Oxnard City Council
September 20, 2022

10.3 EXPOSURE

10.3.1 Population
The entire population of the planning area (843,843) is potentially exposed to direct damage from earthquakes or indirect impacts such as business interruption, road closures, and loss of function of utilities. There are estimated to be 588,376 people in the planning area living on NEHRP D or E soils, which make buildings more susceptible to damage from earthquakes. This is about 70 percent of the total population.

10.3.2 Property
According to County Assessor records, there are 262,657 buildings in the planning area. Most of the buildings (86 percent) are residential. All buildings are considered to be exposed to the earthquake hazard. There are estimated to be 178,000 buildings in the planning area (68 percent of the total) on NEHRP D or E soils, which make buildings more susceptible to damage from earthquakes. Figure 10-6 shows the Hazus-defined occupancy class of all buildings on these soil types.

Figure 10-6. Building Count by Occupancy Class on NEHRP D or E soils Residential
149,797
84%
Commercial
11,705
7%
Industrial
3,686
2%
Agriculture
7,180
4%
Religion
967
1%
Government
2,269
1%
Education
2,375
1%
342
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-14

10.3.3 Critical Facilities
Since the entire planning area has exposure to the earthquake hazard, all critical facilities components are considered to be exposed. The breakdown of the numbers and types of facilities is presented in Table 4-4.

Critical facilities constructed on NEHRP Type D and E soils are particularly at risk from seismic events.

Figure 10-7 shows the exposure of critical facilities built on these soils in the planning area, by type of facility. The total count of critical facilities on NEHRP Type D and E soils (1,150) represents 74 percent of the planning area total of 1,588. A breakdown by municipality is provided in Appendix D.

Figure 10-7. Critical Facilities on NEHRP D and E Soils

10.3.4 Environment
The entire planning area is exposed to the earthquake hazard, including all natural resources, habitat, and wildlife.

10.4 VULNERABILITY
Earthquake vulnerability data for the risk assessment was generated using a Hazus Level 2 (userdefined) analysis for the for the events listed in Table 10-5. The analysis results are summarized in the sections below. Detailed information, broken down by municipality, can be found in Appendix D.

10.4.1 Population
Hazus estimated impacts on persons and households in the planning area for the evaluated earthquake scenarios as summarized in Table 10-6.
151
74 127
79 7
281
452
0 100
200
300
400
500
Number of Facilties in Hazard Area
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation

60.4%

66.7%

60.5%

84.9%

70.0% 71.9%

86.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Facilties in Hazard Area as % of Planning Area Total
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
343
Earthquake
10-15
Table 10-5. Earthquakes Modeled for Risk Assessment
Event Magnitude Focal Depth Epicenter Location PGA
100-Year Probabilistic N/A N/A N/A Figure 10-8
Oak Ridge Scenario 7.16 8.0 miles 34.314°N 118.960°W Figure 10-9 San Cayetano Scenario 7.16 6.3 miles 34.539°N 118.953°W Figure 10-10 S San Andreas Scenario 8.03 4.1 miles 38.399°N 123.110°W Figure 10-11 Ventura-Pitas Point Scenario 7.12 6.2 miles 34.322°N 119.281°W Figure 10-12 Table 10-6. Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons
Displaced Households Persons Requiring Short-Term Shelter Scenario Number % of Total Number % of Total
100-Year Probabilistic 205 0.07% 147 0.02%
Oak Ridge Scenario 160 0.06% 127 0.02%
San Cayetano Scenario 14 0.01% 11 0.00%
S San Andreas Scenario 0 0% 0 0%
Ventura-Pitas Point Scenario 112 0.04% 79 0.01%

10.4.2 Property
Loss Potential
Table 10-7 summarizes Hazus estimates of earthquake damage in the planning area for the evaluated scenarios. The debris estimate includes only structural debris; it does not include additional debris that may accumulate, such as from trees. These estimates do not include losses that would occur from any local tsunamis or fires stemming from an earthquake.

Table 10-7. Estimated Impact of Earthquake Scenario Events in the Planning Area Structure Debris Structure + Contents Damage
Earthquake Scenario Event x 1,000 Tons Truckloads Value % of Total Value 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake 503.31 20,132 $7,983,590,943 4.4% Oak Ridge Scenario 3,418.21 136,728 $21,516,138,914 11.9% San Cayetano Scenario 613.21 24,528 $7,794,984,008 4.3% S San Andreas Scenario 153.94 6,158 $2,004,237,540 1.1% Ventura-Pitas Point Scenario 2,078.98 83,159 $14,556,417,724 8.1% 344
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 10-8. Intensity Scale for 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
USGS, Esri
Mercalli Intensity Scale
VII (Very Strong/Moderate)
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
Intensity scale described as:
(perceived shaking / potential damage)
345
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 10-9. Intensity Scale for Oak Ridge M7.16 Earthquake Scenario Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
USGS, Esri
Mercalli Intensity Scale
V (Moderate/Very Light)
VI (Strong/Light)
VII (Very Strong/Moderate)
VIII (Severe/Moderate-Heavy)
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
Intensity scale described as:
(perceived shaking / potential damage)
346
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 10-10. Intensity Scale for San Cayetano M7.16 Earthquake Scenario Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
USGS, Esri
Mercalli Intensity Scale
V (Moderate/Very Light)
VI (Strong/Light)
VII (Very Strong/Moderate)
VIII (Severe/Moderate-Heavy)
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
Intensity scale described as:
(perceived shaking / potential damage)
347
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 10-11. Intensity Scale for South San Andreas M8.03 Earthquake Scenario Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
USGS, Esri
Mercalli Intensity Scale
V (Moderate/Very Light)
VI (Strong/Light)
VII (Very Strong/Moderate)
VIII (Severe/Moderate-Heavy)
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
Intensity scale described as:
(perceived shaking / potential damage)
348
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 10-12. Intensity Scale for Ventura-Pitas Point M7.12 Earthquake Scenario Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
USGS, Esri
Mercalli Intensity Scale
V (Moderate/Very Light)
VI (Strong/Light)
VII (Very Strong/Moderate)
VIII (Severe/Moderate-Heavy)
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
Intensity scale described as:
(perceived shaking / potential damage)
349
Earthquake
10-21
Building Age
Table 10-8 identifies significant milestones in building and seismic code requirements that directly affect the structural integrity of development. Using U.S. Census estimates of housing stock age, estimates were developed of the number of housing units constructed before each of these dates. Almost 18 percent of the planning area’s housing units were constructed after the Uniform Building Code was amended in 1994 to include seismic safety provisions. Housing units built before 1939 when there were no building permits, inspections, or seismic standards, account for 3.6 percent. Many of the housing units in the planning area are detached, single-family residences of wood construction, which generally perform well during earthquake events.

Table 10-8. Age of Housing Units in Planning Area
Time Period
Number of Current Planning Area
Housing Units Built in Period
% of Total Housing
Units Significance of Time Frame
Pre-1939 10,455 3.6 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.
1940-1959 36,544 12.7 In 1940, the first strong motion recording was made. 1960-1979 123,979 42.9 In 1960, the Structural Engineers Association of California published guidelines on recommended earthquake
provisions. In 1975, significant improvements were made to lateral force requirements.
1980-1999 81,631 28.2 In 1994, the Uniform Building Code was amended to include provisions for seismic safety.
2000-present 36,287 12.6 Seismic code is currently enforced.

Total 288,896 100%
Note: Number and percent estimates are approximation as housing unit age information does not correspond directly with the time periods indicated. In addition, there are significant margins of error associated with the Census estimates.

Source: 2019 American Community Survey, Ventura County, California

10.4.3 Critical Facilities
The following are significant critical facilities that Hazus predicts would have at least a 50 percent change of at least moderate damage for the Oak Ridge scenario earthquake:
• 1 water reclamation plant
• 18 wastewater treatment facilities
• 92 hazardous material sites
• 7 hospitals
• 65 fire stations or battalion headquarters
• 6 sheriff stations
• 271 schools
• 4 port facilities
• 1 airports
350
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-22
Level of Damage
Hazus classifies the vulnerability of critical facilities to earthquake as no damage, slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, or complete damage. Hazus was used to assign a category to each critical facility in the planning area for the assessed earthquake scenarios. Figure 10-13 through Figure 10-17 show the results for the evaluated events as the average estimated probability for all facilities in each category.

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 of critical facilities in the planning area was performed for the assessed earthquake scenarios. Figure 10-18 through Figure 10-22 show the results as the average estimated probability for all facilities in each category.

Figure 10-13. Critical Facility Damage Potential, 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Slight Damage or Greater Moderate Damage or Greater Extensive or Complete Damage Probability of Experiencing Damage Level Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
351
Earthquake
10-23
Figure 10-14. Critical Facility Damage Potential, Oak Ridge M7.16 Earthquake Scenario Figure 10-15. Critical Facility Damage Potential, San Cayetano M7.16 Earthquake Scenario 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Slight Damage or Greater Moderate Damage or Greater Extensive or Complete Damage Probability of Experiencing Damage Level Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Slight Damage or Greater Moderate Damage or Greater Extensive or Complete Damage Probability of Experiencing Damage Level Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
352
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-24
Figure 10-16. Critical Facility Damage Potential, S San Andreas M8.03 Earthquake Scenario Figure 10-17. Critical Facility Damage Potential, Ventura-Pitas Point M7.12 Earthquake Scenario 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Slight Damage or Greater Moderate Damage or Greater Extensive or Complete Damage Probability of Experiencing Damage Level Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Slight Damage or Greater Moderate Damage or Greater Extensive or Complete Damage Probability of Experiencing Damage Level Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
353
Earthquake
10-25
Figure 10-18. Critical Facility Functionality, 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario Figure 10-19. Critical Facility Functionality, Oak Ridge M7.16 Earthquake Scenario 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Probability of Being Fully functional on Day Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Probability of Being Fully functional on Day Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
354
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-26
Figure 10-20. Critical Facility Functionality, San Cayetano M7.16 Earthquake Scenario Figure 10-21. Critical Facility Functionality, S San Andreas M8.03 Earthquake Scenario 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Probability of Being Fully functional on Day Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Probability of Being Fully functional on Day Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
355
Earthquake
10-27
Figure 10-22. Critical Facility Functionality, Ventura-Pitas Point M7.12 Earthquake Scenario

10.4.4 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 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.

Streams fed by groundwater wells can dry up because of changes in underlying geology.

10.5 SCENARIO
Based on history and geology, the planning area will be frequently impacted by earthquakes. The worst-case scenario is a higher-magnitude event (7.5 or higher) with an epicenter within 50 miles of the county. Earthquakes of this magnitude or higher could lead to massive structural failure of property on soils prone to liquefaction. Building and road foundations would lose load-bearing strength. Injuries could occur from debris, such as parapets and chimneys that could topple or be shaken loose and fall on those walking or driving below. Levees and revetments built on these poor soils would likely fail, representing a loss of critical infrastructure. An earthquake event of this magnitude located off the coast could cause a significant local tsunami that would further damage structures and jeopardize lives. An earthquake may also cause minor landslides along unstable slopes, which put at risk major roads and highways that act as sole evacuation routes. This would be even more likely if the earthquake occurred during the winter or early spring.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Probability of Being Fully functional on Day Shown,
Average of All Facilities in Category (%)
Safety and Security
Food, Water and Shelter
Medical and Health
Energy
Communications
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
356
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-28

10.6 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 suffer complete or extensive damage from scenario events. These facilities are prime targets for structural retrofits. • Critical facility owners 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 large number of earthen dams within 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. The County levees should also be included in any assessments for earthquake risk.
• Earthquakes could trigger other natural hazard events such as dam failures, flooding, fire, and landslides, which could severely damage the County.
• A worst-case scenario would be the occurrence of a large seismic event during a flood or highwater event. Levees would fail at multiple locations, increasing the impacts of the individual events.
• Residents are expected to be self-sufficient up to 3 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 truly be prepared for disaster.
• After a major seismic event, Ventura County is likely to experience disruptions in the flow of goods and services resulting from the destruction of major transportation infrastructure across the broader region.
357
11-1

11. FLOOD

11.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND

11.1.1 Types of Flooding in the Planning Area
Riverine Floods
Riverine flooding is overbank flooding of rivers and streams. Natural processes of riverine flooding add sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. 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 the major rivers. Two types of flood hazards are generally associated with riverine flooding:
• Inundation—Inundation occurs when floodwater is present and debris flows through an area not normally covered by water. These events cause minor to severe damage, depending on velocity and depth of flows, duration of the flood event, quantity of logs and other debris carried by the flows, and amount and type of development and personal property along the floodwater’s path.
• Channel Migration—Erosion of banks and soils worn away by flowing water, combined with sediment deposition, causes migration or lateral movement of a river channel across a floodplain. A channel can also abruptly change location (termed “avulsion”); a shift in channel location over a large distance can occur within as short a time as one flood event.

