitude: 7.8
Epicenter: N39.16 W123.83
Depth: 10 km
An earthquake on the Greenville fault with the following characteristics:
Magnitude: 7.0
Epicenter: N37.51 W121.55
Depth: 12 km
An earthquake on the Hayward fault with the following characteristics:
Magnitude: 7.05
Epicenter: N37.81 W122.18
Depth: 8 km
An earthquake on the Mount Diablo fault with the following characteristics:
Magnitude: 6.7
Epicenter: N37.82 W121.81
Depth: 14 km
FLOOD MAPPING
Flood hazard areas are mapped as depicted on the effective FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps published
March 8th, 2016 (effective date August 3rd, 2009) with last Letter of Map Revision incorporated December 11,
2015. There were no repetitive loss claims for the Tri-Valley area, so no data were acquired.
LANDSLIDE MAPPING
See Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides data description under earthquake mapping.
WILDFIRE MAPPING
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas data were provided by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection. Public Resources Code 4201-4204 direct the CAL FIRE to map fire hazard within
State Responsibility Areas, based on relevant factors such as fuels, terrain, and weather. These statutes were
passed after significant wildland-urban interface fires; consequently these hazards are described according to their
potential for causing ignitions to buildings. These zones referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones(FHSZ),
B. Risk Assessment Mapping Methodology
B-3
provide the basis for application of various mitigation strategies to reduce risks to buildings associated with
wildland fires. The zones also relate to the requirements for building codes designed to reduce the ignition
potential to buildings in the wildland-urban interface zones. These maps have been created by CAL FIRE's Fire
and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) using data and models describing development patterns, estimated
fire behavior characteristics based on potential fuels over a 30-50 year time horizon, and expected burn
probabilities to quantify the likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure to new construction. The zones were
adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007.
REFERENCES
Petersen, M., D. Beeby, W. Bryant, T. Cao, C. Cramer, J. Davis, M. Reichle, G. Saucedo, S. Tan G.,Taylor, T.
Toppozada, J. Treiman, and C. Wills. 1999. Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California: California Division of
Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48.
Intermap Technologies, Inc., 2003, Intermap product handbook and quick start guide: Intermap NEXTmap
document on 5-meter resolution data, 112 p.
National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA), 2004, Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
(IfSAR) Digital Elevation Models from GeoSAR platform (EarthData): 3-meter resolution data.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1993, Digital Elevation Models: National Mapping Program, Technical Instructions,
Data Users Guide 5, 48 p.
USGS. 2006. Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay
Region, California. Open-File Report 2006-1037. Version 1.1. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the
California Geological Survey.
Wills C.J., Perez, F., Gutierrez, C. 2011. Susceptibility to deep-seated landslides in California: California
Geological Survey Map Sheet 58.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix C. Plan Adoption Resolutions from
Planning Partners
C-1
C. PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS FROM PLANNING
PARTNERS
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix D. Progress Report Template
D-1
D. PROGRESS REPORT TEMPLATE
Reporting Period: (Insert reporting period)
Background: The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, and participating local jurisdictions, developed
a hazard mitigation plan to reduce risk from all hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for
risk reduction. The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires state and local governments to develop
hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. To prepare the plan, the participating
planning partners organized resources, assessed risks from natural hazards, developed planning goals and
objectives, reviewed mitigation alternatives, and developed an action plan to address probable impacts from
natural hazards. By completing this process, these jurisdictions maintained compliance with the Disaster
Mitigation Act, achieving eligibility for mitigation grant funding opportunities afforded under the Robert T.
Stafford Act. The plan can be viewed on-line at:
INSERT LINK
Summary Overview of the Plan’s Progress: The performance period for the Hazard Mitigation Plan
became effective on ____, 2017, with the final approval of the plan by FEMA. The initial performance period for
this plan will be 5 years, with an anticipated update to the plan to occur before ______, 2022. As of this reporting
period, the performance period for this plan is considered to be __% complete. The Hazard Mitigation Plan has
targeted __ hazard mitigation actions to be pursued during the 5-year performance period. As of the reporting
period, the following overall progress can be reported:
• __ out of __ actions (__%) reported ongoing action toward completion.
• __ out of __ actions (__%) were reported as being complete.
• __ out of __ actions (___%) reported no action taken.
Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide an annual update on the implementation of the action plan
identified in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The objective is to ensure that there is a continuing and responsive
planning process that will keep the Hazard Mitigation Plan dynamic and responsive to the needs and capabilities
of the planning partners. This report discusses the following:
• Natural hazard events that have occurred within the last year
• Changes in risk exposure within the planning area
• Mitigation success stories
• Review of the action plan
• Changes in capabilities that could impact plan implementation
• Recommendations for changes/enhancement.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee: The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee,
made up of planning partners and other stakeholders within the planning area, reviewed and approved this
progress report at its annual meeting held on _____, 2018. It was determined through the plan’s development
process that a steering committee would remain in service to oversee maintenance of the plan. At a minimum, the
Steering Committee will provide technical review and oversight on the development of the annual progress report.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-2
It is anticipated that there will be turnover in the membership annually, which will be documented in the progress
reports. For this reporting period, the Steering Committee membership is as indicated in Table 1.
Table 1. Steering Committee Members
Name Title Jurisdiction/Agency
Natural Hazard Events within the Planning Area: During the reporting period, there were __ natural
hazard events in the planning area that had a measurable impact on people or property. A summary of these events
is as follows:
• __________________________
• __________________________
Changes in Risk Exposure in the Planning Area: (Insert brief overview of any natural hazard event
in the planning area that changed the probability of occurrence or ranking of risk for the hazards addressed in
the hazard mitigation plan)
Mitigation Success Stories: (Insert brief overview of mitigation accomplishments during the reporting
period)
Review of the Action Plan: Table 2 reviews the action plan, reporting the status of each action. Reviewers
of this report should refer to the Hazard Mitigation Plan for more detailed descriptions of each action and the
prioritization process.
Address the following in the “status” column of the following table:
• Was any element of the action carried out during the reporting period?
• If no action was completed, why?
• Is the timeline for implementation for the action still appropriate?
• If the action was completed, does it need to be changed or removed from the action plan?
D. Progress Report Template
D-3
Table 2. Action Plan Matrix
Action
Taken? (Yes
or No) Time Line Priority Status
Status (X,
O,)
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Completion status legend:
= Project Completed
O = Action ongoing toward completion
X = No progress at this time
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-4
Changes That May Impact Implementation of the Plan: (Insert brief overview of any significant
changes in the planning area that would have a profound impact on the implementation of the plan. Specify any
changes in technical, regulatory and financial capabilities identified during the plan’s development)
Recommendations for Changes or Enhancements: Based on the review of this report by the
Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee, the following recommendations will be noted for future updates or
revisions to the plan:
• __________________________
• __________________________
• __________________________
• __________________________
• __________________________
• __________________________
Public review notice: The contents of this report are considered to be public knowledge and have been prepared
for total public disclosure. Copies of the report have been provided to the governing boards of all planning
partners and to local media outlets. The report is posted on the Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan website. Any
questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to:
Insert Contact Info Here
January 2018
TRI-VALLEY
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Submittal Draft
Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
December 2017
PREPARED FOR
City of Dublin, CA City of Livermore, CA City of Pleasanton, CA
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
1052 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
123 Main Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PREPARED BY
Tetra Tech
1999 Harrison Street
Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 302-6300
Fax: (510) 433-0830
tetratech.com
Tetra Tech Project #103S4859
\\tts121fs1\Data\EMCR_Projects\California\PleasantonDublinLivermore\DraftPlan\Tri-Valley_2017HMP_Volume2_20171208.docx
Contents
v
CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ vii
Background ....................................................................................................................................................... vii
The Planning Partnership .................................................................................................................................. vii
Annex-Preparation Process .............................................................................................................................. viii
Compatibility with Previous Approved Plans ................................................................................................... xii
Final Coverage Under the Plan ......................................................................................................................... xii
1. City of Dublin .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Development Trends .................................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.4 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Integration with Other Planning Initiatives .............................................................................................. 1-11
1.6 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ................................................................................ 1-12
1.7 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................ 1-13
1.8 Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................... 1-13
1.9 Status of Previous Plan Actions ............................................................................................................... 1-13
1.10 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Actions ........................................... 1-14
1.11 Review and Incorporation of Resources for This Annex ....................................................................... 1-19
2. City of Livermore .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Development Trends .................................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Integration with Other Planning Initiatives ................................................................................................ 2-9
2.6 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ................................................................................ 2-11
2.7 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................ 2-11
2.8 Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................... 2-12
2.9 Status of Previous Plan Actions ............................................................................................................... 2-12
2.10 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Actions ........................................... 2-14
2.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................................... 2-20
2.12 Review and Incorporation of Resources for This Annex ....................................................................... 2-20
3. City of Pleasanton ............................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Development Trends .................................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.4 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.5 Integration with Other Planning Initiatives ................................................................................................ 3-9
3.6 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ................................................................................ 3-10
3.7 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................ 3-10
3.8 Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.9 Status of Previous Plan Actions ............................................................................................................... 3-11
3.10 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Actions ........................................... 3-11
3.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................................... 3-14
3.12 Review and Incorporation of Resources for This Annex ....................................................................... 3-14
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
vi
4. Dublin San Ramon Services District ............................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Integration with Other Planning Initiatives ................................................................................................ 4-5
4.5 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .................................................................................. 4-7
4.6 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities .......................................................................................................... 4-8
4.7 Hazard Risk Ranking ................................................................................................................................. 4-8
4.8 Status of Previous Plan Actions ................................................................................................................. 4-9
4.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Actions ............................................... 4-9
4.10 Review and Incorporation of Resources for This Annex ....................................................................... 4-11
Appendices
Appendix A. Planning Partner Expectations
Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix C. Annex Instructions and Templates
vii
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi-jurisdictional planning for hazard
mitigation. All participating jurisdictions must meet the requirements of Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (44 CFR):
“Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each
jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan.” (Section 201.6.a(4))
For the Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, a Planning Partnership was formed to leverage resources and to
meet requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) for as many eligible local governments as
possible. The DMA defines a local government as follows:
“Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district,
intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is
incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or
agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or
Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other
public entity.”
There are two types of Planning Partners that participated in this process, with distinct needs and capabilities:
Incorporated municipalities
Special purpose districts.
Each participating planning partner has prepared a jurisdiction-specific annex to this plan. These annexes, as well
as information on the process by which they were created, are contained in this volume.
THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
Initial Solicitation and Letters of Intent
The planning team solicited the participation of all eligible municipalities and special purpose districts at the
outset of this project. In June 2016, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton identified eligible special
districts within the planning area of the pending planning process and invited them to formally participate in the
process. During the first Steering Committee meeting on March 7, 2017, the planning team introduced the
opportunity for special purpose districts to participate as planning partners. A follow-up to the Steering
Committee meeting was sent via email on April 17, 2017, listing potential special purpose district planning
partners. This follow-up outlined planning partner expectations and sought commitment.
From these efforts, six interested local governments were provided with a list of planning partner expectations
developed by the planning team outlining the obligations required for participation. Local governments wishing to
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
viii
join the planning effort were asked to provide the planning team with a “notice of intent to participate” that agreed
to the planning partner expectations and designated a point of contact for their jurisdiction. The planning team
received formal commitment from all six invited planning partners.
Maps for each participating city are provided in the individual annex for that city in this volume. The regional
maps in Volume 1 of this plan show the jurisdictional area of special purpose districts participating in this
planning effort.
Planning Partner Expectations
The planning team developed the following list of planning partner expectations, which were confirmed by
participating planning partners (see Appendix A for details):
Complete administrative tasks:
Complete a letter of intent.
Designate points of contact.
Approve the steering committee.
Participate, as able, in additional opportunities:
Attend steering committee meetings.
Attend or host public meetings or open houses.
Participate in and advertise the public review and comment period prior to adoption.
Support the steering committee.
Support the public involvement strategy.
Complete the jurisdictional annex template:
Attend the mandatory workshop.
Perform a capability assessment.
Review the risk assessment.
Review area-wide mitigation recommendations.
Develop a mitigation action plan.
Adopt the plan.
By adopting this plan, each planning partner also agrees to the plan implementation and maintenance protocol
established in Volume 1. Failure to meet these criteria may result in a partner being dropped from the partnership
by the Steering Committee, and thus losing eligibility under the scope of this plan.
Linkage Procedures
Eligible local jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this multi-jurisdictional plan may comply
with DMA requirements by linking to this plan following the procedures outlined in Appendix B.
ANNEX-PREPARATION PROCESS
Templates
Templates were created to help the Planning Partners prepare their jurisdiction-specific annexes. Since special
purpose districts operate differently from incorporated municipalities, separate templates were created for the two
Introduction
ix
types of jurisdictions. The templates were created so that all criteria of Section 201.6 of 44 CFR would be met,
based on the partners’ capabilities and mode of operation. Templates available for the planning partners’ use were
specific as to whether the partner’s annex is an update to a previous hazard mitigation plan or a first-time hazard
mitigation plan. The templates were set up to lead each partner through a series of steps that would generate the
DMA-required elements that are specific for each partner. Detailed instructions on the completion of these
templates include key definitions of required jurisdictional specific components were provided to all participating
planning partners. Reviewers of this plan seeking to “cross-walk” plan content to the section 201.6 44CFR
requirements are encouraged to review these instructions in conjunction with the content of this volume. The
templates and their instructions can be found in Appendix C to this volume.
Jurisdictional annexes were completed in three phases. Phase 1 was initiated in July 2017 and Phase 3 concluded
in December 2017. At the October 10, 2017, steering committee meeting, the planning team reviewed instructions
for completing the Phase 3 portion of the annexes, which focuses on action plan development. All planning
partners seeking DMA compliance under this plan attended the meeting. The following topics were discussed:
•Jurisdiction-specific natural events history
•Risk ranking
•Action plan development.
In the risk-ranking discussion, each planning partner was asked to review the ranked risk specifically for its
jurisdiction, based on the impact on its population and/or facilities. Municipalities based this ranking on
probability of occurrence and the potential impact on people, property and the economy. Special purpose districts
based this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on their constituency, their vital facilities
and the facilities’ functionality after an event. The methodology followed that used for the area-wide risk ranking
presented in Volume 1. The objectives of this exercise were to familiarize the partnership with how to use the risk
assessment as a tool to support other planning and hazard mitigation processes and to help prioritize types of
mitigation actions that should be considered. Hazards that were ranked as “high” or “medium” for each
jurisdiction as a result of this exercise were considered to be priorities for identifying appropriate mitigation
actions, although jurisdictions also identified actions to mitigate “low” ranked hazards as appropriate.
Tool Kit
Each planning partner was provided with a tool kit to assist in completing the annex template and developing an
action plan. The tool kits contained the following:
•Previous hazard mitigation plan annexes for those jurisdictions who are updating existing plans
•A catalog of mitigation best practices
•The goals and objectives developed for the update to the plan
•Information on the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant program
•Information on past hazard events that have impacted the planning area
•County-wide and jurisdiction-specific maps for hazards of concern
•The risk assessment results developed for this plan
•Jurisdiction-specific annex templates, with instructions for completing them
•FEMA guidance on plan integration
•The results of the public survey conducted as part of the public involvement strategy
The toolkit provided each planning partner with resources to develop a mitigation action plan. Planning partners
were asked to review the following to assist in the identification of actions:
•The jurisdiction’s capability assessment—Reviewed to identify capabilities that the jurisdiction does
not currently have but should consider pursuing, or capabilities that should be revisited and updated to
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
x
include best available information. Reviewed to determine how existing capabilities can be leveraged to
increase or improve hazard mitigation in the jurisdiction. Additionally, planning partners used this
capability assessment to identify existing capabilities that may be expanded or enhanced to better support
the mitigation goals and objectives of this plan.
•The jurisdiction’s National Flood Insurance Program compliance table—Reviewed to identify
opportunities to increase floodplain management capabilities.
•The jurisdiction’s review of its adaptive capacity for climate change—Reviewed to identify ways to
leverage or continue to improve existing capacities and to improve understanding of other capacities.
•The jurisdiction’s identified opportunities for future integration—Reviewed to identify specific
integration actions to be included in the mitigation strategy.
•Jurisdiction-specific vulnerabilities—Reviewed to identify actions that will help reduce known
vulnerabilities.
•The mitigation best practices catalog—Reviewed to identify actions that the jurisdiction should
consider including in its action plan.
•Public input—Reviewed to identify potential actions and community priorities.
Prioritization
44 CFR requires actions identified in the action plan to be prioritized (Section 201.c.3.iii). The planning team and
steering committee developed a methodology for prioritizing the action plans that meets the needs of the
partnership and the requirements of 44 CFR. All identified actions were prioritized in two categories—
implementation and grant pursuit—as defined by the following criteria:
•Implementation priority
High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and has a
designated source of funding. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). The key
factors for high-priority actions are that they have designated funding sources and can be completed
in the short term.
Medium Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and does
not have a designated source of funding but is eligible for funding. Action can be completed in the
short term (1 to 5 years), once funding is secured. The key factors for medium-priority actions are that
they are eligible for funding though no specific funding source has been designated, and they can be
completed within the short term. Medium-priority actions become high-priority actions once funding
is secured.
Low Priority—An action that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, has benefits that do not exceed the
costs or are difficult to quantify, has no designated source of funding, and is not eligible for any
known grant funding. Action can be completed in the long term (1 to 10 years). Low-priority actions
are generally “wish-list” actions. Their financing is unknown and they have a long-term timeframe for
completion. These actions may be eligible for grant funding from programs that have not yet been
identified.
•Grant pursuit priority
High Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has high benefits, and
is listed as high or medium priority; local funding options are unavailable or available local funds
could be used instead for actions that are not eligible for grant funding.
Medium Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has medium or low
benefits, and is listed as medium or low priority; local funding options are unavailable.
Low Priority—An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility requirements.
Introduction
xi
These priority definitions are dynamic and can change from one category to another based on changes to a
parameter such as availability of funding. For example, a project might be assigned a medium priority because of
the uncertainty of a funding source, but be changed to high priority once a funding source has been identified. The
prioritization schedule for this plan will be reviewed and updated as needed annually through the plan
maintenance strategy.
Benefit/Cost Review
44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan to emphasize a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed actions.
Because some actions may not be implemented for up to 10 years, benefit/cost analysis was qualitative and not of
the detail required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant
program. A review of the apparent benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters
were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to benefits and costs as follows:
•Benefit ratings:
High—The action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and
property.
Medium—The action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and
property or will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.
Low—Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.
•Cost ratings:
High—Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed action;
implementation would require an increase in revenue through an alternative source (for example,
bonds, grants, and fee increases).
Medium—The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-
apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread
over multiple years.
Low—The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of an
existing, ongoing program.
Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over medium,
medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly.
For many of the strategies identified in this action plan, funding might be sought under FEMA’s HMA program.
This program requires detailed benefit/cost analysis as part of the application process. These analyses will be
performed on projects at the time of application preparation. The FEMA benefit-cost model will be used to
perform this review. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require this sort of
analysis, the Partners reserve the right to define “benefits” according to parameters that meet their needs and the
goals and objectives of this plan.
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
All planning partners reviewed their recommended actions to classify each action based on the hazard it addresses
and the type of mitigation it involves. Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows:
•Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings
are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital
improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
xii
•Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal
of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm
shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
•Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and
ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and
school-age and adult education.
•Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions
of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed
management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation.
•Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard
event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
•Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard.
Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
•Climate Resilient—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate
change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future-conditions projections in
project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks,
such as sea level rise or urban heat island effect.
•Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to
potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. Includes staff
training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs.
These categories include categories identified in the Community Rating System (CRS) 2017 CRS Coordinators
Manual (OMB No. 1660-0022, Figure 510-4). The CRS categories expand on the four categories in FEMA’s
2013 Local Mitigation Handbook. They provide a more comprehensive range of options, thus increasing
integration opportunities. The use of CRS guidance enhances the CRS credit potential for this plan, for the benefit
of planning partners who participate in the CRS program.
In addition to the CRS categories, two other categories were included in the analysis. The climate resilient
category was added to facilitate the incorporation of climate adaptation planning into hazard mitigation plans in
accordance with California Senate Bill 379 (see Section 4.8.2 in Volume 1 of this plan). Community capacity
building was added to clearly identify opportunities for expanding on existing capabilities.
COMPATIBILITY WITH PREVIOUS APPROVED PLANS
Of the six initially identified potential planning partners, four were covered by the FEMA-approved 2010
Association of Bay Area Governments hazard mitigation planning effort. Table 1 lists all the initial partners, the
role this multi-jurisdictional plan will play in achieving compliance, and CRS status.
FINAL COVERAGE UNDER THE PLAN
Of the six planning partners that submitted letters of intent to participate, four fully met the participation
requirements specified by the Steering Committee. The principal requirement not met by the other partners was
completion of the jurisdictional annex template. Only the four partners that submitted completed templates are
included in this volume and will seek DMA compliance under this plan. The remaining jurisdictions will need to
follow the linkage procedures described in Appendix B of this volume in order to achieve DMA compliance.
Table 2 lists the jurisdictions that submitted letters of intent and their ultimate status in this plan.
Introduction
xiii
Table 1. Prior Plan Status
Prior Plan
Adoption Date
Will Be Covered
by This Hazard
Mitigation Plan?
CRS
Community
This Hazard Mitigation
Plan Will Become CRS
Plan of Record?
City of Dublin 03/06/2012 Yes No N/A
City of Livermore 02/27/2012 Yes Yes Yes
City of Pleasanton 02/21/2012 Yes Yes Yes
Dublin San Ramon Services District 09/18/2012 Yes N/A N/A
Dublin Unified School District N/A No N/A N/A
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District N/A No N/A N/A
Table 2. Planning Partner Status
Letter of Intent
Date
Attended Steering
Committee Annex
Completion Discussion?
Completed
Template?
Covered by
This Plan?
City of Dublin 4/11/2017 Yes Yes Yes
City of Livermore 4/11/2017 Yes Yes Yes
City of Pleasanton 4/11/2017 Yes Yes Yes
Dublin San Ramon Services District 4/11/2017 Yes Yes Yes
Dublin Unified School District 4/11/2017 No No No
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District 4/11/2017 No No No
1-1
1. CITY OF DUBLIN
1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Hazel L. Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Telephone: 925-833-6650
e-mail Address: hazel.wetherford@dublin.ca.gov
Julie E. Carter, Human Resources Director
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Telephone: 925-833-6650
e-mail Address: julie.carter@dublin.ca.gov
1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
• Date of Incorporation—February 2, 1982
• Current Population—59,686 as of May 2017 (2017 Department of Finance estimates)
• Population Growth—According the California Department of Finance, the City of Dublin’s population
increased by 4% between January of 2016 and January of 2017. The City population has steadily
increased over the past decade, averaging 15% per year since 2010.
• Location and Description—Dublin is a suburban city of the East Bay Area (San Francisco) and Tri-
Valley regions of Alameda County, California, United States. Located along the north side of Interstate
580 and at the intersection of Interstate 680, roughly 35 miles (56 km) east of downtown San Francisco,
23 miles (37 km) east of downtown Oakland, and 31 miles (50 km) north of downtown San Jose.
According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 15.23 square miles (40 km2) of
which 0.03% is water. The City of Dublin is generally bounded by the City of San Ramon to the north,
Castro Valley to the west, the City of Pleasanton to the south, and the City of Livermore to the east.
• Brief History—Dublin has long been known as the Crossroads of the Bay Area. Dublin now sits at the
crossroads of two major freeways: Interstate 580 and Interstate 680. However, the significance of the
crossroads dates back more than 200 years when Dublin served as the crossroads of two important stage
routes - one from the Bay Area to Stockton and the other from Martinez to San Jose. The Alamilla Spring,
located in the Dublin area, provided a place for travelers to change horses and freshen up before
continuing their journey. Dublin has a rich history dating back to 1772 when Pedro Fages led an
expedition of 16 mounted men on a journey in search of a land route to Drake’s Bay, now known as San
Francisco Bay. Their return journey brought them through the Amador Valley.
During the past 20 years, the rapidly expanding Tri-Valley area has become renowned as a place of
prosperity, a center for internationally acclaimed business parks, and home to some of the world’s largest
corporations. The City of Dublin, located at the crossroads of the Tri-Valley, has contributed to the
planned growth and forward thinking of the area. The City continues to look ahead to expand and enhance
the quality of life for members of the community.
• Climate—Dublin enjoys a relatively mild climate, with an average rainfall of 15 inches and an average
maximum temperature of 89º Fahrenheit in July and an average minimum temperature of 37ºF in
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
1-2
December. At its most extreme, winter temperatures can drop below freezing a few days each year, and
summer temperatures hover around 100 degrees Fahrenheit during July and August. The temperate
weather allows residents year-round opportunities to take advantage of outdoor activities such as hiking,
cycling, and shopping in a robust downtown corridor.
• Governing Body Format—The City of Dublin is a general law city operating under a City Council / City
Manager form of local government. This form of government combines an elected mayor and council and
an appointed local government administrator. The City Council elections are nonpartisan. The Mayor
serves a two-year term, and Council members serve four-year terms. The Mayor and City Council, as a
collegial body, are responsible for setting policy, setting/prioritizing goals and objectives, and approving
the budget. The Mayor, with confirmation by the City Council, makes appointments to the City’s
advisory commissions and committees.
The Council appoints the City Manager, who is responsible for the day-to-day administrative operation of
the City, including: delivery of services, hiring of personnel, implementation of capital projects and
preparation. The City Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the City Manager will
oversee its implementation.
1.3 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
The Planning Division coordinates the City’s review of residential, commercial, office, and industrial
development projects. This includes working with property owners, developers, business owners, and residents to
ensure that their development proposals conform to City policies and guidelines.
Table 1-1 summarizes development trends in the performance period since development of the previous hazard
mitigation plan and expected future development trends.
1.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Dublin has performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs and policies
that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the
hazard mitigation plan describes the components included in the capability assessment and their significance for
hazard mitigation planning. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 1-2.
• Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 1-3.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1-4.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1-5.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 1-6.
• Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 1-7.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1-8.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 1-9.
The capability assessment was reviewed in order to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate
capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and
determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan and are identified as Community Capacity Building
mitigation actions in the Analysis of Mitigation Actions table in Section 1.10.
1. City of Dublin
1-3
Table 1-1. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends
Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the development of the previous hazard mitigation plan?
No
• If yes, give the estimated area annexed and estimated number of parcels or structures.
N/A
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any areas during the performance period of this plan?
No
• If yes, please describe land areas and
dominant uses.
N/A
• If yes, who currently has permitting authority over these areas?
N/A
Are any areas targeted for development or
major redevelopment in the next five years?
Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe, including whether any of the areas are in known hazard risk areas
Downtown Dublin is experiencing ongoing reinvestment and revitalization. Portions of
that area lie within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and FEMA flood zones.
There are undeveloped parcels along I-580 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area
located within a FEMA flood zone that are anticipated for future development
How many permits for new construction were issued in your jurisdiction since the development of the previous hazard mitigation plan?
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Single Family 656 616 473 369 428
Multi-Family 29 10 60 29 33
Other (commercial, mixed use, etc.) 6 6 13 12 2
Please provide the number of new-construction permits for each hazard area or
provide a qualitative description of where
development has occurred.
• Special Flood Hazard Areas: 0
• Wildfire Risk Areas: 0 as defined by the CA Building Code; and 558 as defined by
the City of Dublin.
Development has occurred throughout the city during the performance period for this
plan. For the landslide and liquefaction hazards, the city does not track the specific
number of building permits issued. It is important to note, however, that all new
development was consistent with General Plan policies and municipal code
standards.
Please describe the level of buildout in the jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory
exists, provide a qualitative description.
Approximately 21,000 existing housing units with approximately 6,600 remaining to
reach buildout. Remaining commercial/industrial sites are located along I-580
between Tassajara Road and the eastern City Limits boundary.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
1-4
Table 1-2. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, & Requirements
Note: The Dublin Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 6-17, passed July 18, 2017.
Building Code Yes No Yes No
Comment: Title 7, Chapter 7.32 DMC adopts The 2016 California Building Code, Part 2, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a
portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et
seq. (hereinafter referred to as the “state code”), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto including the
International Building Code, 2015 Edition, including Appendix Chapters C, F, G, H, and I, as published by the International
Code Council, and as referenced in and adopted pursuant to California State Health and Safety Code Sections 17922 and
18935, (hereinafter referred to as the “IBC”) are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
Zoning Code Yes No Yes No
Comment: Title 8, DMC, Chapters 8.04 to 8.144. The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote and protect the public health, safety,
peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the City by providing
regulations to ensure an appropriate mix of land uses, and that each land use relates properly to adjacent land uses in an
orderly manner, and for the following more particularly specified purposes.
Subdivisions Yes No Yes No
Comment: Title 9, DMC, Chapters 9.04 to 9.56. This title shall regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions of land
within the city and supplement the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California set forth at Government
Code Section 66410 et seq. concerning the design, improvement and survey data of subdivisions, the form and content of all
maps provided for by the Subdivision Map Act, and the procedure to be followed in securing the official approval of the city
regarding the maps.
Stormwater Management Yes No No Yes
Comment: Title 7, Chapter 7.74 DMC. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the future health, safety and general welfare of city of
Dublin citizens by: (1) Eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; (2) Controlling the
discharge to municipal separate storm sewers from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than stormwater; and (3)
Reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The intention of this chapter is to protect
and enhance the water quality of our watercourses, water bodies and wetlands, in a manner pursuant to and consistent with
the Clean Water Act. Integration Opportunity: Pursue mitigation opportunities through green infrastructure planning.
Post-Disaster Recovery No No No Yes
Comment: City currently does not have a code or ordinance that dictates its recovery operations following a disaster. This could be a
core capability the City may consider as a mitigation action for this plan.
Real Estate Disclosure No Yes Yes Yes
Comment: California State Civil Code 1102 requires full disclosure on natural hazard exposure of the sale/re-sale of any and all real
property. To be implemented by sellers and realtors. Integration Opportunity: The information of hazards and risk contained
in this plan could be used to support enforcement of this law.
Growth Management Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: California state law requires that every county and city prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range plan to serve as a
guide for community development. The General Plan for the City of Dublin was adopted February 11, 1985 and most recently
amended November 14, 2016. The General Plan contains 12 elements that address many aspects of the community
including: land use, housing, parks and open space, community design, infrastructure, safety, sustainability and conservation
of resources. The General Plan is the City’s overarching policy document. All City policies and ordinances must be consistent
with the General Plan. The Planning Division is responsible for maintaining the General Plan and preparing amendments to
the document as directed by the City Council. Integration Opportunity: Integrate the hazard mitigation plan in to the General
Plan pursuant to CA AB2140 and SB 379.
Site Plan Review Yes No No No
Comment: Title 9, Chapter 9.08 DMC. The form and contents, submittal and approval of tentative tract maps for the subdivision of five
(5) or more parcels and tentative parcel maps for the subdivision of four (4) or fewer parcels shall be governed by the
provisions of this chapter.
1. City of Dublin
1-5
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Environmental Protection Yes No No No
Comment: Title 7, Chapter 7.20, DMC: WATERCOURSE PROTECTION
Title 7, Chapter 7.30, DMC: WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Title 7, Chapter 7.56, DMC: TREES
Title 7, Chapter 7.94, DMC: GREEN BUILDING
Title 5, Chapter 5.56, DMC. GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES FOR CITY PROJECTS
Flood Damage Prevention Yes No No Yes
Comment: Title 7, Chapter 7.24, DMC. It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to
minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions
Emergency Management Yes No No Yes
Comment: Title 2, Chapter 2.44, DMC. The declared purposes of this chapter are to provide for the preparation and carrying out of plans
for the protection of persons and property within this city in the event of an emergency; the direction of the emergency
organization; and the coordination of the emergency functions of this city with all other public agencies, corporations,
organizations, and affected private persons. Integration Opportunity: This plan should fully support and integrate in to the
City’s Emergency Management program.
Climate Change Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: The City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan in November 2010, and updated the plan in 2013. The City’s Climate
Action Plan outlines measures to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 15% below 2010 GHG levels by
2020. The City will update the Climate Action Plan to meet 2030 and 2050 goals in fiscal year 2017-2018.
Other: Yes No Yes No
Comment: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental
impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. California Senate Bill 379 requires that local
government incorporate climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety element of their general plans.
Planning Documents
General Plan Yes No Yes No
Is the plan compliant with Assembly Bill 2140? Yes
Comment: The General Plan for the City of Dublin was adopted February 11, 1985 and most recently amended November 14, 2016.
Chapter 8, section 8.3 of the General Plan includes the Safety Element. This section includes an emergency preparedness
policy that states: In 2010 the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an annex to the Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan to assess hazards and mitigate risks prior to a disaster event. The City will periodically review
the Plan to prepare for emergencies.
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No No Yes
How often is the plan updated? Every 5-years.
Comment: Current CIP in effect for the City Covers Fiscal Year 2016-2017 through Fiscal Year 2020-2021. The projects as proposed in
this document have been prioritized based on the need for infrastructure preservation, repair and safety, and critical planning
for future city service delivery. Program Funding is allocated under the following categories: general improvements,
community improvements, parks and streets. Integration opportunity: FEMA grant eligible projects within the CIP that will
reduce risk from hazards assessed by this plan could be included in the City’s action plan.
Floodplain or Watershed Plan No No No Yes
Comment: The City is a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program and implements the program thorough the
Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 7.24. The City does not currently have a stand-alone flood hazard management plan or
watershed management plan. Integration Opportunity: If the City feels that the flood risk is sufficient to warrant a detailed look
at causes and solutions to the flood problems identified, the City could consider the development of a Comprehensive Flood
Hazard Management Plan as a mitigation action for this plan.
Stormwater Management Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: The City of Dublin Municipal code contains regulations pertaining to watercourse protection, flood control and stormwater
management in Chapters 7.20, 7.24, and 7.74. The City is a permittee under the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit
No. CAS612008.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
1-6
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Urban Water Management Plan No Yes No No
Comment: The City receives retail water services from Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and DSRSD receives wholesale
water services from Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). Both DSRSD and Zone 7 have collaborated together on their respective
Urban Water Management Plans.
Habitat Conservation Plan No No No No
Comment: N/A for the City of Dublin
Economic Development Plan Yes No No No
Comment: The City’s general plan includes an economic development element which was most recently amended on November 14,
2016.
Shoreline Management Plan No No No No
Comment: N/A for the City of Dublin
Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan. Adopted July 9, 1996; revised March 5, 2002. Integration Opportunity: future
updates to this plan should reference the wildfire risk assessment of this hazard mitigation plan. This plan is now considered
to be integrated in to the Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation plan by reference.
Forest Management Plan No No No No
Comment: N/A for the City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: The City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan in November 2010, and updated the plan in 2013. The City’s Climate
Action Plan outlines measures to reduce the City’s GHG emissions 20% below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020.
Integration Opportunity: Pursuant to CA SB379, the city will integrate.
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes No Yes No
Comment: The City Council adopted a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan in January 2004, and has since approved
Updates to the Plan in February 2004, August 2009, and June 2011.
Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment (THIRA) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: This is identified in the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, section 12.1.4.
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: This is identified in the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, Annex H.