The frequency and severity of flooding for river systems are based on discharge probability. The discharge probability 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 different discharge levels and storm surge levels. These measurements reflect statistical averages only; it is possible for multiple floods with a low probability of occurrence (such as a 1- percent-annual-chance flood) to occur in a short time period. For riverine flooding, the same flood event can have flows at different points on a river that correspond to different probabilities of occurrence.

Shallow area flooding is a special type of riverine flooding. FEMA defines shallow flood hazards as areas 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.

Stormwater Runoff Floods
Stormwater flooding is a result of local drainage issues and high groundwater levels. Locally, heavy rain, especially during high lunar tide events, may induce flooding within areas other than delineated 358
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-2
floodplains or along recognizable channels due to presence of storm system outfalls inadequate to provide gravity drainage into the adjacent body of water. If local conditions cannot accommodate intense precipitation through a combination of infiltration and surface runoff, water may accumulate and cause flooding problems. Flooding issues of this nature generally occur within areas with flat gradients, and generally increase 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.

Urban drainage flooding is caused by increased water runoff due to urban development and drainage systems. Drainage systems are designed to remove surface water from developed areas as quickly as possible to prevent localized flooding on streets and within other urban areas. These systems utilize a closed conveyance system that channels water away from an urban area to surrounding streams, and bypasses natural processes of water filtration through the ground, containment, and evaporation of excess water. 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 within that area.

Flash Floods
The National Weather Service defined a flash flood as follows (National Weather Service 2009a):
“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 can tear out trees, undermine buildings and bridges, and scour new channels. In urban areas, flash flooding is an increasingly serious problem due to 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 occurrence with little to no warning. Major factors in predicting potential damage are intensity and duration of rainfall, and steepness of watershed and streams.

Coastal Floods
Coastal floods are usually caused by coastal storms that, when combined with normal tides, push water toward the shore. This is commonly referred to as storm surge. The result can be waves that extend further inland, causing damage to development that would not normally be subject to wave action.

Coastal floodplains are adjacent to the ocean and other tidally influenced areas. The floodplains may be broad or narrow, depending on local topography and natural flood defenses such as dune systems or tidal wetlands.

Levee-Failure Floods
Levees can help reduce the risk of flooding, but they do not eliminate the risk. Levees deteriorate over time and must be maintained to retain their effectiveness. A levee failure can occur when a levee is damaged, experiences surface or foundation erosion, or is overtopped by floodwaters or storm surge 359
Flood
11-3
that are higher than the lowest crest of the levee system. When levees fail or are overtopped, the results can be catastrophic. The resulting damage can be greater than if the levee had not been built.

11.1.2 FEMA Regulatory Flood Zones
The extent of flooding associated with a 1-percent annual probability of occurrence (also called the base flood) is used as a regulatory boundary by many agencies. Also referred to as the special flood hazard area (SFHA), this boundary is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in floodprone communities. Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of flooding for the base flood. 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.

Mapped 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 (Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps), which provide the following information:
• Locations of specific properties in relation to special flood hazard areas • 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 floodplains).

Land covered by floodwaters of the base flood is the special flood hazard area on a DFIRM—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 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-annualchance flood designations.

DFIRMs and other flood hazard information can be used to identify the expected spatial extent of flooding from a 1 percent and 0.2 percent-annual-chance event. They depict the following SFHAs and other areas:
• 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. 360
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-4
• 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. • Zone AH—SFHAs that are subject to shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones.
• Zone AO—SFHAs subject to inundation by types of shallow flooding where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. These are normally areas prone to shallow sheet flow flooding on sloping terrain.
• Zone AR—Areas with a temporarily increased flood risk due to the building or restoration of flood control system (such as a levee or a dam). Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply, but rates do not exceed the rates for unnumbered A zones if the structure is built or restored in compliance with Zone AR floodplain management regulations. • Zone A99—Areas with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding that will be protected by a federal flood control system where construction has reached specified legal requirements. No depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones.
• Zone B and X (shaded)—Zones where the land elevation as been determined to be above the base flood elevation, but below the 500-year flood elevation. These zones are not SFHAs. • Zones C and X (unshaded)—Zones where the land elevation has been determined to be above both the base flood elevation and the 500-year flood elevation. These zones are not SFHAs.

Floodways
The FEMA designated floodway is the channel of a water course and portion of the adjacent floodplain that is needed to convey the base flood without increasing flood levels by more than a specified amount (typically, 1 foot). A floodway may be designated within the SFHA where the deepest, highest velocity flow is expected and any infrastructure will be at risk. Floodways should be kept free of obstructions and development to allow floodwaters to move downstream unobstructed. Any development in a floodway is subject to severe damage and high risks for occupants and emergency responders.

Unmapped Flood Areas
Flood damage may occur outside of SFHAs. FEMA typically does not designate SFHAs for areas subject to flooding from local drainage problems, particularly in urban areas; drainage basins of less than 1 square mile in area; or hillside areas subject to runoff, erosion, and mudflow. FEMA does not map flooding along the length of all streams or in areas that are undeveloped.

Coastal Flood Hazard Zones
Coastal floods are characterized by inundation of normally dry lands by ocean waters, often caused by storm surge associated with severe storms, tsunamis, or extreme high tide events that result in shallow flooding of low lying coastal areas. Storm surge floods typically result in coastal erosion, salinization of freshwater sources, and contamination of water supplies. These floods are also responsible for significant agricultural losses, loss of life, and damage to public and private structures and infrastructure. DFIRMS depict two coastal flood hazard zones:
361
Flood
11-5
• Zone VE, where the flood elevation includes wave heights equal to or greater than 3 feet. • Zone AE, where flood elevation includes wave heights less than 3 feet.

Wave heights as low as 1.5 feet can cause significant damage to structures built without consideration of coastal hazards. Newer DFIRMs for coastal areas include a line showing the limit of moderate wave action (LiMWA), the inland limit of the area expected to receive 1.5-foot or greater breaking waves during the 1- percent annual-chance flood event (Figure 11-1). The area between Zone VE and the LiMWA is subject to flood hazards associated with floating debris and high-velocity flow that can erode and scour building foundations and, in extreme cases, cause foundation failure. Addition of LiMWA area to DFIRMs alerts property owners that their properties may be affected by 1.5-foot or higher breaking waves, and may therefore be at significant risk during a 1-percent-annual-chance flood event (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2020).

Figure 11-1. Limit of Moderate Wave Action
Source: Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2020

11.1.3 Floodplains
A floodplain is the area adjacent to a river, creek, lake or the ocean that becomes inundated during a flood. Riverine 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.
362
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-6
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.

Floodplain Ecosystems and Beneficial Functions
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.

Floodplains have many natural beneficial functions, and disruption of them 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
• Provide groundwater recharge
• Promote infiltration and aquifer recharge
• Reduce frequency and duration of low surface
flows
Areas in the floodplain that typically provide these natural functions are wetlands, riparian areas, sensitive areas, and habitats for rare and endangered species.

Effects of Human Activities
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; riverine floodplain land is fertile and suitable for farming; transportation by water is easily accessible; land is flatter and easier to develop; and there is value placed in ocean views. 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 or causing erosion of natural flood protection systems such as dunes. Flood potential can be increased in several ways: reducing a stream’s capacity to contain flows; increasing flow rates or velocities downstream; and allowing waves 363
Flood
11-7
to extend further inland. Human activities can interface effectively with a floodplain as long as steps are taken to mitigate the activities’ adverse impacts on floodplain functions.

11.1.4 Secondary Hazards
The most problematic secondary hazard for riverine flooding is bank erosion, in some cases 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 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.

11.2 HAZARD PROFILE

11.2.1 Federal Flood Program Participation
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The first flood maps of the planning area became available in 1974 and 1975. Properties constructed after adoption of a FIRM or DFIRM are considered less vulnerable to flooding because they were constructed after adoption of regulations and codes to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before adoption of a FIRM or DFIRM are more vulnerable to flooding because either they do not meet code or are within hazardous areas.

Table 11-1 lists flood insurance statistics for planning-area municipalities that participate in the NFIP.

Nearly 6,300 policies are in force, providing more than $1.7 million in insurance. According to FEMA statistics, 1,174 flood insurance claims were paid between January 1, 1978, and March 31, 2021, for a total of $13,243,730, an average of $11,281 per claim.

Table 11-1. Flood Insurance Statistics
Date of
Entry
# of Flood Insurance
Policies, as of 3/31/2021
Insurance in
Force
Total Annual
Premiums
Claims,
1/1/1978 to
3/31/2021
Value of Claims Paid,
1/1/1978 to 3/31/2021
Camarillo 9/29/1986 664 $203,471,400 $534,728 21 $1,135,612 Fillmore 10/17/1978 74 $22,517,800 $34,315 37 $226,509
Moorpark 9/29/1986 117 $39,692,000 $114,239 2 $33,576
Ojai 10/17/1978 79 $25,299,000 $41,007 43 $223,301
Oxnard 3/1/1979 497 $166,210,700 $323,235 71 $244,574
Port Hueneme 9/24/1984 57 $17,732,000 $37,235 7 $846
Santa Paula 4/15/1980 1,021 $306,954,400 $604,233 63 $134,387 Simi Valley 9/27/1991 1,624 $425,325,500 $1,337,947 82 $116,840 Thousand Oaks 9/29/1978 336 $109,948,800 $253,564 62 $341,390 Ventura 9/29/1986 471 $161.828,500 $374,421 62 $660,191 Unincorporated 10/31/1985 1,346 $395,320,600 $1,327,849 724 $10,126,504 Total 6,286 $1,712,472,200 $4,982,773 1,174 $13,243,730 364
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-8
To be eligible to participate in the NFIP, a local government must possess the authority to adopt codes and standards to regulate development in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The special purpose district planning partners do not possess these authorities and are therefore not listed in this section.

Additionally, their jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2 do not address federal hazard mitigation planning requirements related to the NFIP.

Community Rating System
Ventura County and the Cities of Oxnard and Simi Valley currently participate in the CRS program.

Table 11-2 summarizes the CRS status of each. Many of the mitigation actions identified in this plan are creditable activities under the CRS program. Therefore, successful implementation of this plan offers potential to enhance the CRS classification.

Table 11-2. CRS Status of Participating Jurisdictions
Current CRS Premium Discount
Jurisdiction NFIP Community # CRS Entry Date Classification SFHA Non-SFHA Oxnard 060417 5/1/2013 7 15 5
Simi Valley 060421 10/1/1993 5 25 10
Ventura County 060413 10/1/2011 5 25 10

11.2.2 Ventura County Public Works Agency—Watershed Protection Ventura County Public Works Agency—Watershed Protection (VCPWA-WP), formerly known as the Ventura County Flood Control District, was formed on September 12, 1944, by an act of the California State Legislature. It is a dependent county special district (governed by a city or county council or board or its appointees). The Ventura County Board of Supervisors governs VCPWA-WP, and it is administratively housed in the Ventura County Public Works Agency. Its mission is to protect life, property, and community infrastructure from flood events, improve water resources management, and enhance the health and natural function of watersheds in Ventura County. The goals of VCPWA-WP include the following:
• Comprehensive, long range watershed planning
• Collaboration with watershed stakeholders
• Administration of adopted regulations, policies, and resolutions • Responsible and accountable use of public resources
• Excellence in public service

11.2.3 Ventura County Watershed Zones
The sections below describe watershed zones in Ventura County that VCPWA-WP uses for planning.

Zone 1 Ventura River
The watershed of the Ventura River and its tributaries, covering the west-center portion of Ventura County, is the major watershed in Flood Zone 1. Significant tributaries to the Ventura River are Matilija Creek, North Fork Matilija Creek, Coyote Creek, Senior Canyon, Reeves Creek, Thacher Creek, Lion 365
Flood
11-9
Canyon, Coyote Creek, San Antonio Creek, and Cañada Larga. The Ventura River watershed covers 223 square miles—a little less than half of it within the Los Padres National Forest. The Ventura River discharges directly to the Pacific Ocean and serves as the western boundary of the City of San Buenaventura (Ventura).

Zone 2 Santa Clara River
The major river in Flood Zone 2 is the Santa Clara River with a watershed area of 1,634 square miles.

Most streams in Zone 2 are tributaries to the Santa Clara River with eventual drainage to the Pacific Ocean. The only exceptions are minor water courses in coastal watershed areas of the Cities of Oxnard, San Buenaventura, and Port Hueneme that drain directly to the Pacific Ocean. The largest of these direct-coastal drainages is the Arundell Barranca, which collects and channels runoff from Lake and Sexton Canyons in the City of San Buenaventura foothill areas before discharging into Ventura Harbor.

Zone 3 Calleguas Creek
The major river in Flood Zone 3 is Calleguas Creek with a watershed area of 341 square miles. All stream flows in Zone 3 eventually end up in Mugu Lagoon before entering the Pacific Ocean. Major tributaries to Calleguas Creek are Revolon Slough (drains a portion of Flood Zone 2), Conejo Creek, Arroyo Santa Rosa, Arroyo Conejo, Arroyo Las Posas/Arroyo Simi, Happy Camp Canyon, Lang Creek, and Tapo Canyon. Virtually the entire watershed is within Ventura County, with dozens of smaller creeks.

Zone 4 South and North
Ventura County Flood Zone 4 covers 225,000 acres in three unconnected areas:
• The southeast area (Zone 4 South) includes 61,000 acres of coastal drainages for tributaries to Malibu Canyon (or Malibu Creek), areas surrounding Lake Sherwood, Potrero Creek, Westlake Village, and the coastal streams of Deer Canyon and Big and Little Sycamore Creeks, draining the northern tip of the Santa Monica Mountains directly into the Pacific Ocean. • The northwest area (see Zone 4 North) is primarily the watershed of the Cuyama River, which covers about 150,000 acres within Ventura County.
• The remaining 14,000 acres in the relatively undeveloped northeast corner of the county (Zone 4 Northeast) drains outside the County to the north and then to the east. This area includes Frazier Mountain Creek and Mill Canyon Creek, which are tributaries to Cuddy Creek in Kern County. Cuddy Creek follows the San Andreas Fault trace before terminating in the enclosed runoff basin called Castac Lake.

Coastal Creeks
The following areas near the coastline drain directly to the Pacific Ocean (Ventura County Public Works Agency 2020b):
• North Coast—At the Santa Barbara-Ventura County Line and south of it, several coastal creeks drain the face of the Santa Ynez Mountains. This area is referred to as the North Coast of Ventura County (sometimes also called the Rincon coast). It includes the principal stream of 366
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-10
Rincon Creek, as well as Las Sauces Creek, Madranio Canyon, Javon Canyon, Padre Juan Canyon, and Line Canyon. The southern boundary is at the northern banks of the Ventura River.
• Mid Coast—The Mid Coast (sometimes also called the Oxnard Plain Coastal Area) includes minor stream courses between the Ventura River and Calleguas Creek-Mugu Rock. This stretch of coastline is dominated by urban runoff carrying high pollutant concentrations from residential and industrial activities.
• South Coast—Runoff channels and stream courses between Mugu Rock and the Ventura-Los Angeles County Line are referred to as South Coast streams. These include La Jolla Canyon, Big Sycamore Canyon, Little Sycamore Canyon, and Deer Creek Canyon—all of which drain to the western extent of the Santa Monica Mountains. The next drainage to the south—Arroyo Sequit-Triunfo Canyon Creek—is just past the county line and thus under Los Angeles County control.

11.2.4 Principal Flooding Sources and Floodplains
Upland Flooding
The mountainous terrain of northern Ventura County and the hills in the central and eastern parts of the county give rise to numerous annual streams, many draining into steep canyons. These streams are subject to floods of relatively short duration, often following high-intensity rainfall. Such floods may occur with little warning and carry large quantities of sediment and debris. Communities adjacent to the upland areas, such as Fillmore, Ojai, Piru, and Santa Paula, are subject to this hazard. Many of the watersheds in question contain dams or basins designed to attenuate flow and trap debris, reducing the effects on downstream communities.

Broad Floodplains
The watersheds of the Santa Clara River (watershed area of 1,650 square miles), the Ventura River (watershed area of 226 square miles), and Calleguas Creek (watershed area of 325 square miles) drain to the broad coastal plain in the southern part of Ventura County. This plain is subject to inundation during longer intervals of rain, typically as the result of a series of winter storms. These floods typically have longer duration and may be forecast with more warning time. Because of its sediment load, the Santa Clara River has migrated across the valley floor during significant floods. Numerous levees have been built in the Santa Clara River Valley to protect agricultural lands along the river. The levees are typically not sufficient to withstand severe flood events.

Coastal Flooding
The County’s 43-mile coastline is subject to tidal flooding, storm surge, and wave action, all of which usually occur during winter storms. Severe wave action is generally confined to narrow areas immediately adjacent to the tidal zone, including Sea Cliff Colony, Oxnard Shores, Silver Strand Beach, and several sections of U.S. 101 from Rincon Point to Emma Wood State Park. The effects of coastal flooding can be severe. In addition to wave action, beach and bluff erosion can cause significant damage to coast-side homes and infrastructure. Coastal flooding may also occur as the result of tsunamis caused by earthquakes or undersea landslides.
367
Flood
11-11
Winter coastal storms can cause minor coastal erosion along the shores of Ventura County. Coastal erosion is a natural process that occurs particularly in winter, when coastal storms wear away land by the action of waves and tides. Material deposited on beaches during the mild summer and fall months gets redistributed by the waves. According to City of San Buenaventura engineers, most of the sand is pulled just off coast and then comes back to shore over time. Although most receding sand stays fairly close to shore, some is driven south by currents until it reaches Hueneme Canyon, a large deep-water depression near the Port of Hueneme.

Unmapped Flood Hazard Areas
Unmapped flood hazard areas include numerous small channels. Agricultural drainage ditches and urban drains cover much of the flatter parts and urban areas of Ventura County. Flooding in these areas is due to high-intensity rainfall over a very short period. The flooding is usually shallow and mainly affects roadways and other low-lying areas. The Hollywood Beach and Silver Strand residential coastal communities have historically experienced localized flooding conditions, primarily due to inadequate storm drainage infrastructure and topography. These residential coastal communities (largely built out) are not currently mapped by FEMA in the Zone VE coastal high hazard SFHA. They have historically been mapped by FEMA as a Zone B and most recently under the DFIRMs as a Zone X-Shaded (500-year floodplain).

11.2.5 Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Functions
The county’s floodplains drain into five major wetlands as described in the sections below. A wetland is an area of land whose soil is saturated with moisture either permanently or seasonally. Such areas may also be covered partially or completely by shallow pools of water. Wetlands include swamps, marshes, and bogs; the water found in wetlands can be saltwater, freshwater, or a mixture of both.

McGrath Lake Wetlands
Located on the western city limits of Oxnard, the McGrath Lake wetlands extend south from the Santa Clara River. A small lake within the wetlands helps to attract more than 200 species of birds. The Santa Clara Estuary Natural Preserve on the northern boundary of McGrath Lake Park offers a refuge for birds and habitat for burrowing animals. In April 2010, the Nature Conservancy, the State of California, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service purchased 141 acres of prime riparian habitat, agriculture fields, and floodplains within the McGrath Lake Wetlands to become part of the Santa Clara River Parkway.

The parkway was established to protect and restore the river’s floodplain and functions, and to provide recreational opportunities such as hiking and bird watching.

Mugu Lagoon
The Mugu Lagoon consists of 1,474 acres of wetlands on the Point Mugu Naval Base, 8 miles southeast of the City of Oxnard. Calleguas Creek flows into the lagoon. In addition, there is a tidal connection through an inlet in the barrier beach. High concentrations of banned pesticides are found in lagoon’s sediment. The Navy has undertaken several wetland restoration projects since the mid-1990s, restoring several acres of tidal mudflats, sandflats, channels, ponds, salt marsh, and sand islands. A number of special-status species inhabit the lagoon.
368
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-12
Ormond Beach Wetlands
The Ormond Beach wetlands, located in the City of Oxnard between the Port of Hueneme and the Point Mugu Naval Base, support many rare plants and hundreds of species of migratory birds. A secondary metal smelter, operating at Ormond Beach from 1965 to 2004, created such a large amount toxic pollution that the site is now a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site. A oncethrough-cooling natural gas power plant, scheduled to be decommissioned in 2023, also is located within the wetlands. The California State Coastal Conservancy, the City of Oxnard, and The Nature Conservancy are spearheading efforts to permanently protect habitat and expand and restore the wetlands. As of late 2020, these groups had acquired 650 acres of the wetlands (ESA 2021).

Santa Clara River Estuary
The 49-acre Santa Clara River
Estuary is at the mouth of the Santa
Clara River and the Pacific Ocean
near the City of San Buenaventura.

The river drains a 1,600-square-mile
watershed. The estuary provides
habitat to many listed species such
as the southern California steelhead
trout. The recovery plan for southern
California steelhead identified the
Santa Clara River as one of the
highest priority sites for recovery
actions. In 2015, with funding
provided by state and federal wildlife
agencies, the Wishtoyo Chumash
Foundation drafted a habitat
restoration and enhancement
feasibility study for the Santa Clara
River Estuary. The purpose of the
study was to assess the feasibility of
expanding and enhancing estuarine
habitat for steelhead and other
native and protected species by
restoring and by providing lagoon,
side channel, contiguous wetland,
and additional upland riparian
habitat, or a combination of each.

Ventura River Estuary
The 110-acre Ventura River Estuary, directly west of the City of San Buenaventura, drains a 226- square-mile watershed. The estuary is home to several special-status species. In 1996, the Ventura River Estuary Enhancement Plan was implemented to restore and enhance the estuary. The plan Treatment Plant Discharge to the Santa Clara River Estuary The City of San Buenaventura’s sewage treatment plant discharges up to 9 million gallons per day of tertiary treated wastewater into the Santa Clara River Estuary. This discharge—one of the last remaining estuary discharges in California—is in conflict with the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Quality Control Policy for the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (Resolution No. 74-43, 1974), which mandates that the discharge of municipal and industrial wastewaters to enclosed bays and estuaries be phased out. Exceptions to this policy are limited to circumstances in which a regional water quality control board finds that the treated wastewater enhances the quality of receiving waters.

The City of San Buenaventura has been granted an exception since 1977 on the basis that the treatment plant’s discharge enhanced fish and wildlife habitat and non-contact water recreation. However, more recent information about the relationship of the discharge to the ecological function of the estuary is lacking.

Issues associated with the discharge include impacts of nutrient-rich water in the estuary and the artificial hydrology created by the volume of water. With this discharge, the lagoon fills up and breaches more frequently than it would under natural conditions. In 2008, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board required the City of San Buenaventura, as a condition to continue the current discharge practice, to perform three studies to evaluate environmental solutions.

The Santa Clara River Estuary Scientific Review Panel convened in 2017 to determine how much, if any, discharge from the Ventura Water Reclamation Facility is needed to protect and sustain the native and endangered species known to use the Santa Clara River Estuary, and how much discharge could be eliminated to protect these species and sustain additional priority beneficial uses.

The panel recommended a 90 percent diversion from the current discharge volumes (Santa Clara River Estuary Scientific Review Panel 2018). In 2019 Ventura City Council approved a $200 million wastewater treatment plant to increase drinking water resources and reduce the treated wastewater released into the Santa Clara River estuary. The city plans to reduce its estuary discharge to less than 500,000 gallons per day by 2030 (Tuser 2019).
369
Flood
11-13
outlines riparian restoration along the river, its floodplain, and the surrounding dunes; re-creation of habitat types; habitat protective fencing; and trail soil stabilization.

11.2.6 Past Events
Major Historical Floods
Damaging floods in Ventura County were reported as early as the middle of the 1800s. A 1945 report by the Ventura County Flood Control District described floods that caused extensive damage in 1862, 1867, 1884, 1911, 1914, 1938, 1941, 1943, and 1944.

The largest and most damaging natural floods recorded in the Santa Clara and Ventura watersheds occurred in January and February of 1969. The January flood was a result of the highest monthly precipitation total ever recorded in Ventura County at that time. The February flood was a result of intense rainfall similar in magnitude to the rainfall that caused the record-breaking flood in January. The combined effects of the 1969 floods were disastrous: 13 people lost their lives, and property damage was estimated at $60 million (1969 dollars). Homes in Casitas Springs, Live Oak Acres, and Fillmore were flooded, and 3,000 residents in Santa Paula and several families in Fillmore were evacuated twice. A break in the Santa Clara River levee threatened the City of Oxnard. Agricultural land, primarily citrus groves, was seriously damaged or destroyed. All over the county, transportation facilities, including roads, bridges, and railroad tracks, were damaged. The Fillmore, Oak View, and Ventura sewage treatment plants were severely damaged and dumped raw sewage into the Santa Clara and Ventura Rivers. The untreated sewage polluted the rivers and the beaches at their outlets into the ocean. Sewer trunk lines broke along the Ventura River and San Antonio Creek. Suspended sediment concentrations and discharge in many streams greatly exceeded any previously measured levels in the flood-affected areas (Ventura County 2015).