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: This is identified in the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, Annex G.
Public Health Plan No Yes No No
Comment: Alameda County Health Care Services Agency: mission of Health Care Services Agency is to provide fully integrated health
care services through a comprehensive network of public and private partnerships that ensure optimal health and well-being
and respect the diversity of all residents.
Other: No No No No
Comment:
1. City of Dublin
1-7
Table 1-3. Development and Permitting Capability
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes
• If no, who does? If yes, which department? Building and Safety Division of the Community
Development Department
Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard area? No, the City does not currently track building permits
issued by hazard area.
Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? Chapter 2, section 2.2 of the City’s General Plan includes
a “Land Use Development Potential Analysis.” However, a
traditional buildable lands analysis has not been performed
at the time of this plan update.
Table 1-4. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No, none of these services are city sponsored
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes, Surface Water Utility
Other N/A
Table 1-5. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land
management practices
Yes Community Development Department
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes Public Works Department
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Community Development Department,
Public Works Department; Geological
Hazard Abatement Districts (GHAD)
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Finance/Administrative Services
Department
Surveyors Yes Can contract for these services
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Information Services Division
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes Community Development Department
Emergency Manager Yes City Manager’s Office
Grant writers Yes Finance/Administrative Services
Department
Other N/A N/A
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
1-8
Table 1-6. Education and Outreach Capability
Criterion Response
Do you have a Public Information Officer or Communications Office? Yes
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. Links to the Tri-Valley hazard mitigation plan web site
are provided on the City’s Disaster preparedness page:
http://www.dublin.ca.gov/94/Disaster-Preparedness
Do you utilize social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. City utilizes “Next-door,” Twitter and Facebook options
for social media
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues
related to hazard mitigation?
No
• If yes, please briefly describe. N/A
Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. CERT, Alameda County Fire Department
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. The City has partnered with Alameda County on a new
emergency notification system, “AC Alert,” powered by
EverBridge. It is an ultra-high-speed telephonic
communication service used for emergency notifications.
Table 1-7. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Community Development
Department, Building and
Safety Division
Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) Building Official
Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? No
What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last amended? 1996
Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum requirements? Meets
• If exceeds, in what ways?
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact? Visit was in 2014. Last
contact 2016.
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? No
• If so, please state what they are. N/A
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction? Yes
• If no, please state why. N/A
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain
management program?
No
• If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? N/A
Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? No
• If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving CRS Classification? N/A
• Is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? Yes
How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a 123
• What is the insurance in force? $40,114,900
• What is the premium in force? $217,765
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a 3
• How many claims are still open/were closed without payment? 0/3
• What were the total payments for losses? $0
a. According to FEMA statistics as of June 30, 2017
1. City of Dublin
1-9
Table 1-8. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System No N/A N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 2 4/22/2014
Public Protection Yes Unknown Unknown
Storm Ready No N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
Table 1-9. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Low
Comment: None provided
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comment: None provided
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Medium
Comment: The City of Dublin has a professional staff with the capabilities to assess strategies. In addition, the State of California offers
a variety of planning guidance and resources to assist local communities with climate change strategies.
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High
Comment: The City of Dublin adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce GHG emissions in 2010 and adopted an updated CAP in
2013. The updated CAP includes a detailed emissions inventory for both community and municipal emissions. City staff is
currently working on the 2015 GHG inventory.
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Low
Comment: The CAP contains a number of GHG emission reduction strategies pertaining to land use and the General Plan includes
policies and actions related to reducing risk from natural hazard events, such as flood and wildfire, in the Safety Element;
however, these strategies do not account for impacts from climate change. The City has a Capital Improvement Program in
which all projects conform to the General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act.
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Medium
Comment: The City joined the Alameda County Climate Protection Project in 2007 and is part of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. City staff participates in regional committees such as the Bay Area Energy Resource Network, the goal of which is
to develop successful climate, resource and sustainability programs.
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes Medium
Comment: There are a number of state actions and regulations that require local governments to consider climate change in public
decision-making processes such as Senate Bill 379 (SB379), which requires that the impacts of climate change be
addressed in local general plans. The CAP sets forth a number of areas where GHG emissions are considered in decision-
making and development processes.
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High
Comment: The City’s 2013 CAP sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below the 2010 inventory levels by 2020. The
CAP identifies 45 reduction measures for community and/or municipal activities. The CAP includes a plan to implement,
monitor and review the CAP to determine progress. City staff will update the CAP to meet the 2030/2050 goals in fiscal year
2017-2018.
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Medium
Comment: Although the CAP is focused on GHG reduction strategies rather than climate change adaptation, it identifies strategies that
support co-benefits such as the Bay-Friendly Landscaping Policy to decrease heat island effect and control stormwater
runoff and the City’s Green Building Ordinance. In addition, the City’s General Plan includes a sustainability element that
includes policies related to drought tolerant landscaping, reduction of heat island effect and stormwater retention.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
1-10
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comment: As part of the 2030 Climate Action Plan process, the City will select champions from the various City departments.
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies Low
Comment: The City Council has a long history of supporting efforts related to climate change including the endorsement of the US
Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement in 2005 and the adoption of the CAP in 2010 and 2013; however, a clear set of
climate change adaptation strategies and directives have not yet been developed.
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Medium
Comment: The City has allocated $70,000 for the update of the City’s Climate Action Plan. This Plan will evaluate the climate change
impacts on the City’s operations and infrastructure.
Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted Medium
Comment: Dublin San Ramon Services District is the water utility for the City. The City shares responsibility for stormwater facilities
with private property owners and the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The City is a
participant in the NFIP and enforces the provisions of its flood damage prevention ordinance. The city maintains more than
40 acres of landscaping that may be vulnerable to drought. Fire protection services are contracted through the Alameda
County Fire Department.
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Medium
Comment: The City is a leader in environmental stewardship and has placed emphasis on conservation efforts and the establishment
of renewable energy resources. The CAP includes a number of strategies to increase the public’s awareness of climate
change and GHG reduction strategies; however, no public outreach program focused on climate change impacts and
adaptation currently exists.
Local residents support of adaptation efforts Low
Comment: The City is a leader in environmental stewardship and has placed emphasis on conservation efforts and the establishment
of renewable energy resources. The CAP includes a number of strategies to increase the public’s awareness of climate
change and GHG reduction strategies; however, no public outreach program focused on climate change impacts and
adaptation currently exists.
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium
Comment: The City of Dublin’s population would be expected to be able to adapt to many climate impacts as residents are well
educated with more than 54 percent of the adult population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, relatively well off with a
median household income almost double the state average, relatively young with only 7 percent of the population 65 years
and over, and relatively healthy with about 4 percent of residents under age 65 reporting a disability, which is less than half
the national average. However, residents may not know what actions to take to adapt to climate change impacts.
Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts High
Comment: The majority of the employed population in the City works in management, business, science and the arts, which would be
likely to be able to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Only a very small portion of the population is employed in natural
resource based industries such as farming or forestry.
Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts Unsure
Comment: Local ecosystems ability to adapt to climate impacts at this time is unclear. The western hills are ecologically important and
part of an area of regional significance identified by the National Park Service. Riparian areas, particularly in western
Dublin, are important wildlife habitat. The General Plan identified policies for the conservation of these areas.
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement;
Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
1. City of Dublin
1-11
1.5 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on
the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning
mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard
information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa.
Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in
collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation.
1.5.1 Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, The City of Dublin made
progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives and actions into other planning initiatives. The
following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• City of Dublin General Plan— the November 14, 2016 amendment to the City’s General Plan includes
an emergency preparedness policy that integrates the City’s hazard mitigation plan.
• City of Dublin Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP)— In 2010 the City adopted a
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an annex to the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan to assess
hazards and mitigate risks prior to a disaster event.
• Post-Disaster Recovery Program—Future updates to the City’s General Plan, CEMP or the Tri-Valley
Hazard Mitigation Plan should consider the inclusion of a post-disaster recovery component. Since these
three programs are already fully integrated, only one of these programs would need to include this
component.
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The City should consider the inclusion of higher regulatory
flood protection standards appropriate for the flood risk within the City as mitigation actions for this plan.
• Climate Change—Pursuant to CA SB379, all future updates to the City’s General Plan and Climate
Action Plan should address the adaptive capacity requirements of SB379 which includes full integration
of the hazard mitigation plan.
Resources listed in Section 1.11 were used to provide information for this annex on hazard events and local
capabilities within the jurisdiction.
1.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
As this hazard mitigation plan is implemented, the City of Dublin will use information from the plan as the best
available science and data on natural hazards. The capability assessment presented in this annex identifies codes,
plans and programs that provide opportunities for integration. The area-wide and local action plans developed for
this hazard mitigation plan in actions related to plan integration, and progress on these actions will be reported
through the progress reporting process described in Volume 1. New opportunities for integration also will be
identified as part of the midterm progress report. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate goals or recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan but provide
opportunities to do so in the future:
• City of Dublin General Plan—Since this 2017 hazard mitigation planning effort differs substantially
from the prior hazard mitigation plan of record for the City of Dublin, all future amendments to the
General Plan should revisit hazard mitigation plan integration opportunities by adopting relevant policies
in its safety element.
• City of Dublin Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP)— All future updates to the
City’s CEMP should look to the 2017 Tri-Valley hazard mitigation plan as a major source of information
on exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards of concern for the City.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
1-12
• Post-Disaster Recovery Program—Future updates to the City’s General Plan, CEMP or the Tri-Valley
Hazard Mitigation Plan should consider the inclusion of a post-disaster recovery component. Since these
three programs are already fully integrated, only one of these programs would need to include this
component.
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The City should consider the inclusion of higher regulatory
flood protection standards appropriate for the flood risk within the City as mitigation actions for this plan.
• Climate Change—Pursuant to CA SB379, all future updates to the City’s General Plan and Climate
action plan should address the adaptive capacity requirements of SB379 which includes full integration of
the hazard mitigation plan.
• Capital Improvements Program (CIP)—The City should look to the Hazard Mitigation Plan as a
possible source to grant funding that could leverage City’s funding for grant eligible capital projects. This
plan has the ability to fold in new capital projects through the plan maintenance strategy of the plan.
• City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan—This document has been incorporated by reference in to
this plan. However, should the City ever decide to update this plan, they should look to the 2017 Tri-
Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan and its future updates as the source of risk information to the wildfire
hazard.
• City of Dublin Green Infrastructure Plan—This plan is required by the Municipal Regional
Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) and mandates the inclusion of low impact development drainage
design into storm drain infrastructure. The intent of the plan is to describe how permittees under the MRP
will shift their impervious surfaces and storm drain infrastructure from traditional storm drain
infrastructure to a more resilient, sustainable system that slows runoff by dispersing it and/or infiltrating
it. The goals, objectives and actions identified in this plan and the hazard mitigation plan should be
coordinated and complementary, as appropriate.
1.6 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 1-10 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in the City of Dublin.
Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including the City of Dublin, are listed in the
risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 1-10. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event
FEMA
Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Wildfire N/A 10/17/2017 50-acre wildfire requiring automated alert system notification to 150 residents to
evacuated to City sponsored Shelter. No Damage $0
Wildfire N/A 8/22/2017 75-acre wildfire on Camp PARKS requiring road closures and automated alert
system notification residents directed to City sponsored reunification center. No
Damage $0
Drought N/A Years 2014-2015 CA Governor declared a state of emergency based on drought conditions in
California; City proclaimed Local Emergency and mandatory conservation efforts to
show support to water purveyors.
Gas Line Leak N/A June, 2006 Private undergrounded jet fuel gas line traversing City of Dublin sustained a leak.
Gasoline Spill N/A May, 2009 Privately operated gasoline tanker spill in neighboring jurisdiction leaked into City
of Dublin storm-drain system. City had partial emergency operation center
activation, provided temporary lodging vouchers and animal sheltering services to
impacted neighborhoods.
Flash Flood N/A February, 1999 Weeks of severe winter weather and horizontal rain caused significant damage to
public facilities.
1. City of Dublin
1-13
1.7 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.
This section provides information on a few key vulnerabilities for the jurisdiction.
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0
Other noted vulnerabilities include the following:
• Storm drain conditions citywide need to be assessed and updated, as appropriate.
1.8 HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 1-11 presents a local ranking for the City of Dublin of all hazards of concern for which Volume 1 of this
hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. This ranking summarizes how hazards vary for this
jurisdiction. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of
occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.
Table 1-11. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category
1 Landslidee 54 High
2 Earthquakea 36 High
3 Severe weatherb 33 Medium
4 Wildfirec 18 Medium
5 Floodd 12 Low
6 Droughtf 9 Low
7 Dam failureg 6 Low
a. Based on the “Haywired” (Hayward Fault Scenario M7.05)
b. Severe weather is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, medium
impact on people, medium impact on property and low impact on economy.
c. Based on Very High and High Fire Severity Zones.
d. Based on 1 percent-annual-chance flood zone (otherwise known as the special flood hazard area)
e. Based on Very High, High, and Moderate Landslide Susceptibility Zones
f. Drought is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Generally, drought does not cause injury or death to people or result in
property damage. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, no impact on people, low impact on property and low impact
on economy for those jurisdictions with limited agriculture.
g. Based on the Del Valle Dam inundation scenario.
1.9 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Table 1-12 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan
and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
1-14
Table 1-12. Status of Previous Plan Actions
Removed;
Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Enter
Action #
The City will continue annual sponsorship of Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training (INFR-g-6, HSNG-k-6, ECON-j-5, GOVT-c-3, EDUC-c-3). The Fire Department is the lead agency for this activity. The City
will accomplish this task with existing resources. This is an annual project.
Completed;
Ongoing
N/A
Comment: The City works in partnership with Alameda County Fire Department to perform emergency preparedness services and
increase community capability and self-sufficiency during a disaster.
The City will continue to recruit community volunteers on an annual basis to
remove litter and debris from the City’s storm drain system (Econ-J-8). The City Manager’s Office is the lead agency for this project. The City will
accomplish this task with existing resources. This is an annual project.
Completed;
Ongoing
N/A
Comment: The City holds a semi-annual creek cleanup as part of Dublin Pride activities and Creek Clean Up Day.
The City will install, where appropriate, trash capture devices at storm drain inlets (INFR-d-7). The Public Works Department is the lead agency for this project. The City will seek grant funding to offset the cost of installation.
Possible grant opportunities exist with ABAG also with the State of
California’s Used Oil Recycling Program. This is a five-year project.
Completed;
Ongoing
N/A
Comment: The City adheres to the Municipal Regional NPDES permit which requires trash load reduction. Through this effort, the City
installs trash capture devices and maintains them three times a year.
The City will consider adoption of the 2010 California Building Code. The
code will become effective January 1, 2011 and will apply to all construction
activity within the City boundaries (HSNG-f-1, HSNG-g-6, ECON-e-3). The Community Development Department is the lead agency for this project. The City will accomplish this task with existing resources.
Completed N/A
Comment:
The City Council will consider adoption of a Climate Action Plan, which
includes an inventory of community and municipal greenhouse gas emissions and sets a greenhouse gas reduction target (ENVI-b-2). The City
Manager’s Office is the lead agency for this project. The City will accomplish this task with existing resources and will be completed by 2011.
Completed N/A
Comment: The City currently has a Climate Action Plan through 2020.
1.10 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Table 1-13 lists the actions that make up the City of Dublin hazard mitigation action plan. Table 1-14 identifies
the priority for each action. Table 1-15 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and mitigation
type.
1. City of Dublin
1-15
Table 1-13. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
D-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting or relocation of structures in high hazard areas, prioritizing structures that have experienced
repetitive losses.
Existing Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
4, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12
City of Dublin
Public Works
N/A High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-term
D-2— Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions in the community as
feasible.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 6, 8,
10, 11
City of Dublin
Community
Development
N/A Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
D-3— Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11,
12
City of Dublin,
Assistant to the
City Manager
All City of Dublin
departments identified
as lead or support
agencies
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
D-4—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain management programs
that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
• Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
• Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
New and
Existing
Flood, Dam failure 1, 4, 6, 9 City of Dublin
Public Works/
Environmental
Services
N/A Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
D-5—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change including but not limited to the following: Conduct a
Climate Adaptation Evaluation and Develop a Climate Adaptation Plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 5, 7,
8, 9, 10, 12
City of Dublin
Public Works /
Environmental
Services
N/A Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
D-6—Integrate flood protection mechanisms into the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan.
New and
Existing
Drought, Flood, Severe
weather
8, 10, 12 City of Dublin
Public Works /
Environmental
Services
Zone 7 High Staff time, general
funds, HMGP, PDM,
FMA, other grants
Short-term
integration,
long-term
implement
ation
D-7—Develop a Regional Catastrophic Debris Management Plan to minimize recovery time post-disaster.
Existing Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 12 City of Dublin
Public Works
Tri-Valley Agencies,
Alameda County, City
Franchised Waste
Hauler, Other Waste
Haulers
Low Staff time, general
funds
Short-term
D-8—Coordinate with existing GHADs, as applicable, on the mitigation of geological hazards, including landslides.
New and
Existing
Landslide, Earthquake 1, 7 City of Dublin
Public Works
GHADs Low Staff time, GHAD
and HMGP, PDM
and other grants
Ongoing
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
1-16
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
D-9—Complete a Citywide Street Storm Drain Condition Assessment.
Existing Flood, Severe weather 1, 8 City of Dublin
Public Works
N/A High Staff time, Capital
Project with general
funds
Short-term
D-10—Update City’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in accordance with State of California model.
Existing Dam failure, flood,
severe weather
6, 8, 11 City of Dublin
CDD/ Public
Works
State of CA Low Staff time Short-term
D-11—Utilize vegetation management to reduce risks in existing development and open space land.
Existing Wildfire, flood, severe
weather, landslide
10, 12 City of Dublin
Fire Prevention
Bureau &Public
Works Dept.
Alameda County Fire
Department,
Private Property
Owners,
East Bay Regional
Park District
Low Staff time Ongoing
D-12—Reduce hazard vulnerabilities for non-City owned building throughout Dublin. Continually update and adopt building standard
codes to incorporate the latest knowledge and design standard to protect people and property against know seismic, fire, flood and
landslide risk in both structural and non-structural building and site components.
Existing Flood, Earthquake,
Wildfire, Severe
Weather, Landslide
1, 6, 11 City of Dublin
CDD/Building
Alameda County Fire
Department
International Code
Council
Low Staff time Ongoing
D-13—Streamline the permitting process to rebuild residential and commercial structures following disaster; prepare an informational
handout for property owner and contractors on steps to rebuild following a major disaster.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
4, 6, 7, 9 City of
Dublin/CDD
Building &
Planning
Private Property &
Landowners
Low Staff Time Short-term
D-14—Improve the disaster-resistance of natural gas delivery system to increase public safety and to minimize damage and service
disruption following a disaster. Educate private property owners about gas line shut off procedures.
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Flood,
Wildfire
1, 4, 9 City of
Dublin/CDD
Alameda County Fire
(CERT)
PG&E
Kinder Morgan
Pipeline & Hazardous
Material Safety
Administration
Medium Staff Time for
education; HMGP,
PDM
Short-term
D-15—Provide outreach activities related to hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness. Revitalize and maintain Tri-Valley Hazard
Mitigation Plan website, create printed materials for public and business owners.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 9 Tri-Valley Cities;
City of Dublin
Alameda County Fire
Department,
Alameda County
Sheriff
Low Staff Time &
General Funds
Short-term
1. City of Dublin
1-17
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
D-16—Establish cooling centers and encourage landscaping improvement to reduce Dublin’s residents’ vulnerability to extreme heat
events, severe storms, and associated hazards. Integrate extreme heat readiness in to City operations, services and best practices.
Existing Severe weather, flood 8, 10, 12 City of Dublin
Public Works &
Parks and
Community
Services
Departments
CA Office of
Emergency Services
Low Staff Time Short-term
D-17—Coordinate disaster preparation and mitigation practices with private sector, public institutions and other public bodies. Maintain an
emergency notification system (reverse 9-1-1) to deliver community alerts. Seek guidance from Cal OES and Alameda County OES how
best to work and educate private sector about business resilience.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 3, 7 City of Dublin
City Manager’s
Office/ PIO/
Disaster
Preparedness
County of Alameda
CAL OES
Low Staff Time Short-term
D-18—Explore local legislation to regulate the storage of hazardous materials to be protected from flood zones. Continue to assess the
potential impact from hazardous material stored and transported through Dublin.
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 4, 10 City of Dublin
City Manager’s
Office
EPA, Alameda
County OES, Ca
OES, Alameda
County Fire Dept.
Low Staff Time Short-term
D-19—Reduce hazard vulnerabilities for City owned building and public facilities throughout Dublin. Continue City’s Injury and Illness
Prevention Program and Safety Plan of Action including regular facility inspections including office spaces to eliminate hazards.
Existing Earthquake 4, 8 City of Dublin
City Manager’s
Office / Disaster
Preparedness
Safety Consultant,
Alameda County Fire
Medium Staff time, general
funds
Short-term
D-20—Collaborate with Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), Zone 7, local, state, regional and federal partners to increase the
security of Dublin’s water supply from climate change impacts. Continue to encourage private and public water recycling, gray water use,
and ensure compliance with State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines.
New and
Existing
Severe Weather,
Drought
1, 2, 7 City of Dublin
Public Works
Dept. and City
Manager’s
Office
DSRSD
Zone 7
CA Dept. of Water
Resources
Low Staff Time Short-term
D-21—Protect vulnerable electric systems and facilities and build resiliency so disruption to the system is minimized during and following
disasters. Ensure adequate redundancy in the form of photovoltaic generation, battery storage systems, energy efficiency, and mobile
generators including fuel is available to maintain critical facilities.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
3, 4, 10 City of Dublin
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works Dept.,
Facilities
Development
Alameda County
Offices of Emergency
Services, Fire, Sheriff,
and PG&E,
Low Staff time, Capital
Project with general
funds
Short-term
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
1-18
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
D-22—Conduct ongoing training for City Personnel to ensure they have necessary training and equipment to deal with a hazard (including
natural and man-made disasters); Test and train City Disaster Service Workers and those assigned to Emergency Operations Center
(R.A.C.E.S); pre-screen, train and educate Disaster Services Volunteers for same.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
3, 7, 9 City of Dublin
City Manager’s
Office
Alameda County
Office of Emergency
Services, Emergency
Managers’
Association, and
General Public
Low Staff time,
Capital Project for
new emergency
operation center,
general funds
Short-term
Table 1-14. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed
Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project
Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
D-1 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
D-2 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-3 12 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-4 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-5 8 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Medium
D-6 3 High High Yes Yes Yes High High
D-7 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-8 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High High
D-9 2 High High Yes No Yes High Low
D-10 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-11 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-12 3 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-13 4 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-14 3 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
D-15 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-16 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-17 3 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-18 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-19 2 High Medium Yes No Yes High Low
D-20 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-21 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
D-22 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
1. City of Dublin
1-19
Table 1-15. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community Capacity
Building
Landslide 2, 12, 18 1, 8, 11, 12 15 7, 17, 21 8 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 22
Earthquake 2, 12, 18 1, 8, 12, 19 14, 15 7, 17, 21 3, 8, 13, 14, 21, 22
Severe weather 2, 10, 12,
16, 18, 20
1, 11, 12 15 6 7, 17, 21 6, 16, 20 3, 5, 6, 13, 21, 22
Wildfire 2, 12, 18 1, 11, 12 14, 15 7, 17, 21 3, 5, 13, 14, 21, 22
Flood 2, 4, 9, 10,
12, 16, 18
1, 4, 9, 11,
12
4, 14, 15 6 7, 17, 21 6, 16 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 21, 22
Drought 2, 20 15 6 6, 20 3, 5, 6
Dam failure 2, 4, 10 1, 4 4, 15 7, 17, 21 3, 5, 13, 21, 22
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
1.11 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF RESOURCES FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide information for this
annex.
• City of Dublin Municipal Code—The municipal code was reviewed for the full capability assessment
and for identifying opportunities for action plan integration.
• City of Dublin Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The flood damage prevention ordinance was
reviewed for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
• Climate Action Plan (2013)—The Climate Action Plan was used to develop ratings for the adaptive
capacity assessment conducted as part of the capability assessment.
• General Plan—The General Plan was used to develop ratings for the adaptive capacity assessment
conducted as part of the capability assessment.
• Technical Reports and Information—The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Tool-kit—The tool-kit was used to support the
development of this annex including past hazard events, noted vulnerabilities, risk ranking and action
development.
American FactFinder—Information obtained via the American FactFinder website was used to
develop ratings for the adaptive capacity assessment conducted as part of the capability assessment.
Community and Economic Profile—Information on the City of Dublin’s website regarding the
City’s business profile was used to develop ratings for the adaptive capacity assessment conducted as
part of the capability assessment.
"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ííííííí¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«"Nnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDKA MP DRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVBERNALAVOWENSDRHACIENDADRDUBLIN BLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A M O N R D CROAKRDSTANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R DTASSAJARARD
DOUGHERTYRDContra Costa CountyPLEASANTONLIVERMOREnmEducational Facilities"NEmergency Services - EOC¬«Emergency Services - FireíEmergency Services - Police;Government / City Facilities%defgcHazardous Materials"'Medical & Health ServicesPlanning AreaAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & Channels/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, EPA, EIA,Cal Healthcare Atlas, Hazus 4.0, USDACity of DublinCritical Facilities0120.5Miles
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDKA MP DRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVBERNALAVOWENSDRHACIENDADRDUBLIN BLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A M O N R D CROAKRDSTANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R DTASSAJARARD
DOUGHERTYRDContra Costa CountyPLEASANTONLIVERMOREPlanning AreaAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsTransportation InfrastructureJ^Airport / Helipad FacilitiesJaBus FacilitiesúHighway BridgesI2Light Rail FacilitiesI3Rail FacilitiesúRailway BridgesUtilitiesCommunications FacilitiesdElectric Facilities/Petroleum / Lab FacilitiespoPotable Water Facilities!(Wastewater Facilities/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, EPA, EIA,Caltrans, Hazus 4.0, USDACity of DublinCritical Infrastructure0120.5Miles
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDKA MP DRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVBERNALAVOWENSDRHACIENDADRDUBLIN BLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A MO N R D CROAKRDSTANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R DTASSAJARARD
DOUGHERTYRDPLEASANTONLIVERMOREContra Costa CountyCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsSusceptibility toLiquefactionNo Liquefaction DataVery LowLowMediumHighVery HighMap Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGSCity of DublinLiquefaction Susceptibility0120.5Miles/
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDKA MP DRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVBERNALAVOWENSDRHACIENDADRDUBLIN BLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A MO N R D CROAKRDSTANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R DTASSAJARARD
DOUGHERTYRDPLEASANTONLIVERMOREContra Costa CountyCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsNEHRP Site Class / SoilProfileB / RockC / Very Dense Soil - Soft RockD / Stiff SoilE / Soft Soil/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaDept of Conservation, CGS, USGSCity of DublinNational Earthquake HazardsReduction Program (NEHRP)Soil ClassificationSoil classification data provided by the California Departmentof Conservation. The data is based on surficial geologypublished at a scale of 1:250,000. The surficial geologic unitswere grouped into composite units with similar average shearwave velocity to 30 meters depth (Vs30) values. This datawas prepared as part of the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Mapof California (Petersen, M., D. Beeby, W. Bryant, T. Cao, C.Cramer, J. Davis, M. Reichle, G. Saucedo, S. Tan G., Taylor,T. Toppozada, J. Treiman, and C. Wills (1999) SeismicShaking Hazard Maps of California: California Division ofMines and Geology Map Sheet 48).0120.5Miles
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDKA MP DRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVBERNALAVOWENSDRHACIENDADRDUBLIN BLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A MO N R D CROAKRDSTANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R DTASSAJARARD
DOUGHERTYRDContra Costa CountyPLEASANTONLIVERMORECity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & Channels1% Annual Chance (100-Year)Flood Zone0.2% Annual Chance (500-Year)Flood Zone/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, FEMA,USDACity of DublinFEMA Effective DFIRM FloodHazard AreasFlood hazard areas as depicted onEffective FEMA Digital Insurance RateMaps (DFIRM)0120.5Miles
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDKA MP DRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVBERNALAVOWENSDRHACIENDADRDUBLIN BLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A M O N R D CROAKRDSTANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R DTASSAJARARD
DOUGHERTYRDPLEASANTONLIVERMOREContra Costa CountyCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsNo Landslide Data AvailableSusceptibility to Deep-Seated LandslidesLowModerateHighVery High / Existing/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGSCity of DublinSusceptibility to Deep-SeatedLandslidesSource dataset created by Wills C.J.,Perez, F., Gutierrez, C., 2011, Susceptibilityto deep-seated landslides in California:California Geological Survey Map Sheet 580120.5Miles
§¨¦680§¨¦580§¨¦580MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDKA MP DRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVBERNALAVOWENSDRHACIENDADRDUBLIN BLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A MO N R D CROAKRDSTANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R DTASSAJARARD
DOUGHERTYRDPLEASANTONLIVERMOREContra Costa CountyCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsWildfire Severity ZoneModerateHighVery HighMap Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CalFIRE,USDACity of DublinWildfire Severity Zones0120.5Miles/
2-1
2. CITY OF LIVERMORE
2.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Marc Roberts, City Manager
City Manager’s Office
1052 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: 925-960-4040
e-mail Address: citymanager@cityoflivermore.net
Paul Spence, Community Development Director
Livermore Community Development Department
1052 S. Livermore Ave.
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: 925-960-4400
e-mail Address: cedd@cityoflivermore.net
2.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
• Date of Incorporation— April 1, 1876
• Current Population— 89,648 as of January 1, 2017, per the State of California Department of Finance
• Population Growth— Based on data provided by the state Department of Finance, Livermore’s annual
population growth is about 1.5% per year since 2010.
• Location and Description—Livermore is located in the Livermore Valley in eastern Alameda County
about 43 miles southeast of San Francisco, 30 miles southeast of Oakland, and 29 miles northeast of San
Jose. The Livermore Valley is edged to the north, south and east by rolling hills within which the
urbanized area is located. Several creeks and arroyos traverse the city including Altamont Creek, Arroyo
Seco, Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Las Positas, Collier Canyon Creek and Arroyo del Valle. Livermore is
bisected by Interstate 580 which runs east-west through Alameda County. The Union Pacific Railroad,
which also serves the ACE train commuter rail service, roughly parallels the freeway to the south. The
Livermore Municipal Airport, located on the western edge of the city, is a general aviation airport which
primarily serves the Tri-Valley Area.
• Brief History—The City of Livermore was founded in 1869 by William Mendenhall. In the years leading
up to incorporation in 1876, the Livermore Valley was used mainly for grazing land for cattle and sheep.
Mendenhall named the city in honor of his friend Robert Livermore, a prominent rancher in the valley.
Livermore’s development as a city was based on the Western Pacific Railroad and the commerce the
railroad brought with it, as well as cattle ranches and vineyards. Since its incorporation, Livermore has
grown from its agricultural roots to a thriving suburban community. While retaining much of its
agricultural heritage, Livermore now provides a variety of housing and employment opportunities. Major
employers include Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories, Valley Care Health Systems,
US Foods and several local public agencies, including the City of Livermore, Livermore Area Recreation
and Park District and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District.
• Climate—Livermore’s climate is typical for inland Bay Area valleys with warm to hot, dry summers and
mild to cool, wet winters. Summer daytime temperatures range from 75 to 85o F, sometimes reaching
100o F and higher. Summer nighttime temperatures average in the 50 to 60o F range. Winter daytimes
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-2
temperatures range 50 to 60o F with nighttime temperatures averaging in the 35 to 40o F range. Average
annual rainfall is 14.6 inches occurring mainly from September to May.
• Governing Body Format—The City of Livermore operates under the Council/Manager form of
government. The Council, as the legislative body, represents the entire community and is empowered
under the General Law of California to formulate city-wide policy. The City Council is comprised of four
Councilmembers and the Mayor. They are elected at-large by city voters. Councilmembers serve four-
year terms and the Mayor serves a two-year term. The City Manager is appointed by the Council and
serves as the chief executive officer responsible for day-to-day administration of city affairs and
implementation of Council policies. The City Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan;
the City Manager will oversee its implementation.
2.3 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Under General Plan policies, residential development is limited to an average range between 140 to 700 units per
year. Due to the Urban Growth Boundary, residential development has primarily been infill in recent years. Jobs
have increased almost 10% between 2010 and 2015, with about 42,300 jobs in 2015. The Livermore General Plan
anticipates about 41,000 residential units and 86,000 jobs at buildout.
Table 2-1 summarizes development trends in the performance period since development of the previous hazard
mitigation plan and expected future development trends.
2.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Livermore has performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs and
policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this
volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the components included in the capability assessment and their
significance for hazard mitigation planning. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 2-2.
• Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 2-3.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 2-4.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 2-5.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 2-6.
• Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 2-7.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 2-8.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 2-9.
The capability assessment was reviewed in order to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate
capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and
determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan and are identified as Community Capacity Building
mitigation actions in the Analysis of Mitigation Actions table in Section 2.10.
2. City of Livermore
2-3
Table 2-1. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends
Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the development of the previous hazard mitigation plan?
Yes
• If yes, give the estimated area annexed and estimated number of parcels or structures.
1,022 acres including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (627 acres), Sandia National
Laboratory (390 acres) and two rural parcels (5 acres total).
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex
any areas during the performance period
of this plan?
Yes
• If yes, please describe land areas and dominant uses.
Pending annexation applications: 0.62-acre vacant parcel for proposed single family dwelling
and secondary unit; 9.34 acres with 19 existing single family units and 4 vacant lots; 79.4
acres with existing winery and vineyard; 0.1-acre vacant parcel for fast food restaurant; 2.53-
acre vacant parcel for car wash/gas station/fast food; 21 acres for residential and park uses
• If yes, who currently has permitting
authority over these areas?
Alameda County
Are any areas targeted for development
or major redevelopment in the next five years?
Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe,
including whether any of the areas are in known hazard risk areas
• Isabel Neighborhood Plan – Proposed neighborhood plan covering 1,138 acres including
4,095 dwelling units and 2 million square feet of commercial and office space. Areas of low
to medium liquefaction susceptibility and moderate wildfire risks are within the plan area.
• Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan – Approved neighborhood plan covering 28 acres and 456
dwelling units. Plan includes area of medium liquefaction risk.
• Rincon/Pine Plan – Proposed plan for mixed use including 91 dwelling units and 15,000-
square-foot commercial. Plan includes area of medium liquefaction risk.
• First Street Corridor Plan – Approved neighborhood plan covering 24 acres for up to 350
units; first phase project of 100 units approved. Plan includes areas of low to medium
liquefaction risk and 500-year flood zone.
How many permits for new construction were issued in your jurisdiction since the
development of the previous hazard mitigation plan?
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Single Family 110 96 71 272 140
Multi-Family 20 8 4 22 40
Other (commercial, mixed use, etc.) 8 7 15 13 4
Please provide the number of new-
construction permits for each hazard area or provide a qualitative description
of where development has occurred.
• Special Flood Hazard Areas: No new residential development permits were located within
the 100 or 500-year flood zones. Approximately 13 new commercial permits were issued
for development located in the 100-year flood zone. All commercial structures are part of
Conditional Letter of Map Revision Case No. 08-09-1228R. The application will be
submitted December 2017 to show the area out of the floodplain.
• Landslide: The majority of the city is areas of low landslide susceptibility. No new
development has occurred in areas of moderate, high or very high landslide susceptibility.
• High Liquefaction Areas: The majority of the city is located in areas of very low to moderate
liquefaction susceptibility. New industrial development has occurred in an area of high
liquefaction south of the Airport.
• Wildfire Risk Areas: Areas of moderate to high wildfire severity are located primarily on the
edges of the city where urban development abuts agriculture/open space areas. New
residential, commercial and industrial development has occurred in areas of moderate
wildfire severity. No new development has occurred in areas of high wildfire severity. There
are no areas of very high wildfire severity in the city limits.
Please describe the level of buildout in the jurisdiction, based on your
jurisdiction’s buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory exists, provide a
qualitative description.
The Livermore General Plan anticipates approximately 41,000 dwelling units and 86,000 jobs
at buildout. Buildout estimates include not only development of vacant parcels, but also
redevelopment of underdeveloped parcels and intensification of uses in existing buildings
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-4
Table 2-2. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, & Requirements
Building Code Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Livermore Building Code adopted in 2016
Zoning Code Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Livermore Development Code adopted in 2010; updated through July 2017
Subdivisions Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Livermore Development Code adopted in 2010; updated through July 2017
Stormwater Management Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: City Stormwater Master Plan for city-owned property; Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan for Zone 7 owned
facilities/property.
Post-Disaster Recovery No No No Yes
Comment: Preparation of plan proposed.
Real Estate Disclosure Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: City uses real estate disclosure to provide notice regarding special conditions and requirements on properties; Cal. Civ. Code
§1102 et seq.
Growth Management Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: General Plan includes policies and programs for residential growth management; Cal. Gov. Code §65300 et seq.
Site Plan Review Yes No No Yes
Comment: Site Plan Approval required in Development Code for all new development and redevelopment projects.
Environmental Protection Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: The City conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for development review as well as
applicable environmental protection requirements for businesses. City coordinates with other agencies including Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Alameda County Health Department.
Flood Damage Prevention Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: The City has agreements with Zone 7 for stream management and flood protection projects. The city’s floodplain ordinance
implements NFIP requirements, plus 1’ of freeboard and elevation certificates of new buildings adjacent to creeks.
Emergency Management Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Water Resources Division has a Water System Emergency Plan which needs to be updated. Livermore Emergency
Management Plan adopted in 2005; Plan conforms with the state-mandated Standardized Emergency Management System
and the National Incident Management System
Climate Change Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: General Plan Climate Change Element adopted in 2009; Climate Action Plan adopted in 2012; California Senate Bill 379
requires cities to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in their general plans
Other: N/A N/A N/A N/A
Comment: None identified
Planning Documents
General Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Is the plan compliant with Assembly Bill 2140? No
Comment: Livermore General Plan was adopted in 2004. Comprehensive update scheduled for 2019. General plans required under
Government Code Sec. 65300.
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No Yes Yes How often is the plan updated? Every 2 Years
Comment: FY 2017-2019 CIP adopted in June 2017. The CIP is coordinated with Zone 7 and Livermore Area Recreation & Park District
improvement plans.
2. City of Livermore
2-5
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Floodplain or Watershed Plan No Yes No Yes
Comment: City coordinates with Zone 7 who is responsible for flood control. The city regulates the watershed by enforcing the Municipal
Regional Permit and the NFIP requirements plus 1’ freeboard and elevation certificates for all new buildings next to creeks.
The city has a Stream Maintenance Program which allows the city to maintain all creeks within city limits including creeks
owned by Livermore Area Recreation & Park District and Zone 7.
Stormwater Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: City Stormwater Master Plan adopted in 2004; Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan adopted in 2006
Urban Water Management Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: 2015 Urban Water Management Plan applies in area served by city. California Water Service provides water to remaining
areas of the city.
Habitat Conservation Plan No Yes No No
Comment: City participates in the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy.
Economic Development Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: General Plan includes an Economic Development and Fiscal Element.
Shoreline Management Plan No No No No
Comment: Not applicable
Community Wildfire Protection Plan No Yes No Yes
Comment: Alameda County
Forest Management Plan No No No No
Comment: Not applicable
Climate Action Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: City CAP adopted in 2012. Update scheduled for 2018.
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Livermore Emergency Management Plan adopted in 2005. Plan conforms to the state-mandated Standardized Emergency
Management System and the National Incident Management System.
Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment (THIRA) No No No Yes
Comment: THIRA may be developed within the performance period of this plan
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No Yes
Comment:
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: 2017 Livermore Municipal Code; Annex on the Livermore Emergency Management Plan adopted in 2005
Public Health Plan No Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Alameda County Public Health Department prepares a Community Health Improvement Plan
Other: N/A N/A N/A N/A
Comment: None identified
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-6
Table 2-3. Development and Permitting Capability
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes
• If no, who does? If yes, which department? Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions of the
Community Development Department (CDD); Water
Resources Division of Public Works Department
Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard area? Yes
Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? Yes
Buildable lands inventory included in the 2015 Housing
Element for residential development. Inventory of non-
residential lands not available.
Table 2-4. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes – Water and Sewer services
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes
Other Yes – Landscape Maintenance Districts
Table 2-5. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices
Yes CDD/ Planning/Assistant, Associate, Senior Planners;
Engineering/Assistant and Associate Engineers
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes CDD; Building and Engineering
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural
hazards
Yes CDD/ Planning/Assistant, Associate, Senior Planners;
Engineering/Assistant and Associate Engineers
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes CDD/Engineering/ Assistant and Associate Engineers
Surveyors Yes CDD/Engineering/Contract
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Information Technology/Contract; CDD/Planning/
Assistant, Associate, Senior Planners;
Engineering/Engineering Tech
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes CDD/Planning/Contract
Emergency Manager Yes City Manager’s Office/Management Analyst-Disaster
Preparedness;
LPFD/Disaster Preparedness Coordinator
Grant writers Yes CDD/ Planning/Assistant, Associate, Senior Planners;
Engineering/Assistant and Associate Engineers
Other - -
2. City of Livermore
2-7
Table 2-6. Education and Outreach Capability
Criterion Response
Do you have a Public Information Officer or Communications Office? Yes
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan on LPFD website.
Do you utilize social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. Advertise CERT trainings; post family disaster
preparedness tips
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? No
• If yes, please briefly describe. N/A
Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. Living Arroyos Program
LPFD Public Education Program
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. Next Door, Nixle, AC Alert
Table 2-7. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Community Development/Engineering
Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) CDD/Senior Civil Engineer
Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? Yes
What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last amended? 2015
Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum requirements? Exceeds
• If exceeds, in what ways? 1 ft. freeboard requirement, requires
elevation certificates for new construction
next to creeks
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact? 2017
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be
addressed?
No
• If so, please state what they are. N/A
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction? No
• If no, please state why. Inundation due to storm drains.
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? Yes
• If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? Training additional staff in duties of
floodplain management
Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? Yes (Class 9)
• If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving CRS Classification? Yes
• Is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? N/A
How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a 108
• What is the insurance in force? $36,407,900
• What is the premium in force? $104,928
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a 0
• How many claims are still open/were closed without payment? 0
• What were the total payments for losses? $0
a. According to FEMA statistics as of June 30, 2017
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-8
Table 2-8. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System Yes 9 05/1/15
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 2 2012
Public Protection No N/A N/A
Storm Ready Yesa N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
a. At the time of this plan update, the City is in the process of verification for StormReady classification.
Table 2-9. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High
Comment: A greenhouse gas inventory was conducted in 2008 using 2005 data. This supported the preparation and adoption of the
Climate Change Element of the General Plan in 2009. The adoption of the Climate Action Plan followed in 2012.
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Medium
Comment: The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan and the General Plan includes climate change policies. While climate change
impacts are not specifically monitored, hazards are monitored via the local hazard mitigation plan.
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Medium
Comment: City staff and/or consultants are available to assess strategies for feasibility.
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High
Comment: City planning staff, with assistance from ICLEI, is conducting an update to the greenhouse gas inventory which will be
completed by early 2018.
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Medium
Comment: Impacts relating to GHG emissions evaluated during environmental review
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Medium
Comment: Staff tracks discussions of regional (e.g. ABAG, MTC) and local (e.g. Stop Waste) agencies
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes Low
Comment: While CEQA requires consideration of GHG emissions during environmental review there is no clear authority to otherwise
consider climate change impacts during the decision-making process.
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High
Comment: Climate Action Plan outlines strategies for reducing GHG emissions within the community and city operations.
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Medium
Comment: The GHG emissions inventory completed for the Climate Action Plan identified sectors with the greatest potential to reduce
emissions. The city is also working with Stop Waste on identification of climate adaptation strategies available for further
consideration.
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comment: While some city staff has experience with climate action planning, there is not a coordinated program to address climate
action planning.
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies Medium
Comment: The city is supportive of resilient infrastructure projects but there is no specific program to identify climate adaptation
projects.
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Low
Comment: While many capital improvement projects can address climate adaption, there is no specific program to identify climate
adaptation projects.
2. City of Livermore
2-9
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted Medium
Comment: The city has authority over local public streets and infrastructure and coordinates with other public agencies, such as Zone
7, Regional Water Quality Control Board, CalTrans, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, regarding hazard
mitigation.
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk High
Comment: Livermore residents are highly educated and aware of the issues and science relating to climate change.
Local residents support of adaptation efforts Low
Comment: Support of adaptation efforts is unknown as the city has not specifically addressed this issue.
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment: Unsure.
Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment: Unsure.
Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment: Unsure.
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement;
Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
2.5 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on
the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning
mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard
information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa.
Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in
collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation.
2.5.1 Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, Livermore made progress on
integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives and actions into other planning initiatives. The following plans and
programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Program—Incorporates hazard mitigation projects consistent with other adopted
plans and programs
• Living Arroyos Program—Regional volunteer program for hands-on stream maintenance and
restoration. Apprenticeship program for students at Las Positas Community College.
• Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan— Multi-objective master plan addressing flood control,
water quality, recycled water, and recreation.
• Livermore Storm Management Plan—City-wide program for maintaining creeks and outfalls.
• Storm Drain Master Plan—City master plan prioritizing capital improvements to storm drains.
• Livermore General Plan—The General Plan includes a Safety Element that addresses natural hazards.
• Livermore Development Code—The Development Code includes development requirements that can
address hazard mitigation.
• Livermore Municipal Code—The Municipal Code includes development requirements that can address
hazard mitigation.
• Livermore Building Code—The Building Code includes related State codes for hazard mitigation.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-10
Resources listed in Section 2.12 were used to provide information for this annex on hazard events and local
capabilities within the jurisdiction.
2.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
As this hazard mitigation plan is implemented, Livermore will use information from the plan as the best available
science and data on natural hazards. The capability assessment presented in this annex identifies codes, plans and
programs that provide opportunities for integration. The area-wide and local action plans developed for this
hazard mitigation plan in actions related to plan integration, and progress on these actions will be reported
through the progress reporting process described in Volume 1. New opportunities for integration also will be
identified as part of the midterm progress report. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate goals or recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan but provide
opportunities to do so in the future. Information from the risk assessment as well as goals, objectives and actions
will be integrated into these plans and programs as appropriate at the time of their next update:
• Design Standards and Guidelines—The Design Standards and Guidelines provide design guidance for
private and public developments. Acknowledgement of information from the hazard mitigation plan,
including identification of potential hazards and mitigation requirements, will be incorporated into the
next update of the Design Standards and Guidelines. The update will include identification of additional
design elements that can address hazard mitigation.
• Climate Action Plan—The CAP provides an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions by the community
and identifies strategies for reducing emissions. Discussion of climate change resiliency and adaptation
and identification of appropriate community actions to address resiliency will be included in the next
update of the CAP.
• Capital Improvement Program—Incorporates hazard mitigation projects consistent with other adopted
plans and programs. Improvement plans and projects that address hazard mitigation will be identified.
• Living Arroyos Program—Regional volunteer program for hands-on stream maintenance and
restoration. This is an apprenticeship program for students at Las Positas Community College. The City
will work with the Community College to incorporate identification of natural hazards and mitigation
opportunities in the curriculum of this program.
• Livermore Storm Management Plan— This is a city-wide program for maintaining creeks and outfalls.
Information from the hazard mitigation plan will be incorporated into the plan including identification of
projects that address hazard mitigation.
• Storm Drain Master Plan— This is the city master plan prioritizing capital improvements to storm
drains. Information from the hazard mitigation plan will be incorporated into the plan including
identification of projects that address hazard mitigation.
• Livermore General Plan—The General Plan includes a Safety Element that addresses natural hazards.
The proposed General Plan update will be consistent with the requirements of AB 2140 and SB 379.
• Livermore Development Code—The Development Code includes zoning and subdivision regulations.
Information from the hazard mitigation plan will be incorporated into the Development Code that
addresses hazard mitigation.
• Livermore Municipal Code—The Municipal Code includes ordinances regarding city operations and
other regulations. The Municipal Code will be updated, as appropriate, to incorporate the information
from the hazard mitigation plan.
• Urban Water Management Plan—Consistent with the California Water Code, this plan provides long-
term water supply and resource planning. The plan will be updated to include information from the hazard
mitigation plan and identify appropriate hazard mitigation strategies and projects.
• Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment—The THIRA process helps to identify
capability targets and resource requirements necessary to address anticipated and unanticipated risks. The
THIRA will include information from and be consistent with the hazard mitigation plan.
2. City of Livermore
2-11
• Continuity of Operations Plan—This plan ensures that agencies are able to perform essential functions
during emergencies. Update to the plan will incorporate information from the hazard mitigation plan.
• Continuity of Government Plan—This plan ensures that government continues its essential functions
during emergencies. Update to the plan will incorporate information from the hazard mitigation plan.
• Post Disaster Recovery Plan— This plan provides policies and actions for rebuilding and recovery after
disasters. Update to the plan will incorporate information from the hazard mitigation plan.
• Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan—This plan ensures the city’s ability to function during
and after events including measures that provide for the safety of personnel and, if possible, of property
and facilities. Update to the plan will incorporate information from the hazard mitigation plan.
2.6 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 2-10 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in the City of
Livermore. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including the City of Livermore,
are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 2-10. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event
FEMA Disaster #
(if applicable) Date Damage Assessment
Severe winter storms, flooding
and mudslides
DR-4308 4/1/2017 $11,715,000
Winter storm, Doolan Road tree
damage
— 4/18/15 $5,000
Severe winter storms, flooding,
landslides and mudslides
DR-1646 6/5/2006 Minor damage in the community
Flash Flood DR-1203 2/2/1998 $28,052
Flash Flood DR-1044 1/3/1995-2/10/1995 $13,796
Flash Flood DR-1046 2/13/1995-4/19/1995 $147,737
Tornado — 4/25/1994 Minor damage in the community
Earthquake – Greenville Fault — 1/12/1980 Moderate structural damage in the
community
2.7 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.
This section provides information on a few key vulnerabilities for the jurisdiction.
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0
Other noted vulnerabilities include the following:
• Storm drain pumps at road and railroad undercrossings (Isabel Ave., Murietta Blvd., P Street, L Street,
Livermore Ave.) require back-up pumps and back-up power to ensure functions during storms.
• Road undercrossings (Isabel Ave./Stanley Blvd., Greenville Rd./Railroad overcrossing, Greenville Rd./I-
580, Livermore Ave./Railroad overcrossing) need to be assessed to determine vulnerability during
earthquakes.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-12
• Bridge/Culverts over creeks (Arroyo Mocho at Concannon, Holmes, Arroyo Rd., Stanley Blvd.; Arroyo
Las Positas at Vasco Rd., Central Ave., Heather Lane, Bluebell Ave.) need to be assessed to determine
vulnerability during earthquakes.
• Doolan Road, which provides the sole access to rural properties and city-owned properties, could be
blocked by falling trees due to high winds and heavy windfall. The health and stability of adjacent trees
need to assessed.
• Cottonwood Creek along Doolan Road is severely incised and could be destabilized during heavy rainfall
threatening the roadway and culvert. Stabilization measures for creek bank and roadway need to be
identified.
2.8 HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 2-11 presents a local ranking for the City of Livermore of all hazards of concern for which Volume 1 of this
hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. This ranking summarizes how hazards vary for this
jurisdiction. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of
occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.
Table 2-11. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category
1 Earthquakea 36 High
2 Severe weatherb 33 Medium
3 Wildfirec 18 Medium
4 Floodd 12 Low
4 Landslidee 12 Low
5 Droughtf 9 Low
6 Dam failureg 6 Low
a. Based on the “Haywired” (Hayward Fault Scenario M7.05)
b. Severe weather is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, medium
impact on people, medium impact on property and low impact on economy.
c. Based on Very High and High Fire Severity Zones.
d. Based on 1 percent-annual-chance flood zone (otherwise known as the special flood hazard area)
e. Based on Very High, High, and Moderate Landslide Susceptibility Zones
f. Drought is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Generally, drought does not cause injury or death to people or result in
property damage. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, no impact on people, low impact on property and low impact
on economy for those jurisdictions with limited agriculture.
g. Based on the Del Valle Dam inundation scenario.
2.9 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Table 2-12 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan
and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
2. City of Livermore
2-13
Table 2-12. Status of Previous Plan Actions
Removed;
Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Enter
Action #
Pre-position emergency power generation capacity (or have rental/lease agreements for these generators) in critical buildings of cities, counties, and special districts to maintain continuity of government and services. Water
Resources Division. Have generators in water pump stations; need back-up
power to keep entire Livermore Water Resources Plant running. On CIP. INFRA-a- (8)
No X L-20
Comment: Emergency generator for Water Resources in 2017-2019 CIP
Tie public education on defensible space and a comprehensive defensible space ordinance to a field program of enforcement. LPFD. (HSNG-g-(2).
Funding and resources unavailable.
Yes; Ongoing X L-12, 30
Comment: Annual education provided
Provide retrofit classes or workshops for homeowners. Community Development. HSNG-b-(7). Funding unavailable. No X
Comment: Classes are available at local home improvement stores
Offer the 20-hour basic CERT training to teachers and after-school personnel.
LPFD Emergency Preparedness and Livermore School District. This strategy moved from category “existing” to deferred” due to resources on both sides of the partnership. EDUC-c-(3)
Yes; Ongoing X L-12, 30
Comment: Classes are offered multiple times annually to the general public.
Offer the 20-hour basic CERT training course through the Adult School
system and/or through the Community College system. LPFD Emergency Preparedness. This strategy moved from the category “existing” to
“deferred” because there was a fee to utilize registration through the Adult
School which was not acceptable when the program was granted U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security funding. EDUC-c-(5)
Yes; Ongoing X L-12, 30
Comment: Classes are offered multiple times annually to the general public.
Explore ways to require that hazardous materials stored in the flood zone be
elevated or otherwise protected from flood waters. Public Works. ENVI-a-(10)
No X L-1, L-8
Comment: This action was not implemented due to lack of funding.
Assess the vulnerability of critical facilities (such as city halls, fire stations,
community service centers, seaports, and airports) to damage in natural disasters and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation. Unfunded. Maintenance Division. GOVT-a-(1)
No X L-1, 8
Comment: Expand on work completed for the Asset Management Program
Retrofit or replace critical facilities that are shown to be vulnerable to
damage in natural disasters. Unfunded. Maintenance Division. GOVT-a-(2)
No X L-1, 8
Comment: Lack of funding
Install micro and/or surveillance cameras around critical public assets tied to web-based software, and develop a surveillance protocol to monitor these cameras. Unfunded. Maintenance Division. GOVT-a-(6)
No X L-1, 8
Comment: Lack of funding
Develop unused or new pedestrian rights-of-way as walkways to serve as additional evacuation routes (such as fire roads in park lands). Public Works/Maintenance Division. INFRA-a-10.
No X L-12
Comment: This action was not implemented due to lack of funding.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-14
Removed;
Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Enter
Action #
Encourage the cooperation of utility system providers and cities, counties, and other special districts to develop strong and effective mitigation
strategies for infrastructure systems and facilities. Not implemented; unfunded. INFRA-a-(3)
Yes; Ongoing
Comment: Water system maintains interties with neighboring agencies; City participates in CalWARN mutual aid network for
wastewater agencies.
Assist residents in the development of defensible space through the use of,
for example, “tool libraries” for weed abatement tools, roadside collection
and/or chipping services (for brush, weeds, and tree branches) in wildland-urban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat. LPFD. HSNG-k-(9)
No X
Comment: This is not feasible given the liability of loaning power tools; start up and personnel costs of a new waste collection and
chipper program prohibitive.
Encourage the formation of a community- and neighborhood-based approach to wildfire education and action through local Fire Safe Councils and the Fire Wise Program. LPFD. HSNG-k-(9) Previously moderate priority.
Yes X L-18
Comment: Information is offered through social media and public outreach. Weed abatement program includes wildfire safety approach.
Assist businesses in the development of defensible space through the use
of, for example, “tool libraries” for weed abatement tools, roadside collection
and/or chipping services (for brush, weeds, and tree branches) in wildland-urban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat. LPFD. ECON-j-(6)
No X
Comment: See explanation above
Conduct comprehensive programs to identify and mitigate problems with
facility contents, architectural components, and equipment that will prevent
critical buildings from being functional after major natural disasters. Public Works. GOVT-a-(4)
No X L-1, 8
Comment: Expand on work completed for the Asset Management Program
Be aware of past problems of inadequate hazard disclosure and work with real estate agents to improve enforcement of real estate disclosure
requirements for those hazards covered by this plan, for example, by making those agents and the disclosure firms aware of the hazard maps incorporated in this plan and available on the ABAG web site at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation, as well as locally developed maps. Community Development. HSNG-a-(1)
No X L-11
Comment: Lack of funding
2. City of Livermore
2-15
2.10 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Table 2-13 lists the actions that make up the City of Livermore hazard mitigation action plan. Table 2-14
identifies the priority for each action. Table 2-15 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and
mitigation type.
Table 2-13. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
L-1— Where appropriate, support retrofitting or relocation of structures in high hazard areas, prioritizing structures that have experienced
repetitive losses.
Existing Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
4, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12
Public Works Community
Development
High HMGP, PDM,
FMA
Long-term
L-2— Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions in the community,
including General Plan, Development Code, Municipal Code, Design Standards and Guidelines, Specific Plans.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 6, 8, 10,
11
Community
Development
Public Works,
Community
Development,
City Manager
Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Ongoing
L-3— Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12
Community
Development
Livermore
Pleasanton Fire
Dept., City
Manager
Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-4—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain management programs
that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
New and
Existing
Flood, Dam failure 1, 4, 6, 9 Community
Development
Public Works,
City Manager
Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Ongoing
L-5—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change including, but not limited to, updates of the General
Plan and Climate Action Plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought, Flood,
Landslide, Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 2, 5, 7, 8,
9, 10, 12
Community
Development
City Manager Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-6—Develop/update Continuity of Operations (COO) and Continuity of Government (COG) Plans to support organizational resiliency in
the event of a disaster.
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Flood, Dam
Failure, Wildfire, Severe
Weather
1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
10
City Manager Livermore
Pleasanton Fire
Dept., Police
Dept.
Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-7—Develop a Post Disaster Recovery Plan that addresses all potential hazards and supports the efficient, timely and effective recovery
of the community and public services and facilities. Ensure that Post Disaster Recovery Plan complies with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, NRCS, FEMA, and state and local regulatory requirements to repair damage and receive public assistance in a timely manner.
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Flood, Dam
Failure, Wildfire, Landslide,
Severe Weather
7, 9, 12 City Manager Community
Development,
Public Works
Medium Staff time,
General Funds
Short-
Term
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-16
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
L-8—Consider hazard mitigation when designing the new construction, rehabilitation, retrofitting and/or replacement of projects identified
in the CIP, particularly critical facilities.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
9, 12 Community
Development
Public Works Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Ongoing
L-9—Update and maintain GIS mapping to include information for all mapped hazards that may affect properties in the community.
New and
Existing
Flood, Dam Failure, Landslide,
Wildfire
1, 3, 4 Community
Development
City Manager Medium Staff Time,
General Funds
Ongoing
L-10—Support the area-wide initiatives identified in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 3, ,4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Community
Development
City Manager Low Staff-Time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-11—Continue and expand public information and education activities for residents and businesses regarding hazard mitigation,
emergency preparation, emergency response, and real estate disclosures.
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Flood, Dam
Failure, Wildfire, Landslide,
Severe Weather
3, 7, 9 Livermore
Pleasanton Fire
Dept., Community
Development
City Manager Low Staff time,
General Funds
Ongoing
L-12—Develop evacuation plan that addresses all members of the community including special needs populations including, but not
limited to, seniors, low-income households, disabled, and non-English speaking households.
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Flood, Dam
Failure, Wildfire, Severe
Weather
1, 3, 5, 7, 8,
9, 10, 12
City Manager Livermore
Pleasanton Fire
Dept.
Low Staff time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-13—Provide staff training as needed to support plan implementation, plan maintenance and reporting requirements. Coordinate training
with plan partners.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 3, 5, 7, 10 City Manager All Low Staff time,
General Funds
Ongoing
L-14—Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high watermarks, preliminary damage
estimates, and damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including implementation and maintenance of the hazard mitigation
plan.
Existing Earthquake, Severe Weather,
Wildfire, Flood, Landslide,
Dam Failure
1, 3, 5, 7, 9 City Manager Livermore
Pleasanton Fire
Dept., Police
Dept., Public
Works
Medium Staff time,
General Funds
Ongoing
L-15—Participate in programs such as Firewise, StormReady and the Community Rating System.
New and
Existing
Dam Failure, Flood, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12
City Manager Livermore
Pleasanton Fire
Dept.,
Community
Development
Low Staff time,
General Funds
Short-term
2. City of Livermore
2-17
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
L-16—Implement programs such as “Tree Watch” that proactively manage problem areas through use of selective removal of hazardous
trees, tree replacement, trimming, etc.
New and
Existing
Severe Weather 5, 8, 10, 11,
12
Public Works City Manager Medium Staff time,
General Funds
Ongoing
L-17—Amend existing landscape and other related ordinances to encourage appropriate planting near overhead power, cable, and phone
lines.
New and
Existing
Severe Weather 5, 8, 10, 11,
12
Community
Development
Public Works Low Staff time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-18—Continue Annual Weed Abatement program.
New and
Existing
Wildfire 5, 9, 10, 12 Livermore-
Pleasanton Fire
Dept.
City Manager Low Staff time,
General Funds
Ongoing
L-19—Install emergency generators, or secure lease/rental agreements, in critical facilities, as identified in the CIP, including the Water
Reclamation Plant, Fire Stations, and Airport facilities.
Existing Earthquake, Severe Weather,
Wildfire, Flood
3, 4, 8, 10,
12
Public Works Livermore
Pleasanton Fire
Dept.
Low Staff time,
General Funds,
Airport funds
Short-term
L-20—Install backup battery systems for traffic signals as identified in the CIP.
Existing Earthquake, Severe Weather,
Wildfire, Flood
3, 4, 8, 10,
12
Public Works City Manager Low Staff time,
General Funds
Short-
Term
L-21—As part of the approved Civic Center Meeting Hall, include facilities for an Emergency Operations Center.
New Earthquake, Severe Weather,
Wildfire, Flood, Dam Failure,
Landslide
3, 4, 5, 9 City Manager Community
Development
Medium Staff time,
General Funds
Short-
Term
L-22—Develop a Floodplain Management Plan to describe how city will maintain CRS Classification 9 and work towards Classification 8
and integrate flood damage reduction into public information, development and capital improvement processes.
New and
Existing
Flood 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12
Community
Development
Public Works Medium Staff time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-23—Develop a Climate Resiliency Plan as part of an update to the Climate Action Plan to identify weather trends and infrastructure
subject to damage in increasingly severe weather events and identify mitigation projects.
New and
Existing
Flood, Severe Weather,
Drought
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12
Community
Development
Public Works Medium Staff time,
General Funds
Short-
Term
L-24—Maintain annual inspection records and update GIS and cost tracking process to reflect accurate city facility data.
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Flood, Severe
Weather, Wildfire, Dam Failure
1, 9, 10 Public Works Community
Development
Low Staff time,
General Funds
Short-
Term
L-25—Develop a Debris Management Plan that is coordinated with other regional agencies, addresses all potential hazards and supports
the efficient, timely and effective recovery of the community and public services and facilities.
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Severe weather,
Wildfire, Flood, Landslide,
Dam Failure
1, 5, 7, 9, 10 Public Works Community
Development
Low Staff time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-26—Complete an inundation study to develop flood data for 2-year to 100-year storms that is integrated with the updated Zone 7 flood
study.
New and
Existing
Flood 1, 2, 5, 7, 9,
10, 12
Community
Development
City Manager Low Staff time,
General Funds
Short-term
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-18
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
L-27—Incorporate grant eligible capital improvement projects into the hazard mitigation plan annually.
New Earthquake, Severe weather,
wildfire, flood, dam failure
8, 10, 12 Community
Development
City Manager Low Staff time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-28—Mitigate for landslide and flood damage on Collier Creek by adding to the CIP projects to design and construct a debris basin
upstream of Collier Canyon Road and to grade and plant creek banks to restore capacity of Arroyo Las Positas through the Las Positas
Golf Course.
New and
Existing
Flood, Landslide 8, 10, 12 Public Works City Manager High HMGP Short-
Term
L-29—Continue and expand public education and outreach programs, including CERT, to provide consistent and accessible information
regarding hazards and mitigation for residents and businesses.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
5, 7, 9, 12 City Manager Livermore
Pleasanton Fire
Dept.
Low Staff time,
General funds
Short-term
L-30—Develop a restoration plan to preserve and restore Cottonwood Creek on the city owned property along Doolan Road. Plan would
restore the drainage function of Cottonwood Creek and minimize loss to Doolan Road, public utilities and private property threatened by
eucalyptus tree grove at the top of the creek bank.
Existing Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, wildfire
4, 6, 10, 12 Community
Development
Public Works Medium Staff time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-31— Complete the update to the Emergency Operations Plan.
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Flood, Dam
failure, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 3, 7 City Manager Livermore-
Pleasanton Fire
Dept., Police
Dept.
Low Staff Time,
General Fund
Short-term
L-32— Develop a Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment (THIRA).
New and
Existing
Earthquake, Flood, Dam
Failure, Landslide, Severe
Weather, Wildfire
1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
10
City Manager Livermore-
Pleasanton Fire
Dept., Police
Dept.
Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-term
L-33— Install storm drain back-up pumps and back-up power at road and railroad undercrossings (Isabel Ave., Murietta Blvd., P Street, L
Street, Livermore Avenue).
Existing Flood, Dam Failure 4, 10, 12 Public Works City Manager High HMGP, PDM,
FMA
Long-term
L-34— Assess the earthquake vulnerability of existing road undercrossings (Isabel Ave., Murietta Blvd., P Street, Livermore Avenue,
Greenville Rd.) and overcrossings (First St./railroad, Mines Road/railroad, Vasco Road/railroad) and existing culverts and bridges over
creeks(Arroyo Mocho at Concannon Blvd., Holmes St., Arroyo Rd., Stanley Blvd.; Arroyo Las Positas at Vasco Rd., Central Ave., Heather
Lane, Bluebell Ave.) .
New and
Existing
Earthquake 4, 10, 12 Community
Development
City Manager High HMGP, PDM,
FMA
Long-term
2. City of Livermore
2-19
Table 2-14. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed
Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project
Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
L-1 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
L-2 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
L-3 12 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
L-4 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
L-5 8 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Medium
L-6 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium Low
L-7 3 Low Low Yes No No Medium Low
L-8 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium Low
L-9 4 Medium Medium Yes No No Medium Low
L-10 10 Medium Low Yes No No High Low
L-11 3 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
L-12 8 Medium Low Yes No No Medium Low
L-13 5 Low Low Yes No No Low Low
L-14 5 Medium Low Yes No No Medium Low
L-15 12 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
L-16 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium Low
L-17 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium Low
L-18 4 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
L-19 5 High Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium Medium
L-20 5 High Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium Medium
L-21 4 High Medium Yes No Yes Medium Low
L-22 12 High Low Yes Yes No High High
L-23 12 Medium Medium Yes No No Medium Low
L-24 3 Low Low Yes No No Low Low
L-25 5 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
L-26 7 High Medium Yes No Yes Medium Low
L-27 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium Low
L-28 3 High Medium Yes Yes No High High
L-29 4 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
L-30 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium Medium
L-32 6 High Medium Yes No Yes Medium Low
L-33 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium Medium
L-34 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium Medium
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
2-20
Table 2-15. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
Earthquake L-2, 3, 8, 10, 11,
14, 27, 32, 34
L-1, 8, 19,
20
L-2, 3, 10, 11,
12, 29, 32
L-6, 7, 11, 12,
19, 20, 21, 25,
31
L-21, 27,
28
L-2, 3 L-2, 3, 6, 10,
13, 14, 24
Severe
weather
L-2, 3, 5, 8, 10,
11, 14, 15, 16,
17, 27
L-1, 8, 19,
20, 30
L-2, 3, 5, 10,
11, 12, 15, 29
L-16, 17,
30
L-6, 7, 11, 12,
19, 20, 21, 25
L-27, 30 L-2, 3, 5, 14,
23
L-2, 3, 5, 6,
10, 13, 14, 24
Wildfire L-2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10,
11, 14, 15, 18,
27, 32
L-1, 8, 19,
20, 30
L-2, 3, 5, 9, 10,
11, 12, 15, 29,
32
L-18, 30 L-6, 7, 11, 12,
19, 20, 21, 25,
31
L-27, 30 L-2, 3, 5, 14 L-2, 3, 5, 6,
10, 13, 14, 24
Flood L-2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,
10, 11, 14, 15,
22, 26, 27, 28, 32
L-1, 8, 19,
20, 28, 30
L-2, 3, 4, 5, 9,
10, 11, 12, 15,
26, 29, 32
L-22, 28,
30
L-6, 7, 11, 12,
19, 20, 21, 25,
31
L-22, 27,
30, 33
L-2, 3, 5, 14,
23
L-2, 3, 5, 6,
10, 13, 14, 24
Landslide L-2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10,
11, 14, 28, 32
L-1, 8, 28,
30
L-2, 3, 5, 9, 10,
11, 29, 32
L-28, 30 L-7, 11, 21,
25, 31
L-28, 30 L-2, 3, 5, 14 L-2, 3, 5, 9,
10, 13, 14
Drought L-2, 3, 5, 8, 10,
11
L-8 L-2, 3, 5, 10,
29
L-2, 3, 5, 14,
24
L-2, 3, 5, 10,
13, 14
Dam failure L-2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10,
11, 14, 15, 27, 32
L-1, 8 L-2, 3, 5, 9, 10,
11, 12, 29, 32
L-6, -7, 11, 12,
21, 25, 31
L-27, 33 L-2, 3, 5, 14 L-2, 3, 5, 6, 9,
10, 13, 14, 24
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
2.11 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY
Recent disasters experienced in California and elsewhere in the Country (e.g. North Bay wildfires and hurricanes
with associated flooding) provide extreme examples of the affects that natural disasters can have on emergency
preparation, response and recovery actions. Lessons learned from these events will provide valuable information
for future programs and actions to better protect and prepare our community against natural disasters.