In 1980, Calleguas Creek breached its levee in the Oxnard Plain, and flooding and sediment deposition caused $9 million (in 1980 dollars) in damage to the Point Mugu Naval Base. Floodwaters covered about 1,500 acres of farmland. The peak discharge was 9,310 cubic feet per second at the Madera Road Bridge in Simi Valley.

In 1983, a federal disaster was declared because of storm damage. Repairs to flood-control facilities have been estimated to cost $15 million (in 1983 dollars). Improved channels in Moorpark and Simi Valley suffered severe damage from erosion during this event, and Calleguas Creek experienced record flooding. Damage to other public and private facilities has been estimated at $39 million, with little more than half of that total due to damage to agricultural lands.

Recent Floods
Table 11-3 lists major flood events to affect Ventura County since 2000. 370
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-14
Table 11-3. History of Flood Events
Date Event Type Locations Deaths or Injuries Property Damage June 2, 2019 Flash Flood Wheeler Springs 0 N/A
May 29, 2019 Flash Flood Wheeler Springs 0 N/A
March 22-23, 2018 Flash Flood Seacliff 0 N/A
March 22-23, 2018 Flash Flood Haines 0 N/A
February 17, 2017 Flash Flood Dulah 0 N/A
February 17, 2017 Flash Flood Newbury Park 4 N/A
February 17, 2017 Flash Flood Somis 0 N/A
March 7, 2016 Flash Flood Dulah 0 N/A
January 6, 2016 Flash Flood Dulah 0 N/A
January 6, 2016 Flash Flood Piru 0 N/A
January 5, 2016 Flash Flood Dulah 0 N/A
July 30, 2015 Flash Flood Wheeler Springs 0 N/A
June 12, 2015 Flash Flood Wheeler Springs 0 N/A
March 1, 2015 Flash Flood Point Mugu 0 N/A
December 12, 2014 Flash Flood Santa Susana 0 N/A
December 12, 2014 Flash Flood Camarillo 0 Ten homes severely damaged July 22, 2013 Flash Flood Gorman 0 N/A
September 13, 2011 Flash Flood Wheeler Springs 0 N/A
July 5, 2011 Flash Flood Wheeler Springs 0 N/A
July 4, 2011 Flash Flood Lockwood Valley 0 N/A
October 2, 2010 Flash Flood Wheeler Springs 0 Vehicle damaged January 20, 2010 Flash Flood Moorpark 1 N/A
July 13-14, 2008 Flash Flood Wheeler Springs 0 N/A
January 25, 2008 Flash Flood Moorpark 0 N/A
January 4, 2008 Flash Flood Santa Paula 0 N/A
January 4, 2008 Flash Flood Fillmore 0 N/A
October 14, 2006 Flash Flood Piru 0 N/A
July 24, 2006 Flash Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
July 23, 2005 Flash Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
February 20-21, 2005 Flood, Flash Flood Ventura Countya 0 $8 million February 18, 2005 Flash Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
January 9-10, 2005 Flash Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
January 21, 2005 Coastal Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
January 3, 2005 Flash Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
February 25-26, 2004 Flash Flood Simi Valley 0 N/A
March 15, 2003 Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
December 17, 2002 Flood Ventura County Coasta 0 N/A
November 30, 2002 Flash Flood Santa Paula 0 N/A
December 20, 2001 Flood City of San Buenaventurab 0 N/A November 24, 2001 Flood City of San Buenaventurab 0 N/A November 12, 2001 Flood City of San Buenaventurab 0 N/A November 12, 2001 Flood El Rio 0 N/A
November 12, 2001 Flood Newbury Park 0 N/A
September 3, 2001 Flash Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
July 7, 2001 Flash Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
March 5, 2001 Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
371
Flood
11-15
Date Event Type Locations Deaths or Injuries Property Damage January 11-12, 2001 Flood Ventura County Coasta 0 N/A
August 1, 2000 Flash Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
April 17, 2000 Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
February 20-21, 2000 Flood Ventura Countya 0 N/A
February 20, 2000 Flash Flood Ojai 0 N/A
a. Multiple locations are associated with this event.
b. The City of San Buenaventura is commonly called the City of Ventura.

Source: NCEI Storm Events Database 2021

11.2.7 Location
Levee-Protected Areas
Sixty-eight miles of levees are located throughout Ventura County. Two of these levees have undergone detailed economic analysis studies: the 2.65-mile-long Ventura River Levee (VR-1) and the

4.72-mile-long Santa Clara River Levee (SCR-1). Figure 11-2 and Figure 11-3 show the flood hazard areas defined in the levee studies, which were used in the risk assessment scenario of this plan. For consistency with the FEMA data, the 1 percent-annual chance and 0.2 percent-annual chance flood hazard areas of the levee studies were used (indicated on the figures as 100-year and 500-year floods).

Mapped Flood Zones
Flooding in Ventura County has been documented by gage records, high water marks, damage surveys, and personal accounts. This documentation was the basis for the January 2021 Flood Insurance Study that is incorporated in the current effective DFIRMs. The DFIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available for determining flood extent. Data from the January 2021 Flood Insurance Study was used in this risk assessment to map extents and locations of the 1 percentannual chance and 0.2 percent-annual chance flood hazard areas, as shown on Figure 11-4.

Repetitive Loss
A repetitive loss property is an NFIP-insured property that has experienced repeated flood damage. A repetitive loss area is the portion of a floodplain holding structures that FEMA has identified as repetitive loss properties. Identifying repetitive loss areas helps to identify structures that are at risk but are not on FEMA’s list of repetitive loss structures. FEMA-sponsored programs, such as the CRS, require participating communities to identify repetitive loss areas. Repetitive loss properties in Ventura County are listed in Table 11-4.
372
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-16
Figure 11-2. Floodplains Mapped in the Ventura River Levee Study 373
Flood
11-17
Figure 11-3. Floodplains Mapped in the Santa Clara River Levee Study Table 11-4. Repetitive Loss Properties in Ventura County Jurisdictiona
Repetitive Loss
Properties
Properties That Have
Been Mitigated
Number of
Corrections
Corrected Number of
Repetitive Loss Properties
City of Camarillo 0 * * *
City of Fillmore 0 * * *
City of Moorpark 0 * * *
City of Ojai 0 * * *
City of Oxnard 7 * * *
City of Port Hueneme 0 * * *
City of San Buenaventura 4 * * *
City of Santa Paula 3 * * *
City of Simi Valley 0 * * *
City of Thousand Oaks 5 * * *
Ventura County Unincorporated Areas 63 * * *
Totals 82 * * *
a. Special purpose district planning partners to this plan have no identified repetitive loss properties because districts are not eligible participants in the NFIP.
* Data not available to support this planning effort due to FEMA’s Privacy Act policies and the time associated with processing the requisite Information Sharing Access Agreement (ISAA).

Source: September 9, 2021, FEMA Report of Repetitive Losses 374
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 11-4. FEMA Flood Hazard Areas
Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
FEMA, Esri
1% Annual Chance Flood (100-Year)

0.2% Annual Chance Flood (500-Year)
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
375
Flood
11-19

11.2.8 Frequency
Recurrence intervals and average annual numbers of flood events in Ventura County were calculated as follows based on events from 2000 to 2021 recorded in the NCEI Storm Events Database:
• Coastal floods have a 4.6 percent chance of occurring in any given year • Flash floods have a 173 percent chance
• Other floods have a 54.6 percent chance of occurrence • Total estimated percent chance of occurrence for any type of flood in a given year is 232 percent, meaning that flooding will likely continue to be an annual hazard.

The NCEI database lists 51 significant flooding events in Ventura County from 2000 to 2021, most of which have been flash floods. Smaller floods may occur more frequently and be categorized in the database under a different hazard event type, typically severe weather or severe storms.

11.2.9 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—especially 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 discharges. Peak flows used by FEMA to map floodplains within the planning area are listed in Appendix E. A summary list of only the sources with drainage areas of 20 square miles or greater is provided in Table 11-5.

Table 11-5. Summary of Peak Discharges in Large Ventura County Drainages Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Arroyo Las Posas
Upstream of confluence of Peach Hill Wash 117.4 8,260 17,120 22,090 36,520 Downstream of confluence of Long Canyon Creek 143.4 9,390 19,460 25,100 41,500 Arroyo Simi
Downstream of confluence with Happy Camp Canyon Creek 113.20 8,300 17,200 22,190 36,670 Downstream of Alamos Canyon 88.70 5,670 13,060 17,460 31,200 Downstream of North Simi Canyon 69.50 5,600 12,890 17,240 30,810 Upstream of Bus Canyon Drain 61.50 5,110 11,950 15,900 28,580 Upstream of Tapo Canyon Channel 32.30 4,440 10,220 13,670 24,420 Downstream of Meier Canyon 30.90 4,460 10,270 13,730 24,540 Calleguas Creek
At Highway 1b 262.00 12,230 28,140 37,630 67,240
Downstream of confluence of Conejo Creek 248.30 16,000 30,610 38,460 61,030 Upstream of Conejo Creek & Lewis Drain 168.70 10,390 21,520 27,770 45,900 At Seminary Road 164.90 10,350 21,450 27,680 45,760
376
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-20
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Conejo Creek
At confluence with Calleguas Creek 77.60 9,300 17,800 22,300 35,500 At Highway 101 bridge 71.90 9,560 18,300 22,000 36,500
Downstream of confluence of Arroyo Conejo 60.00 9,660 18,500 23,200 36,900 Coyote Creek
Upstream of confluence with Ventura River 41.10 680 1,980 3,410 4,830 Approximately 570 feet downstream of Casitas Dam Spillway 40.10 671 1,953 3,363 4,766 At Casitas Dam Spillway 38.50 120 370 2,590 3,750
Piru Creek
At confluence with Santa Clara River 441 2,500 33,000 41,000 60,000 Revolon Slough
Downstream of Camarillo Hills Drain 38.70 2,500 7,100 10,000 20,000 At Highway 101 30.00 2,200 6,200 8,700 16,500
San Antonio Creek
At confluence with Ventura Rivera 51.1 9,960 24,715 32,679 51,450 Approximately 410 feet upstream of North Ventura Avenue 49.7 9,930 26,946 37,893 73,689 Upstream of confluence of San Antonio Creek Tributary 46.5 10,430 28,300 39,800 77,690 Upstream of confluence with Lion Canyon Creek 33.8 7,760 21,050 29,600 57,780 Downstream of Stewart Canyon Creek 31.3 8,590 23,320 32,800 64,030 Upstream of confluence of Steward Canyon Creek 26.5 7,620 20,690 29,100 56,800 Downstream of confluence of Thacher Creek 25.4 7,490 20,330 28,600 55,830 Santa Clara River
At mouth 1,625 41,000 116,000 161,000 270,000
At Willard Bridge 1,534 41,000 116,000 161,000 270,000
Upstream of confluence of Santa Paula Creek 1,505 40,000 113,000 157,000 265,000 Downstream of confluence of Sespe Creek 1,500 40,000 113,000 157,000 265,000 Upstream of confluence of Sespe Creek 1,182 23,000 66,000 92,000 160,000 Downstream of confluence of Hopper Creek 1,174 40,000 113,000 157,000 265,000 Downstream of confluence of Piru Creek 1,100 40,000 113,000 157,000 265,000 At Ventura County/Los Angeles County boundary 644 15,000 43,000 60,000 104,000 Santa Paula Creek
At stream gauging station 40 6,800 18,000 26,000 48,000 Sespe Creek
Approximately 4,000 feet downstream of Highway 126 263 33,000 72,000 92,000 145,000 Approximately 5,000 feet upstream of Southern Pacific
Railroad
259 29,000 62,000 80,000 131,000
Tapo Canyon Channel
At confluence with Arroyo Simi 20.70 * * 8,500 *
Ventura River
At Pacific Oceanb 226 34,000 67,000 78,000 103,000
At Shell Chemical Plant 223 41,300 67,900 78,900 105,500 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of confluence of Canada Larga
191 36,583 59,999 70,055 93,593
377
Flood
11-21
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent At Casitas Vista Road 188 36,400 59,700 69,700 93,100
Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Casitas Vista Road 148 35,529 57,135 67,239 90,127 Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of confluence of San Antonio Creek
144 35,000 56,600 66,600 89,000
Approximately 300 feet upstream of confluence of San
Antonio Creek

92.8 16,449 25,493 29,104 37,856
At Baldwin Road 83.0 16,000 24,800 28,300 36,700
Approximately 1,120 feet upstream of Camino Cielo 72.4 15,000 24,000 27,100 35,200 Upstream of confluence of North Fork Matilija Creek 56.4 12,500 18,800 21,600 27,900 Note: All locations are at mouth unless otherwise noted. Locations do not include jurisdictional boundaries. * Data not available
a. Decrease due to overbank losses upstream
b. Discharges are larger than those downstream due to updated hydrology (San Antonio Creek & Ventura River) Source: Ventura County FIS 06111CV002E, FEMA January 29, 2021

11.2.10 Warning Time
Potential warning time available to a community for response to a flooding threat depends on the time between the first measurable rainfall and the first occurrence of flooding. The time needed to recognize a flood threat reduces potential warning time for a community. Because of the sequential pattern of weather conditions needed to cause serious flooding, occurrence of a flood without warning is unusual.