2.12 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF RESOURCES FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide information for this
annex.
Livermore Municipal Code—The municipal code was reviewed for the full capability assessment and
for identifying opportunities for action plan integration.
Livermore Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The flood damage prevention ordinance was
reviewed for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
Capital Improvement Program—The CIP was reviewed for capital improvements that address hazard
mitigation.
Livermore Storm Master Plan—Reviewed plan for projects that address hazard mitigation.
Storm Drain Master Plan—Reviewed plan for projects that address hazard mitigation.
Livermore General Plan—The General Plan was reviewed for goals, objectives and policies supporting
hazard mitigation.
Livermore Development Code—The Development Code was reviewed for requirements supporting
hazard mitigation.
2. City of Livermore
2-21
Livermore Building Code—The Building Code was reviewed for requirements supporting hazard
mitigation.
Technical Reports and Information—The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Tool-kit—The tool-kit was used to support the
development of this annex including past hazard events, noted vulnerabilities, risk ranking and action
development.
Living Arroyos Program—The program was reviewed for opportunities to address hazard
mitigation.
Zone 7 Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan—Reviewed draft plan for opportunities for coordination.
2016 Alameda County Hazard Mitigation Plan—Plan reviewed for opportunities for coordination.
2013 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan—Plan reviewed for opportunities for coordination.
"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc;;;;;;;;;;;í¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«"N"Nnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ84PINESTCOLLEGEAVSCENICAVMURDELLLAARROYO RDNATIONALDRSPRINGT O WNBLNMINESRDALDEN LAN L ST
B L UEBE L LDR
WRU BY H IL L DRHOLMES STPATTERSONPASSRDEAST AVFIRSTSTN LI VER M O R E A V
ESTANLEYBLCONCANNONBLVINEYARDAVAI R WAYBLPORTOLAAVSLIVERMOREAVMINES R DLAS POSITAS RDCROAKRDS VASCO RDNMURRIETABLVALLECITOSRDN VASCO RDI S A B ELA V
PLEASANTONDUBLINnmEducational Facilities"NEmergency Services - EOC¬«Emergency Services - FireíEmergency Services - Police;Government / City Facilities%defgcHazardous Materials"'Medical & Health ServicesPlanning AreaAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & Channels/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, EPA, EIA,Cal Healthcare Atlas, Hazus 4.0, USDACity of LivermoreCritical Facilities0120.5Miles*Not all displayed facilities were includedin the critical facilities analysis.
§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ84PINESTCOLLEGEAVSCENICAVMURDELLLAARROYO RDNATIONALDRSPRINGT O WNBLNMINESRDALDEN LAN L ST
B L UEBE L LDR
WRU BY H IL L DRHOLMES STPATTERSONPASSRDEAST AVFIRSTSTN LI VER M O R E A V
ESTANLEYBLCONCANNONBLVINEYARDAVAI R WAYBLPORTOLAAVSLIVERMOREAVMINES R DLAS POSITAS RDCROAKRDS VASCO RDNMURRIETABLVALLECITOSRDN VASCO RDI S A B ELA V
PLEASANTONDUBLINJ^Airport FacilitiesJaBus FacilitiesCommunication FacilitiesdElectric Power FacilitiesúHighway BridgesI2Light Rail Facilities/Oil FacilitiespoPotable Water FacilitiesI3Rail FacilitiesúRailway Bridges!(Waste Water FacilitiesPlanning AreaAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & Channels/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, EPA, EIA,Cal Healthcare Atlas, Hazus 4.0, USDACity of LivermoreCritical Infrastructure0120.5Miles*Not all displayed facilities were includedin the critical facilities analysis.
§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ84PINESTCOLLEGEAVSCENICAVMURDELLLAARROYO RDNATIONALDRSPRINGT O WNBLNMINESRDALDEN LAN L ST
B L UEBEL LDR
WRU BY H IL L DRHOLMES STPATTERSONPASSRDEAST AVFIRSTSTN L I V E R M O R E A V
ESTANLEYBLCONCANNONBLVINEYARDAVAI R WAYBLPORTOLAAVSLIVERMOREAVMINESR DLAS POSITAS RDCROAKRDS VASCO RDNMURRIETABLVALLECITOSRDN VASCO RDI S A BELA V
PLEASANTONDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsSusceptibility toLiquefactionNo Liquefaction DataVery LowLowMediumHighVery HighMap Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGSCity of LivermoreLiquefaction Susceptibility0120.5Miles/
§¨¦580§¨¦580PINESTCOLLEGEAVSCENICAVMURDELLLAARROYO RDNATIONALDRSPRINGT O WNBLNMINESRDALDEN LAN L ST
B L UEBEL LDR
WRU BY H IL L DRÄÆÅ84HOLMES STPATTERSONPASSRDEAST AVFIRSTSTN L I V E R M O R E A V
ESTANLEYBLCONCANNONBLVINEYARDAVAI R WAYBLPORTOLAAVSLIVERMOREAVMINESR DLAS POSITAS RDCROAKRDS VASCO RDNMURRIETABLVALLECITOSRDN VASCO RDI S A BELA V
PLEASANTONDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsNEHRP Site Class / SoilProfileB / RockC / Very Dense Soil - Soft RockD / Stiff SoilE / Soft Soil/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaDept of Conservation, CGS, USGSCity of LivermoreNational Earthquake HazardsReduction Program (NEHRP)Soil ClassificationSoil classification data provided by the California Departmentof Conservation. The data is based on surficial geologypublished at a scale of 1:250,000. The surficial geologic unitswere grouped into composite units with similar average shearwave velocity to 30 meters depth (Vs30) values. This datawas prepared as part of the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Mapof California (Petersen, M., D. Beeby, W. Bryant, T. Cao, C.Cramer, J. Davis, M. Reichle, G. Saucedo, S. Tan G., Taylor,T. Toppozada, J. Treiman, and C. Wills (1999) SeismicShaking Hazard Maps of California: California Division ofMines and Geology Map Sheet 48).0120.5Miles
§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ84PINESTCOLLEGEAVSCENICAVMURDELLLAARROYO RDNATIONALDRSPRINGT O WNBLNMINESRDALDEN LAN L ST
B L UEBEL LDR
WRU BY H IL L DRHOLMES STPATTERSONPASSRDEAST AVFIRSTSTN L I V E R M O R E A V
ESTANLEYBLCONCANNONBLVINEYARDAVAI R WAYBLPORTOLAAVSLIVERMOREAVMINESR DLAS POSITAS RDCROAKRDS VASCO RDNMURRIETABLVALLECITOSRDN VASCO RDI S A BELA V
PLEASANTONDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & Channels1% Annual Chance (100-Year)Flood Zone0.2% Annual Chance (500-Year)Flood Zone/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, FEMA,USDACity of LivermoreFEMA Effective DFIRM FloodHazard AreasFlood hazard areas as depicted onEffective FEMA Digital Insurance RateMaps (DFIRM)0120.5Miles
§¨¦580§¨¦580PINESTCOLLEGEAVSCENICAVMURDELLLAARROYO RDNATIONALDRSPRINGT O WNBLNMINESRDALDEN LAN L ST
B L UEBE L LDR
WRU BY H IL L DRÄÆÅ84HOLMES STPATTERSONPASSRDEAST AVFIRSTSTN LI VER M O R E A V
ESTANLEYBLCONCANNONBLVINEYARDAVAI R WAYBLPORTOLAAVSLIVERMOREAVMINES R DLAS POSITAS RDCROAKRDS VASCO RDNMURRIETABLVALLECITOSRDN VASCO RDI S A B ELA V
PLEASANTONDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsNo Landslide Data AvailableSusceptibility to Deep-Seated LandslidesLowModerateHighVery High / Existing/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGSCity of LivermoreSusceptibility to Deep-SeatedLandslidesSource dataset created by Wills C.J.,Perez, F., Gutierrez, C., 2011, Susceptibilityto deep-seated landslides in California:California Geological Survey Map Sheet 580120.5Miles
§¨¦580§¨¦580ÄÆÅ84PINESTCOLLEGEAVSCENICAVMURDELLLAARROYO RDNATIONALDRSPRINGT O WNBLNMINESRDALDEN LAN L ST
B L UEBEL LDR
WRU BY H IL L DRHOLMES STPATTERSONPASSRDEAST AVFIRSTSTN L I V E R M O R E A V
ESTANLEYBLCONCANNONBLVINEYARDAVAI R WAYBLPORTOLAAVSLIVERMOREAVMINESR DLAS POSITAS RDCROAKRDS VASCO RDNMURRIETABLVALLECITOSRDN VASCO RDI S A BELA V
PLEASANTONDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsWildfire Severity ZoneModerateHighVery HighMap Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CalFIRE,USDACity of LivermoreWildfire Severity Zones0120.5Miles/
3-1
3. CITY OF PLEASANTON
3.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Shweta Bonn, Senior Planner
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Telephone: (925) 931-5611
e-mail Address: sbonn@cityofpleasantonca.gov
Gerry Beaudin, Director of Community Development
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Telephone: (925) 931-5606
e-mail Address: gbeaudin@cityofpleasantonca.gov
3.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
• Date of Incorporation—1894
• Current Population—75,916 as of January 2017 (CA Department of Finance, May 2017)
• Population Growth— Based on data tracked by the state Department of Finance, Pleasanton experienced
an approximate 6.6 percent increase in the five years between January 2012 and January 2017 (an
increase of 4,703 persons).
• Location and Description— Pleasanton is located within Alameda County, one of nine Bay Area
counties bordering the San Francisco Bay. Within city limits, Pleasanton comprises generally flat land
that was once covered with native vegetation and agriculture, and is now mostly developed with urban
land uses. To the east of city limits lie sand and gravel quarries – a result of alluvial deposits from
prehistoric streams flowing through the Tri-Valley – which in the future will convert to water
conservation and recreational uses. To the south are vineyards along Vineyard Avenue and a series of
gently to steeply sloping hills – the Southeast Hills – which sustain grazing lands and cattle. Finally, to
the west, the seismically active Pleasanton and Main Ridges rise sharply, providing recreational and
grazing areas. Downtown Pleasanton boasts some buildings from the late 1890s, and is generally the
center of community activities.
• Brief History— Although the area around Pleasanton was long inhabited by people before settlement by
Europeans in 1769, the City’s population remained modest in the four decades after the City’s
incorporation in 1894. By the late 1930s and early 1940s the population in Pleasanton was about 1,200
people. However, World War II triggered growth, and the City’s population doubled between 1940 and
1950. The National Highway Act passed in 1956 brought Interstates 580 and 680 to the Tri-Valley,
allowing for new economic activity. Also contributing to the rapid regional population growth was the
federal government’s sponsorship of the establishment of what is now Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in 1950. This time period saw the development of tract neighborhoods outside the immediate
downtown area, including: Amaral Acres on Kottinger Avenue, Jensen Tract on Santa Rita Road across
from Amador Valley High School, Pleasanton Valley Estates near Santa Rita Road and Black Avenue,
Heritage Valley, Pleasanton Heights, and Vintage Hills. The decades subsequent to the 1950s would see
rapid population growth and expansion of the city limits to the north and east. The population of the City
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
3-2
in the 1960s was estimated to be 4,200 people. Growth in Pleasanton was further supported by the
construction of Hacienda – a major business park – which began in 1982, and construction of Stoneridge
Shopping Center.
• Climate— Pleasanton enjoys a relatively mild climate, with an average rainfall of 15 inches and average
maximum temperature of 89º Fahrenheit in July and average minimum temperature of 37º in December.
At its most extreme, winter temperatures can drop below freezing a few days each year, and summer
temperatures hover around 100 degrees Fahrenheit during July and August. The temperate weather allows
residents year-round opportunities to take advantage of outdoor activities such as hiking the Pleasanton
Ridge, cycling along trails and roadways, shopping in the historic downtown district and patio dining at
restaurants.
• Governing Body Format— The City Council, comprising the Mayor and four City Councilmembers, is
the governing body of the city, with all the regulatory and corporate powers of a municipal corporation
provided under California State Law. In general, the Council supervises the operations of the City
government by establishing policies and programs and appropriating funds for each service function.
Members of the City Council are elected at-large. Councilmembers are elected for a term of four-years,
and the Mayor is elected to a term of two-years. A Vice Mayor is selected by the Mayor each calendar
year. The Mayor and Council are subject to term limits of eight years. The City has 10 committees,
commissions, and task forces, which report to the City Council, and 13 departments (inclusive of the City
Manager’s and City Attorney’s Office). The City Council would review and adopt this plan, and the City
Council would oversee its implementation.
3.3 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
The number of housing permits issued in 2016 is 287, which is significantly lower than the 891 permits issued in
2015 (for reference, 332 permits were issued in 2014). Housing production, as regulated by the City’s Growth
Management Ordinance, is expected to continue as a result of an improved economic climate, recent development
activity, interest in sites rezoned for high density development, and the City’s efforts to encourage housing
through implementation of the Housing Element’s new policies and programs. New commercial development is
located in various areas of Pleasanton. Examples of large scale projects include Workday, which is currently
constructing a six-story, approximately 410,000 square foot office building, parking garage, and other
improvements near Stoneridge Mall; and an approximately 112,000 square foot new shopping center located in
the eastern part of the City near the intersection of Stoneridge Drive and El Charro Road. The City of Pleasanton
adopted its General Plan in 2009, and City actions, such as those relating to land use allocations, annexations,
zoning, subdivision, design review, redevelopment, and others must be consistent with the General Plan.
Table 3-1 summarizes development trends in the performance period since development of the previous hazard
mitigation plan and expected future development trends.
3. City of Pleasanton
3-3
Table 3-1. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends
Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the development of the previous hazard mitigation plan?
Yes
• If yes, give the estimated area annexed and estimated number of parcels or structures.
Since February 2012 (date of City Council adoption of resolution of previous hazard
mitigation plan), the City has processed 2 annexations (Balch and Linfoot-Mix-
Marks), resulting in a total of 22 acres annexed to the City. This consists of 5 parcels.
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any areas during the performance period of this plan?
Yes
• If yes, please describe land areas and
dominant uses.
Yes, the City is expecting to annex areas on the outskirts of Pleasanton over the next
5 years. These areas are primarily in the Happy Valley and West of Foothill area, and
are generally occupied by lower-density residential units.
• If yes, who currently has permitting authority over these areas?
The County currently has permitting authority in these areas.
Are any areas targeted for development or
major redevelopment in the next five years?
Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe, including whether any of the areas are in known hazard risk areas
Redevelopment activities are focused around transit stations, with few hazard risks
other than geotechnical and dam inundation hazards.
How many permits for new construction were
issued in your jurisdiction since the development of the previous hazard mitigation plan?
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Single Family 83 62 68 87 74
Multi-Family 5 3 8 33 23
Other (commercial, mixed use, etc.) 5 5 6 12 12
Please provide the number of new-construction permits for each hazard area or provide a qualitative description of where
development has occurred.
Development has occurred throughout the city during the performance period for this
plan. The city does not have the ability to track the specific number of building
permits issued by hazard area. It is important to note, however, that all new
development was consistent with General Plan policies and municipal code
standards.
Please describe the level of buildout in the jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory
exists, provide a qualitative description.
The City of Pleasanton is substantially built out; however, several in-fill lots have not
been developed, both with potential residential and non-residential uses.
3.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Pleasanton has performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs and
policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this
volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the components included in the capability assessment and their
significance for hazard mitigation planning. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 3-2.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 3-3.
• Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 3-4.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 3-5.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 3-6.
• Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 3-7.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 3-8.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 3-9.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
3-4
Table 3-2. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, & Requirements
Building Code Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Pleasanton Building Code, last amended in 2016, (PMC § 20.08, Building Code)
Zoning Code Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Pleasanton Municipal Code, last amended in 2016 (PMC Title 18, Zoning)
Subdivisions Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Pleasanton Municipal Code, last amended in 2016 (PMC Title 19 Subdivisions)
Stormwater Management Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Pleasanton Municipal Code, last amended in 2016 (PMC § 9.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control)
Post-Disaster Recovery Yes Yes No Yes
Comment: Preparation of subject plan in process
Real Estate Disclosure Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Cal. Civ. Code §1102 et seq.
Growth Management Yes Yes No No
Comment: Cal. Gov. Code §65300 et seq.; (PMC § 17.36, Growth Management Program)
Site Plan Review Yes No No Yes
Comment: Site Plan Review is completed with entitlements such as Design Review and/or Planned Unit Development review for new
development projects
Environmental Protection Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Flood Damage Prevention Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: The City coordinates with Zone 7 Water Agency for stream management and flood protection.
Emergency Management Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Pleasanton Municipal Code, last updated 2016 (PMC § 2.44 Emergency Organization)
Climate Change Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: California SB 379 requires cities to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in their general plans.
Other: N/A N/A N/A N/A
Comment: None identified
Planning Documents
General Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Is the plan compliant with Assembly Bill 2140? No Comment: Pleasanton’s General Plan was adopted in 2009.
Capital Improvement Plan Yes Yes No Yes
How often is the plan updated? Every 2 years
Comment: The CIP was last updated in May 2017 for fiscal years 2017-18 through 2020-21
Floodplain or Watershed Plan No Yes Yes Yes
Comment: The City coordinates with Zone 7 Water Agency for stream management and flood protection.
Stormwater Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Pleasanton Municipal Code, last amended in 2016
Urban Water Management Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Pleasanton Municipal Code, last amended in 2016 (PMC § 9.30 Water Management Plan)
Habitat Conservation Plan No Yes No No
Comment: Pleasanton participates in the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy
Economic Development Plan Yes No No No
Comment: Pleasanton’s General Plan includes an Economic and Fiscal Element
3. City of Pleasanton
3-5
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Shoreline Management Plan No No No No
Comment: Not applicable
Community Wildfire Protection Plan No Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Alameda County
Forest Management Plan No No No No
Comment: Not applicable
Climate Action Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: General Plan Air Quality and Climate Change Element adopted in 2009; Climate Action Plan adopted in 2012 and is
scheduled to be updated in 2018
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: The City is in the process of updating its Emergency Management Plan, which will include the critical elements of the
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), the National Incident Management System, the National Response
Framework and the Incident Command System.
Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment (THIRA) No Yes No No
Comment: Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No Yes No Yes
Comment: ABAG, Bay Area Regional Disaster Resilience Action Plan Initiative
Continuity of Operations Plan No No No No
Comment: None identified
Public Health Plan No Yes No Yes
Comment: Alameda County Public Health Department
Other: N/A N/A N/A N/A
Comment: None identified
Table 3-3. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants No – the City uses Community Development Block Grants to fund NPOs
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes – eligible but requires City Council approval
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes, Water and Sewer funds can be used for eligible projects & fees can
be increased with City Council approval for that purpose.
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes – requires 2/3 voter approval
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes – requires 2/3 voter approval
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes – requires either City Council or voter approval
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes – requires City Council action
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes, if the project was included in fee study as required to mitigate full
build-out of the City’s General Plan
Other No
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
3-6
Table 3-4. Development and Permitting Capability
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes
• If no, who does? If yes, which department? Community Development
Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard area? No
Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? Yes
Table 3-5. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes Community Development Department
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes Community Development Department
and Engineering Department
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Community Development Department
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Finance Department
Surveyors Yes Engineering Department
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Information technology
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No N/A
Emergency Manager Yes LPFD
Grant writers Yes Various Departments
Other No N/A
Table 3-6. Education and Outreach Capability
Criterion Response
Do you have a Public Information Officer or Communications Office? Yes
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. Hazard Mitigation Plan website
Do you utilize social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? No
• If yes, please briefly describe. N/A
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? No
• If yes, please briefly describe. N/A
Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. City newsletter
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe. Social media
3. City of Pleasanton
3-7
Table 3-7. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Engineering/Building
Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) Adam Nelkie, Senior Civil Engineer
Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? Yes
What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last amended? January 1, 2014, Ord No. 2083
Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum requirements? Meets
• If exceeds, in what ways? N/A
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact? February 2016
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? No
• If so, please state what they are. N/A
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction? Yes
• If no, please state why. N/A
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? Yes
• If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? Additional staff trained.
Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? Yes (Class 8)
• If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving CRS Classification? Yes
• Is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? N/A
How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a 139
• What is the insurance in force? $50,728,000
• What is the premium in force? $101,768
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a 22
• How many claims are still open/were closed without payment? 1/13
• What were the total payments for losses? $154,583
a. According to FEMA statistics as of June 30, 2017
Table 3-8. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System Yes 8 10/1/97
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 3 March 2012
Public Protection No N/A N/A
Storm Ready No N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
3-8
Table 3-9. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Medium
Comment: A greenhouse gas inventory was conducted for 2005 data. This analysis supported preparation and adoption of the Climate
Action Plan (CAP) in 2012. The Air Quality and Climate Change Element of the General Plan was modified concurrently
with adoption of the CAP.
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comment: The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan and the General Plan includes climate change policies. While climate change
impacts are not specifically monitored, hazards are monitored via the local hazard mitigation plan.
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Medium
Comment: City staff and if needed, consultants are available to assess strategies for feasibility.
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low
Comment: The City is planning an update to its Climate Action Plan. This effort is expected to commence in 2018.
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Medium
Comment: Impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are evaluated on a project-by-project basis during
environmental review.
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Low
Comment: The City would participate in regional groups that are initiated for this effort.
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes Medium
Comment: Impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are evaluated on a project-by-project basis during
environmental review.
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High
Comment: The CAP provides strategies and implementation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Low
Comment: These strategies could be incorporated into an update to the Climate Action Plan.
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comment: At this time, there is no dedicated staff to climate action planning. However, with the planned update to the CAP
commencing in 2018, the City anticipates setting up a city-wide Green Team comprised of representatives from various
departments.
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High
Comment: The city is supportive of measures outlined in the CAP and their strategic implementation.
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Medium
Comment: While funds have not been specifically dedicated to climate change adaptation, implementation of such measures are
carried forward on an as feasible basis for city projects.
Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted Medium
Comment: The city has authority over local public streets and related infrastructure.
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Medium
Comment: Local residents are well-informed and aware of local, regional, state-wide, and greater issues relating to climate change.
Local residents support of adaptation efforts Low
Comment: Local residents are generally supportive of measures to address climate change, but the city has not recently specifically
solicited public feedback on this topic.
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment: This is not known at this time.
3. City of Pleasanton
3-9
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment: This is not known at this time.
Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low
Comment: This is not known at this time.
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement;
Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
3.5 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on
the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning
mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard
information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa.
Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in
collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation.
3.5.1 Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City of Pleasanton made
progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives and actions into other planning initiatives. The
following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• General Plan—Includes policies related to flooding, geotechnical concerns, wildfire, and other hazards
• Capital Improvement Plan—Includes infrastructure that incorporates climate change adaptation
strategies
• Climate Action Plan—Increases resilience to climate change
• Emergency Operations Plan—Addresses operational needs and procedures during an emergency
• Pleasanton Municipal Code—The Pleasanton Municipal Code includes development requirements that
can address hazard mitigation.
Resources listed in Section 3.12 were used to provide information for this annex on hazard events and local
capabilities within the jurisdiction.
3.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
As this hazard mitigation plan is implemented, the City of Pleasanton will use information from the plan as the
best available science and data on natural hazards. The capability assessment presented in this annex identifies
codes, plans and programs that provide opportunities for integration. The area-wide and local action plans
developed for this hazard mitigation plan in actions related to plan integration, and progress on these actions will
be reported through the progress reporting process described in Volume 1. New opportunities for integration also
will be identified as part of the midterm progress report. The capability assessment identified the following plans
and programs that do not currently integrate goals or recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan but provide
opportunities to do so in the future:
• Capital Improvement Program—Incorporate hazard mitigation projects consistent with other adopted
plans and programs.
• Pleasanton General Plan—Enhance to address hazard mitigation policies, including climate adaptation
and resiliency as required by State law
• Climate Action Plan—Enhance to increase local resiliency to climate change
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
3-10
• Emergency Operations Plan—Update to better address operational needs and procedures during an
emergency
• Pleasanton Municipal Code – The Pleasanton Municipal Code includes development requirements that
can address hazard mitigation, including site plan review completed with entitlements such as Design
Review and Planned Unit Development review. Continue to look for opportunities to further integrate
hazard mitigation goals and objectives into the Municipal Code.
• Continuity of Operations Plan—Plan to ensure that agencies are able to perform essential functions
during emergencies.
• Continuity of Government Plan—Plan to ensure that government continues its essential functions
during emergencies
• Post Disaster Recovery Plan—Develop plan and policies for rebuilding and recovery after disasters
3.6 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 3-10 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in the City of
Pleasanton. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including the City of Pleasanton,
are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 3-10. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event
FEMA Disaster #
(if applicable) Date Damage Assessment
Drought - 2013-2016 N/A
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding DR-1155 11/17/96 N/A
Loma Prieta Earthquake DR-845 10/17/89 N/A
3.7 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.
This section provides information on a few key vulnerabilities for the jurisdiction.
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0
• Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0
Other noted vulnerabilities include the following:
• Areas of Pleasanton are likely to experience flooding and effects of climate change.
• Petroleum product and natural gas pipelines, as well as PG&E transmission lines traverse through
Pleasanton.
• The Union Pacific / Southern Pacific and Western Pacific Railroads consult rail operations through
Pleasanton, which includes cargoes of electronics, fabricated metals, plastics, precision machinery,
agricultural chemicals, construction materials, rock/sand/gravel aggregates, and other hazardous
materials. A spill of bulk hazardous materials could result in fire, explosion, toxic cloud, or direct
contamination of people and property.
• Although not located within the Pleasanton Planning Area boundary, the Livermore Municipal Airport
affects land uses in Pleasanton in the form of noise and safety. These concerns are addressed by the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
3. City of Pleasanton
3-11
(ALUCP). As part of the ALUCP, the ALUC has adopted seven safety compatibility zones. Three of the
zones, 4, 6, and 7, extend into Pleasanton.
3.8 HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 3-11 presents a local ranking for the City of Pleasanton of all hazards of concern for which Volume 1 of
this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. This ranking summarizes how hazards vary for
this jurisdiction. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood
of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.
Table 3-11. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category
1 Wildfirec 39 High
2 Earthquakea 36 High
3 Severe weatherb 33 Medium
4 Landslidee 26 Medium
5 Dam failureg 18 Medium
6 Floodd 12 Low
7 Droughtf 9 Low
a. Based on the “Haywired” (Hayward Fault Scenario M7.05)
b. Severe weather is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, medium
impact on people, medium impact on property and low impact on economy.
c. Based on Very High and High Fire Severity Zones.
d. Based on 1 percent-annual-chance flood zone (otherwise known as the special flood hazard area)
e. Based on Very High, High, and Moderate Landslide Susceptibility Zones
f. Drought is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Generally, drought does not cause injury or death to people or result in
property damage. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, no impact on people, low impact on property and low impact
on economy for those jurisdictions with limited agriculture.
g. Based on the Del Valle Dam inundation scenario.
3.9 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Table 3-12 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan
and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
3.10 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Table 3-13 lists the actions that make up the City of Pleasanton hazard mitigation action plan. Table 3-14
identifies the priority for each action. Table 3-15 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and
mitigation type.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
3-12
Table 3-12. Status of Previous Plan Actions
Removed;
Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Enter
Action #
Tie public education on defensible space and a comprehensive defensible space ordinance to a field program of enforcement. LPFD Fire Prevention. Resource shortage. (HSNG-g-2)
Yes; Ongoing Yes P6
Comment: This is completed annually.
Install micro and/or surveillance cameras around critical public assets tied to web-based software, and develop a surveillance protocol to monitor these cameras. Pleasanton Police Dept., (GOVT-a-6).
No Yes No
Comment: Unfunded.
Ongoing Activities X
Comment: The 2010 plan included an extensive list of ongoing activities as part of the mitigation strategy. Based upon review, these
strategies are addressed by the objectives identified as part of this plan update and/or are identified in the core capability
assessment for the City of Pleasanton.
Table 3-13. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
P-1— Where appropriate, support retrofitting or relocation of structures in high hazard areas, prioritizing structures that have experienced
repetitive losses.
Existing Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
4, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12
City of Pleasanton,
Community Development
Department, Engineering
Department
LPFD High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-term
P-2— Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions in the community,
including the City’s General Plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 6, 8,
10, 11
City of Pleasanton,
Community Development
Department, Engineering
Department
LPFD Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
P-3— Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11,
12
City of Pleasanton-All
Departments
LPFD Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
P-4—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain management programs
that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
• Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
• Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
New and
Existing
Flood, Dam failure 1, 4, 6, 9 City of Pleasanton,
Engineering Department
LPFD Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
3. City of Pleasanton
3-13
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
P-5—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change including but not limited to the following: update and
implementation of the Climate Action Plan and update the General Plan to address recent legislation and establish policies related to
climate change adaptability.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 5, 7,
8, 9, 10, 12
City of Pleasanton-All
Departments
Adjacent
cities/County
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
P-6— Tie public education on defensible space and a comprehensive defensible space ordinance to a field program of enforcement.
New and
Existing
Wildfire 1, 2, 5, 6,
11, 12
LPFD City of
Pleasanton
Medium Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
P7— Prohibit construction of habitable structures within at least 50 feet of an identified active fault trace where the fault has been
specifically located in site-specific geologic studies
New Landslide, Earthquake 2, 4, 5, 6,
11
City of Pleasanton
Community Development
Department, Engineering
Department
None Low General Funds,
Staff Time
Ongoing
P8— Prohibit new development of sites with structures intended for human occupancy in any landslide-prone areas unless the landslide
risk can be eliminated. Permit development in landslide prone areas only when sites can be shown to be stable during adverse conditions
such as saturated soils, ground shaking, and during grading of the site for roads, installation of infrastructure, and creation of building
pads. Engineering studies shall demonstrate that structures in landslide prone areas would sustain no more damage due to slope
instabilities than damage sustained by a similar building in the Pleasanton Planning Area constructed to current CBC standards and
located on soils with a low susceptibility to failure when exposed to moderate ground shaking.
New Landslide, Earthquake 2, 4, 5, 6,
11
City of Pleasanton
Community Development
Department, Engineering
Department
None Low General Funds,
Staff Time
Ongoing
P9—Require fire mitigation measures in new and existing developments that reduce the fire threat to the structure and occupants.
Require development outside the five-minute travel time and in Special Fire Protection Areas to provide effective fire prevention
measures.
New Wildfire 2, 3, 7 LPFD City of
Pleasanton
Medium General Funds,
Staff Time, Private
Development
Investment
Ongoing
P10—Continue to conduct public meetings and issue press releases regarding Del Valle Dam evacuation.
Existing Dam failure 3, 7, 9 City of Pleasanton
Community Development
Department, Engineering
Department
None Low General Funds Ongoing
P11—Encourage replacing aboveground electric and phone wires and other structures with underground facilities, and use the planning-
approval process to ensure that, on a case-by-case basis, all new phone and electrical lines are installed underground.
New and
Existing
Severe weather,
Landslide, dam failure,
flood, wildfire
4, 8 City of Pleasanton
Community Development
None Low General Funds;
Possible PG&E
Underground Fund;
HMGP, PDM
Ongoing
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
3-14
Table 3-14. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed
Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project
Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
P-1 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
P-2 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
P-3 12 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
P-4 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
P-5 8 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Medium
P-6 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
P-7 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
P-8 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
P-9 3 High Medium Yes No Yes High Low
P-10 3 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
P-11 2 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High High
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
Table 3-15. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
Wildfire 2 1, 6, 9, 11 6 9 5 2, 3, 5, 6
Earthquake 2, 7 1 2, 3, 5
Severe weather 2 1, 11 5 2, 3, 5
Landslide 2, 7, 8 1, 8, 11 5 2, 3, 5
Dam failure 2, 4 1, 4, 11 4, 10 5 2, 3, 4, 5
Flood 2, 4 1, 4, 11 4 5 2, 3, 4, 5
Drought 2 5 2, 3, 5
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
3.11 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY
The City could benefit from a multi-disciplinary plan identifying ways in which climate change will affect
Pleasanton in the future, and ways to address/mitigate this change.
3.12 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF RESOURCES FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide information for this
annex.
• City of Pleasanton Municipal Code—The municipal code was reviewed for the full capability
assessment and for identifying opportunities for action plan integration.
3. City of Pleasanton
3-15
• City of Pleasanton Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The flood damage prevention ordinance
was reviewed for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
• City of Pleasanton General Plan—The General Plan was reviewed to identify applicable policies that
promote hazard mitigation.
• City of Pleasanton Climate Action Plan—The Climate Action Plan was reviewed to ascertain
approaches to achieving climate change resilience.
• Technical Reports and Information—The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Tool-kit—The tool-kit was used to support the
development of this annex including past hazard events, noted vulnerabilities, risk ranking and action
development.
Current State Law—State law (e.g., SB 379, SB 1241) was reviewed regarding recent requirements
that relate to hazards and hazard mitigation.
State Office Department of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines—The Guidelines
were reviewed to identify new approaches to integrating hazard planning into General Plans.
"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc%defgc;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ííííííí¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«¬«"Nnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm§¨¦580§¨¦580§¨¦680ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDMURDELLLAKA MP DRTOURIGADRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWRU BY H IL L DR
F O O T H IL L RD
WLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVTASSAJARARDDOUGHERTYRDBERNALAVSUNOLBLOWENSDRAI RWAYBLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A M O N R DCROAKRD STANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R D
HACIENDA DRI S A B ELA V
LIVERMOREDUBLINnmEducational Facilities"NEmergency Services - EOC¬«Emergency Services - FireíEmergency Services - Police;Government / City Facilities%defgcHazardous Materials"'Medical & Health ServicesPlanning AreaAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & Channels/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, EPA, EIA,Cal Healthcare Atlas, Hazus 4.0, USDACity of PleasantonCritical Facilities0120.5Miles
§¨¦580§¨¦580§¨¦680ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDMURDELLLAKA MP DRTOURIGADRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWRU BY H IL L DR
F O O T H IL L RD
WLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVTASSAJARARDDOUGHERTYRDBERNALAVSUNOLBLOWENSDRAI RWAYBLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A M O N R DCROAKRD STANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R D
HACIENDA DRI S A B ELA V
LIVERMOREDUBLINPlanning AreaAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsTransportation InfrastructureJ^Airport / Helipad FacilitiesJaBus FacilitiesúHighway BridgesI2Light Rail FacilitiesI3Rail FacilitiesúRailway BridgesUtilitiesCommunications FacilitiesdElectric Facilities/Petroleum / Lab FacilitiespoPotable Water Facilities!(Wastewater Facilities/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, EPA, EIA,Caltrans, Hazus 4.0, USDACity of PleasantonCritical Infrastructure0120.5Miles
§¨¦580§¨¦580§¨¦680ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDMURDELLLAKA MP DRTOURIGADRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWRU BY H IL L DR
F O O T H IL L RD
WLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVTASSAJARARDDOUGHERTYRDBERNALAVSUNOLBLOWENSDRAI RWAYBLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A MO N R DCROAKRD STANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R D
HACIENDA DRI S A B ELA V
LIVERMOREDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsSusceptibility toLiquefactionNo Liquefaction DataVery LowLowMediumHighVery HighMap Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGSCity of PleasantonLiquefaction Susceptibility0120.5Miles/
§¨¦580§¨¦580§¨¦680MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDMURDELLLAKA MP DRTOURIGADRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWRU BY H IL L DRÄÆÅ84
ÄÆÅ84F O O T H IL L RD
WLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVTASSAJARARDDOUGHERTYRDBERNALAVSUNOLBLOWENSDRAI RWAYBLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A MO N R DCROAKRD STANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R D
HACIENDA DRI S A B ELA V
LIVERMOREDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsNEHRP Site Class / SoilProfileB / RockC / Very Dense Soil - Soft RockD / Stiff SoilE / Soft Soil/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaDept of Conservation, CGS, USGSCity of PleasantonNational Earthquake HazardsReduction Program (NEHRP)Soil ClassificationSoil classification data provided by the California Departmentof Conservation. The data is based on surficial geologypublished at a scale of 1:250,000. The surficial geologic unitswere grouped into composite units with similar average shearwave velocity to 30 meters depth (Vs30) values. This datawas prepared as part of the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Mapof California (Petersen, M., D. Beeby, W. Bryant, T. Cao, C.Cramer, J. Davis, M. Reichle, G. Saucedo, S. Tan G., Taylor,T. Toppozada, J. Treiman, and C. Wills (1999) SeismicShaking Hazard Maps of California: California Division ofMines and Geology Map Sheet 48).0120.5Miles
§¨¦580§¨¦580§¨¦680ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDMURDELLLAKA MP DRTOURIGADRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWRU BY H IL L DR
F O O T H IL L RD
WLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVTASSAJARARDDOUGHERTYRDBERNALAVSUNOLBLOWENSDRAI RWAYBLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A MO N R DCROAKRD STANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R D
HACIENDA DRI S A B ELA V
LIVERMOREDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & Channels1% Annual Chance (100-Year)Flood Zone0.2% Annual Chance (500-Year)Flood Zone/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, FEMA,USDACity of PleasantonFEMA Effective DFIRM FloodHazard AreasFlood hazard areas as depicted onEffective FEMA Digital Insurance RateMaps (DFIRM)0120.5Miles
§¨¦580§¨¦580§¨¦680MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDMURDELLLAKA MP DRTOURIGADRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWRU BY H IL L DRÄÆÅ84
ÄÆÅ84F O OT H IL L RD
WLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVTASSAJARARDDOUGHERTYRDBERNALAVSUNOLBLOWENSDRAI RWAYBLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A M O N R DCROAKRD STANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R D
HACIENDA DRI S A B ELA V
LIVERMOREDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsNo Landslide Data AvailableSusceptibility to Deep-Seated LandslidesLowModerateHighVery High / Existing/Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGSCity of PleasantonSusceptibility to Deep-SeatedLandslidesSource dataset created by Wills C.J.,Perez, F., Gutierrez, C., 2011, Susceptibilityto deep-seated landslides in California:California Geological Survey Map Sheet 580120.5Miles
§¨¦580§¨¦580§¨¦680ÄÆÅ84ÄÆÅ84MAINSTBLACK AVBUSCHRDMURDELLLAKA MP DRTOURIGADRVILLAGEPWPARKSIDEDRWRU BY H IL L DR
F O O T H IL L RD
WLASPOSITASBLFIRST STVINEYARDAVVALLEYAVTASSAJARARDDOUGHERTYRDBERNALAVSUNOLBLOWENSDRAI RWAYBLDUBLINBLF O O T H ILLR D
S A N R A MO N R DCROAKRD STANLEYBLS A N T A R I T A R D
HACIENDA DRI S A B ELA V
LIVERMOREDUBLINCity BoundariesAlameda County BoundaryWater Bodies & ChannelsWildfire Severity ZoneModerateHighVery HighMap Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CalFIRE,USDACity of PleasantonWildfire Severity Zones0120.5Miles/
4-1
4. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
4.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Stanley Kolodzie, Associate Engineer
7051 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, California 94568
Telephone: 925-875-2253
e-mail Address: kolodzie@dsrsd.com
Rhodora Biagtan, Principal Engineer
7051 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, California 94568
Telephone: 925-875-2255
e-mail Address: biagtan@dsrsd.com
4.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE
4.2.1 Overview
The Dublin San Ramon Services District is a special district created in 1953 to provide water and sewer service to
an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. The name of the District was originally the
Parks Community Service District and eventually became Dublin San Ramon Services District. The
unincorporated area of Contra Costa County eventually became part of the city of San Ramon, and the
unincorporated area of Alameda County eventually became part of the city of Dublin. The District’s service area
expanded throughout the years to include the Dougherty Valley area of San Ramon in Contra Costa County; the
entirety of the city of Dublin in Alameda County, and the sites of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Dedicated
Land Disposal in the city of Pleasanton in Alameda County.
A five-member elected Board of Directors governs the District. The Board assumes responsibility for adoption of
this plan, the General Manager will oversee its implementation.
4.2.2 Service Area and Trends
As of January 1, 2017, the District serves 21,837 potable water accounts, 421 recycled water accounts and 20,934
single family residential wastewater tax roll assessments (excludes commercial, industrial and institutional
accounts), with a current staff of 115. Funding comes primarily through water, recycled water and wastewater
capacity charges for new development, rate charges and revenue bonds.
The District distributes drinking water to approximately 80,000 people and provides wastewater collection and
treatment for approximately 150,000 people in Dublin, southern San Ramon and the city of Pleasanton. Since
1999 the District produced and distributed recycled water for landscape irrigation and construction to the cities of
Dublin and San Ramon. The District distributes 5.22 million gallons per day of potable water, 2.7 million gallons
per day of recycled water and treats an average of 9.96 million gallons of day of wastewater. The District
anticipates increased demand for potable water and recycled water; and increased flows of wastewater to be
treated as additional development occurs in eastern Dublin. The District’s service area has reached its expected
limits and is approximately 26 square miles.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
4-2
4.2.3 Assets
Table 4-1 summarizes the critical assets of the district and their value.
Table 4-1. Special Purpose District Assets
Asset Value
Property
203 acres of land $50,000,000
Critical Infrastructure and Equipment
308 miles of potable water pipe and 3,256 hydrants $187,052,000
16 potable water pump stations $10,335,000
64 miles of recycled water pipe and 20 hydrants $38,868,000
4 recycled water pump stations $3,612,000
206 miles of wastewater pipes $201,595,000
2 sanitary sewer lift stations $144,000
14 potable water reservoirs capable of storing 27 million gallons $28,029,000
2 recycled water reservoirs capable of storing 2 million gallons $12,080,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant capable of processing 17 million gallons per day $85,637,000
Recycled Water Plant capable of producing 12.7 million gallons per day $16,100,000
5 Potable Water Turnout Delivery Facilities $1,935,000
6 Emergency Interconnect Facilities $775,000
Total: $586,164,000
Critical Facilities
Administrative Building – District Offices $6,588,000
Administrative Building – Field Operations Center $5,500,000
Total: $12,088,000
4.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Upon completion, the capability assessment was reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate
capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and
determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan and are identified as Community Capacity Building
mitigation actions in the Analysis of Mitigation Actions table in Section 4.9.
4.3.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
Jurisdictions develop plans and programs and implement rules and regulations to protect and serve residents.
When effectively prepared and administered, these plans, programs and regulations can support the
implementation of mitigation actions. Table 4-2 summarizes existing codes, ordinances, policies, programs or
plans that are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan.
4. Dublin San Ramon Services District
4-3
Table 4-2. Planning and Regulatory Capability
Recent
Update Comment
District Code of the Dublin San Ramon Services District (District Code)
11/2/2010;
effective
12/1/2010
The District Code is modified with new ordinances adopted by the Board from time
to time as needed.
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings
12/2016 The Standard Specs contain the required specifications for DSRSD infrastructure
and equipment. The Standard Specs are update as needed by DSRSD staff.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Emergency Response Plan (ERP) 5/1/2012 This policy is P300-16-2 and it designates the District Emergency Manager and
authorizes that person to manage emergency operations.
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Risk Management for District Agreements with Contractors and Consultants
8/19/2014 This is policy P100-14-4 and it determines the risk management system that
provides for the required types of insurance, limits of coverage and other
provisions for agreements with contractors and consultants who do business with
the District.
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Construction Project Acceptance by
the General Manager
10/21/2014 This is policy P200-14-3 and it allows the General Manager to accept construction
projects.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Green Business Policy 7/17/2017 This is policy P200-07-1 and it includes directions for environmental compliance,
pollution prevention, energy conservation and solid waste reduction.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Water Recycling Policy 9/7/2010 This is policy P300-10-3 and it includes directions for provision of Recycled Water
service both within and outside the District.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Water Supply, Storage, Conveyance, Quality and Conservation Policy
10/20/2015 This is policy P300-15-1 and it provides guidance for addressing water supply
challenges.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Infrastructure Responsibilities and
Funding Policy
1/19/2010 This is policy P600-15-3 and it defines responsibility for major and non-major
infrastructure planning design and construction.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Security Policy 4/6/2010 This is policy P700-14-2 and its intent is to ensure security of District facilities to
provide safe and reliable water and wastewater services.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Safety Programs 8/16/2016 This is policy P700-16-1 and its intent is to provide a safe work environment for all
employees; regular, part-time, limited-term, interns, temporary, contract,
consultant, and elected officials.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Recycled Water Use Guidelines and Requirements
8/16/2016 These guidelines contain DSRSD regulations and guidelines for the design,
installation, operation and maintenance of on-site recycled water facilities for
irrigation and water features, transport and use of recycled water for dust control
and surface cleaning; and use of recycled water in dual-plumbed buildings and
industrial facilities.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Capital Improvement Program 6/2/2015 This is a ten-year Capital Plan for fiscal years ending 2016 through 2025 and a
two-year Budget for fiscal years ending 2016 and 2017. The District’s CIP defines
the projects to: 1) protect human health and the environment, 2) maintain and
rehabilitate existing assets, 3) respond to regulatory requirements, 4)
accommodate planed future growth.
Dublin San Ramon Services District Asset Management Plan Continuously
updated
The District maintains a Computerized Maintenance and Management System
(CMMS) which inventories all the District assets, their date of installation and asset
condition information. The District maintains rehabilitation and replacement models
for the sewer collection system, water system and wastewater treatment plant.
These models identify critical assets and indicate when they should be replaced.
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Geographic Information System
Continuously
updated
The District maintains a Geographic Information System that maps the location of
the District’s infrastructure as aligned with the local transportation system (streets,
highways); water features (creeks, canals, streams); and fault lines. This system
assists the District in determining the infrastructure most vulnerable to hazards
such as flooding or earthquakes.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
4-4
4.3.2 Fiscal, Administrative and Technical Capabilities
Fiscal capability is an indicator of a jurisdiction’s ability to fulfill the financial needs associated with hazard
mitigation projects. An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 4-3. Administrative and technical
capabilities represent a jurisdiction’s staffing resources for carrying out the mitigation strategy. An assessment of
administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 4-4.
Table 4-3. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes
Federal Grant Programs Yes
Other No
Table 4-4. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development
and land management practices
Yes Engineering / Assistant-Associate Civil Engineer – SME
Engineering / Principal Engineer - Supervisory
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes Engineering / Assistant-Associate Civil Engineer – SME
Engineering / Principal Engineer - Supervisory
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards No
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Engineering / Assistant-Associate Civil Engineer – SME
Engineering-Operations / Administrative Analyst II
Surveyors No
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Engineering / GIS Analyst II
Engineering / Engineering/GIS Technician II
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
Emergency manager No
Grant writers Yes Engineering-Operations / Administrative Analyst II
Other No
4.3.3 Education and Outreach Capabilities
Outreach and education capability identifies the connection between government and community members, which
opens a dialogue needed for a more resilient community. An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is
presented in Table 4-5.
4. Dublin San Ramon Services District
4-5
Table 4-5. Education and Outreach
Criterion Response
Do you have a Public Information Officer or Communications Office? Yes
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes
• If yes, please briefly describe District has an “Emergency” button on its home page
that opens a portal to information about emergencies.
Do you utilize social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? No
• If yes, please briefly describe N/A
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? No
• If yes, please briefly specify N/A
Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information? No
• If yes, please briefly describe N/A
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? No
• If yes, please briefly describe
N/A
4.3.4 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Given the uncertainties associated with how hazard risk may change with a changing climate, a jurisdiction’s
ability to track such changes and adapt as needed is an important component of the mitigation strategy. Table 4-6
summarizes the District’s adaptive capacity for climate change.
4.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on
the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning
mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard
information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa.
Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in
collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation.
4.4.1 Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the Dublin San Ramon Services
District made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives and actions into other planning
initiatives. The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Dublin San Ramon Services District Water Supply, Storage, Conveyance, Quality and
Conservation Policy—Last updated October 20, 2015. This is policy P300-15-1. During its last review,
District staff included consideration of water demands during water supply disruptions such as droughts
and strategies to meet the water demands in the service area during the periods of disruption.
• Dublin San Ramon Services District Recycled Water Use Guidelines and Requirements—Last
updated August 16, 2016. The District has always regarded recycled water as a valuable replacement for
potable water now used as outdoor irrigation. The implementation of recycled water irrigation programs
thus helps mitigate shortages of potable water whether caused by as drought or other natural disasters.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
4-6
Table 4-6. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Rating
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Medium
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Medium
Comments/Additional Information: Operations Manager is member of Alameda County Coastal Hazards Adaptation Resiliency Group.
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes Low
Comments/Additional Information: District has no formal policy on planning fees
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Medium
Comments/Additional Information: District’s Urban Water Management Plan considers effect of Climate Change on Water Supply.
Champions for climate action in local government departments Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies Medium
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Local residents support of adaptation efforts Low
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium
Comments/Additional Information: None provided
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement;
Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
4. Dublin San Ramon Services District
4-7
• Dublin San Ramon Services District Capital Improvement Program—Last updated June 2, 2015.
This is a ten-year Capital Plan for fiscal years ending 2016 through 2025 and a two-year budget for fiscal
years ending 2016 and 2017. The District’s CIP defines the projects to: 1) protect human health and the
environment, 2) maintain and rehabilitate existing assets, 3) respond to regulatory requirements, 4)
accommodate planed future growth. Pertinent projects in the CIP program that deal with public health
issues of wastewater collection and treatment and water supply were reviewed for facility reliability,
diversifying the District’s potable water supply and the prospects of extending potable water supply by
creating and using additional recycled water.
Resources listed in Section 4.10 were used to provide information on hazard events and local capabilities within
the jurisdiction.
4.4.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
As this hazard mitigation plan is implemented, the Dublin San Ramon Services District will use information from
the plan as the best available science and data on natural hazards. The capability assessment presented in this
annex identifies codes, plans and programs that provide opportunities for integration. The area-wide and local
action plans developed for this hazard mitigation plan include actions related to plan integration, and progress on
these actions will be reported through the progress reporting process described in Volume 1. New opportunities
for integration also will be identified as part of the mid-term progress report. The capability assessment identified
the following plans and programs that do not currently integrate goals or recommendations of the hazard
mitigation plan but provide opportunities to do so in the future:
• Dublin San Ramon Services District Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings—latest
update was December 2016. The Standard Specs contain the required specifications for DSRSD
infrastructure and equipment. The Standard Specs will be reviewed and update with a strategy of
rehabilitating or rebuilding District facilities as quickly as necessary following damage during a disaster.
• Dublin San Ramon Services District Emergency Response Plan (ERP) —Last updated May 1, 2012.
This policy will be reviewed and updated with a strategy to coordinate response to a disaster with other
entities. This will mitigate damage to specific facilities as much as possible and minimize harmful effects
to public health from future disasters.
• Dublin San Ramon Services District Asset Management Plan —Now under development. This plan
will include provisions for prioritizing the rehabilitation of District facilities that are disabled by various
hazards. The goal will be to maintain public health during and after an emergency.
4.5 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 4-7 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in the Dublin San
Ramon Services District. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including the Dublin
San Ramon Services District, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
4-8
Table 4-7. Natural Hazard Events
Type of
Event
FEMA
Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Severe winter storm DR-4308 Feb. 7 thru
Feb. 21, 2017
Per FEMA Disaster Designation 4308, this storm and resultant mudslides caused
damage in the affected area. DSRSD monitored potential flooding and disruption to
operations at the wastewater treatment plant.
Severe winter
storm
DR-4305
Jan 22, 2017 Per FEMA Disaster Designation 4305, this storm and resultant mudslides caused
damage in the affected area. DSRSD monitored potential flooding and disruption to
operations at the wastewater treatment plant.
Severe winter storm DR-4301 Jan 3 thru
Jan 7, 2017
Per FEMA Disaster Designation 4301, this storm and resultant mudslides caused
damage in the affected area. DSRSD monitored potential flooding and disruption to
operations at the wastewater treatment plant.
Severe
Drought
N/A 2014 thru 2016 This drought required water conservation and severe water restrictions. DSRSD
suffered severe loss of revenue. Landscaping including turf and trees in the DSRSD
area died or were removed.
Severe winter storm N/A February 6,
2015
This storm brought 0.96 inches of rain in13 hours, with wind gusts of 32 mph. DSRSD
monitored potential flooding and disruption to wastewater treatment plant operations.
Severe winter storm N/A December 30-
31, 2014
This storm brought 0 inches of rain over 19 hrs. with wind gusts of 43 mph. DSRSD
monitored potential flooding and disruption to wastewater treatment plant operations.
Severe winter
storm
N/A December 2,
2014
This storm brought 1.41 inches of rain over 16 hrs. with wind gusts of 23 mph. DSRSD
monitored potential flooding and disruption to wastewater treatment plant operations.
Severe winter storm N/A October 13,
2009
Per 6-hour rainfall intensity, this storm was a 17-year storm. DSRSD monitored
potential flooding and disruption to operations at the wastewater treatment plant.
Severe winter storm N/A January 3-5,
2008
Per 6-hour rainfall intensity, this storm was a 12-year storm. DSRSD monitored
potential flooding and disruption to operations at the wastewater treatment plant.
Drought N/A September 2007 N/A
4.6 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.
Noted vulnerabilities within the district include the following:
• Pump Station Vulnerability—Two of the District’s potable water pump stations, PS 4A and PS 4B, are
located in less developed area with high wildfire severity. During a high wind and wildfire event these
two pump stations could be damaged and hinder potable water transfer to areas of western Dublin.
• Sewer Trunk Main Vulnerability—A major sewer trunk main crosses above Alamo Creek in an area
susceptible to a 1 percent annual chance flood. A severe flood might damage this sewer main from debris
flows in Alamo Creek.
• Wastewater Treatment Plant Vulnerability—The District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant is located
adjacent to Alamo Creek in Pleasanton. A severe flood in Alamo Creek could hinder operations of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4.7 HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 4-8 presents a local ranking for the Dublin San Ramon Services District of all hazards of concern for which
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. This ranking summarizes how
hazards vary for this jurisdiction. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment
of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the
economy.
4. Dublin San Ramon Services District
4-9
Table 4-8. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category
1 Earthquakea 36 High
1 Landslidee 36 High
2 Severe weatherb 33 Medium
3 Droughtf 27 Medium
3 Wildfirec 27 Medium
4 Floodd 12 Low
5 Dam failureg 6 Low
a. Based on the “Haywired” (Hayward Fault Scenario M7.05)
b. Severe weather is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, medium
impact on people, medium impact on property and low impact on economy.
c. Based on Very High and High Fire Severity Zones.
d. Based on 1 percent-annual-chance flood zone (otherwise known as the special flood hazard area)
e. Based on Very High, High, and Moderate Landslide Susceptibility Zones
f. Drought is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Generally, drought does not cause injury or death to people or result in
property damage. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, no impact on people, low impact on property and low impact
on economy for those jurisdictions with limited agriculture.
g. Based on the Del Valle Dam inundation scenario.
4.8 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Table 4-9 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan
and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 4-9. Status of Previous Plan Actions
Removed;
No Longer Carried Over to Plan Update
Action Item Completed Feasible Check if Yes Enter Action #
Complete Potable Water Emergency Interties with East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Pleasanton and City of
Livermore
X DSRSD-6
Comment:
Retrofit DSRSD Pumping Stations for Portable Emergency Power X DSRSD-7
Comment:
Stockpile Necessary Treating Chemical and Repair Equipment
for Local Shortages
X DSRSD-8
Comment:
Central Dublin Recycled Water Retrofit June 1, 2013
Comment:
4.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Table 4-10 lists the actions that make up the Dublin San Ramon Services District hazard mitigation action plan.
Table 4-11 identifies the priority for each action. Table 4-12 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of
concern and mitigation type.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
4-10
Table 4-10. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
DSRSD-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting or relocation of structures in high hazard areas, prioritizing Wastewater Treatment
Plant structures and other structures which have experienced repetitive losses.
Existing Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
4, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12
DSRSD -
Engineering
N/A High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-
term
DSRSD-2—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs within the District.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 6, 8,
10, 11
DSRSD –
Planning
Division
N/A Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-
term
DSRSD-3—Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high water marks, preliminary
damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including the implementation and maintenance of the hazard
mitigation plan.
Existing Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 9 Emergency
Management
N/A Medium Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-
term
DSRSD-4—Support the Tri-Valley Area –wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12
Lead Contact
Department for
Plan
Any Supporting
Departments
Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-
term
DSRSD-5—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12
Lead Contact
Department for
Plan
Any Supporting
Departments
Low Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-
term
DSRSD-6—Complete Potable Water Emergency Interties with East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Pleasanton and City of
Livermore.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 4, 6, 8,
10, 11
DSRSD -
Engineering
East Bay
Municipal Utility
District, City of
Pleasanton, and
City of Livermore
Medium HMGP, PDM,
FMA, Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-
term
DSRSD-7—Retrofit DSRSD Pumping Stations for Potable Emergency Power.
Existing Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather, Wildfire
1, 4, 6, 8,
10, 11,
DSRSD -
Engineering
Any Supporting
Departments
Medium HMGP, PDM, Staff
Time, General
Funds
Short-
term
DSRSD-8—Stockpile Necessary Treating Chemical and Repair Equipment for Local Shortages.
Existing Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Wildfire
1, 4, 6, 8,
10, 11
DSRSD – Field
Operations
N/A Low HMGP, Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-
term
DSRSD-9—Require subdivision water mains to be “looped” to maintain water supplies after landslides and earthquakes
Existing Earthquake, Landslide,
Wildfire 1, 4, 6, 8,
10, 11, DSRSD -
Engineering Any Supporting
Departments
Medium Staff Time,
General Funds Short-
term
DSRSD-10—Map and Assess DSRSD Facilities Vulnerable to Landslides.
Existing Landslides, Wildfire 1, 4, 6, 8,
10, 11
DSRSD – Field
Operations
N/A Low HMGP, Staff Time,
General Funds
Short-
term
4. Dublin San Ramon Services District
4-11
Table 4-11. Mitigation Action Priority
Action #
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
DSRSD-1 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
DSRSD-2 6 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
DSRSD-3 2 Medium Medium Yes No No Medium Low
DSRSD-4 12 Medium Low Yes No No Medium Low
DSRSD-5 12 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
DSRSD-6 6 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium Medium
DSRSD-7 6 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High Medium
DSRSD-8 6 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High Medium
DSRSD-9 6 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High Low
DSRSD-10 6 Low Low Yes Yes Yes High Medium
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
Table 4-12. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community Capacity
Building
Dam Failure DSRSD-2, 3, 4, 5, 10 DSRSD-1 DSRSD-4 DSRSD-6, 7, 8, 9 DSRSD-3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10
Drought DSRSD-2, 3, 4, 5 DSRSD-1 DSRSD-4 DSRSD-6, 7, 8 DSRSD-3, 4, 6
Earthquake DSRSD-2, 3, 4, 5, 10 DSRSD-1 DSRSD-4 DSRSD-6, 7, 8, 9 DSRSD-3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10
Flood DSRSD-2, 3, 4, 5 DSRSD-1 DSRSD-4 DSRSD-6, 7, 8 DSRSD-3, 4, 6, 8
Landslide DSRSD-2, 3, 4, 5, 9,
10
DSRSD-1 DSRSD-4 DSRSD-6, 7, 8, 9 DSRSD-3, 4, 6, 9, 10
Severe Weather DSRSD-2, 3, 4, 5 DSRSD-1 DSRSD-4 DSRSD-6, 7, 8 DSRSD-3, 4, 6
Wildfire DSRSD-2, 3, 4, 5, 10 DSRSD-1 DSRSD-4 DSRSD-6, 7, 8,
9, 10
DSRSD-3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
4.10 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF RESOURCES FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide information for this
annex.
• Dublin San Ramon Services District Emergency Response Plan (ERP) —Reviewed to identify
possible mitigation actions.
• Dublin San Ramon Services District Asset Management Program—update in progress. This program
designates the critical infrastructure for continued DSRSD operations and prioritizes the facilities for
rehabilitating the facilities to be repaired after a disaster. The Asset Management Program was used to
identify the critical infrastructure.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
4-12
• Dublin San Ramon Services District 2016 Urban Water Management Plan—last update June 2016.
Reviewed as part of the capability assessment.
• Dublin San Ramon Services District Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update—last
update June 2005. Reviewed to identify possible mitigation actions.
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Tool-kit—The tool-kit was used to support the
development of this annex including past hazard events, noted vulnerabilities, risk ranking and action
development.
§¨¦680
VILLAGEPWCity ofDublin
City ofPleasanton
City ofLivermore
DUBLIN B
L
DUBLIN BLSANRAMONRD CROAKRDTASSAJARARDHACIENDA DRDOUGHERTYRDDublin San Ramon Services
District Boundary
Municipal Boundaries
Alameda County Boundary
Water Bodies & Channels
NEHRP Site Class / SoilProfile
C / Very Dense Soil - Soft Rock
D / Stiff Soil
/
Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaDept of Conservation, CGS, USGS, ESRI
Dublin San RamonServices District
0 1 20.5
Miles
C o n t r a C o s t aC o u n t y
A l a m e d aC o u n t y
National Earthquake HazardsReduction Program (NEHRP)Soil Classification
Soil classification data provided by the California Department
of Conservation. The data is based on surficial geology
published at a scale of 1:250,000. The surficial geologic units
were grouped into composite units with similar average shear
wave velocity to 30 meters depth (Vs30) values. This data
was prepared as part of the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map
of California (Petersen, M., D. Beeby, W. Bryant, T. Cao, C.
Cramer, J. Davis, M. Reichle, G. Saucedo, S. Tan G., Taylor,
T. Toppozada, J. Treiman, and C. Wills (1999) Seismic
Shaking Hazard Maps of California: California Division of
Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48).
§¨¦680
VILLAGEPWCity ofDublin
City ofPleasanton
City ofLivermore
DUBLIN B
L
DUBLIN BLSANRAMONRD CROAKRDTASSAJARARDHACIENDA DRDOUGHERTYRDDublin San Ramon Services
District Boundary
Municipal Boundaries
Alameda County Boundary
Water Bodies & Channels
No Liquefaction Data Available
Susceptibility toLiquefaction
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Very High
/
Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGS, ESRI
Dublin San RamonServices District
0 1 20.5
Miles
C o n t r a C o s t aC o u n t y
A l a m e d aC o u n t y
Liquefaction Susceptibility
This report presents a map and database of Quaternary
deposits and liquefaction susceptibility for the urban core of
the San Francisco Bay region. Much of the land adjacent to
the Bay and the major rivers and streams is underlain by
unconsolidated deposits that are particularly vulnerable to
earthquake shaking and liquefaction of water-saturated
granular sediment. Like Open-File Report 00-444, the current
mapping uses geomorphic expression, pedogenic soils,
inferred depositional environments, and geologic age to
define and distinguish the map units. The report is the product
of cooperative work by the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) and National Cooperative
Geologic Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey,
William Lettis and & Associates, Inc. (WLA), and the
California Geological Survey. For detailed information about
the map the USGS has an open report, "Maps of Quaternary
Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San
Francisco Bay Region, California. U.S. Geological Survey
Open File Report 2006-1037 Version 1.1.
§¨¦680
VILLAGEPWCity ofDublin
City ofPleasanton
City ofLivermore
DUBLIN B
L
DUBLIN BLSANRAMONRD CROAKRDTASSAJARARDHACIENDA DRDOUGHERTYRDDublin San Ramon Services
District Boundary
Municipal Boundaries
Alameda County Boundary
Water Bodies & Channels
1% Annual Chance (100-Year)
Flood Zone
0.2% Annual Chance (500-Year)
Flood Zone
/
Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, FEMA, ESRI
Dublin San RamonServices District
0 1 20.5
Miles
C o n t r a C o s t aC o u n t y
A l a m e d aC o u n t y
FEMA Effective DFIRM FloodHazard Areas
Flood hazard areas as depicted onEffective FEMA Digital Insurance RateMaps (DFIRM)
§¨¦680
VILLAGEPWCity ofDublin
City ofPleasanton
City ofLivermore
DUBLIN B
L
DUBLIN BLSANRAMONRD CROAKRDTASSAJARARDHACIENDA DRDOUGHERTYRDDublin San Ramon Services
District Boundary
Municipal Boundaries
Alameda County Boundary
Water Bodies & Channels
No Landslide Data Available
Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides
Low
Moderate
High
Very High / Existing
/
Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CaliforniaGeological Survey, USGS, ESRI
Dublin San RamonServices District
0 1 20.5
Miles
C o n t r a C o s t aC o u n t y
A l a m e d aC o u n t y
Susceptibility to Deep-seatedLandslides
Source dataset created by Wills C.J.,Perez, F., Guitierrez, C., 2011, Susceptibilityto deep-seated landslides in California:California Geological Survey Map Sheet 58
§¨¦680
VILLAGEPWCity ofDublin
City ofPleasanton
City ofLivermore
DUBLIN B
L
DUBLIN BLSANRAMONRD CROAKRDTASSAJARARDHACIENDA DRDOUGHERTYRDDublin San Ramon Services
District Boundary
Municipal Boundaries
Alameda County Boundary
Water Bodies & Channels
Wildfire Severity Zone
Moderate
High
Very High
/
Map Data Sources: City of Dublin, City ofLivermore, City of Pleasanton, CalFIRE,ESRI
Dublin San RamonServices District
0 1 20.5
Miles
C o n t r a C o s t aC o u n t y
A l a m e d aC o u n t y
Wildfire Severity Zones
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix A. Planning Partner Expectations
A-1
A. PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS
Achieving DMA Compliance for All Planning Partners
The federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), commonly known as the 2000 Stafford
Act amendments, was approved by Congress on October 10, 2000. This act required state and local governments to
develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal grant assistance. Among other things, this legislation
reinforces the importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide.
DMA 2000 is aimed primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disaster relief and
programs to promote mitigation activities. Prior to 2000, federal legislation provided funding for disaster relief,
recovery, and some hazard mitigation planning. The DMA improves upon the planning process by emphasizing the
importance of communities planning for disasters before they occur.
The Disaster Mitigation Act defines a “local government” as:
Any county, municipality, city, town, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of
governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under
State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian
tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community,
unincorporated town or village, or other public entity.
Any local government wishing to pursue funding afforded under FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs must
have an approved hazard mitigation plan in order to be eligible to apply for these funds.
One of the goals of the multi-jurisdictional approach to hazard mitigation planning is to achieve compliance with
the DMA for all participating members in the planning effort. DMA compliance must be certified for each member
in order to maintain eligibility for the benefits under the DMA. Whether a planning process generates 10 individual
plans or one large plan that has a chapter for each partner jurisdiction, the following items must be addressed by
each planning partner to achieve DMA compliance:
• Participate in the process. It must be documented in the plan that each planning partner “participated” in
the process that generated the plan. There is flexibility in defining “participation.” Participation can vary
based on the type of planning partner (i.e.: City vs. a Special Purpose District). However, the level of
participation must be defined and the extent for which this level of participation has been met for each
partner must be contained in the plan context.
• Consistency Review. Review existing documents pertinent to each jurisdiction to identify policies or
recommendations that are not consistent with documents reviewed in producing the “parent” plan or that
have policies and recommendations that complement the hazard mitigation initiatives selected (i.e.: comp
plans, basin plans or hazard specific plans).
• Action Review. For plan updates, review the strategies from the prior action plan to determine those that
have been accomplished and how they were accomplished; and why those that have not been
accomplished were not completed.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
A-2
• Update Localized Risk Assessment. Personalize the risk assessment for each jurisdiction by removing
hazards not associated with the defined jurisdictional area or redefining vulnerability based on a hazard’s
impact to a jurisdiction. This phase will include:
A ranking of the risk
A description of the number and type of structures at risk
An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures
A general description of land uses and development trends within the community, so that mitigation
options can be considered in future land use decisions.
• Capability assessment. Each planning partner must identify and review their individual regulatory,
technical and financial capabilities with regards to the implementation of hazard mitigation actions.
• Personalize mitigation recommendations. Identify and prioritize mitigation recommendations specific
to each jurisdiction’s defined area.
• Create an Action Plan.
• Incorporate Public Participation. Each jurisdiction must present the plan to the public for comment at
least once, within two weeks prior to adoption.
• Plan must be adopted by each jurisdiction.
One of the benefits to multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources. This means more than monetary
resources. Resources such as staff time, meeting locations, media resources, and technical expertise will all need to
be utilized to generate a successful plan. In addition, these resources can be pooled such that decisions can be made
by a peer group applying to the whole and thus reducing the individual level of effort of each planning partner. This
will be accomplished by the formation of a steering committee made up of planning partners and other
“stakeholders” within the planning area. The size and makeup of this steering committee will be determined by the
planning partnership. This body will assume the decision-making responsibilities on behalf of the entire partnership.
This will streamline the planning process by reducing the number of meetings that will need to be attended by each
planning partner. The assembled Steering Committee for this effort will meet monthly on an as needed basis as
determined by the planning team, and will provide guidance and decision making during all phases of the plan’s
development.
With the above participation requirements in mind, each partner is expected to aid this process by being prepared
to develop its section of the plan. To be an eligible planning partner in this effort, each Planning Partner shall
provide the following:
A. A “Letter of Intent to participate” or resolution to participate submitted to the Planning Team (see
Exhibit A).
B. Designate a lead point of contact for this effort. This designee will be listed as the hazard mitigation point
of contact for your jurisdiction in the plan.
C. Support and participate in the selection and function of the Steering Committee selected to oversee the
development of this plan.
D. Provide support in the form of a mailing list, a possible meeting space, and public information materials,
such as newsletters, newspapers or direct mailed brochures, required to implement the public involvement
strategy developed by the Steering Committee.
E. Participate in the process. There will be many opportunities as this plan evolves to participate. Opportunities
such as:
Appendix A. 0BPlanning Partner Expectations
A-3
a. Steering Committee meetings
b. Public meetings or open houses
c. Workshops/ Planning Partner specific training sessions
d. Public review and comment periods prior to adoption
At each and every one of these opportunities, attendance will be recorded. Attendance records will be
used to document participation for each planning partner. No thresholds will be established as minimum
levels of participation. However, each planning partner should attempt to attend all possible meetings and
events.
F. There will be one mandatory workshop that all planning partners will be required to attend. This workshop
will cover the proper completion of the jurisdictional annex template, which is the basis for each partner’s
jurisdictional chapter in the plan. Failure to have a representative at this workshop will disqualify the
planning partner from participation in this effort. The schedule for this workshop will be such that all
committed planning partners will be able to attend.