Warning times for floods can be between 24 and 48 hours. Flash flooding can be less predictable, but populations in potential hazard areas can be warned in advance of flash flooding danger.

National Weather Service Watches and Warnings
The National Weather Service (NWS) issues watches and warnings when forecasts indicate rivers may approach bank-full levels. Flood extent or severity categories used by NWS include minor flooding, moderate flooding, and major flooding, based on property damage and public threat:
• 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 necessary evacuations of people and/or transfer of property to higher elevations. • Major Flooding—Extensive inundation of structures and roads. Significant evacuations of people and/or transfer of property to higher elevations (National Weather Service 2009b).

When a watch is issued, the public should prepare for the possibility of a flood. When a warning is issued, the public is advised to stay tuned to a local radio station for further information and be prepared to take quick action if needed. A warning means a flood is imminent, generally within 12 hours, or is occurring. Local media broadcast NWS warnings. Alerts are also sent via Twitter, Everbridge, and email and posted to the VCPWA-WP website. 378
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-22
Ventura County ALERT System
VCPWA-WP operates 90 self-reporting rain gages and 30 self-reporting stream gages. VCPWA-WP also receives telemetered data from 65 additional rain gages and 23 stream gages operated by other agencies. The real-time rain gage data are fed into watershed hydrologic models to predict flow hydrographs and stream levels at stream gage stations installed at strategic locations throughout the County.

The Automated Local Evaluation in Real-Time (ALERT) network is the essential component of the flood warning system. Ventura County implemented a flood warning system for Sespe Creek after a flood in 1978 that caused significant damage in Fillmore. Six rain gages were installed in 1979 in the Sespe Creek and Santa Paula Creek watersheds. All six of these gages remain in operation today.

In response to the 1980 Calleguas Creek flood and with some funding provided by the US Navy, a nine-gage system was installed in the Calleguas Creek watershed. Three are still in their original locations.

The 1980s saw improvement in the technology which included both hardware and software. ALERT transmitters were connected to stream gages so water levels could be monitored in real-time, just like rainfall. Computer software also improved, allowing for display of rainfall and stream flow in graphs and maps. The ALERT network continued to grow with the addition of gages in the Ventura River watershed in response to the 1985 Wheeler Fire. This was the first time that all three of Ventura County watersheds were covered by the ALERT system (Ventura County Public Works Agency 2020a).

Figure 11-5 shows an example of the local flood warning system.

11.3 EXPOSURE
A quantitative assessment of exposure to the flood hazard was conducted using the flood mapping shown in Figure 11-4 and the asset inventory developed for this plan. Detailed results by municipality are provided in Appendix D; results for the total planning area are presented below.

11.3.1 Population
Table 11-6 summarizes the estimated population living in the evaluated flood hazard areas.

Table 11-6. Exposed Population in Evaluated Flood Hazard Zones 1% Annual Chance Flood Zone 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Zone Population Exposed 33,202 180,772
% of Total Planning Area Population 3.9% 21.4%

11.3.2 Property
Table 11-7 summarizes the estimated property exposure in the evaluated flood hazard areas.

Figure 11-6 shows the occupancy class defined by Hazus for all buildings in the mapped floodplains.

These occupancy classes provide an indication of land use within the mapped hazard area. Some land uses are more vulnerable to flood risks, such as single-family homes, while others are less vulnerable, such as agricultural land or parks.
379
Flood
11-23
Figure 11-5. Ventura County Flood Warning System Example Table 11-7. Exposed Property in Evaluated Flood Hazard Zones 1% Annual Chance Flood Zone 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Zone Acres of inundation area 68,046 102,019
Number of Buildings Exposed 12,547 54,978
Value of Exposed Structures $5,265,874,679 $23,232,737,392 Value of Exposed Contents $4,681,379,253 $19,502,977,592 Total Exposed Property Value $9,947,253,933 $42,735,714,984 Total Exposed Value as % of Planning Area Total 5.5% 23.6% 380
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-24
Figure 11-6. Building Occupancy Classes in the Mapped Flood Zones

11.3.3 Critical Facilities
Figure 11-7 and Figure 11-8 show critical facilities located in the 1 percent-annual-chance and

0.2 percent-annual-chance floodplains, respectively, by facility type.

Figure 11-7. Critical Facilities in 1% Annual Chance Floodplain Residential
9,183
73%
Commercial
1,091
Industrial 9%
537
4%
Religion
62 1%
Agriculture
1,427
11%
Government
94 1%
Education
153
1%
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
Residential
44,784
82%
Commercial
3,737
7%
Industrial
1,942
4%
Religion
220
0%
Agriculture
2,372
4%
Government
1,240
2%
Education
683
1%

0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
23 5
22 11
0 13
159
0 50
100
150
200
250
Number of Facilties in Hazard Area
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation

9.2%

4.5%

10.5% 11.8%

0.0%

3.3%

30.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Facilties in Hazard Area as % of Planning Area Total
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
381
Flood
11-25
Figure 11-8. Critical Facilities in 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain A breakdown by municipality is provided in Appendix D. Critical facilities exposed to the flood hazard represent the following percentages of all critical facilities in the planning area:
• 15 percent (233 facilities) of all critical facilities are in the 1 percent-annual-chance flood hazard area.
• 30 percent (466 facilities) of all critical facilities are in the 0.2 percent-annual-chance flood hazard area.

11.3.4 Environment
Because floodplain management measures place restrictions on development in areas affected by flooding, floodplains often have a higher portion of area that is undeveloped open space or natural area. These undeveloped areas represent environment exposed to the flood hazard.

11.4 VULNERABILITY
The results of the vulnerability assessment indicate estimated damage for the 1-percent, and

0.2-percent-annual-chance flood hazards. Detailed results by jurisdiction are included in Appendix D; countywide summaries are provided below.

11.4.1 Population
Flood impacts on persons and households were estimated for each event through the Level 2 Hazus analysis. Table 11-8 summarizes the results.
52 31
61 37
0 82
213
0 50
100
150
200
250
Number of Facilties in Hazard Area
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation

20.8%

27.9% 29.0%

39.8%

0.0%

21.0%

40.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Facilties in Hazard Area as % of Planning Area Total
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
382
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-26
Table 11-8. Estimated Flood Impacts on Persons and Households Number of Persons Displaced Number of Persons Requiring Short-Term Shelter 1% Annual Chance Flood Zone 10,829 785

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Zone 117,102 8,221

11.4.2 Property
Table 11-9 summarizes Hazus estimates of flood damage in the planning area. The debris estimate includes only structural debris and building finishes; it does not include additional debris that may result from a flood event, such as from trees, sediment, building contents, bridges, or utility lines.

Table 11-9. Estimated Impact of a Flood Event in the Planning Area Damage Type 1% Annual Chance Flood Zone 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Zone Structure Debris (Tons) 96,710 396,325
Buildings Impacted 7,885 27,662
Total Value (Structure + Contents) Damaged $743,893,665 $5,725,626,424 Damage as % of Total Replacement Value 0.4% 3.2%

11.4.3 Critical Facilities
Significant facilities predicted by Hazus to be affected by the 1 percent-annual-chance flood include the following:
• 1 water reclamation plant
• 11 hazardous material sites
• 1 airport
• 11 schools
• 2 fire stations
• 105 road bridges
Estimated Damage
Hazus was used to estimate the number of critical facilities affected by flooding and the resulting percent of damage to the building and contents. Figure 11-9 compares the predicted number of affected facilities to the number of exposed facilities, for the 1 percent and 0.2 percent-annual chance flood events. Results for the 1 percent-annual-chance-event are as follows:
• All exposed facilities in the hazardous materials and safety/security categories are predicted to experience some damage
• For all other categories with exposure, between 30 and 70 percent of exposed facilities are predicted to experience some damage
Figure 11-10 shows the estimated damage to critical facilities for both modeled flood events. For the 1 percent-annual-chance-event, the average amount of damage to structures, measured as a percentage of total value, ranges from 1.4 to 17.1 percent of total value and average damage to contents ranges from 11.6 to 47.1 percent, depending on critical facility category. 383
Flood
11-27
Figure 11-9. Facilities Exposed to and Affected by the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Floods Figure 11-10. Average Damage to Critical Facilities from 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Floods 23 52
5 31
22 55
11 37
0 0
13 78
159
213
7 35
3 23
10 40
11 29
0 0
13 48
106
151
0 50
100
150
200
250
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
Communications Energy Food, Water &
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation
Number of Faciliities Exposed or Affected
Exposed Facilities
Affected Facilities

9.7 12.0

17.1 18.6

10.1 15.7

7.9 14.4

5.7 9.3

1.4 2.6

47.1 64.9

29.2 40.5

25.0 24.9

11.6 26.1 27.4

43.5 23.0

10.8 0
20 40
60 80
100
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
1% Ann.

Chance

0.2%
Ann.

Chance
Communications Energy Food, Water &
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation
Average Damage as % of Total Value
Damage to Structure
Damage to Contents
384
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-28
Impacts on Hazardous Materials
During a flood event, containers holding hazardous materials can rupture and leak into the surrounding area. These facilities could release chemicals that cause cancer or other human health effects, significant adverse acute human health effects, or significant adverse environmental effects.

Impacts on Utilities and Infrastructure
Roads 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. Underground utilities can be damaged. Levees can fail or be overtopped, inundating the land that they protect.

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.

11.4.4 Environment
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, levees, or logjams from timber harvesting, can increase stream bank erosion, causing rivers and streams to migrate into non-natural courses.

Many species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish live in the planning area in plant communities that are dependent upon streams, wetlands, and floodplains. Wildlife and fish are impacted when plant communities are eliminated or fundamentally altered to reduce habitat. Since water supply is a major limiting factor for many animals, riparian communities are of special importance.

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.

11.5 SCENARIO
The major river systems in Ventura County flood at irregular intervals, but 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 storms can cause severe flooding in Ventura County. The worst-case scenario is a series of storms that flood numerous drainage basins in a short time. This would overwhelm local response and floodplain management departments. Major roads would be blocked, preventing access for many residents and critical functions. High river flows could cause rivers to scour, possibly washing out roads and creating more isolation problems. In the case of multi-basin flooding, the county would not be able to make repairs quickly enough to restore critical facilities. 385
Flood
11-29

11.6 ISSUES
The planning team has identified the following flood-related issues relevant to the planning area:
• Accuracy of existing flood hazard mapping by FEMA regarding true flood risk within the planning area is questionable. This is most prevalent within areas protected by levees not accredited by the FEMA mapping process.
• Extent of flood protection currently provided by flood control facilities (dams, dikes, and levees) is not known due to lack of established national policy on flood protection standards. • The levee system within the planning area is not consistently adequate to mitigate effects of a 1 percent-annual-chance flood.
• Risk associated with the flood hazard overlaps risks associated with other hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and coastal erosion. This provides opportunity to seek mitigation alternatives with multiple objectives that can reduce risks from multiple hazards. • Land-use practices are not consistent with the scope of regulatory floodplain management within the planning area.
• How climate change will affect flood conditions in Ventura County is uncertain. • More information is needed regarding flood risk to support the concept of risk-based analysis of capital projects.
• To determine cost-effectiveness of future mitigation projects, sustained effort is necessary to gather damage reports and historical damage data such as high-water marks on structures. • Ongoing flood hazard mitigation will require funding from multiple sources. • A coordinated hazard mitigation effort is necessary among jurisdictions affected by flood hazards within the County.
• Floodplain residents must continue to seek and receive information about flood preparedness and resources available during and after floods.
• The concept of residual risk should be considered in design of future capital flood control projects and should be communicated to residents living in the floodplain. • Promotion of flood insurance as a means of protecting private property owners from economic impacts of frequent flood events should continue.
• Existing floodplain-compatible uses such as agricultural and open space must be maintained.

Pressure is constant to convert these existing uses to more intense uses within the planning area during times of moderate to high growth.
• The economy affects a jurisdiction’s ability to manage its floodplains. Budget cuts and personnel losses can strain resources needed to support floodplain management. 386
387
12-1

12. LANDSLIDE

12.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
A landslide is a mass of rock, earth or debris moving down a slope. Landslides may be minor or large and can move at slow to very high speeds. Mudslides 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.