G. After participation in the mandatory template workshop, each partner will be required to complete a
template and provide it to the planning team in the time frame established by the Steering Committee.
Failure to complete your template in the required time frame may lead to disqualification from the
partnership.
H. Each partner will be expected to perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies, plans, ordinances
specific to hazards to determine the existence of any not consistent with the same such documents reviewed
in the preparation of the parent plan.
I. Each partner will be expected to review the risk assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific
to its jurisdiction. Contract resources will provide the jurisdiction specific mapping and technical
consultation to aid in this task, but the determination of risk and vulnerability will be up to each partner.
J. Each partner will be expected to review and determine if the mitigation recommendations chosen in the
parent plan will meet the needs of its jurisdiction. Projects within each jurisdiction consistent with the parent
plan recommendations will need to be identified and prioritized, and reviewed to determine their benefits
vs. costs.
K. Each partner will be required to create its own action plan that identifies each project, who will oversee the
task, how it will be financed and when it is estimated to occur.
L. Each partner will be required to sponsor at least one public meeting to present the draft plan to its
constituents at least 2 weeks prior to adoption.
M. Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan.
Templates and instructions to aid in the compilation of this information will be provided to all committed planning
partners. Each partner will be expected to complete their templates in a timely manner and according to the timeline
specified by the Steering Committee.
** Note**: Once this plan is completed, and DMA compliance has been determined for each partner,
maintaining that eligibility will be dependent upon each partner implementing the plan implementation-
maintenance protocol identified in the plan. At a minimum, this means completing the ongoing plan
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
A-4
maintenance protocol identified in the plan. Partners that do not participate in this plan maintenance
strategy may be deemed ineligible by the partnership, and thus lose their DMA eligibility.
Eligible entities that do not wish to participate in the 2016 multi-jurisdictional planning process or fail to
meet the requirements contained in this document may choose to link to the plan in pursuit of future adoption
after the completion of the 2016 effort.
Appendix A. 0BPlanning Partner Expectations
A-5
Exhibit A.
Example Letter of Intent to Participate
Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Planning Partnership
C/O Jessica Cerutti, Tetra Tech, Inc.
1999 Harrison St.
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Tri-Valley Planning Team,
Please be advised that the _________________________ (insert district name) is committed to participating in the
update to the Tri-Valley Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan. As the jurisdictional representative tasked with
this planning effort, I certify that we will commit all necessary resources in order to meet Partnership expectations
as outlined in the “Planning Partners expectations” document provided by the planning team, in order to obtain
Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) compliance for our jurisdiction.
Mr./Ms. __________________________________ will be our jurisdiction’s point of contact for this process and
they can be reached at (insert: address, phone number and e-mail address).
Sincerely,
Name ___________________________________
Title ____________________________________
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
A-6
Exhibit B.
Planning Team Contact information
Name Representing Address e-mail
Tracy Hein Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department 3560 Nevada St,
Pleasanton, CA 94566
THein@lpfire.org
Hazel Wetherford Dublin 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin, CA 94568
hazel.wetherford@dublin.ca.gov
Shweta Bonn Pleasanton P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
sbonn@cityofpleasantonca.gov
Janice Stern Pleasanton P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
jstern@cityofpleasantonca.gov
Stephen Reilly Livermore 1052 S Livermore Ave,
Livermore, CA 94550
spriley@cityoflivermore.net
Jessica Cerutti Tetra Tech, Inc. 1999 Harrison St., Ste. 500
Oakland, CA 94612
jessica.cerutti@tetratech.com
Rob Flaner Tetra Tech, Inc. 90 S. Blackwood Ave
Eagle, ID 83616
rob.flaner@tetratech.com
Stephen Veith Tetra Tech, Inc. 1020 SW Taylor St., Ste. 530
Portland, Oregon 97205
stephen.veith@tetratech.com
Appendix A. 0BPlanning Partner Expectations
A-7
Exhibit C.
Overview of HAZUS
Overview of HAZUS-MH (Multi-Hazard)
http://www.fema.gov/hazus/dl_mhpres.shtmHAZUS-MH, is a nationally
applicable standardized methodology and software program that contains
models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and
hurricane winds. HAZUS-MH was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) under contract with the National Institute of
Building Sciences (NIBS). NIBS maintains committees of wind, flood,
earthquake and software experts to provide technical oversight and
guidance to HAZUS-MH development. Loss estimates produced by
HAZUS-MH are based on current scientific and engineering knowledge of
the effects of hurricane winds, floods, and earthquakes. Estimating losses is
essential to decision-making at all levels of government, providing a basis
for developing mitigation plans and policies, emergency preparedness, and
response and recovery
planning.
HAZUS-MH uses state-of-the-
art geographic information
system (GIS) software to map
and display hazard data and the
results of damage and economic
loss estimates for buildings and
infrastructure. It also allows
users to estimate the impacts of
hurricane winds, floods, and
earthquakes on populations.
The latest release, HAZUS-MH
MR1, is an updated version of
HAZUS-MH that incorporates
many new features which
improve both the speed and
functionality of the models. For
information on software and
hardware requirements to run
HAZUS-MH MR1, see
HAZUS-MH Hardware and
Software Requirements.
HAZUS-MH Analysis Levels
HAZUS-MH provides for three levels of analysis:
A Level 1 analysis yields a rough estimate based on the nationwide database and is a great way to begin
the risk assessment process and prioritize high-risk communities.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
A-8
A Level 2 analysis requires the input of additional or refined data and hazard maps that will produce more
accurate risk and loss estimates. Assistance from local emergency management personnel, city planners,
GIS professionals, and others may be necessary for this level of analysis.
A Level 3 analysis yields the most accurate estimate of loss and typically requires the involvement of
technical experts such as structural and geotechnical engineers who can modify loss parameters based on
to the specific conditions of a community. This level analysis will allow users to supply their own
techniques to study special conditions such as dam breaks and tsunamis. Engineering and other expertise
is needed at this level.
Three data input tools have been developed to support data collection.
The Inventory Collection Tool (InCAST) helps users collect and
manage local building data for more refined analyses than are possible
with the national level data sets that come with HAZUS. InCAST has
expanded capabilities for multi-hazard data collection. HAZUS-MH
includes an enhanced Building Inventory Tool (BIT) allows users to
import building data and is most useful when handling large datasets,
such as tax assessor records. The Flood Information Tool (FIT) helps
users manipulate flood data into the format required by the HAZUS
flood model. All Three tools are included in the HAZUS-MH MR1
Application DVD.
HAZUS-MH Models
The HAZUS-MH Hurricane Wind Model gives users in the Atlantic
and Gulf Coast regions and Hawaii the ability to estimate potential
damage and loss to residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. It
also allows users to estimate direct economic loss, post-storm shelter
needs and building debris. In the future, the model will include the
capability to estimate wind effects in island territories, storm surge,
indirect economic losses, casualties, and impacts to utility and
transportation lifelines and agriculture. Loss models for other severe
wind hazards will be included in the future. Details about the Hurricane
Wind Model.
The HAZUS-MH Flood Model is capable of assessing riverine and
coastal flooding. It estimates potential damage to all classes of
buildings, essential facilities, transportation and utility lifelines,
vehicles, and agricultural crops. The model addresses building debris
generation and shelter requirements. Direct losses are estimated based
on physical damage to structures, contents, and building interiors. The effects of flood warning are taken into
account, as are flow velocity effects. Details about the Flood Model.
The HAZUS-MH Earthquake Model, The HAZUS earthquake model provides loss estimates of damage and
loss to buildings, essential facilities, transportation and utility lifelines, and population based on scenario or
probabilistic earthquakes. The model addresses debris generation, fire-following, casualties, and shelter
requirements. Direct losses are estimated based on physical damage to structures, contents, inventory, and
building interiors. The earthquake model also includes the Advanced Engineering Building Module for single-
and group-building mitigation analysis. Details about the Earthquake Model.
The updated earthquake model released with HAZUS-MH includes:
Appendix A. 0BPlanning Partner Expectations
A-9
The (September 2002) National Hazard Maps
Project ‘02 attenuation functions
Updated historical earthquake catalog (magnitude 5 or greater)
Advanced Engineering Building Module for single and group building mitigation analysis
Additionally, HAZUS-MH can perform multi-hazard analysis by providing access to the average annualized loss
and probabilistic results from the hurricane wind, flood, and earthquake models and combining them to provide
integrated multi-hazard reports and graphs. HAZUS-MH also contains a third-party model integration capability
that provides access and operational capability to a wide range of natural, man-made, and technological hazard
models (nuclear and conventional blast, radiological, chemical, and biological) that will supplement the natural
hazard loss estimation capability (hurricane wind, flood, and earthquake) in HAZUS-MH.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to Hazard
Mitigation Plan
B-1
B. PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN
Not all eligible local governments are included in the Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Some or all of
these non-participating local governments may choose to “link” to the Plan at some point to gain eligibility for
programs under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA). The following “linkage” procedures define the
requirements established by the planning team for dealing with an increase in the number of planning partners
linked to this plan. No currently non-participating jurisdiction within the defined planning area is obligated to link
to this plan. These jurisdictions can choose to do their own “complete” plan that addresses all required elements
of Section 201.6 of Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR).
INCREASING THE PARTNERSHIP THROUGH LINKAGE
Eligibility
Eligible jurisdictions located in the planning area may link to this plan at any point during the plan’s performance
period (5 years after final approval). Eligibility will be determined by the following factors:
• The linking jurisdiction is a local government as defined by the Disaster Mitigation Act.
• The boundaries or service area of the linking jurisdiction is completely contained within the boundaries of
the planning area established during the 2016 hazard mitigation plan development process.
• The linking jurisdiction’s critical facilities were included in the critical facility and infrastructure risk
assessment completed during the 2016 plan development process.
Requirements
It is expected that linking jurisdictions will complete the requirements outlined below and submit their completed
template to the Livermore-Pleasanton Fired District for review within six months of beginning the linkage
process:
• The eligible jurisdiction requests a “Linkage Package” by contacting the plan point of contact (POC):
Tracy Hein, Disaster Preparedness Coordinator
Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department
3560 Nevada Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
(925) 454-2317
THein@lpfire.org
• The POC will provide a linkage procedure package that includes linkage information and a linkage tool-
kit:
Linkage Information
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
B-2
o Procedures for linking to the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan
o Planning partner’s expectations for linking jurisdictions
o A sample “letter of intent” to link to the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan
o A copy of Section 201.6 of 44 CFR, which defines the federal requirements for a local hazard
mitigation plan.
Linkage Tool-Kit
o Copy of Volume 1 and 2 of the plan
o A special purpose district or municipality template and instructions
o A catalog of hazard mitigation alternatives
o A sample resolution for plan adoption
• The new jurisdiction will be required to review both volumes of the Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan, which include the following key components for the planning area:
Goals and objectives
The planning area risk assessment
Comprehensive review of alternatives
Area-wide actions
Plan implementation and maintenance procedures.
Once this review is complete, the jurisdiction will complete its specific annex using the template and
instructions provided by the POC.
• The development of the new jurisdiction’s annex must not be completed by one individual in isolation.
The jurisdiction must develop, implement and describe a public involvement strategy and a methodology
to identify and vet jurisdiction-specific actions. The original partnership was covered under a uniform
public involvement strategy and a process to identify actions that covered the planning area described in
Volume 1 and Volume 2 of this plan. Since new partners were not addressed by these strategies, they will
have to initiate new strategies and describe them in their annex. For consistency, new partners are
encouraged to develop and implement strategies similar to those described in this plan.
• The public involvement strategy must ensure the public’s ability to participate in the plan development
process. At a minimum, the new jurisdiction must solicit public opinion on hazard mitigation at the onset
of the linkage process and hold one or more public meetings to present the draft jurisdiction-specific
annex for comment at least two weeks prior to adoption by the governing body. The POC will have
resources available to aid in the public involvement strategy, including:
The questionnaire utilized in the plan development
Presentations from public meeting workshops and the public comment period
Press releases used throughout the planning process
The plan website.
• The methodology to identify actions should include a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions
and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard and a description of the process by
which chosen actions were identified. As part of this process, linking jurisdictions should coordinate the
selection of actions amongst the jurisdiction’s various departments.
• Once their public involvement strategy and template are completed, the new jurisdiction will submit the
completed package to the POC for a pre-adoption review to ensure conformance with the multi-
jurisdictional plan format and linkage procedure requirements.
• The POC will review for the following:
Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to Hazard Mitigation Plan
B-3
Documentation of public involvement and action plan development strategies
Conformance of template entries with guidelines outlined in instructions
Chosen actions are consistent with goals, objectives and mitigation catalog of the Tri-Valley Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan
A designated point of contact
A completed FEMA plan review crosswalk.
• Plans will be reviewed by the POC and submitted to California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
(Cal OES) for review and approval.
• Cal OES will review plans for state compliance. Non-compliant plans are returned to the lead agency for
correction. Compliant plans are forwarded to FEMA for review with annotation as to the adoption status.
• FEMA reviews the linking jurisdiction’s plan in association with the approved plan to ensure DMA
compliance. FEMA notifies the new jurisdiction of the results of review with copies to Cal OES and the
approved plan lead agency.
• Linking jurisdiction corrects plan shortfalls (if necessary) and resubmits to Cal OES through the approved
plan lead agency.
• For plans with no shortfalls from the FEMA review that have not been adopted, the new jurisdiction
governing authority adopts the plan and forwards adoption resolution to FEMA with copies to lead
agency and Cal OES.
• FEMA regional director notifies the new jurisdiction’s governing authority of the plan’s approval.
The new jurisdiction plan is then included with the multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan and the linking
jurisdiction is committed to participate in the ongoing plan maintenance strategy identified in Section 19.5 of
Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan.
DECREASING THE PARTNERSHIP
The eligibility afforded under this process to the planning partnership can be rescinded in two ways. First, a
participating planning partner can ask to be removed from the partnership. This may be done because the partner
has decided to develop its own plan or has identified a different planning process for which it can gain eligibility.
A partner that wishes to voluntarily leave the partnership shall inform the POC of this desire in writing. This
notification can occur any time during the calendar year. A jurisdiction wishing to pursue this avenue is advised to
make sure that it is eligible under the new planning effort, to avoid any period of being out of compliance with the
Disaster Mitigation Act.
After receiving this notification, the POC shall immediately notify both Cal OES and FEMA in writing that the
partner in question is no longer covered by the Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and that the eligibility
afforded that partner under this plan should be rescinded based on this notification.
The second way a partner can be removed from the partnership is by failure to meet the participation requirements
specified in the “Planning Partner Expectations” package provided to each partner at the beginning of the process,
or the plan maintenance and implementation procedures specified in Volume 1 of the plan. Each partner agreed to
these terms by adopting the plan.
Eligibility status of the planning partnership will be monitored by the POC. The determination of whether a
partner is meeting its participation requirements will be based on the following parameters:
• Are progress reports being submitted by the specified time frames?
• Are partners notifying the POC of changes in designated points of contact?
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes
B-4
• Are the partners supporting the Steering Committee by attending designated meetings or responding to
needs identified by the body?
• Are the partners continuing to be supportive as specified in the Planning Partners expectations package
provided to them at the beginning of the process?
Participation in the plan does not end with plan approval. This partnership was formed on the premise that a group
of planning partners would pool resources and work together to strive to reduce risk within the planning area.
Failure to support this premise lessens the effectiveness of this effort. The following procedures will be followed
to remove a partner due to the lack of participation:
• The POC will advise the Steering Committee of this pending action and provide evidence or justification
for the action. Justification may include: multiple failures to submit annual progress reports, failure to
attend meetings determined to be mandatory by the Steering Committee, failure to act on the partner’s
action plan, or inability to reach designated point of contact after a minimum of five attempts.
• The Steering Committee will review information provided by POC, and determine action by a vote. The
Steering Committee will invoke the voting process established in the ground rules established during the
formation of this body.
• Once the Steering Committee has approved an action, the POC will notify the planning partner of the
pending action in writing via certified mail. This notification will outline the grounds for the action, and
ask the partner if it is their desire to remain as a partner. This notification shall also clearly identify the
ramifications of removal from the partnership. The partner will be given 30 days to respond to the
notification.
• Confirmation by the partner that they no longer wish to participate or failure to respond to the notification
shall trigger the procedures for voluntary removal discussed above.
• Should the partner respond that they would like to continue participation in the partnership, they must
clearly articulate an action plan to address the deficiencies identified by the POC. This action plan shall
be reviewed by the Steering Committee to determine whether the actions are appropriate to rescind the
action. Those partners that satisfy the Steering Committee’s review will remain in the partnership, and no
further action is required.
• Automatic removal from the partnership will be implemented for partners where these actions have to be
initiated more than once in a 5-year planning cycle.
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix C. Annex Instructions and Templates
1
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPAL ANNEX
TEMPLATE
The jurisdictional annex templates for the 2017
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan update will be
completed in three phases. This document
provides instructions for completing all phases
of the template for municipalities.
If your jurisdiction completed and submitted
Phase 1 and/or Phase 2, Phase 3 has been added
to the end of your document. Any planning team
comments, questions or suggestions have been
included as blue highlighted notes and/or
comments. Any text edits were made with changes
tracked for review. Any yellow highlights indicate
areas where missing information should be filled in.
If your jurisdiction did not complete Phase 1 or Phase 2,
please complete all phases at this time.
The target timeline for phase completion is as follows:
Phase 1 – Jurisdictional profile
- Deployed: early July
- Due: early August
Phase 2 – Capability assessment
- Deployed: late August
- Due: September 26, 2017
Phase 3 – Risk ranking and action plan development
- Deployed: Mid-October
- Workshop: October steering committee meeting
- Due: November 17, 2017
Any questions on completing the template should be directed
to:
Kristen Gelino
Tetra Tech, Inc.
(917) 426-4594 or (646) 576-4029
E-mail: kristen.gelino@tetratech.com
Municipality Annex:
This document provides instructions for completing all
phases of the jurisdictional annex template for
municipalities. Templates should be completed by
Friday, November 17, 2017. Your completed
template should be submitted to:
Kristen Gelino
Tetra Tech, Inc.
(917) 426-4594 or (646) 576-4029
E-mail: kristen.gelino@tetratech.com
A Note About Formatting:
The template for the annex is a Microsoft
Word document in a format that will be
used in the final plan. Partners are asked
to use this template so that a uniform
product will be completed for each
partner.
Content should be entered within the
yellow, highlighted text that is currently in
the template, rather than creating text in
another document and pasting it into the
template. Text from another source will
alter the style and formatting of the
document.
The numbering in the document will be
updated when completed annexes are
combined into the final document.
Please do not adjust any of this
numbering.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
2
PHASE 1 INSTRUCTIONS
CHAPTER TITLE
In the chapter title at the top of Page 1, type in the complete official name of your municipality (City of
Pleasantville, West County, etc.). Please do not change the chapter number. Revise only the jurisdiction name.
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the primary point of contact for
your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for
your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering
Committee overseeing development of this plan.
In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of
contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction.
Note: Both of these contacts should match the contacts that were designated in your jurisdiction’s letter of intent
to participate in this planning process. If you have changed the primary or secondary contact, please let the
planning team know by inserting a comment into the document.
JURISDICTION PROFILE
Provide information specific to your jurisdiction as indicated, in a style similar to the example provided in the box
below. This should be information that will not be provided in the overall mitigation plan document. For
population data, use the most current population figure for your jurisdiction based on an official means of tracking
(e.g., the U.S. Census or state office of financial management).
Example Jurisdiction Profile:
Date of Incorporation—1858
Current Population—17,289 as of July 2014 (2014 Department of Finance estimates)
Population Growth—Based on state Department of Finance data, Smithburg has experienced a flat rate of
growth. The population increased only 3.4% since 2010 and growth averaged 0.74% per year from 2000 to 2014.
Location and Description—The City of Smithburg is on the Pacific coast, 760 miles north of Los Angeles and
275 miles north of San Francisco. The nearest seaport is Eureka, five miles south on Humboldt Bay. Smithburg is
the home of Smithburg State University and is situated between the communities of Murphy to the north and Blue
Lake to the east. It sits at the intersection of US Highway 101 and State Route 299.
Brief History—The Smithburg area was settled during the gold rush in the 1850s as a supply center for miners.
As the gold rush died down, timber and fishing became the area’s major economic resource. Smithburg was
incorporated in 1858 and by 1913 the Smithburg Teachers College, a predecessor to today’s Smithburg State
University was founded. Recently, the presence of the college has come to shape Smithburg’s population into a
young, liberal, and educated crowd. In 1981 Smithburg developed the Smithburg Marsh and Wildlife sanctuary, an
environmentally friendly sewage treatment enhancement system.
Climate—Smithburg’s weather is typical of the Northern California coast, with mild summers and cool, wet
winters. It rarely freezes in the winter and it is rarely hot in the summer. Annual average rainfall is over 40 inches,
with 80% of that falling from November through April. The average year-round temperature is 59ºF. Humidity
averages 72 to 87 percent. Prevailing winds are from the north, and average 5 mph.
Governing Body Format—The City of Smithburg is governed by a five-member city council. The City consists of
six departments: Finance, Environmental Services, Community Development, Public Works, Police and the City
Manager’s Office. The City has 13 commissions and task forces, which report to the City Council. The City
Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the City Manager will oversee its implementation.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
3
Phase 2 Instructions
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Please note that we have made some modifications to the template based on our most current feedback from
the State and FEMA. You may have already completed a portion of the development trends section during
Phase 1. If so, we have moved the information you provided into the appropriate section of the document.
In the yellow-highlighted text that says “Describe trends in general,” provide a brief description of your
jurisdiction’s recent development trends similar to the following example:
Anticipated development levels for Smithburg are low to moderate, consisting primarily of residential
development. The majority of recent development has been infill. Residentially, there has been a focus on
affordable housing and a push for more secondary mother-in-law units on properties. The City of
Smithburg adopted its general plan in July 2000. The plan focuses on issues of the greatest concern to the
community. City actions, such as those relating to land use allocations, annexations, zoning, subdivision
and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent with the plan. Future
growth and development in the City will be managed as identified in the general plan.
Complete the table titled “Recent and Expected Future Development Trends” to demonstrate the development that
occurred during the past 5 years, including a description of any development which may be located within a
hazard zone. Provide additional information on any anticipated development. Please note that we are
specifically looking for development permits for new construction. If your jurisdiction does not have the
ability to differentiate between permit types, please list the total number of permits and include a note or comment
in the document indicating what you have provided.
If your jurisdiction does not have the ability to track the number of permits for each hazard area, please insert a
qualitative description of where development has occurred similar to the following:
Development has occurred throughout the city during the performance period for this plan. For those
hazards with a clearly defined extent and location, the City cannot estimate specific development impacts.
For those hazards with impacts city-wide, it is safe to assume that this new development could be subject
to impacts from those hazards. However, it is important to note that all new development was consistent
with General Plan policies and municipal code standards and as a result most development has occurred
outside of identified hazard zones.
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Please note that it is unlikely that you will be able to complete all sections of the capability assessment on your
own. You will likely need to reach out to other departments within your local government, such as planning,
finance, public works, etc. It may be beneficial to provide these individuals with background information about
this planning process, as you will want input from them again during Phase 3 of your annex development.
Legal and Regulatory Capability
In the table titled “Legal and Regulatory Capability,” indicate “Yes” or “No” for each listed code, ordinance,
requirement or planning document in each of the following columns:
Local Authority—Enter “Yes” if your jurisdiction has prepared or adopted the identified item; otherwise,
enter “No.” If yes, then enter the code, ordinance number, or plan name and its date of adoption in the
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
4
comments column. Note: If you are entering yes, please be sure that you are providing a comment with
the appropriate code, ordinance or plan.
Other Jurisdiction Authority—Enter “Yes” if there are any regulations that may impact your
jurisdiction that are enforced or administered by another agency (e.g., a state agency or special purpose
district) or if you know that there are any state or federal regulations or laws that would prohibit local
implementation of the identified item; otherwise, enter “No.” Note: If you answer yes, please indicate the
other agency in the comments.
State Mandated—Enter “Yes” if state laws or other requirements enable or require the listed item to be
implemented at the local level; otherwise, enter “No.” Note: If you are entering yes, please be sure that
you are providing a comment.
Integration Opportunity—Enter “Yes” if your jurisdiction has opportunities for integration of the code,
ordinance or plan with the hazard mitigation plan. Consider entering “Yes” in the Integration Opportunity
column if you answer “yes” to any of the following:
If you answered “Yes” in the Local Authority column for this code, ordinance or plan:
Does the code, ordinance or plan already address hazards and their potential impacts?
o If so, should it be updated or revised to reflect new information about risk?
o If not, will (or should) the code, ordinance or plan be updated over the performance
period of the hazard mitigation plan (5 years)?
Does the code, ordinance or plan include specific projects that should be reviewed to
incorporate hazard mitigation goals?
Does the code, ordinance or plan include specific projects that should be included as action
items in the hazard mitigation action plan?
If you answered “No” in the Local Authority column for this code, ordinance or plan:
Will your jurisdiction develop the code, ordinance or plan during the performance period of
the hazard mitigation plan?
Note: Each capability with a “Yes” answer to Integration Opportunity will be discussed in more detail
later in the annex. You may wish to keep notes when assessing the Integration Opportunity or review
the “Integration with Other Planning Initiatives” section below.
Comments—Enter the code number and adoption date for any local code indicated as being in place;
provide other comments as appropriate to describe capabilities for each entry.
For the categories “General Plan” and “Capital Improvement Plan,” answer the specific questions shown,
in addition to completing the four columns indicating level of capability.
Development and Permit Capabilities
Complete the table titled “Development and Permitting Capabilities.” Examples of qualitative descriptions of
buildout in the jurisdiction are as follows:
The Town is close to being built out. Most new projects involve the demolition of an existing residence
and construction of a new replacement residence. A few subdivisions are processed each year.
There are five parcels of underdeveloped land within the city limits. According to the General Plan, the
total potential units for these parcels is 33 units.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
5
Fiscal Capability
Complete the table titled “Fiscal Capability” by indicating whether each of the listed financial resources is
accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter “Yes” if the resource is fully accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter “No” if
there are limitations or prerequisites that may hinder your eligibility for this resource.
Administrative and Technical Capability
Complete the table titled “Administrative and Technical Capability” by indicating whether your jurisdiction has
access to each of the listed personnel resources. Enter “Yes” or “No” in the column labeled “Available?”. If yes,
then enter the department and position title in the right-hand column. If you have contract support staff with these
capabilities, you can still answer “Yes.” Indicate in the department column that this resource is provided through
contract support.
Education and Outreach Capabilities
Complete the table titled “Education and Outreach” to indicate your jurisdiction’s capabilities and existing efforts
regarding natural hazard mitigation education and outreach.
National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
Complete the table titled “National Flood Insurance Program Compliance” by indicating your jurisdiction’s
capabilities related to each question in the table.
Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs
Complete the table titled “Community Classifications” to indicate your jurisdiction’s participation in various
national programs related to natural hazard mitigation. For each program enter “Yes” or “No” in the second
column to indicate whether your jurisdiction participates. If yes, then enter the classification that your jurisdiction
has earned under the program in the third column and the date on which that classification was issued in the
fourth column; enter “N/A” in the third and fourth columns if your jurisdiction is not participating.
Tetra Tech has completed this table for classification programs that have classification information available
online:
Community Rating System— https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/15846
Storm Ready— https://www.weather.gov/stormready/communities
Firewise— http://www.firewise.org/usa-recognition-program/map-of-active-participants.aspx
For two of the programs, we are not able to access information pertaining to your jurisdiction. If you are
unfamiliar with the programs, please visit the websites below:
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS)— https://www.isomitigation.com/bcegs/iso-
s-building-code-effectiveness-grading-schedule-bcegs.html
Public Protection Classification— https://firechief.iso.com/FCWWeb/mitigation/ppc0001.jsp
Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Consider the climate change impact concerns identified for the planning area:
Increased temperature
Reduced precipitation
Sea level rise – coastal inundation and erosion
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
6
Public health – heat and air pollution
Reduced agricultural productivity
Inland flooding
Reduced tourism.
With those impacts in mind, complete the table titled “Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change” by indicating that
your jurisdiction’s capacity for each listed criterion as follows:
High—The capacity exists and is in use.
Medium—The capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement.
Low—The capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement.
Unsure—Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
This is a subjective assessment, but providing a few words of explanation is useful. It is highly recommended that
you complete this table with an internal planning team and that you review the results of the other capability
assessment tables before completing.
INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The goal of plan integration is to ensure that the potential impact of hazards is considered in planning for future
development. FEMA recommends integration as follows:
Integrate hazard mitigation plan goals with community objectives (e.g. incorporate the goals for risk
reduction and safety into the policies of other plans).
Use the risk assessment to inform plans and policies (e.g. incorporate risk assessment findings into land
use plans, site plan review, emergency operations plans).
Implement mitigation actions through existing mechanisms (e.g. include mitigation projects in the capital
improvement plan).
Think about mitigation before and after a disaster (e.g. build recovery planning on existing mitigation
plans and goals).
After reviewing the plans, programs and ordinances identified in the capability assessment tables, identify all
plans and programs that have already been integrated with the goals and recommendations of the hazard
mitigation plan, and those that offer opportunities for future integration. The simplest way to do this is to review
the Legal and Regulatory Capabilities table to see which items were marked as “Yes” under the Integration
Opportunity column.
Existing Integration
List the items for which you entered “Yes” under the Integration Opportunity column because the plan or
ordinance already addresses potential impacts or includes specific projects that should be included as action items
in the mitigation action plan. Provide a brief description of how the plan or ordinance is integrated. For plan
updates, it is required that at least one item be listed or that you explicitly state that no integration occurred.
Examples are as follows:
Capital Improvement Plan—The capital improvement plan includes projects can help mitigate potential
hazards. The City will act to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and
future capital improvement plans. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources
for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of
the risk assessment.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
7
Building Code and Fire Code—The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building and Fire codes
incorporated local modifications to account for the climatic, topographic and geographic conditions that
exist in the City.
General Plan 2030—The general plan includes a “Safety, Services, and Infrastructure” element to
protect the community from unreasonable risk by establishing policies and actions to avoid or minimize
the following hazards:
Geologic and seismic hazards
Fire hazards
Hazardous materials
Flood control
Impacts from climate change.
Climate Action Plan—The City’s Climate Action Plan includes projects for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and adapting to likely impacts of climate change. These projects were reviewed to identify
cross-planning initiates that serve both adaptation and mitigation objectives. Note: Any plans that fall
into this category should be reviewed during the development of the mitigation strategy in Phase 3 and
included as appropriate.
Opportunities for Future Integration
List any remaining items that say “Yes” in the Integration Opportunity column in the Legal and Regulatory
Capabilities and explain the process by which integration will occur. Examples follow:
Zoning Code—The City of Smithburg is conducting a comprehensive update to its zoning code. The
opportunity to incorporate additional mitigation and abatement measures will be contemplated for
inclusion into the Code.
Capital Improvement Projects—Capital improvement project proposals may take into consideration
hazard mitigation potential as a means of evaluating project prioritization.
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan—Smithburg does not have a recovery plan and intends to develop one as a
mitigation planning action during the next five years. The plan will build on the mitigation goals and
objectives identified in the mitigation plan.
After you have accounted for all items marked as “Yes” under the Integration Opportunity column, consider other
programs you may have in place in your jurisdiction that include routine consideration and management of hazard
risk. Examples of such programs may include: tree pruning programs, right-of-way mowing programs, erosion
control or stream maintenance programs, etc. Please add any such programs to the integration discussion and
provide a brief description of how these program manage (or could be adapted to manage) risk from hazards.
Phase 3 Instructions
JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL EVENT HISTORY
In the table titled “Past Natural Hazard Events,” list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard
event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of
damage it caused. You are welcome to include any events, but special attention should be made to include major
storms and federally declared disasters. Please refer to the table below that lists Presidential Disaster Declarations
for the County. We recommend including most large-scale disasters, unless you know that there were no impacts
to your jurisdiction. Specifically, we recommend that you include these events if you have damage estimate
information or can provide a brief description of impacts that occurred within your community. In addition to
these events, please refer to the NOAA storm events database included in the tool kit. We recommend conducting
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
8
a search for the name of your jurisdiction in order to identify events with known impacts. Other potential sources
of damage information include:
Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state
Insurance claims data
Newspaper archives
Other plans/documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan,
emergency response plan, etc.)
Resident input.
If you do not have estimates for dollars of damage caused, please list “Not Available” in the appropriate column
or simply list a brief description of the damages (e.g. Main Street closed as a result of flooding, downed trees and
residential damages). Please note that tracking such damages is a valid and useful mitigation action if your
jurisdiction does not currently track such information.
Presidential Disaster Declarations for Alameda County
Type of Event FEMA Disaster #
Declaration
Date
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4308 4/1/2017
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4305 3/16/2017
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4301 2/14/2017
Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides DR-1646 6/5/2006
Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides DR-1628 2/3/2006
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation EM-3248 9/13/2005
Severe Winter Storms and Flooding DR-1203 2/9/1998
Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Landslides DR-1155 1/4/1997
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding Landslides, Mud Flow DR-1046 3/12/1995
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1044 1/10/1995
Oakland Hills Fire DR-919 10/22/1991
Severe Freeze DR-894 2/11/1991
Loma Prieta Earthquake DR-845 10/18/1989
Severe Storms & Flooding DR-758 2/21/1986
Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides & Tornadoes DR-677 2/9/1983
Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides & High Tide DR-651 1/7/1982
Drought EM-3023 1/20/1977
Forest & Brush Fires DR-295 9/29/1970
Severe Storms & Flooding DR-283 2/16/1970
Note: EM = Emergency Declaration; DR = Disaster Declaration
JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Repetitive Loss Properties
A repetitive loss property is any property for which FEMA has paid two or more flood insurance claims in excess
of $1,000 in any rolling 10-year period since 1978. In the space provided, Tetra Tech will insert the following
information based on data provided by FEMA:
The number of any FEMA-identified repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
9
The number of any FEMA-identified severe-repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction.
The number (if any) of repetitive-loss or severe-repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction that have
been mitigated. Mitigated for this exercise means that flood protection has been provided to the structure.
Please note that if your jurisdiction has any repetitive loss properties, we would strongly encourage you to include
a mitigation action that addresses mitigating these properties.
Other Vulnerabilities
We would strongly encourage you to review the results of the risk assessment included in the tool kit, your
jurisdiction’s natural events history, and any relevant public comments/input and develop a few sentences that
discuss specific risks. You do not need to develop a sentence for every single parameter, but review the results
and identify a few issues you would like to highlight. For example:
Only about 2 percent of the jurisdiction’s population is estimated to reside in the 1 percent annual chance
flood hazard area; however, 45 percent of the population is estimated to reside in the 0.2 percent annual
chance flood hazard area where flood insurance is generally not required.
A magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Smithburg Fault may produce nearly 1 million tons of structure
debris.
Over the past 10 years, the jurisdiction has experienced more than $6 million in estimated damages from
severe storm events.