Landslides in hillside terrain can pose serious hazard to downslope property and structures. They can disrupt roadways and other infrastructure lifelines, destroy private property, and cause flooding, bank erosion, and rapid channel migration. A slide can move rapidly down slopes or through channels and can strike with little or no warning. It can travel miles from its source, growing as it descends, picking up trees, boulders, cars, and anything else in its path. Although slides behave as fluids, they convey many times the hydraulic force of water due to the mass of material they carry.

In spite of their destructive potential, landslides can serve beneficial functions to the natural environment. They supply sediment and large wood to the channel network and can contribute to complexity and dynamic channel behavior critical for aquatic and riparian ecological diversity.

12.1.1 Landslide Causes
Slides are caused by a combination of geological and climate conditions and the influence of urbanization. They can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, or human modification of the land. Vulnerable natural conditions are affected by human development and the infrastructure that supports it. In some cases, irrigation increases the landslide potential. The following factors can contribute to slide formation:
• 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. 388
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 12-2
While small landslides are frequently 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.

12.1.2 Landslide Risk Areas
Landslides are typically a function of soil type and steepness of slope. Soil type is a key indicator for landslide potential and is used by geologist and geotechnical engineers to determine soil stability for construction standards. In general, landslide hazard areas are where the land has characteristics that contribute to the risk of the downhill movement of material, such as the following:
• A slope greater than 33 percent
• Post-wildfire areas
• A history of landslide activity or movement during the last 10,000 years • Stream or wave activity, which has caused erosion, undercut a bank 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, indicating 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 or gravel.

The best predictor of where slides 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 landslide 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.

12.1.3 Secondary Hazards
Landslides that block rivers or streams can contribute to flooding.

12.2 HAZARD PROFILE

12.2.1 Past Events
Table 12-1 lists known landslide events that affected Ventura County between 1995 and 2021. 389
Landslide
12-3
Table 12-1. Landslide Events in the Planning Area
Date Event Type
FEMA Declaration
Number Location
March 8, 2016 Mudslide N/A Solimar
Losses/Impacts: Near the Solimar burn area, heavy rain produced a mud and debris flow across Highway 101.

December 2014 Landslide, Mudslide N/A Camarillo Springs Losses/Impacts: Heavy rains destabilized the wildfire char area above Camarillo Springs. 13 homes were damaged and considered uninhabitable.

February 16 – 23, 2005 Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mud and Debris Flows
DR-1585 Ventura County
Losses/Impacts: Seven Southern California counties were included in the declaration.

Winter 2005 Landslide, Debris Flow, Severe Storm N/A West of Santa Paula Losses/Impacts: A large landslide that transformed into a debris flow and smaller landslides was triggered by strong winter storms January 10, 2005 Landslide N/A La Conchita
Losses/Impacts: The landslide occurred at the end of a 15-day period that produced record and near-record amounts of rainfall in many areas of southern California. It consisted of a remobilization of a portion of the 1995 landslide deposit. It destroyed 13 homes and severely damaged 23 others. Ten people died.

Dec. 27, 2004 – Jan. 11, 2005 Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and Mudslides DR-1577 Ventura County Losses/Impacts: Eight Southern California counties were included in the declaration.

March 4, 1995 Landslides, Debris Flow, Severe Storm N/A La Conchita Losses/Impacts: After seasonal rainfall approximately twice the normal amount, the hill behind La Conchita failed, destroying or severely damaging nine homes. Several days later, debris flows from a canyon to the northwest damaged five additional homes.

February 13 – April 19, 1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1046 Ventura County Losses/Impacts: All California counties except Del Norte were included in this declaration. More than 100 stations recorded their greatest ever 1-day rainfall total.

Jan. 3 – Feb. 10, 1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1044 Ventura County Losses/Impacts: 42 California counties were included in this declaration.

Source: USGS 2005, TWC 2015, FEMA 2021
The bluff above La Conchita, which is underlain by two rock formations separated by the Red Mountain fault, has been associated with a variety of landslide activity. Historical accounts date back to 1865.

More recently, two small slides occurred in 1988 and 1991, followed by large movements in 1995 and 2005. The 1995 landslide, which occurred one month after the heaviest rainfall of an extraordinarily wet year, was considered to be a deep, slow-moving landslide. This landslide destroyed nine houses. The January 2005 event was a shallow and highly fluid remobilization of the same material that carried a thick layer of dry, viscous material. This landslide, which occurred at the peak of an extremely wet twoweek period, killed 10 people and destroyed 13 homes. Approximately 400,000 tons of debris cascaded down the slope behind the La Conchita housing development.

12.2.2 Location
In 2011, the California Geological Survey conducted a statewide analysis using a combination of regional rock strength and slope data to create classes of susceptibility to deep-seated landslides. The analysis assumed, in general, that susceptibility to deep-seated landslides is low on very low slopes in all rock materials and increases with slope and in weak rocks. The analysis also factored in locations of past landslides. Figure 12-1 shows deep-seated landslide susceptibility classes (none, low, moderate, high, and very high).
390
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
Lake Piru
Lake
Casitas
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 12-1. Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides
Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
CGS, Esri
low
moderate
high
very high
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
391
Landslide
12-5
Landslides have occurred in areas along the Rincon Fault and on hillsides south of the Santa Clara River and east of the Ventura River. The most damaging recent landslides in Ventura County occurred in the coastal community of La Conchita, just southeast of the Santa Barbara county line. La Conchita has been the site of multiple non-earthquake-induced landslides. The community was built on ground that had been graded by the Southern Pacific Railroad after a 1909 landslide slid into the railroad tracks. The land was intended to be a buffer zone between the retreating and eroding cliff and the Pacific Ocean, but it was subdivided into residential lots in 1924.

12.2.3 Frequency
Mass movements are often triggered by other natural hazards such as earthquakes, heavy rain, floods or wildfires, so their frequency is often related to the frequency of the precipitating hazards. In Ventura County, landslides typically occur during and after severe storms, so the potential for landslides largely coincides with the potential for sequential severe storms that saturate steep, vulnerable soils. Most weather-induced landslides in the county occur in the winter after the water table has risen. Landslides that result from earthquakes can occur at any time.

The probability of a landslide event occurring in the County in any given year is high. Table 12-1 lists nine landslide events in the County between 1995 and 2021. Federal disaster declarations were issued for four of these—an average of one such major event every six years.

12.2.4 Severity
Landslides destroy property and infrastructure and can claim human lives. They have the potential of destabilizing the foundation of structures, which may result in monetary loss for residents. Slope failures in the United States result in an average of 25 to 50 lives lost per year (U.S. Geological Survey 2020). Over the past 26 years, 10 lives have been lost in Ventura County from slope failures. Slides can pose a serious hazard to properties on or below hillsides. They can block access to roads, which can isolate residents and businesses and delay commercial, public, and private transportation. This can result in economic losses for businesses. Trees or utility poles on slopes can be knocked over, resulting in possible losses to power and communication lines. Landslides also can damage rivers or streams, potentially harming water quality, fisheries, and spawning habitat.

12.2.5 Warning Time
Landslides can occur suddenly or slowly. The velocity of slide 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 or moving relative to the main house • Tilting or cracking of concrete floors and foundations • Broken water lines and other underground utilities
392
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 12-6
• 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.

Some methods used to monitor landslides can provide an idea of the type of slide 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, however. The standard operating procedure is to monitor situations on a case-by-case basis and respond after an event has occurred.

12.3 EXPOSURE
A quantitative assessment of exposure to the mass movement/landslide hazard was conducted using the landslide hazard mapping and the asset inventory developed for this plan, with an emphasis on the zones with the highest degree of susceptibility (Zones V through X). Detailed results by jurisdiction are provided in Appendix D. Results for the whole planning area are presented in the sections below.

12.3.1 Population
Population exposure was estimated by calculating the number of buildings in each hazard area as a percent of total planning area buildings, and then applying this percentage to the estimated planning area population. Table 12-2 summarizes the estimated countywide population living in the mapped landslide risk areas.

Table 12-2. Exposed Population in Mapped Landslide Hazard Zones Moderate Landslide
Risk (Susceptibility
Categories V and VI)
High Landslide Risk
(Susceptibility
Categories VII, VIII, IX)
Very High Landslide Risk
(Susceptibility Category X;
Includes existing landslides)
Population Exposed 35,958 151,866 12,500
% of Total Planning Area Population 4.3% 18.0% 1.5%

12.3.2 Property
Table 12-3 summarizes the estimated property exposure in the evaluated landslide hazard areas.

Figure 12-2 shows the occupancy class defined by Hazus for all buildings in the mapped landslide hazard areas. These occupancy classes provide an indication of land use within the mapped hazard area. Some land uses are more vulnerable to landslides, such as single-family homes, while others are less vulnerable, such as agricultural land or parks.
393
Landslide
12-7
Table 12-3. Exposed Property in Mapped Landslide Hazard Zones Moderate Landslide
Risk (Susceptibility
Categories V and VI)
High Landslide Risk
(Susceptibility
Categories VII, VIII, IX)
Very High Landslide Risk
(Susceptibility Category X;
Includes existing landslides)
Number of Buildings Exposed 11,850 52,054 4,743
Value of Exposed Structures $4,978,606,389 $20,201,170,128 $1,802,233,448 Value of Exposed Contents $2,924,877,062 $12,899,948,351 $1,122,397,897 Total Exposed Property Value $7,903,483,451 $33,101,118,479 $2,924,631,346 Total Exposed Value as % of Planning Area Total 4.4% 18.3% 1.6% Figure 12-2. Building Occupancy Classes in the Mapped Landslide Hazard Zones Residenti
al
10,489…
Commercia
l
393…
Industri
al
26 0%
Agricultur
e Religion 793… 48
0%
Governme
nt
28…
Educatio
n
73…

MODERATE LANDSLIDE RISK
Residential
44,625
86%
Commercial
2,142
4%
Industrial
293
0%
Agriculture
3,989
8%
Religion
394
1%
Government
285
0%
Education
326
1%

HIGH LANDSLIDE RISK
Residential
3,664
77%
Commercial
219
5%
Industrial
7 0%
Agriculture
752
16%
Religion
51 1%
Government
39 1%
Education
11 0%

VERY HIGH LANDSLIDE RISK
394
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 12-8

12.3.3 Critical Facilities
Figure 12-3 shows critical facilities located in the high or very high landslide risk areas, by facility type.

The total count of critical facilities in these risk areas (341) represents 22 percent of the planning area total of 1,588. A breakdown by municipality is provided in Appendix D.

Figure 12-3. Critical Facilities in High or Very High Landslide Risk Areas

12.3.4 Environment
All natural areas within the high susceptibility zones for landslide are considered to be exposed to the hazard.

12.4 VULNERABILITY
Vulnerability estimates for the landslide hazard are described qualitatively. No loss estimation of these facilities was performed because damage functions have not been established for the landslide hazard.

12.4.1 Population
All people exposed the landslide hazard are potentially vulnerable to landslide impacts. Populations with access and functional needs as well as elderly populations and the very young are more vulnerable to the landslide hazards as they may not be able to evacuate quickly enough to avoid the impacts of a landslide.
38 27
74 9
1 64
140
0 30
60 90
120
150
Number of Facilties in Hazard Area
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation

15.2%

24.3%

35.2%

9.7% 10.0%

16.4%

26.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Facilties in Hazard Area as % of Planning Area Total
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
395
Landslide
12-9

12.4.2 Property
Estimates of potential losses associated with landslides were developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent, and 50 percent of the replacement value of structures exposed to the landslide hazard. This allows emergency managers to assess potential economic impact based on assumptions about 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 12-4 shows potential losses in the areas with the highest degree of landslide susceptibility.

Table 12-4. Loss Estimation for Landslide
Exposed Value
(Structure Only) Loss Value
Loss as % of Total Planning Area
Replacement Value
Moderate Landslide Susceptibility Zone
Loss = 1% of Exposed Value
$4,978,606,389
$49,786,064 0.03%
Loss = 10% of Exposed Value $497,860,639 0.28%
Loss = 30% of Exposed Value $1,493,581,917 0.83%
Loss = 50% of Exposed Value $2,489,303,195 1.38%
High Landslide Susceptibility Zone
Loss = 1% of Exposed Value
$20,201,170,128
$202,011,701 0.11%
Loss = 10% of Exposed Value $2,020,117,013 1.12%
Loss = 30% of Exposed Value $6,060,351,038 3.35%
Loss = 50% of Exposed Value $10,100,585,064 5.59%
Very High Landslide Susceptibility Zone
Loss = 1% of Exposed Value
$1,802,233,448
$18,022,334 0.01%
Loss = 10% of Exposed Value $180,223,345 0.10%
Loss = 30% of Exposed Value $540,670,034 0.30%
Loss = 50% of Exposed Value $901,116,724 0.50%

12.4.3 Critical Facilities
There are 341 critical facilities exposed to the landslide hazard to some degree. An in-depth analysis of mitigation measures taken by these facilities should be completed to evaluate whether they could withstand impacts of a landslide. No loss estimates were developed as a result of the lack of established damage functions for the landslide hazard.

12.4.4 Environment
Environmental problems as a result of landslides can be numerous. A landslide alters the landscape. In addition to changes in topography, vegetation and wildlife habitats may be damaged or destroyed, and soil and sediment runoff will accumulate downslope, potentially blocking waterways and roadways and impairing the quality of streams and other water bodies. Landslides that fall into streams may significantly impact fish and wildlife habitat, as well as affecting water quality. Hillsides that provide wildlife habitat can be lost for prolonged periods of time due to landslides. 396
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 12-10

12.5 SCENARIO
Major landslides in Ventura County typically occur as a result of soil conditions affected by severe storms, wildfires, groundwater, or human development. The worst-case scenario for landslide hazards in the planning area would generally correspond to a severe storm with heavy rain that caused flooding in an area that had been burned by wildfire. Landslides are more likely during the 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 as it accumulates on impermeable silt, it will weaken and destabilize the slope. A short intense storm 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.

Landslides are becoming a greater concern as development moves outside of city centers and into areas with less developed infrastructure. Most landslides would be isolated events affecting specific areas. It is probable that private and public property, including infrastructure, would be affected.

Landslides could affect bridges that pass over landslide-prone ravines and knock out rail service through the County. Road obstructions caused by landslides 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 communications to residents.

Continued heavy rains and flooding would complicate the problem further. As emergency response resources are applied to problems with flooding, it is possible they will be unavailable to assist with landslides across Ventura County.

12.6 ISSUES
Important issues associated with landslides in the planning area include the following:
• The data and science regarding mapping and assessing landslide hazards are constantly evolving. As new data and science become available, assessments of landslide risk should be re-evaluated.
• The impact of climate change on landslides is uncertain. If climate change affects atmospheric conditions, the exposure to landslide risks in Ventura County could increase. • There are existing homes in landslide risk areas throughout the County. The degree of vulnerability of these structures depends on the codes and standards applied in constructing the structures.
• Future development could lead to more homes in landslide risk areas. • Landslides may cause negative environmental consequences, including water quality degradation.
• The risk associated with the landslide hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards, including earthquake, flooding, and wildfire. The County has an opportunity to seek mitigation alternatives with multiple objectives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards. 397
13-1

13. SEA-LEVEL RISE AND COASTAL EROSION

13.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND

13.1.1 Coastal Erosion
Coastal erosion occurs when strong wave action, coastal floods, and local sea-level rise wear away rocks, soil, and sand along a coastline. This is compounded during severe storm events. In the United States, coastal erosion causes roughly $500 million in property loss each year. Coastal erosion affects all shorelines, but erosion rates and potential impacts are highly localized (U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit 2021). Coastal erosion can exacerbate high surf or tsunami/run-up incidents along coast flood zones subject to wave action. Coastal erosion includes:
• Beach erosion, when sand is carried away from a beach and deposited farther from shore • Dune erosion, when sand or sediment not normally affected by wave action is carried away from land and deposited farther from shore
Low air pressure during a storm causes an immediate rise in sea level above predicted tides, referred to as storm surge. It also increases wind activity, generating erosive waves on top of the already high sea level. This combination of factors can cause widespread damage in coastal areas. Sandy beaches and dunes are at risk from inundation and erosion related to sea-level rise and climate change-induced storms (The Nature Conservancy 2021a).

The following human activities may increase coastal erosion:
• Shoreline hardening such as building seawalls, which may protect land directly behind the structure but can accelerate coastal erosion on the waterward side of the structure due to scouring.
• Dune leveling for development, which removes the natural protection from high waves and sealevel rise. • Canalization to control flash flooding, which may trap sand in coastal channel mouths.

Accumulated sand may be removed offsite, leaving a deficiency in the immediate beach area. • Salt mining

13.1.2 Sea-Level Rise
Sea-level rise will increase the risk of erosion and the adverse impacts of storm surge and high waves.

Short-term variations in sea level occur daily as a result of waves, tides, or specific flood events. Longterm variations in sea level occur over various time scales, from monthly to yearly, and may be 398
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 13-2
repeatable cycles, gradual trends, or intermittent differences. Seasonal weather patterns, changes in coastal and ocean circulation, anthropogenic influences, vertical land motion, and other factors may influence changes in the sea level over time. When sea level trends are estimated, a minimum of 30 years of data are used to account for long-term sea level variations and reduce errors in computing sea level trends based on the monthly mean sea level (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2021).

The two major causes of sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans and loss of land-based ice (glaciers and polar ice caps) through increased melting. A steady increase in global atmospheric temperature creates an expansion of saltwater molecules, increasing ocean volume. The melting of glaciers and continental ice masses contributes significant amounts of freshwater to the earth’s oceans. Ice-mass loss has caused twice as much sea-level rise since 1900 as has thermal expansion. The acceleration in sea-level rise since the 1970s has resulted from the combination of thermal ocean expansion and increased ice-mass loss from Greenland (Frederikse, et al. 2020).

There are two types of sea level: global and relative. Global sea level refers to the average sea level worldwide. Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average change in the satellite record (1993 to present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2021).

Local sea level refers to the height of water measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. The heights of both the land and water are changing, so the land-water interface can vary spatially and temporally and must be defined over time. Measurements at any given tide station include the effects of both global sea-level rise and vertical land motion (subsidence, glacial rebound, or largescale tectonic motion). Water level measurements at tide stations are referenced to stable vertical points on the land, and a known relationship is established. Changes in local sea level over time are typically the most critical sea level trend for coastal applications such as coastal mapping, marine boundary delineation, coastal zone management, coastal engineering, and sustainable habitat restoration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2021).

13.1.3 Secondary Hazards
Loss of beaches due to erosion and sea-level rise can have negative impacts on ecosystems, native species, cultural and historical sites, recreation, subsistence practices, and tourism.

13.2 HAZARD PROFILE

13.2.1 Past Events
Coastal Erosion
Known coastal erosion events affecting Ventura County between 1980 and 2021 are identified in Table 13-1.
399
Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Erosion
13-3
Table 13-1. History of Coastal Erosion Events
Date Event Type FEMA Declaration Number Location
January 2021 Coastal Erosion N/A Surfer’s Point, City of San Buenaventura Losses/Impacts: The 2021 damage was more than anticipated, as relatively calm conditions were predicted with “La Niña” conditions dominating the Pacific Ocean. However, an anomalous storm track developed producing a series of large swell events during the entire month of January, some coinciding with the year’s highest tides. Erosion undermined the bike path and several parking spaces.

February 2014 Coastal Erosion N/A Port Hueneme
Losses/Impacts: 14 feet of sand washed away during the month of February February 27, 2010 Tsunami, Coastal Erosion N/A Ventura Harbor Losses/Impacts: Tsunami waves in excess of 3 feet affected the coastal areas of Ventura County. At Ventura Harbor, the tsunami damaged at least 21 docks, displaced several buoys, and produced some significant beach erosion.

Sources: KABC 2014, venturariver.org 2021, NOAA 2021
The beaches south of Channel Islands Harbor are subject to continual erosion. Every two years, the harbor is dredged to remove sand that has accumulated from beach erosion and sand migration. The sand is used to replenish eroded sand at Port Hueneme Beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2021).

The City of San Buenaventura has had ongoing erosion at Surfer’s Point, a popular surfing spot adjacent to the mouth of the Ventura River. A California State Park bike path along the shoreline and an adjacent county fairground parking lot have also experienced frequent damage from erosion. To protect the point, the City placed boulders in the 1980s above the mean high tide line. The project ended up exacerbating erosion further down the coast and the fairground parking lot and bike path have continued to erode into the ocean; in some places more than 60 feet of land have been lost (Georgetown Climate Center 2011). The Surfers’ Point Managed Shoreline Retreat Project has since pulled existing structures inland to make room for natural beach processes. Though the situation has improved, rising sea levels will continue to threaten the beach (U.S. Climate Resilince Toolkit 2021).

Sea-Level Rise
The average annual mean sea level recorded by NOAA at the Los Angeles station for 1950 was 2.5955 feet. By 2020, the elevation had risen to 2.9724 feet. This represents a sea-level rise of more than 4.5 inches in 70 years (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2021).

13.2.2 Location
Ninety-three percent of Ventura County’s shoreline consists of sandy beaches. Sea-level rise and coastal erosion are likely to affect all coastal areas of the county. The North Coast beaches are highly vulnerable to erosion and wave damage. Dredging operations in Santa Barbara Harbor alter sand transport down coast. Without adequate replacement sand, high tides and waves erode the beaches.

The Central Coast is subject to erosion during periods of high tides and wave action. Major erosion occurs on the South Coast during winter, including nearly 2 feet of annual erosion at Sycamore Beach (Ventura County 2020). The Our Coast Our Future sea-level rise data was used in the risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan. The data indicate sea-level rise inundation areas for a sea-level rise of 25 centimeters and 100 centimeters. The mapped inundation areas for these two scenarios (25-cm SLR and 100-cm SLR) are shown on Figure 13-1 and Figure 13-2. 400
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
Lake Piru
Lake
Casitas
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 13-1. Estimated Inundation Area for 25-Centimeter Sea Level Rise Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
OCOF, Esri
Inundation Area
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
401
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
Lake Piru
Lake
Casitas
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 13-2. Estimated Inundation Area for 100-Centimeter Sea Level Rise Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
OCOF, Esri
Inundation Area
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
402
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 13-6

13.2.3 Frequency
Coastal erosion results from storms and flooding, which typically occur in California in winter (November to April). Storm severity and frequency are influenced by climate patterns, most prominently the El Niño Southern Oscillation. Every two to seven years, the Southern Oscillation alternates between two phases—La Niña and El Niño. El Niño years generally result in persistently low air pressure, greater rainfall, and high winds. The water levels reached during these large, short-term events have exceeded mean sea levels projected for 2100, so understanding their additive effects is crucial for coastal planning. Individual erosion events are not regularly reported; however, according to the Ventura County General Plan 2040, many coastal areas experience annual beach erosion including:
• Faria Beach Park: 1.3 feet per year
• Emma Wood State Beach: 0.6 feet per year
• Point Mugu State Park, Sycamore Beach: 1.9 feet per year • Point Mugu State Park, Solromar Beach: 0.9 feet per year Sea-level rise is an ongoing phenomenon that will likely impact the frequency and severity of coastal storms. As sea-level rises, flooding from storms will become more frequent and potentially more hazardous.

13.2.4 Severity
Coastal erosion can destroy property and infrastructure and cause loss of human life. Erosion has the potential to destabilize the foundation of structures, which may result in monetary loss for residents.

The collapse of coastal cliffs can be deadly, although it is unknown if any deaths have occurred in Ventura County as a result of coastal erosion.

The severity of sea-level rise to Ventura County will become greater over the next 30 to 80 years. The severity could be exacerbated by the following conditions:
• Daily tidal inundation—As sea-level rises, the amount of land and infrastructure subjected to daily inundation by high tides—also known as increases in mean higher high water—will increase. This would result in increased permanent future inundation of low-lying areas. • Annual high tide inundation (King Tides)—King Tides are abnormally high, predictable astronomical tides that occur about twice per year. they are the highest tides that occur each year during the winter and summer when the Earth, moon and sun are aligned. Winter King Tides may be amplified by stormy weather, making them even more significant. King Tides result in temporary inundation associated with nuisance flooding, such as inundation of low-lying roads, boardwalks, and waterfront promenades.
• Extreme high tide inundation (storm surge)—When Pacific Ocean storms coincide with high tides, storm surge can elevate ocean levels and produce extreme high tides. Extreme high tides can cause severe inundation of low-lying roads, boardwalks, and promenades. They can exacerbate coastal and riverine flooding, cause upstream flooding, and interfere with stormwater outfalls.
403
Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Erosion
13-7

13.2.5 Warning Time
Sea-level rise is not a hazard that requires near-term advance warning to support response and recovery operations. Programs such as the NOAA sea-level rise program are keeping an active watch on the sea-level rise phenomena to keep communities informed of its progression. This stream of information will feed programs to help the County to be prepared for and mitigate the long-term impacts from sea-level rise.

The timing of individual erosion events cannot be predicted, however general forecasting can be made about high surf conditions, which often result in advanced beach erosion. High surf warnings and high surf advisories are issued by the National Weather Service.