More than 50 buildings are located in areas that will be permanently inundated with 12 inches of sea
level rise.
The results of the public survey indicated that 40 percent of Smithburg residents would not be able to be
self-sufficient for 5 days following a major event.
In addition, please list any noted vulnerabilities in your jurisdiction related to hazard mitigation that may not be
apparent from the risk assessment and other information provided. This may include things such as the following:
An urban drainage issue that results in localized flooding every time it rains.
An area of the community that frequently loses power due to a lack of tree maintenance.
A critical facility, such as a police station, that is not equipped with a generator.
A neighborhood that has the potential to have ingress and egress cut off as the result of a hazard event,
such as a flood or earthquake (e.g. bridge only access).
Substantial number of buildings in one area of the community are unreinforced masonry or soft-story
construction.
An area along the river is eroding and threatening public and/or private property.
A large visitor population that may not be aware of tsunami risk.
Spending some time thinking about the results of the risk assessment and other noted vulnerabilities will be a big
help in the development of your mitigation strategy. The items you list in this section should cross-walk back to
the mitigation action that you have selected. Two examples are shown in the table below.
Noted Vulnerability Example Mitigation Action
Only about 2 percent of the jurisdiction’s population is
estimated to reside in the 1 percent annual chance flood hazard
area; however, 45 percent of the population is estimated to
reside in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area
where flood insurance is generally not required.
Develop and implement an annual public information
initiative that targets residents in the 0.2 percent annual
chance flood hazard area. Provide information on the
availability of preferred risk flood insurance policies.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
10
Noted Vulnerability Example Mitigation Action
An urban drainage issue that results in localized flooding
every time it rains.
Replace undersized culverts that are contributing to
localized flooding. Priority areas include:
The corner of Main Street and 1st Street
Old Oak subdivision.
HAZARD RISK RANKING
The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall
hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and,
therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area.
The risk-ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential
impact on people, property and the economy.
The risk ranking for each jurisdiction is included in the Risk Ranking Summary tab in the Loss Matrix included in
the toolkit. Tetra Tech has filled in the results for each jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results
other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this
knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in your template and include what you believe the rank should
be and why. For example, drought was ranked as low; however, the jurisdiction’s economy is heavily reliant on
water using industries, such as agriculture or manufacturing, so you believe it should be ranked as medium.
Also keep in mind that one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of actions
in your plan. If you identify an action with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard you have ranked low,
that project may not be as competitive in the grant arena. On the other hand, you will need to have at least one
true mitigation action for each hazard ranked as “high” or “medium.” This is discussed in more detail in the
Hazard Mitigation Action Plan section of these instructions.
The instructions below describe the methodology for how these rankings were derived. Please review before
providing any comments.
Risk Ranking Methodology
Review Risk Ranking in Template
Review the hazard risk ranking information that Tetra Tech has provided. The hazard with the highest risk rating
is listed at the top of table titled “Hazard Risk Ranking” in your template and was given a rank of 1; the hazard
with the second highest rating is listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings
were given the same rank. “High,” Medium,” and “Low” assignments were given for each hazard of concern
based on the total score (probability x impact). It is important to note, that this is determined by the scores rather
than assigning a certain number of hazards to each category.
When reviewing the risk ranking results, it is important to remember that this exercise is about categorizing
hazards into broad levels of risk (e.g. high, medium, low). It is not an exercise in precision.
Review Risk Ranking in Loss Matrix
The following sections discuss the methodology used to develop the results included in your template. Please
refer to the Loss Matrix provided in your tool kit in order to follow along.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
11
Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard
A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. The probability of occurrence of a
hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area, although weight can be given to expected future
probability of occurrence based on established return intervals and changing climate conditions. For example, if
your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high
for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no damage from landslides in
the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. Each
hazard was assigned a probability factor as follows:
High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3)
Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2)
Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1)
None—If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0)
Potential Impacts of Each Hazard
The impact of each hazard is divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts
on the economy. These categories are also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting
factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on the economy was assigned a
weighting factor of 1.
Impact factors for each category (people, property, economy) are described below:
People—Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event.
The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for
simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be
equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. Impact factors were assigned as follows:
High—25 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
Medium—10 percent to 24 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
Low—9 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
Property—Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard
event:
High—25 percent or more of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
Medium—10 percent to 24 percent of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact
Factor = 2)
Low—9 percent or less of the total replacement value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
No impact—None of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
Economy—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the
hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to
the total replacement value of the property exposed to the hazard. For some hazards, such as wildfire and
landslide, vulnerability may be considered to be the same or a portion of exposure due to the lack of loss
estimation tools specific to those hazards.
High—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent or more of the total replacement value (Impact
Factor = 3)
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
12
Medium—Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent to 9 percent of the total replacement value
(Impact Factor = 2)
Low—Estimated loss from the hazard is 4 percent or less of the total replacement value (Impact
Factor = 1)
No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0).
The following sections provide information on completing the risk ranking for your jurisdiction.
Impacts on People
The percent of the total population exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g.
floodplain) can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the green highlighted column. For those hazards that do
not have a defined extent and location (e.g. severe weather) the entire population is generally considered to be
exposed. For the drought hazard, it is common for jurisdictions to list “low” or “none,” because all people in the
planning area would be exposed to drought, but impacts to the health and safety of individuals are expected to be
minimal.
Impacts on Property
The percent of the total value exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g.
floodplain) can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the blue highlighted column. For those hazards that do not
have a defined extent and location (e.g. severe weather) the entire building stock is generally considered to be
exposed. For the drought hazard, it is common for jurisdictions to list “low” or “none,” because all structures in
the planning area would be exposed to drought, but impacts to structures are expected to be minimal.
Impacts on the Economy
The loss estimates for each hazard of concern that was modeled (i.e. dam failure, flood, earthquake) can be found
in the loss estimate matrix in the purple highlighted column. For those hazards that have a defined extent and
location, but do not have modelled loss results, loss estimates can be the same as exposure or a portion thereof.
For example, a large percentage of the building stock may be exposed to landslide or wildfire risk, but it would
not be expected that one event that resulted in loss to all exposed structures would occur. For those hazards that
do not have a defined extent and location (e.g. severe weather) the entire building stock is generally considered to
be exposed, but impacts are generally considered to be “low.”
Risk Rating for Each Hazard
A risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the
weighted impact factors for people, property and the economy:
Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + economy}
This is the number that is shown in the risk ranking table in your template.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Please note that this section only applies to jurisdictions that are conducting updates to previously approved
hazard mitigation plans. If your jurisdiction has not previously participated in an approved plan, this section
will not appear in your annex template. Also, please note that if you completed the Phase 2 annex, you likely
already filled out this table. You will need to revisit this section to fill in the Action # section after competing
your action plan in the following section.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
13
All action items identified in prior mitigation planning efforts must be reconciled in this plan update. Action items
must all be marked as ONE of the following; check the appropriate box (place an X) and provide the following
information:
Completed—If an action was completed during the performance period of the prior plan, please
check the appropriate box and provide a date of completion in the comment section. If an action has
been initiated and is an ongoing program (e.g. annual outreach event), you may mark it as completed
and note that it is ongoing in the comments. When removing such actions from your action plan,
please consider including them in the existing integration section above. If you have an action that
addresses an ongoing program you would like to continue to include it in your action plan, please see
the Carried Over to Plan Update section below.
Removed—If action items are to be removed because they are no longer feasible, a reason must be
given. Lack of funding does not mean that it is no longer feasible, unless the sole source of funding
for an action is no longer available. Place a comment in the comment section explaining why the
action is no longer feasible (e.g., “Action no longer considered feasible due to lack of political
support.”). If the wording and/or intent of a previously identified action is unclear, this can be a
reason for removal. A change in community priorities may also be a reason for removal and should be
discussed in the comments.
Carried Over to Plan Update—If an action is in progress, ongoing or has not been initiated and you
would like to carry it over to the plan update, please check the “Check if Yes” column under “Carried
Over to Plan Update.” Selecting this option indicates that the action will be included in the mitigation
action plan for the 2017 plan. The last column “Enter Action #” will be addressed when you develop
your actions plan in the following sections. You will need to revisit it after completing the action
plan.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
This section is the heart of your jurisdictional annex. This is
where you will identify the actions your jurisdiction would like
to pursue with this plan. All of the work that you have done
thus far should provide you with a plethora of ideas for actions.
With this in mind, we recommend that you review the
following and develop a list of potential actions:
Capability Assessment Section of Annex—Review
the Legal and Regulatory Capability table, the
Development and Permitting Capability table, the
Fiscal Capability table, the Administrative and
Technical Capability table, the Education and
Outreach table, and the Community Classification
table.
For any capability that you indicated that you did
not have, ask yourself – should we have this
capability? If yes, consider including an action to
develop/acquire the capability.
Example: Ensure a staff person from public works
and planning are trained in the use of FEMA’s benefit-cost analysis software.
Wording Your Action Descriptions:
Descriptions of your actions need not provide
great detail. That will come when you apply for
a project grant. Provide enough information to
identify the project’s scope and impact. The
following are typical descriptions for an action
plan action:
Action 1—Address repetitive-loss
properties. Through targeted mitigation,
acquire, relocate or retrofit the five
repetitive loss structures in the County as
funding opportunities become available.
Action 2—Perform a non-structural,
seismic retrofit of City Hall.
Action 3—Acquire floodplain property in
the Smith subdivision.
Action 4—Enhance the County flood
warning capability by joining the NO AA
"Storm Ready" program.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
14
Review the Legal and Regulatory capabilities. If any have not been reviewed and updated a capability
in more than 10 years, consider an action to review and update the capability and, as appropriate,
incorporate hazard mitigation principles or information obtained in the risk assessment (Note: actions
such as this should also be identified in the opportunities for future integration section). Also,
consider including projects or actions that have been identified in other plans and programs such as
Capital Improvement Plans, Strategic Plans, etc. as actions in this plan.
For any capability that you indicated you do have, consider how this capability can be leveraged to
increase or improve hazard mitigation in the jurisdiction.
National Flood Insurance Program Compliance Table of this Annex—Review the table and consider
the following:
If you have no certified floodplain managers and you have flood risk, consider adding an action to
provide key staff members with training appropriate to obtain certification.
If your flood damage prevention was last updated in or before 2004, you should identify an action to
update your ordinance to ensure it is compliant with NFIP requirements.
If you have any outstanding NFIP compliance issues, be sure to add an action to address them.
If flood hazard maps do not adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction, consider
actions to request new mapping or conduct studies.
If you don’t participate in CRS or you would like to improve your classification, consider this as an
action.
If the number of flood insurance polices in your jurisdiction is low relative to the number of structures
in the floodplain, consider an action that will promote flood insurance in your jurisdiction.
Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change Section of this Annex—Consider your responses to this
section. For those criterion that you listed as medium or low, think of ways you could improve this rating
(see adaptive capacity portion of the mitigation best practices catalog). For those criterion you listed as
high, think about how you can leverage this capacity to improve or enhance mitigation or continue to
improve this capacity. For those criterion that you were unable to provide responses for, consider ways
you could improve your understanding of this capacity (see mitigation best practices and adaptive
capacity catalog).
Opportunities for Future Integration Section in this Annex—Review the items you identified in this
section. For those items that address land use include them in the prepopulated Action in your template
that reads as follows: Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that
dictate land use decisions in the community, including ______________. For other items listed in this
section, consider an action that specifically says what the plan, code, ordinance etc. is and how it will be
integrated.
Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities Section in this Annex—Review the items that you have identified
in this section and consider actions that will help reduce these vulnerabilities (see mitigation best
practices catalog).
Mitigation Best Practices Catalog—A catalog that includes FEMA and other agency identified best
practices, steering committee and other stakeholder recommendations was developed as part of the plan
development process and included in your tool kit. Review the catalog and identify those actions that your
jurisdiction should consider including in its action plan.
Public Input—Review input received during the process, specifically the public survey results included
in your toolkit.
Prior Mitigation Planning Efforts—If your jurisdiction participated in a previous hazard mitigation
plan, please be sure to remember to include any actions that were identified as “carry over” actions. Once
you have carried them over, return to the Status of Previous Actions table and record the new action
number (see discussion below).
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
15
Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of actions:
Select actions that are consistent with the overall purpose, goals, and objectives of the hazard mitigation
plan.
Identify actions where benefits exceed costs.
Include any action that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant eligibility.
Know what is and is not grant-eligible under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster
Mitigation (PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grants (see fact sheet provided in toolkit). If
you have actions that are not HMGP, PDM or FMA grant eligible, but do mitigate part or all of the hazard
and may be eligible for other grant programs sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section.
You must identify at least one true mitigation action (i.e. not a preparedness or response action)
that is clearly defined and actionable for hazards ranked as “high” or medium.”
Recommended Actions
We recommend that every planning partner strongly consider the following actions. The specifics of these actions
should be adjusted as needed for the particulars of each community. You will note that five of these actions have
been prepopulated in your annex template. These five actions should be included in every annex and should not
be removed.
Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas
and prioritize those structures that have experienced repetitive losses.
Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use
decisions within the community.
Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of
floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change.
Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high water
marks, preliminary damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including the
implementation and maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan.
Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
Consider the development of a post-disaster recovery plan and a debris management plan.
Develop and/or update plans that support or enhance continuity of operations following disasters.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
16
Complete the Table
Complete the table titled “Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix” for all
the actions you have identified and would like to include in the plan:
Enter the action number and description .
Indicate whether the action mitigates hazards for new and/or
existing assets.
Identify the specific hazards the action will mitigate (note: you
must list the hazards, simply indicating all hazards is not
deemed acceptable).
Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the action
addresses (see toolkit).
Indicate who will be the lead in administering the action. This will most likely be a department within
your jurisdiction (e.g. planning or public works). If you wish to indicate more than one department, please
ensure that it is clear who the lead agency will be (i.e. note with an *)
Enter an estimated cost in dollars if known; otherwise, enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as determined
for the prioritization process described in the following section.
Identify funding sources for the action. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share.
Refer to your fiscal capability assessment to identify possible sources of funding and refer to the table
below for project eligibility for FEMA’s hazard mitigation assistance grant program.
Indicate the time line as “short-term” (1 to 5 years) or “long-term” (5 years or greater) or ongoing (a
continual program)
Eligible Activities HMGP PDM FMA
Mitigation Projects
Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition √ √ √
Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation √ √ √
Structure Elevation √ √ √
Mitigation Reconstruction √ √ √
Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures √ √ √
Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures √ √ √
Generators √ √
Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects √ √ √
Non-Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects √ √
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings √ √ √
Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities √ √ √
Safe Room Construction √ √
Wind Retrofit for One- and Two-Family Residences √ √
Infrastructure Retrofit √ √ √
Soil Stabilization √ √ √
Wildfire Mitigation √ √
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement √
Advance Assistance √
5 Percent Initiative Projects* √
Aquifer and Storage Recovery** √ √ √
Flood Diversion and Storage** √ √ √
Action Item Numbering:
Please use the following action item
numbering conventions:
Dublin—D-1
Livermore—L-1
Pleasanton—P-1
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
17
Eligible Activities HMGP PDM FMA
Floodplain and Stream Restoration** √ √ √
Green Infrastructure** √ √ √
Miscellaneous/Other** √ √ √
Hazard Mitigation Planning √ √ √
Technical Assistance √
Management Costs √ √ √
Notes: HMGP = Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; PDM = Pre-Disaster Mitigation; FMA = Flood Mitigation Assistance
* FEMA allows increasing the 5% Initiative amount up to 10% for a Presidential major disaster declaration under HMGP. The
additional 5% Initiative funding can be used for activities that promote disaster-resistant codes for all hazards. As a
condition of the award, either a disaster-resistant building code must be adopted or an improved Building Code
Effectiveness Grading Schedule is required.
**Indicates that any proposed action will be evaluated on its own merit against program requirements. Eligible
projects will be approved provided funding is available.
Source: https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance-mitigation-activity-chart
Please see the table below for examples of some of the recommended actions above:
Example Action Plan Matrix
Applies
to new or
existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
EX-1—Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas and
prioritize those structures that have experienced repetitive losses.
Existing Dam failure,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
4, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12
Planning High HMGP, PDM,
FMA
Short-term
EX-2—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions within
the community.
New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 2, 6, 8,
10, 11
Planning Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
EX-3—Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant e vents (e.g. high water marks,
preliminary damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including the implementation and
maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan.
Existing Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 9 Emergency
Management
Medium Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-4—Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
18
Applies
to new or
existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12
Lead Contact
Department for
Plan
Any
Supporting
Departmen
ts
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-5—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume I of the haz ard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12
Lead Contact
Department for
Plan
Any
Supporting
Departmen
ts
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-6—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain
management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
Enforcement of the flood damage prevention ordinance
Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates
Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
New and
Existing
Flood, Dam
Failure
1, 4, 6, 9 Floodplain
Administration
Department
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
EX-7—Work with building officials to identify ways to improve the jurisdictions’ BCEGS classification.
New Earthquake,
Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather,
Wildfire
1, 10, 11 Building and
Development
Services
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-8—Develop a post-disaster recovery plan and a debris management plan.
Existing Dam failure,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 3, 7, 10 Emergency
Management
Medium EMPG Long-term
EX-9—Participate in programs such as Firewise, StormReady and the Communit y Rating System.
New and
Existing
Dam Failure,
Flood, Severe
weather, Wildfire
5, 7, 9 Emergency
Management
Public
Works
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-10—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change.
New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 5, 7, 8,
9, 10, 12
Planning Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
Complete the information in the table titled “Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule” as follows:
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
19
Action #—Indicate the action number from the previous annex table (Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Matrix).
# of Objectives Met—Enter the number of objectives the action will meet.
Benefits—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
High: Action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property.
Medium: Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property,
or action will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.
Low: Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.
Costs—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee
increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed
action.
Medium: Could budget for under existing work-plan, but would require a reapportionment of the
budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years.
Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Action is or can be part of an existing ongoing program.
If you know the estimated cost of an action because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the
amount.
Do Benefits Exceed the Cost?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” This is a qualitative assessment. Enter “Yes” if the
benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost;
high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter “No” if the benefit rating is lower than
the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.)
Is the Action Grant-Eligible?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP, PDM and FMA
and the table above.
Can Action Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” In other words, is
this action currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another
source such as grants?
Implementation Priority— Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed cost, has funding
secured or is an ongoing action and meets eligibility requirements for a grant program. High priority
actions can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). The key factors for high priority actions are
that they have funding secured and can be completed in the short term.
Medium Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, that has benefits that exceed costs, and
for which funding has not yet been secured, but is eligible for funding. Action can be completed in
the short term, once funding is secured. Medium priority actions will become high priority actions
once funding is secured. The key factors for medium priority actions are that they are eligible for
funding, but do not yet have funding secured, and they can be completed within the short term.
Low Priority—An action that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, that has benefits that do not exceed
the costs or are difficult to quantify, for which funding has not been secured, that is not eligible for
grant funding, and for which the time line for completion is long term (1 to 10 years). Low priority
actions may be eligible for grant funding from other programs that have not yet been identified. Low
priority actions are generally “blue-sky” or “wish-list.” actions. Financing is unknown, and they can
be completed over a long term.
Grant Pursuit Priority— Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
20
High Priority—An action that has been identified as meeting grant eligibility requirements, assessed
to have high benefits, is listed as high or medium priority, and where local funding options are
unavailable or where dedicated funds could be utilized for actions that are not eligible for grant
funding.
Medium Priority—An action that has been identified as meeting grant eligibility requirements,
assessed to have medium or low benefits, is listed as medium or low priority, and where local funding
options are unavailable.
Low Priority—An action that has not been identified as meeting grant eligibility requirements, or has
low benefits.
This prioritization is a simple way to determine that your identified actions meet one of the primary objectives of
the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP/PDM /FMA action
grants. The prioritization will identify any actions whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs.
Those actions identified as high-priority grant funding actions should be closely reviewed for consideration when
grant funding opportunities arise.
Note: If a jurisdiction wishes to identify an action as high priority that is outside of the prioritization scheme for
high priorities. A note indicting so should be inserted and a rationale should be provided.
Please see the example below based off the recommended actions:
Table 0-9. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do
Benefits
Equal or
Exceed
Costs?
Is Action
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Action
Be Funded
Under
Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
EX-1 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
EX-2 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-3 2 Low Medium No No Maybe Low Low
EX-4 12 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-5 12 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-6 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-7 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-8 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
EX-9 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-10 8 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Medium
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Complete the table titled “Analysis of Mitigation Actions” summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of
concern and the following eight mitigation types. Please note that an action can be more than one mitigation type:
• Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings
are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital
improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
21
• Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal
of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm
shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
• Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform residents and elected officials about hazards and
ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and
school-age and adult education.
• Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions
of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed
management, forest and vegetation management, wetland restoration and preservation, and green
infrastructure.
• Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard
event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
• Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard.
Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
• Climate Resilient—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate
change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in
project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks,
such as sea level rise or urban heat island effect.
• Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to
potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. Includes staff
training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs.
This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions.
Please see the example below based off the recommended actions, but please note that these recommendations are
heavy on generalized actions on the prevention spectrum and light in other areas and specificity. Planning partners
should aim to identify at least one action in each category (although this is not required) and should make sure
there is at least one action to address “high” ranked hazards:
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
Dam Failure EX-2, 3, 4,
5, 6
EX-1, 6 EX-4, 6 EX-8 EX-3, 4, 8,
9, 10
Drought EX-2 EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 8,
9, 10
Earthquake EX-2, 3, 4,
5, 7
EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8 EX-3, 4, 8,
9
Flood EX-2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7
EX-1, 6, 7 EX-4, 6 EX-9 EX-8 EX-3, 4, 8,
9, 10
Landslide EX-2, 3, 4,
5, 7
EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8 EX-3, 4, 8,
9, 10
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Municipal Annex Template
22
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
Severe
weather
EX-2, 3, 4,
5, 7
EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4 EX-8, 9 EX-3, 4, 8,
9, 10
Wildfire EX-2, 3, 4,
5, 7
EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4, 9 EX-9 EX-8 EX-3, 4, 8,
9, 10
FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY
In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better
understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or
state agency mandates. Please note that this section is optional.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered
in this template. Please note that this section is optional.
REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF RESOURCES FOR THIS ANNEX
This section should describe what resources you used to complete the annex and how you used them. Several
items are started for you, but please be sure to update and enhance any descriptions. This may seem trivial or
unimportant, but it is a requirement to pass the state and FEMA review process.
NEXT STEPS
After all jurisdictions have submitted their annexes, the draft plan will be submitted for public comment.
Following the public comment period and any revisions responsive to public comment, the plan will be submitted
to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for review. After their review and
approval, Cal OES will submit the plan to FEMA Region IX for plan review and approval. At that point planning
partners will be asked to begin making preparations to formally adopt the plan. Each participating planning
partner must have the governing board of their jurisdiction adopt via resolution or ordinance. Once FEMA has
reviewed the plan and issued an approved pending adoption (APA) notice, planning partners will be asked to go
forth and adopt the plan. Once adopted, planning partners will submit adoption information to Tetra Tech, who
will submit the proof of adoption to FEMA. Once such adoption has been received, FEMA will issue final
approval via a letter for those planning partners who have adopted the plan. It is very important to understand that
approval is not final until proof of adoption has been received by FEMA and they have issued a letter specifically
naming your jurisdiction. More information on the review and approval process, along with adoption support
materials, will be provided at a later date.
1-1
1. JURISDICTION NAME
1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: xxx@xxx.xxx
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: xxx@xxx.xxx
1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
• Date of Incorporation—
• Current Population—
• Population Growth—
• Location and Description—
• Brief History—
• Climate—
• Governing Body Format—___[general description]___. The __[name of adopting body]___ assumes
responsibility for the adoption of this plan; __[name of oversight agency]__ will oversee its
implementation.
1.3 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
_DESCRIBE TRENDS IN GENERAL__.
Table 1-1 summarizes development trends in the performance period since development of the previous hazard
mitigation plan and expected future development trends.
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-2
Table 1-1. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends
Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the development of the previous hazard mitigation plan?
Yes/No
• If yes, give the estimated area annexed and estimated number of parcels or structures.
____________
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any areas during the performance period of this plan?
Yes/No
• If yes, please describe land areas and
dominant uses.
____________
• If yes, who currently has permitting authority over these areas?
____________
Are any areas targeted for development or
major redevelopment in the next five years?
Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe, including whether any of the areas are in known hazard risk areas
____________
How many permits for new construction were
issued in your jurisdiction since the
development of the previous hazard mitigation plan?
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Single Family __ __ __ __ __
Multi-Family __ __ __ __ __
Other (commercial, mixed use, etc.) __ __ __ __ __
Please provide the number of new-construction permits for each hazard area or provide a qualitative description of where
development has occurred.
• Special Flood Hazard Areas: #
• Landslide: #
• High Liquefaction Areas: #
• Tsunami Inundation Area: #
• Wildfire Risk Areas: #
Please describe the level of buildout in the jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory exists, provide a qualitative description.
____________
1.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Jurisdiction Name has performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs and policies
that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the
hazard mitigation plan describes the components included in the capability assessment and their significance for
hazard mitigation planning. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 1-2.
• Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 1-3.
• An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1-4.
• An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1-5.
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 1-6.
• Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 1-7.
• Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1-8.
• The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 1-9.
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-3
The capability assessment was reviewed in order to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate
capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and
determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan and are identified as Community Capacity Building
mitigation actions in the Analysis of Mitigation Actions table in Section 1.10.
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-4
Table 1-2. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, & Requirements
Building Code Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Zoning Code Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Subdivisions Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Stormwater Management Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Post-Disaster Recovery Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Real Estate Disclosure Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Growth Management Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Site Plan Review Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Environmental Protection Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Flood Damage Prevention Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Emergency Management Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Climate Change Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Other: Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Planning Documents
General Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Is the plan compliant with Assembly Bill 2140? Yes/No Comment:
Capital Improvement Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
How often is the plan updated? ____________
Comment:
Floodplain or Watershed Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Stormwater Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Urban Water Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Habitat Conservation Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Economic Development Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Shoreline Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-5
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Forest Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Climate Action Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment (THIRA) Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Public Health Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Other: Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:
Table 1-3. Development and Permitting Capability
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes/No
• If no, who does? If yes, which department? ____________
Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard area? Yes/No
Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? Yes/No
Table 1-4. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes/No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes/No
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes/No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes/No- If yes, please specify
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes/No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes/No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes/No
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes/No
Other Yes/No (if yes, please specify)
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-6
Table 1-5. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land
management practices
Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Surveyors Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Emergency Manager Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Grant writers Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Other Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Table 1-6. Education and Outreach Capability
Criterion Response
Do you have a Public Information Officer or Communications Office? Yes/No
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes/No
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe. Insert appropriate information
Do you utilize social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe. Insert appropriate information
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe. Insert appropriate information
Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information? Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe. Insert appropriate information
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe. Insert appropriate information
Table 1-7. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Insert appropriate information
Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) Insert appropriate information
Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? Yes/No
What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last amended? Insert appropriate information
Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum requirements? Meets/Exceeds
• If exceeds, in what ways? Insert appropriate information
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance
Contact?
Insert appropriate information
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? Yes/No
• If so, please state what they are. Insert appropriate information
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction? Yes/No
• If no, please state why. Insert appropriate information
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-7
Criterion Response
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? Yes/No
• If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? Insert appropriate information
Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? Yes/No
• If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving CRS Classification? Yes/No
• Is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? Yes/No
How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a Insert appropriate information
• What is the insurance in force? $_______
• What is the premium in force? $_______
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a Insert appropriate information
• How many claims are still open/were closed without payment? Insert appropriate information
• What were the total payments for losses? $_______
a. According to FEMA statistics as of MONTH XX, 201X
Table 1-8. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System Yes/No _______ Date
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes/No _______ Date
Public Protection Yes/No _______ Date
Storm Ready Yes/No _______ Date
Firewise Yes/No _______ Date
Table 1-9. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-8
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Champions for climate action in local government departments High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Public Capacity
Local residents knowledge of and understanding of climate risk High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local residents support of adaptation efforts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement;
Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
1.5 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on
the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning
mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard
information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa.
Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in
collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation.
1.5.1 Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, Jurisdiction Name made
progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives and actions into other planning initiatives. The
following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
Resources listed in Section 1.13 were used to provide information for this annex on hazard events and local
capabilities within the jurisdiction.
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-9
1.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
As this hazard mitigation plan is implemented, Jurisdiction Name will use information from the plan as the best
available science and data on natural hazards. The capability assessment presented in this annex identifies codes,
plans and programs that provide opportunities for integration. The area-wide and local action plans developed for
this hazard mitigation plan in actions related to plan integration, and progress on these actions will be reported
through the progress reporting process described in Volume 1. New opportunities for integration also will be
identified as part of the annual progress report. The capability assessment identified the following plans and
programs that do not currently integrate goals or recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan but provide
opportunities to do so in the future:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
1.6 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 1-10 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in Jurisdiction Name.
Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including Jurisdiction Name, are listed in the
risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 1-10. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event
FEMA Disaster #
(if applicable) Date Damage Assessment
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
1.7 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.
This section provides information on a few key vulnerabilities for the jurisdiction.
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-10
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: XX
• Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: XX
• Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been mitigated: XX
Other noted vulnerabilities include the following:
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
1.8 HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 1-11 presents a local ranking for Jurisdiction Name of all hazards of concern for which Volume 1 of this
hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. This ranking summarizes how hazards vary for this
jurisdiction. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of
occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.
Table 1-11. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category
1 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
2 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
3 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
4 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
5 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
6 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
7 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
8 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
9 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
a. Based on the “Haywired” (Hayward Fault Scenario M7.05)
b. Severe weather is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, medium
impact on people, medium impact on property and low impact on economy.
c. Based on Very High and High Fire Severity Zones.
d. Based on 1 percent-annual-chance flood zone (otherwise known as the special flood hazard area)
e. Based on Very High, High, and Moderate Landslide Susceptibility Zones
f. Drought is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Generally, drought does not cause injury or death to people or result in
property damage. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, no impact on people, low impact on property and low impact
on economy for those jurisdictions with limited agriculture.
g. Based on the Del Valle Dam inundation scenario.
1.9 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Table 1-12 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan
and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-11
Table 1-12. Status of Previous Plan Actions
Removed;
Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Enter
Action #
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
1.10 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Table 1-13 lists the actions that make up the Jurisdiction Name hazard mitigation action plan. Table 1-14
identifies the priority for each action. Table 1-15 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and
mitigation type.
Table 1-13. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action #— Where appropriate, support retrofitting or relocation of structures in high hazard areas, prioritizing structures that have
experienced repetitive losses.
Existing Dam failure, Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
4, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12
TBD TBD High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-term
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-12
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action #— Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions in the
community, including ______________
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 6, 8,
10, 11
TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General Funds Ongoing
Action #— Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11,
12
TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General Funds Short-term
Action #—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain management
programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
• Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.
• Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
New and
Existing
Flood, Dam failure 1, 4, 6, 9 TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General Funds Ongoing
Action #—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change including but not limited to the following
_______.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Flood, Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 5, 7,
8, 9, 10, 12
TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General Funds Short-term
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-13
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action #—Description
Table 1-14. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed
Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project
Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
TBD 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
TBD 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
TBD 12 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
TBD 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
TBD 8 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Medium
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
Table 1-15. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-14
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
____________
____________
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
1.11 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section
1.12 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section
1.13 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF RESOURCES FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide information for this
annex.
• Jurisdiction Name Municipal Code—The municipal code was reviewed for the full capability
assessment and for identifying opportunities for action plan integration.
• Jurisdiction Name Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The flood damage prevention ordinance
was reviewed for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
• <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• Technical Reports and Information—The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Tool-kit—The tool-kit was used to support the
development of this annex including past hazard events, noted vulnerabilities, risk ranking and action
development.
<INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-15
Tetra Tech Will Insert Jurisdiction-Specific Hazard Maps Prepared for This Plan
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
1
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE
DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
The jurisdictional annex templates for the 2017 Tri-
Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan will be completed in
three phases. This document provides instructions
for completing all phases of the template for
special purpose districts.
If your jurisdiction completed and submitted
Phase 1 and/or Phase 2, Phase 3 has been added to
the end of your document. Any planning team
comments, questions or suggestions have been
included as blue highlighted notes and/or comments.
Any text edits were made with changes tracked for
review. Any yellow highlights indicate areas where
missing information should be filled in.
If your jurisdiction did not complete Phase 1 or Phase 2, please
complete all phases at this time.
The target timeline for phase completion is as follows:
Phase 1 – Jurisdictional profile
- Deployed: early July
- Due: early August
Phase 2 – Capability assessment
- Deployed: late August
- Due: September 26, 2017
Phase 3 – Risk ranking and action plan development
- Deployed: Mid-October
- Workshop: October steering committee meeting
- Due: November 17, 2017
Any questions on completing the template should be directed to:
Kristen Gelino
Tetra Tech, Inc.
(917) 426-4594 or (646) 576-4029
E-mail: kristen.gelino@tetratech.com
Special Purpose District Annex:
This document provides instructions for completing
all phases of the jurisdictional annex template for
special purpose districts. Templates should be
completed by Friday, November 17, 2017. Your
completed template should be submitted to:
Kristen Gelino
Tetra Tech, Inc.
(917) 426-4594 or (646) 576-4029
E-mail: kristen.gelino@tetratech.com
A Note About Formatting:
The template for the annex is a
Microsoft Word document in a
format that will be used in the final
plan. Partners are asked to use
this template so that a uniform
product will be completed for each
partner.
Content should be entered within
the yellow, highlighted text that is
currently in the template, rather
than creating text in another
document and pasting it into the
template. Text from another source
will alter the style and formatting of
the document.
The numbering in the document
will be updated when completed
annexes are combined into the
final document. Please do not
adjust any of this numbering.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
2
Phase 1 Instructions
CHAPTER TITLE
In the chapter title at the top of Page 1, type in the complete official name of your district (e.g. West County Fire
Protection District #1, Johnsonville Flood Protection District, etc.). Please do not change the chapter number.
Revise only the jurisdiction name.
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the primary point of
contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the
annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the
Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan.
In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of
contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction.
Note: Both of these contacts should match the contacts that were designated in your jurisdiction’s letter of intent
to participate in this planning process. If you have changed the primary or secondary contact, please let the
planning team know by inserting a comment into the document.
JURISDICTION PROFILE
Overview
Please provide a brief summary description of your
jurisdiction. Please be sure to include:
the purpose of the jurisdiction,
the date of inception,
the type of organization,
the number of employees,
the mode of operation (i.e., how operations
are funded),
a description of who the district’s customers
are,
an overview of current service area trends,
including an approximation of current
users/subscribers,
a summary description of previous growth trends in service area, and anticipated future increase/decrease
in services (if applicable),
an approximation of area served in square miles,
a geographical decription of the service area, and
the type of governing body, and who has adoptive authority.
Provide information similar to the example provided in the box above. This should be information that is specific
to your jurisdiction and will not be provided in the overall, planning area-wide mitigation plan document.
Example Jurisdiction Narrative Profile:
The Johnsonville Community Services District is a
special district created in 1952 to provide water and
sewer service to the unincorporated area east of the
City of Smithburg known as Johnsonville. The
District’s designated service area expanded throughout
the years to include other unincorporated areas of Jones
County: Creeks Corner, Jones Hill, Fields Landing,
King Salmon, and Freshwater. A five-member elected
Board of Directors governs the District. The Board
assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the
General Manager will oversee its implementation. As
of April 30, 2016, the District serves 7,305 water
connections and 6,108 sewer connections, with a
current staff of 21. Funding comes primarily through
rates and revenue bonds.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
3
Fire Districts should complete the yellow highlighted portions of the following sentence that is included in the
annex: The District participates/does not participate in the Public Protection Class Rating System and currently
has a rating of #.
All other types of special purpose districts should delete this sentence.
ASSETS
Please provide an approximate value for the noted areas within the table. Include the sum total value for identified
assets for each section in the “Total” line for the section.
Property
Provide an approximate value for the land owned by the District.
Critical Infrastructure and Equipment
List types of equipment an infrastructure owned by the District that are used in times of emergency or, if
incapacitated, has the potential to severely impact the service area. Provide an approximate aggregate
replacement value for each type. For water and sewer, include mileage of pipeline under this category.
Critical Facilities
List types of district structures vital to maintain services to the designated service area. Provide an approximate
aggregate replacement value for each line. The Steering Committee has decided upon the following definition
of Critical Facilities for this planning process:
Critical facilities and infrastructure are those assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual,
considered so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have
a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any
combination, per the Department of Homeland Security. For this hazard mitigation plan, the 16 critical
infrastructure sectors as defined by the Department of Homeland Security will be used. The 16 sectors are:
Chemical
Commercial Facilities
Communications
Critical Manufacturing
Dams
Defense Industrial Base
Emergency Services
Energy
Financial Services
Food and Agriculture
Government Facilities
Healthcare and Public Health
Information Technology
Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste
Transportation Systems
Water and Wastewater Systems.
Please use this definition as a guideline when selecting critical facilities.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
4
SAMPLE COMPLETED TABLE – SPECIAL DISTRICT ASSETS
Asset Value
Property
11.5 Acres $5,750,000
Critical Infrastructure and Equipment
Total length of pipe 40 miles ( $1.32 million per mile X 40 miles) $52,800,000
4 Emergency Generators $250,000
Total: $53,050,000
Critical Facilities
2 Administrative Buildings $2,750,000
4 Pump Station Buildings $377,000
Total: $3,127,000
Phase 2 Instructions
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Planning and Regulatory Capability
List any federal, state, local or district laws, ordinances, codes and policies that govern your jurisdiction that
include elements related to hazard mitigation. List any other plans, studies or other documents that address hazard
mitigation issues for your jurisdiction. Please provide the date of last update. A few examples follow:
District Design Standards—Last updated 2010.
Capital Improvement Program—Updated and approved annually, covers 5 year timeframe.
Emergency Operations Plan—Last updated 2000.
Facility Maintenance Manual—Last updated 1990.
California Building Code—Last updated 2016.
California State Division of State Architects—Review and approval of all building and site design
features is required prior to construction.
Habitat Conservation Plan—All development impacting critical habitat must meet federal and state
requirements pertaining to the protection of endangered species.
Fiscal, Administrative and Technical Capabilities
Fiscal Capability
Complete the table titled “Fiscal Capability” by indicating whether each of the listed financial resources is
accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter “Yes” if the resource is fully accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter “No” if
there are limitations or prerequisites that may hinder your eligibility for this resource.
Administrative and Technical Capability
Complete the table titled “Administrative and Technical Capability” by indicating whether your jurisdiction has
access to each of the listed personnel resources. Enter “Yes” or “No” in the column labeled “Available?”. If yes,
then enter the department and position title in the right-hand column. If you have contract support staff with these
capabilities, you can still answer “Yes.” Indicate in the department column that this resource is provided through
contract support.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
5
Education and Outreach Capabilities
Complete the table titled “Education and Outreach” to indicate your jurisdiction’s capabilities and existing efforts
regarding natural hazard mitigation education and outreach.
Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Consider the climate change impact concerns identified for the planning area:
Increased temperature
Reduced precipitation
Sea level rise – coastal inundation and erosion
Public health – heat and air pollution
Reduced agricultural productivity
Inland flooding
Reduced tourism.
With those impacts in mind, complete the table titled “Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change” by indicating that
your jurisdiction’s capacity for each listed criterion as follows:
High—The capacity exists and is in use.
Medium—The capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement.
Low—The capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement.
Unsure—Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
This is a subjective assessment, but providing a few words of explanation is useful. It is highly recommended that
you complete this table with an internal planning team and that you review the results of the other capability
assessment tables before completing.
INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The goal of plan integration is to ensure that the potential impact of hazards is considered in planning for future
development. FEMA recommends integration as follows:
Integrate hazard mitigation plan goals with community objectives (e.g. incorporate the goals for risk
reduction and safety into the policies of other plans).
Use the risk assessment to inform plans and policies (e.g. incorporate risk assessment findings into land
use plans, site plan review, emergency operations plans).
Implement mitigation actions through existing mechanisms (e.g. include mitigation projects in the capital
improvement plan).
Think about mitigation before and after a disaster (e.g. build recovery planning on existing mitigation
plans and goals).
After reviewing the plans, programs and ordinances identified in the capability assessment, identify all plans and
programs that have already been integrated with the goals and recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan,
and those that offer opportunities for future integration.
Existing Integration
Provide a brief description of how the plan or ordinance is integrated. For plan updates, it is required that at least
one item be listed or that you explicitly state that no integration occurred. Examples are as follows:
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
6
Capital Improvement Plan—The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate
potential hazards. The District will act to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the
current and future capital improvement plans. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible
funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects
based on results of the risk assessment.
Emergency Operations Plan—The results of the risk assessment were used in the development of the
emergency operations plan.
Facilities Plan—The results of the risk assessment and mapped hazard areas are used in facility planning
for the district. Potential sites are reviewed for hazard risks and appropriate mitigation measures are
considered in building and site design.
Opportunities for Future Integration
List any plans or program that offer the potential for future integration and describe the process by which
integration will occur. Examples follow:
Capital Improvement Projects—Capital improvement project proposals may take into consideration
hazard mitigation potential as a means of evaluating project prioritization.
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan—The District does not have a recovery plan and intends to develop one as
a mitigation planning action during the next five years. The plan will build on the mitigation goals and
objectives identified in the mitigation plan.
Consider other programs you may have in place in your jurisdiction that include routine consideration and
management of hazard risk. Examples of such programs may include: tree pruning programs, right-of-way
mowing programs, erosion control or stream maintenance programs, etc. Please add any such programs to the
integration discussion and provide a brief description of how these program manage (or could be adapted to
manage) risk from hazards.
Phase 3 Instructions
If your jurisdiction participated in a previously approved hazard mitigation plan, we have transferred
relevant content to the Phase 3 portion of your annex. All pre-populated content should be reviewed for
accuracy and completeness.
JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL EVENT HISTORY
In the table titled “Past Natural Hazard Events,” list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard
event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of
damage it caused. You are welcome to include any events, but special attention should be made to include major
storms and federally declared disasters. Please refer to the table below that lists Presidential Disaster Declarations
for the County. We recommend including most large-scale disasters, unless you know that there were no impacts
to your jurisdiction. Specifically, we recommend that you include these events if you have damage estimate
information or can provide a brief description of impacts that occurred within your community. In addition to
these events, please refer to the NOAA storm events database included in the tool kit. We recommend conducting
a search for the name of your jurisdiction or those jurisdictions in your service area in order to identify events
with known impacts. Other potential sources of damage information include:
Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state
Insurance claims data
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
7
Newspaper archives
Other plans/documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan,
emergency response plan, etc.)
Resident input.
If you do not have estimates for dollars of damage caused, please list “Not Available” in the appropriate column
or simply list a brief description of the damages (e.g. Power out to 35,000 customers for 24 hours). Please note
that tracking such damages, is a valid and useful mitigation action if your jurisdiction does not currently track
such information.
Presidential Disaster Declarations for Alameda County
Type of Event FEMA Disaster #
Declaration
Date
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4308 4/1/2017
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4305 3/16/2017
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4301 2/14/2017
Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides DR-1646 6/5/2006
Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides DR-1628 2/3/2006
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation EM-3248 9/13/2005
Severe Winter Storms and Flooding DR-1203 2/9/1998
Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Landslides DR-1155 1/4/1997
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding Landslides, Mud Flow DR-1046 3/12/1995
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1044 1/10/1995
Oakland Hills Fire DR-919 10/22/1991
Severe Freeze DR-894 2/11/1991
Loma Prieta Earthquake DR-845 10/18/1989
Severe Storms & Flooding DR-758 2/21/1986
Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides & Tornadoes DR-677 2/9/1983
Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides & High Tide DR-651 1/7/1982
Drought EM-3023 1/20/1977
Forest & Brush Fires DR-295 9/29/1970
Severe Storms & Flooding DR-283 2/16/1970
Note: EM = Emergency Declaration; DR = Disaster Declaration
JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
We would strongly encourage you to review the results of the risk assessment included in the tool kit, your
jurisdiction’s natural events history, and any relevant public comments/input and develop a few sentences that
discuss specific risks. You do not need to develop a sentence for every single parameter, but review the results
and identify a few issues you would like to highlight. For example:
One of the District’s wastewater treatment plants is located in an area likely to be permanently inundated
by sea level rise by 2030.
Three of the District’s five fire stations are located in very high landslide risk areas.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
8
The vast majority of the service area for the district is located on high liquefaction potential soils, which
has the potential to severely disrupt service for an extended period following even a moderate earthquake
event.
The District headquarters is more likely than not to be extensively damaged during a Smithburg fault
M7.0 event.
In addition, please list any noted vulnerabilities in your jurisdiction related to hazard mitigation that may not be
apparent from the risk assessment and other information provided. This may include things such as the following:
An area of the community that frequently loses power due to a lack of tree maintenance.
A critical facility, such as a police station, that is not equipped with a generator.
A neighborhood that has the potential to have ingress and egress cut off as the result of a hazard event,
such as a flood or earthquake (e.g. bridge only access).
Spending some time thinking about the results of the risk assessment and other noted vulnerabilities will be a big
help in the development of your mitigation strategy. The items you list in this section should cross-walk back to
the mitigation action that you have selected. Two examples are shown in the table below.
Noted Vulnerability Example Mitigation Action
One of the District’s wastewater treatment plants is located in
an area likely to be permanently inundated by sea level rise by
2030.
Conduct a detailed assessment of the wastewater treatment
plant vulnerability to sea level rise. Determine adaptation
actions that can be implemented in the near- and long-term.
A critical facility, such as a police station, that is not equipped
with a generator.
Unsure all critical facilities within the District have backup
power generation capabilities. Priority facilities include:
Main street pump station
Old Oak subdivision pump station.
HAZARD RISK RANKING
The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall
hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and,
therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area.
The risk-ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential
impact on people, property and the economy.
Tetra Tech has brought forward the risk ranking results from the 2011 plan for each jurisdiction that participated
in that planning effort. For those jurisdictions that did not participate in the 2011 planning effort, a draft risk
ranking using the parameters outlined below has been developed for each planning partner. If this risk ranking
exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter
the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in your template and include what
you believe the rank should be and why. For example, drought was ranked as low; however, the jurisdiction is a
water supply district, so you believe it should be ranked as high.
Also keep in mind that one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of actions
in your plan. If you identify an action with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard you have ranked low,
that action may not be as competitive in the grant arena. On the other hand, you will need to have at least one true
mitigation action for each hazard ranked as “high.”
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
9
The instructions below describe the methodology for how these rankings were derived. Please review before
providing any comments.
Risk Ranking Methodology
Review Risk Ranking in Template
Review the hazard risk ranking information that Tetra Tech has provided. The hazard with the highest risk rating
is listed at the top of table titled “Hazard Risk Ranking” in your template and was given a rank of 1; the hazard
with the second highest rating is listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings
were given the same rank. “High,” Medium,” and “Low” assignments were given for each hazard of concern
based on the total score (probability x impact). It is important to note, that this is determined by the scores rather
than assigning a certain number of hazards to each category.
When reviewing the risk ranking results, it is important to remember that this exercise is about categorizing
hazards into broad levels of risk (e.g. high, medium, low). It is not an exercise in precision.
Review Risk Ranking in Loss Matrix
The following sections discuss the methodology used to develop the results included in your template. Please
refer to the risk assessment results provided for more information.
Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard
A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. The probability of occurrence of a
hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area, although weight can be given to expected future
probability of occurrence based on established return intervals and changing climate conditions. For example, if
your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high
for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no damage from landslides in
the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. Each
hazard was assigned a probability factor as follows:
High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3)
Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2)
Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1)
None—If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0)
Potential Impacts of Each Hazard
The impact of each hazard is divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts
on the economy. These categories are also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting
factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on the economy was assigned a
weighting factor of 1.
Impact factors for each category (people, property, economy) are described below:
People—Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed in your service area
to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the
calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in
a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. Impact factors were assigned as
follows:
High—25 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
10
Medium—10 percent to 24 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
Low—9 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
Property—Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total district assets exposed to the hazard
event:
High—25 percent or more of the total replacement value of assets is exposed to a hazard (Impact
Factor = 3)
Medium—10 percent to 24 percent of the total replacement value of assets is exposed to a hazard
(Impact Factor = 2)
Low—9 percent or less of the total replacement value of assets is exposed to the hazard (Impact
Factor = 1)
No impact—None of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
Operations—Impact on operations is assessed based on estimates of how long it will take your
jurisdiction to become 100-percent operable after a hazard event. The estimated functional downtime for
critical facilities has been estimated by Hazus (see toolkit) or subjectively assigned an impact as follows:
High—Functional downtime of 365 days or more (Impact Factor = 3)
Medium—Functional downtime of 180 to 364 days (Impact Factor = 2)
Low—Functional downtime of 180 days or less (Impact Factor = 1)
No impact—No functional downtime is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0).
Risk Rating for Each Hazard
A risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the
weighted impact factors for people, property and the economy:
Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + economy}
This is the number that is shown in the risk ranking table in your template.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Please note that this section only applies to jurisdictions that are conducting updates to previously approved
hazard mitigation plans. If your jurisdiction has not previously participated in an approved plan, this section
will not appear in your annex template. Also, please note that if you completed the Phase 2 annex, you likely
already filled out this table. You will need to revisit this section to fill in the Action # section after competing
your action plan in the following section.
All action items identified in prior mitigation planning efforts must be reconciled in this plan update. Action items
must all be marked as ONE of the following; check the appropriate box (place an X) and provide the following
information:
Completed—If an action was completed during the performance period of the prior plan, please
check the appropriate box and provide a date of completion in the comment section. If an action has
been initiated and is an ongoing program (e.g. annual outreach event), you may mark it as completed
and note that it is ongoing in the comments. When removing such actions from your action plan,
please consider including them in the existing integration section above. If you have an action that
addresses an ongoing program you would like to continue to include it in your action plan, please see
the Carried Over to Plan Update section below.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
11
Removed—If action items are to be removed because they are no longer feasible, a reason must be
given. Lack of funding does not mean that it is no longer feasible, unless the sole source of funding
for an action is no longer available. Place a comment in the comment section explaining why the
action is no longer feasible (e.g., “Action no longer considered feasible due to lack of political
support.”). If the wording and/or intent of a previously identified action is unclear, this can be a
reason for removal. A change in community priorities may also be a reason for removal and should be
discussed in the comments.
Carried Over to Plan Update—If an action is in progress, ongoing or has not been initiated and you
would like to carry it over to the plan update, please check the “Check if Yes” column under “Carried
Over to Plan Update.” Selecting this option indicates that the action will be included in the mitigation
action plan for the 2017 plan. The last column “Enter Action #” will be addressed when you develop
your actions plan in the following sections. You will need to revisit it after completing the action
plan.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
This section is the heart of your jurisdictional annex. This is
where you will identify the actions your jurisdiction would like
to pursue with this plan. All of the work that you have done
thus far should provide you with a plethora of ideas for actions.
With this in mind, we recommend that you review the
following and develop a list of potential actions:
Capability Assessment Section of Annex—Review
the Planning and Regulatory Capability table, the
Fiscal Capability table, the Administrative and
Technical Capability table, and the Education and
Outreach table.
For any capability that you indicated that you did
not have, ask yourself – should we have this
capability? If yes, consider including an action to
develop/acquire the capability.
Example: Ensure a staff person is trained in the
use of FEMA’s benefit-cost analysis software.
Review the Legal and Regulatory capabilities. If you have not reviewed and updated a capability in
more than 10 years, consider an action to review and update the capability and, as appropriate,
incorporate hazard mitigation principles or information obtained in the risk assessment (Note: actions
such as this should also be identified in the opportunities for future integration section). Also,
consider including projects or actions that have been identified in other plans and programs such as
Capital Improvement Plans, Strategic Plans, etc. as actions in this plan.
For any capability that you indicated you do have, consider how this capability can be leveraged to
increase or improve hazard mitigation in the jurisdiction.
Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change Section of this Annex—Consider your responses to this
section. For those criterion that you listed as medium or low, think of ways you could improve this rating
(see adaptive capacity portion of the mitigation best practices catalog). For those criterion you listed as
high, think about how you can leverage this capacity to improve or enhance mitigation or continue to
Wording Your Action Descriptions:
Descriptions of your actions need not provide
great detail. That will come when you apply for
a project grant. Provide enough information to
identify the action’s scope and impact. The
following are typical descriptions for an action
plan action:
Action 1—Address repetitive-loss
properties. Through targeted mitigation,
acquire, relocate or retrofit the nine pump
stations that have been repetitively
damaged.
Action 2—Perform a non-structural,
seismic retrofit of the administrative
building.
Action 3—Develop a schedule to
underground overhead powerlines.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
12
improve this capacity. For those criterion that you were unable to provide responses for, consider ways
you could improve your understanding of this capacity (see mitigation best practices).
Opportunities for Future Integration Section in this Annex—Review the items you identified in this
section. Consider an action that specifically says what the plan, code, ordinance etc. is and how it will be
integrated.
Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities Section in this Annex—Review the items that you have identified
in this section and consider actions that will help reduce these vulnerabilities (see mitigation best
practices catalog).
Mitigation Best Practices Catalog—A catalog that includes FEMA and other agency identified best
practices, steering committee and other stakeholder recommendations was developed as part of the plan
development process and included in your tool kit. Review the catalog and identify those actions that your
jurisdiction should consider including in its action plan.
Public Input—Review input received during the process, specifically the public survey results included
in your toolkit.
Prior Mitigation Planning Efforts—If your jurisdiction participated in a previous hazard mitigation
plan, please be sure to remember to include any actions that were identified as “carry over” actions. Once
you have carried them over, return to the Status of Previous Actions table and record the new action
number (see discussion below).
Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of actions:
Select actions that are consistent with the overall purpose, goals, and objectives of the hazard mitigation
plan.
Identify actions where benefits exceed costs.
Include any action that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant eligibility.
Know what is and is not grant-eligible under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster
Mitigation (PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grants (see fact sheet provided in toolkit). If
you have actions that are not HMGP, PDM or FMA grant eligible, but do mitigate part or all of the hazard
and may be eligible for other grant programs sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section.
You must identify at least one true mitigation action (i.e. not a preparedness or response action)
that is clearly defined and actionable for hazards ranked as “high” or medium.”
Recommended Actions
We recommend that every planning partner strongly consider the following actions. The specifics of these actions
should be adjusted as needed for the particulars of each jurisdiction. You will note that two of these actions have
been prepopulated in your annex template. These two actions should be included in every annex and should not be
removed.
Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas,
prioritizing structures that have experienced repetitive losses.
Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs within the community.
Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high water
marks, preliminary damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including the
implementation and maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan.
Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
Consider the development of a post-disaster recovery plan and a debris management plan.
Develop and/or update plans that support or enhance continuity of operations following disasters.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
13
Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change.
Complete the Table
Complete the table titled “Hazard
Mitigation Action Plan Matrix” for
all the actions you have identified
and would like to include in the
plan:
Enter the action number
and description .
Indicate whether the action mitigates hazards for new and/or existing assets.
Identify the specific hazards the action will mitigate.
Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the action addresses (see toolkit).
Indicate who will be the lead in administering the action. This will most likely be a department within
your jurisdiction (e.g. planning or public works). If you wish to indicate more than one department, please
ensure that it is clear who the lead agency will be (i.e note with an *)
Enter an estimated cost in dollars if known; otherwise, enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as determined
for the prioritization process described in the following section.
Identify funding sources for the action. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share.
Refer to your fiscal capability assessment to identify possible sources of funding and refer to the table
below for project eligibility for FEMA’s hazard mitigation assistance grant program.
Indicate the time line as “short-term” (1 to 5 years) or “long-term” (5 years or greater) or ongoing (a
continual program)
Eligible Activities HMGP PDM FMA
Mitigation Projects
Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition √ √ √
Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation √ √ √
Structure Elevation √ √ √
Mitigation Reconstruction √ √ √
Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures √ √ √
Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures √ √ √
Generators √ √
Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects √ √ √
Non-Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects √ √
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings √ √ √
Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities √ √ √
Safe Room Construction √ √
Wind Retrofit for One- and Two-Family Residences √ √
Infrastructure Retrofit √ √ √
Soil Stabilization √ √ √
Wildfire Mitigation √ √
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement √
Advance Assistance √
5 Percent Initiative Projects* √
Action Item Numbering:
Please use the following action item numbering conventions:
Dublin Unified School District: DUSD-1
Dublin San Ramon Services District: DSRSD-1
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District: LVJUSD-1
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
14
Eligible Activities HMGP PDM FMA
Aquifer and Storage Recovery** √ √ √
Flood Diversion and Storage** √ √ √
Floodplain and Stream Restoration** √ √ √
Green Infrastructure** √ √ √
Miscellaneous/Other** √ √ √
Hazard Mitigation Planning √ √ √
Technical Assistance √
Management Costs √ √ √
Notes: HMGP = Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; PDM = Pre-Disaster Mitigation; FMA = Flood Mitigation Assistance
* FEMA allows increasing the 5% Initiative amount up to 10% for a Presidential major disaster declaration under HMGP. The
additional 5% Initiative funding can be used for activities that promote disaster-resistant codes for all hazards. As a
condition of the award, either a disaster-resistant building code must be adopted or an improved Building Code
Effectiveness Grading Schedule is required.
**Indicates that any proposed action will be evaluated on its own merit against program requirements. Eligible
projects will be approved provided funding is available.
Source: https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance-mitigation-activity-chart
Please see the table below for an examples of some of the recommended actions above:
Example Action Plan Matrix
Applies
to new or
existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objective
s Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
EX-1— Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas,
prioritizing structures that have experienced repetitive losses.
Existing Dam failure,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
4, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12
High HMGP, PDM,
FMA
Short-term
EX-2—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs within the community.
New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 2, 6, 8,
10, 11
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
EX-3—Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high water marks,
preliminary damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigati on efforts including the implementation and
maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan.
Existing Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 9 Emergency
Management
Medium Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
15
Applies
to new or
existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objective
s Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
EX-4—Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12
Lead Contact
Department for
Plan
Any
Supporting
Department
s
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-5—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flood, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12
Lead Contact
Department for
Plan
Any
Supporting
Department
s
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-6—Develop a post-disaster recovery plan and a debris management plan.
Existing All Hazards 6, 13 Emergency
Management
Medium EMPG Long-term
Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
Complete the information in the table titled “Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule” as follows:
Action #—Indicate the action number from the previous annex table (Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Matrix).
# of Objectives Met—Enter the number of objectives the action will meet.
Benefits—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
High: Action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property.
Medium: Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property,
or action will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.
Low: Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.
Costs—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee
increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed
action.
Medium: Could budget for under existing work-plan, but would require a reapportionment of the
budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years.
Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Action is or can be part of an existing ongoing program.
If you know the estimated cost of a action because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the
amount.
Do Benefits Exceed the Cost?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” This is a qualitative assessment. Enter “Yes” if the
benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost;
high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter “No” if the benefit rating is lower than
the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.)
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
16
Is the Action Grant-Eligible?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP, PDM and FMA.
Can Action Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” In other words, is
this action currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another
source such as grants?
Implementation Priority— Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed cost, has funding
secured or is an ongoing action and meets eligibility requirements for a grant program. High priority
actions can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). The key factors for high priorit y actions are
that they have funding secured and can be completed in the short term.
Medium Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, that has benefits that exceed costs, and
for which funding has not yet been secured, but is eligible for funding. Action can be completed in
the short term, once funding is secured. Medium priority actions will become high priority actions
once funding is secured. The key factors for medium priority actions are that they are eligible for
funding, but do not yet have funding secured, and they can be completed within the short term.
Low Priority—An action that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, that has benefits that do not exceed
the costs or are difficult to quantify, for which funding has not been secured, that is not eligible for
grant funding, and for which the time line for completion is long term (1 to 10 years). Low priority
actions may be eligible for grant funding from other programs that have not yet been identified. Low
priority actions are generally “blue-sky” or “wish-list.” actions. Financing is unknown, and they can
be completed over a long term.
Grant Pursuit Priority— Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
High Priority—An action that has been identified as meeting grant eligibility requirements, assessed
to have high benefits, is listed as high or medium priority, and where local funding options are
unavailable or where dedicated funds could be utilized for actions that are not eligible for grant
funding.
Medium Priority—An action that has been identified as meeting grant eligibility requirements,
assessed to have medium or low benefits, is listed as medium or low priority, and where local funding
options are unavailable.
Low Priority—An action that has not been identified as meeting grant eligibility requirements, or has
low benefits.
This prioritization is a simple way to determine that your identified actions meet one of the primary objectives of
the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP/PDM /FMA action
grants. The prioritization will identify any actions whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs.
Those actions identified as high-priority grant funding actions should be closely reviewed for consideration when
grant funding opportunities arise.
Note: If a jurisdiction wishes to identify a action as high priority that is outside of the prioritization scheme for
high priorities. A note indicting so should be inserted and a rationale should be provided.
Please see the example below based off the recommended actions:
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
17
Table 0-9. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do
Benefits
Equal or
Exceed
Costs?
Is Action
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Action
Be Funded
Under
Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
EX-1 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
EX-2 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-3 2 Low Medium No No Maybe Low Low
EX-4 12 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-5 12 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-8 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Complete the table titled “Analysis of Mitigation Actions” summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of
concern and the following eight mitigation types. Please note that an action can be more than one mitigation type:
• Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings
are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital
improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations.
• Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal
of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm
shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
• Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform residents and elected officials about hazards and
ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and
school-age and adult education.
• Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions
of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed
management, forest and vegetation management, wetland restoration and preservation, and green
infrastructure.
• Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard
event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
• Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard.
Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
• Climate Resilient—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate
change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in
project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks,
such as sea level rise or urban heat island effect.
• Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to
potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. Includes staff
training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs.
This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions.
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
18
Please see the example below based off the recommended actions, but please note that these recommendations are
heavy on generalized actions on the prevention spectrum and light in other areas and specificity. Planning partners
should aim to identify at least one action in each category (although this is not required) and should make sure
there is at least one action to address “high” ranked hazards:
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education
and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
Dam Failure EX-2, 3, 4,
5
EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 6
Drought EX-2 EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 6
Earthquake EX-2, 3, 4,
5
EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 6
Flood EX-2, 3, 4,
5
EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 6
Landslide EX-2, 3, 4,
5
EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 6
Severe
weather
EX-2, 3, 4,
5
EX-1 EX-4 EX-6 EX-3, 4, 6
Wildfire EX-2, 3, 4,
5
EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 6
FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY
In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better
understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or
state agency mandates. Please note that this section is optional.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered
in this template. Please note that this section is optional.
REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF RESOURCES FOR THIS ANNEX
This section should describe what resources you used to complete the annex and how you used them. Several
items are started for you, but please be sure to update and enhance any descriptions. This may seem trivial or
unimportant, but it is a requirement to pass the state and FEMA review process.
NEXT STEPS
After all jurisdictions have submitted their annexes, the draft plan will be submitted for public comment.
Following the public comment period and any revisions responsive to public comment, the plan will be submitted
to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for review. After their review and
approval, Cal OES will submit the plan to FEMA Region IX for plan review and approval. At that point planning
partners will be asked to begin making preparations to formally adopt the plan. Each participating planning
partner must have the governing board of their jurisdiction adopt via resolution or ordinance. Once FEMA has
Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template
19
reviewed the plan and issued an approved pending adoption (APA) notice, planning partners will be asked to go
forth and adopt the plan. Once adopted, planning partners will submit adoption information to Tetra Tech, who
will submit the proof of adoption to FEMA. Once such adoption has been received, FEMA will issue final
approval via a letter for those planning partners who have adopted the plan. It is very important to understand that
approval is not final until proof of adoption has been received by FEMA and they have issued a letter specifically
naming your jurisdiction. More information on the review and approval process, along with adoption support
materials, will be provided at a later date.
1-1
1. DISTRICT NAME
1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: xxx@xxx.xxx
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: xxx@xxx.xxx
1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE
1.2.1 Overview
Insert Narrative Profile Information, per Instructions. The __[name of adopting body]___ assumes responsibility
for the adoption of this plan; __[name of oversight agency]__ will oversee its implementation.
For fire districts please be sure to include the following sentence (Non-fire Special Purpose Districts may delete
the sentence):
The District participates/does not participate in the Public Protection Class Rating System and currently has a
rating of #.
1.2.2 Service Area and Trends
The district serves a population of _ population_. Its service area covers an area of _area_.
Insert summary description of service trends.
1.2.3 Assets
Table 1-1 summarizes the critical assets of the district and their value.
Report Title District Name
1-2
Table 1-1. Special Purpose District Assets
Asset Value
Property
_number_ acres of land $_value_
Critical Infrastructure and Equipment
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
Total: $_value_
Critical Facilities
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
Total: $_value_
1.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Upon completion, the capability assessment was reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate
capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and
determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan and are identified as Community Capacity Building
mitigation actions in the Analysis of Mitigation Actions table in Section 1.9.
1.3.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
Jurisdictions develop plans and programs and implement rules and regulations to protect and serve residents.
When effectively prepared and administered, these plans, programs and regulations can support the
implementation of mitigation actions. Table 1-2 summarizes existing codes, ordinances, policies, programs or
plans that are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 1-2. Planning and Regulatory Capability
Date of Most
Recent Update Comment
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____
1.3.2 Fiscal, Administrative and Technical Capabilities
Fiscal capability is an indicator of a jurisdiction’s ability to fulfill the financial needs associated with hazard
mitigation projects. An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1-3. Administrative and technical
Report Title District Name
1-3
capabilities represent a jurisdiction’s staffing resources for carrying out the mitigation strategy. An assessment of
administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1-4.
Table 1-3. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes/No
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes/No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes/No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes/No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes/No
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes/No
Federal Grant Programs Yes/No
Other Yes/No (if yes, please specify)
Table 1-4. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Planners or engineers with an understanding
of natural hazards
Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Surveyors Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Emergency manager Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Grant writers Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Other Yes/No Insert appropriate information
1.3.3 Education and Outreach Capabilities
Outreach and education capability identifies the connection between government and community members, which
opens a dialogue needed for a more resilient community. An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is
presented in Table 1-5.
Table 1-5. Education and Outreach
Criterion Response
Do you have a Public Information Officer or Communications Office? Yes/No
Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes/No
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe Insert appropriate information
Do you utilize social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe Insert appropriate information
Report Title District Name
1-4
Criterion Response
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly specify Insert appropriate information
Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to
communicate hazard-related information?
Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe Insert appropriate information
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe Insert appropriate information
1.3.4 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Given the uncertainties associated with how hazard risk may change with a changing climate, a jurisdiction’s
ability to track such changes and adapt as needed is an important component of the mitigation strategy. Table 1-6
summarizes the District’s adaptive capacity for climate change.
Table 1-6. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Champions for climate action in local government departments High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Report Title District Name
1-5
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Public Capacity
Local residents knowledge of and understanding of climate risk High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local residents support of adaptation efforts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low
Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement;
Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
1.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on
the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning
mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard
information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa.
Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in
collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation.
1.4.1 Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, District Name made progress on
integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives and actions into other planning initiatives. The following plans and
programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
Resources listed in Section 1.12 were used to provide information on hazard events and local capabilities within
the jurisdiction.
1.4.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
As this hazard mitigation plan is implemented, District Name will use information from the plan as the best
available science and data on natural hazards. The capability assessment presented in this annex identifies codes,
plans and programs that provide opportunities for integration. The area-wide and local action plans developed for
this hazard mitigation plan include actions related to plan integration, and progress on these actions will be
reported through the progress reporting process described in Volume 1. New opportunities for integration also
will be identified as part of the annual progress report. The capability assessment identified the following plans
and programs that do not currently integrate goals or recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan but provide
opportunities to do so in the future:
Report Title District Name
1-6
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
1.5 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 1-7 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in District Name.
Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including District Name, are listed in the risk
assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 1-7. Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event
FEMA Disaster #
(if applicable) Date Damage Assessment
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
1.6 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.
Noted vulnerabilities within the district include the following:
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
1.7 HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 1-8 presents a local ranking for District Name of all hazards of concern for which Volume 1 of this hazard
mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. This ranking summarizes how hazards vary for this
jurisdiction. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of
occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.
Report Title District Name
1-7
Table 1-8. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category
1 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
2 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
3 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
4 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
5 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
6 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
7 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
8 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
9 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
a. Based on the “Haywired” (Hayward Fault Scenario M7.05)
b. Severe weather is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, medium
impact on people, medium impact on property and low impact on economy.
c. Based on Very High and High Fire Severity Zones.
d. Based on 1 percent-annual-chance flood zone (otherwise known as the special flood hazard area)
e. Based on Very High, High, and Moderate Landslide Susceptibility Zones
f. Drought is assessed more qualitatively than other hazards. Generally, drought does not cause injury or death to people or result in
property damage. Assumptions for risk ranking include high probability, no impact on people, low impact on property and low impact
on economy for those jurisdictions with limited agriculture.
g. Based on the Del Valle Dam inundation scenario.
1.8 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Table 1-9 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan
and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Table 1-9. Status of Previous Plan Actions
Removed;
Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Enter
Action #
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Report Title District Name
1-8
Removed;
Carried Over to
Plan Update
Action Item Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Enter
Action #
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
Insert Action Text Action#
Comment:
1.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Table 1-10 lists the actions that make up the District Name hazard mitigation action plan. Table 1-11 identifies the
priority for each action. Table 1-12 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.
Table 1-10. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action #—Where appropriate, support retrofitting or relocation of structures in high hazard areas, prioritizing structures that have
experienced repetitive losses.
Existing Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 6, 8,
10, 11
TBD TBD High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-term
Action #—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
New and
Existing
Dam failure, Drought,
Earthquake, Flood,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildfire
1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11,
12
TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General Funds Short-term
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Report Title District Name
1-9
Applies
to new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Action #—Description
Table 1-11. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed
Costs?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project
Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
TBD 6 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
TBD 12 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
Report Title District Name
1-10
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.
Table 1-12. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.
1.10 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section
1.11 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section
1.12 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF RESOURCES FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide information for this
annex.
• <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Tool-kit—The tool-kit was used to support the
development of this annex including past hazard events, noted vulnerabilities, risk ranking and action
development.