13.3 EXPOSURE
An analysis was performed using the 25-cm SLR and 100-cm SLR sea-level rise scenarios to estimate the potential exposure of resources within the planning area. Appendix D presents detailed exposure results for each coastal city in the planning area. County-wide summary results are presented in the sections below. Exposure analysis is not available for coastal erosion due to a lack of data, and storm events were not combined with the sea-level rise analysis. If erosion, large wave events, and storms were included, the exposure metrics and vulnerability results for population, property, and critical facilities would be substantially higher.

13.3.1 Population
The planning team overlaid the sea-level rise projection data on the population and asset data developed for the hazard risk assessment for this plan. Results for the total planning area are presented in Table 13-2.

Table 13-2. Estimated Population Exposure for Sea-Level Rise 25-cm SLR Scenario 100-cm SLR Scenario
Population Exposed 39 563
% of Total Planning Area Population 0.002% 0.07%

13.3.2 Property
Results for property exposed to the sea-level rise hazard for the total planning area are presented in Table 13-3. Current land use distribution in the areas affected by sea-level rise, as represented by building occupancy class, is shown in Figure 13-3.

Table 13-3. Estimated Property Exposure for Sea-Level Rise 25-cm SLR Scenario 100-cm SLR Scenario
Number of Buildings Exposed 10 249
Value of Exposed Structures $15,774,103 $140,841,021
Value of Exposed Contents $14,460,807 $121,450,187
Total Exposed Property Value $30,234,909 $262,291,208
Total Exposed Value as % of Planning Area Total 0.02% 0.15% 404
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 13-8
Figure 13-3. Building Occupancy Classes in 25-cm and 100-cm Sea-Level Rise Exposure Areas

13.3.3 Critical Facilities
Hazus analysis identified only one critical facility within the mapped 25-cm sea-level rise inundation zone (a transportation facility) and only six within the mapped 100-cm sea-level rise inundation zone (four transportation facilities, one hazardous materials facility, and one food/water/shelter facility). A breakdown by municipality is provided in Appendix D.

13.3.4 Environment
All county beaches and other critical coastal habitats, including wetlands, are vulnerable to the effects of sea-level rise and coastal erosion. A study by the State Coastal Conservancy and The Nature Conservancy found that 44 percent of estuarine marsh in Ventura County is vulnerable to loss with 5 feet of sea-level rise (Heady, et al. 2018).

13.4 VULNERABILITY
No quantitative vulnerability analysis was performed for the sea-level rise and coastal erosion hazard.

The following potential impacts were identified:
 Storm drainage systems may experience backups as a result of higher level of daily tidal flooding, especially if outfalls are located within sea-level rise inundation areas.  Important coastal habitat may be lost as sea-level rise permanently inundates areas, or it may be damaged due to extreme tide and storm surge events.
 Saltwater intrusion into freshwater resources may occur, further altering habitat and ecosystems. Protective ecosystem services may be lost as land area and wetlands are permanently inundated.
 Residents of homes exposed to coastal erosion are vulnerable to this hazard.

Residential
9 90%
Commercia
l
0…
Industrial
0 0%
Agriculture
0 0%
Religion
0 0%
Government
1 10%
Education
0 0%
25-CM SLR
Residential
147
58% Commercial
7 3%
Industrial
0 0%
Agriculture
0 0%
Religion
0 0%
Government
95 37%
Education
5 2%
100-CM SLR
405
Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Erosion
13-9
Sea-level rise will have an impact on Ventura County’s coastal ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems located in creeks, streams, and estuaries along the coast, many containing a range of sensitive species of plants and animals, will need to adapt to changes in water quality from saltwater intrusion/incursion further upstream. The beneficial services that coastal ecosystems provide, such as flood protection, water filtration, and support for fisheries, will be threatened as rising sea levels expose beach, dune, estuarine, and freshwater habitats. Natural resources, such as cobble, sand, and dunes that have been overlooked for coastal planning will be increasingly necessary to hold and maintain the County’s beaches for sea-level rise adaptation (Ventura County 2020).

Erosion and associated secondary hazards will likely have some of the most damaging effects on the environment. Coastal habitats are critical to the natural environment, society, and economy, and their loss has compounding effects on the vulnerability of the community at large.

13.5 SCENARIO
The worst-case scenario would be high wave events from winter storms coinciding with high tide.

During a scenario of this magnitude, individuals and properties alike are potentially impacted by high surf, coastal flooding and erosion. The impacts of such an event will become greater with time if sealevel rise continues.

13.6 ISSUES
The following issues have been identified related to the sea-level rise and coastal erosion hazard:
 Potential Impacts from Sea-Level Rise—Rising sea levels are very likely to have significant impacts on the frequency and severity of coastal erosion. Areas not typically exposed to erosion events may become exposed, increasing vulnerability to this hazard of concern.  Future Development Impact Studies—Erosion events are particularly destructive when natural processes are unable to replenish beaches due to development, causing erosion to impact infrastructure. Building on eroding coasts increases vulnerability to shoreline hazards.

Local jurisdictions need to ensure that future development does not contribute to coastal erosion.
406
407
14-1

14. SEVERE STORMS

14.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The severe storms hazard for this plan refers specifically to winter storms and thunderstorms with the potential to cause damage, serious social disruption, or loss of human life. Other severe weather hazards are addressed in Chapter 15.

14.1.1 Winter Storms
California’s southern coast features a Mediterranean climate, in which summers are hot and dry and winters are cool and damp. A dominating factor in the weather of California is the semi-permanent highpressure area of the North Pacific Ocean, sometimes called the Pacific High. This pressure center moves northward in summer, holding storm tracks well to the north. As a result, California receives little or no precipitation during that period. The intensity of the Pacific High decreases in winter and it moves farther south, permitting storms to move into and across the state and producing high winds, widespread rain at low elevations, and snow at high elevations.

Occasionally the state’s circulation pattern permits a series of storm centers to move into California from the southwest. This type of storm pattern is responsible for occasional heavy rains that can cause serious winter flooding. Winter storms may occur during the rainy season from mid-autumn to midspring. In addition to high winds and flooding, winter storms may bring extended periods of freezing temperatures to the county.

14.1.2 Thunderstorms
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), but they may deliver enough rainfall to cause urban or flash flooding. In addition to the hazards associated with heavy rainfall, thunderstorms present hazards associated with lightning and hail:
• 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 instantaneously reaches temperatures approaching 50,000 ºF. The rapid heating and cooling of air near the lightning causes thunder.
408
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 14-2
• Hail occurs when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops up into cold areas where they freeze. Eventually, the hailstones encounter downdraft air and fall to the ground. Hailstones can begin to melt and then re-freeze together, forming large and irregularly shaped hail.

14.1.3 El Niño Effects on Severe Storms
El Niño is a natural climatic event that impacts the frequency and intensity of severe storms. It is characterized by a warming of the ocean surface in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Lowlevel surface winds, which normally blow from east to west along the equator, instead weaken or, in some cases, start blowing the other direction. El Niño recurs irregularly, from once every two years to once a decade. El Niño events can disrupt normal weather patterns in the United States and globally (U.S. Geological Survey 2021d). The most recent strong El Niño events were as follows:
• The 1997–1998 El Niño event gained national recognition for its contribution to hurricanes, floods, landslides, droughts, and fires that killed substantial numbers of people and caused billions of dollars in damage. Australia, Indonesia, and the Americas were particularly impacted. • The 2015–2016 El Niño event affected California, since the state was already dealing at that time with the impacts of a long-term drought (Lee, et al. 2017).

14.1.4 Secondary Hazards
Major flooding can result from heavy rain (see Chapter 11 for more information on flooding). Rain falling on saturated soils on slopes or on areas recently burned by wildfire may lead to landslides (see Chapter 12 for more information on landslides). Lightning during thunderstorms presents a risk of starting a wildfire (see Chapter 17 for more information on wildfires). Storms can also increase the frequency of erosion along coastal cliffs (see Chapter 13 for more information on coastal erosion).

14.2 HAZARD PROFILE

14.2.1 Past Events
Ventura County was included in the federal disaster declarations for freezing/severe winter storms that occurred in December 1990-January 1991, December 1998, and January 2007. The 1998 freeze was particularly damaging to citrus crops. According to the NCEI Storm Events Database, 26 winter storms and thunderstorms causing snow and ice have occurred in Ventura County over the last 10 years.

Some of the thunderstorms also caused hail. Two hailstorms were recorded in Ventura County in 2010, with hail of up to 1.5 inches in diameter reported. Table 14-1 summarizes recent severe storm events in Ventura County as recorded in the Storm Events Database.

Table 14-1. Recent Severe Storm Events in the Planning Area Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage
January 27-29, 2021 Winter Storm 0 0
Snowfall totals around 12 inches were reported at 5,000 feet. The snow combined with southerly winds, gusting to 70 mph, to generate hazardous winter weather conditions.

January 25, 2021 Winter Storm 0 0
Winter storm conditions impacted the mountains of Ventura County. Snowfall totals between 3 and 6 inches and southerly wind, gusting up to 65 mph, combined to produce hazardous winter weather conditions. 409
Severe Storms
14-3
Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage
December 28, 2020 Winter Storm 0 0
Above 5,000 feet, 6 to 12 inches of snowfall was reported. Additionally, southerly winds, gusting up to 45 mph, were reported.

March 16, 2020 Winter Storm 0 0
At around 5,000 feet, snowfall totals of 4 to 8 inches were reported with likely heavier amounts above 7,000 feet. Additionally, southerly winds, gusting to 50 mph, were observed.

December 26, 2019 Winter Storm/Thunderstorm 0 0
Snowfall totals ranged from 18 to 24 inches above 5,000 feet to 6 to 18 inches between 3,500 and 5,000 feet. Strong winds with gusts to 55 mph were reported. The winter storm conditions resulted in road closures, including Highway 33. Thunderstorms generated a waterspout over the coastal waters and a very weak tornado over Ventura Harbor.

November 28-29, 2019 Winter Storm 0 0
Snow levels dropped to between 2,000 and 3,000 feet. Snowfall totals ranged between 12 and 24 inches above 5,000 feet with 6 to 12 inches down to around 3,000 feet. Additionally, gusty winds in excess of 50 mph were reported. These winter storm conditions resulted in significant travel issues, including closure of parts of Highway 33.

January 9, 2018 Winter Storm 0 0
At around 7,000-foot elevation, 6 to 8 inches of snowfall was reported along with southerly winds, gusting to 50 mph.

February 18, 2017 Winter Storm 0 0
In the mountains, 8 to 16 inches of snow accumulated. Additionally, southerly winds gusting to 70 mph were reported.

March 7-8, 2016 Winter Storm/Thunderstorm 0 0
In the mountains, 5 to 10 inches of snow accumulated while winds gusted to 67 mph. Near the Solimar burn area, heavy rain produced a mud and debris flow across Highway 101. Elsewhere, strong thunderstorm gusts knocked down several trees.

January 31, 2016 Winter Storm/Thunderstorm 0 0
Above 6,000 feet, between 6 and 12 inches of snow was reported. Some severe thunderstorms developed with strong thunderstorm winds (in excess of 60 mph) reported.

January 6, 2016 Thunderstorm 0 0
A severe thunderstorm moved across the community of Fillmore, generating damaging wind gusts up to 60 mph. The thunderstorm winds knocked down a large tree across Highway 126.

January 5-6, 2016 Winter Storm 0 0
Above 7,000 feet, Mount Pinos reported 12 to 18 inches of snowfall while locations around 5,000 feet reported 4 to 8 inches of snowfall.

Along with the snow, south winds gusting between 45 and 60 mph were reported.

March 1, 2014 Winter Storm/Thunderstorm 0 0
Snowfall amounts between 6 and 12 inches were reported above 6,000 feet along with southerly winds gusting to near 90 mph. This winter storm generated intense showers that produced flash flooding and debris flows as well as severe thunderstorms.

February 20, 2013 Winter Storm 0 0
Along with northwest winds gusting in excess of 50 mph, snowfall amounts between 6 and 12 inches were observed, with the highest totals reported at Mount Pinos.

January 10, 2013 Winter Storm 0 0
A band of heavy snowfall, combined with gusty north winds, brought critical winter storm conditions to the mountains of Ventura County.

In 30 minutes, 2 to 3 inches of snowfall was reported across the Interstate 5 corridor near the Grapevine. This snowfall, combined with winds gusting in excess of 50 mph, shut down Interstate 5 for several hours, stranding hundreds of vehicles.

March 25-26, 2012 Winter Storm 0 0
Above 5,000 feet, significant snowfall occurred. Some reports include: Mount Pinos (12 inches), Pine Mountain Club (8 inches), and Frazier Park (10 inches). The heavy snowfall combined with gusty south winds in excess of 60 mph to produce dangerous winter storm conditions.

March 17-18, 2012 Winter Storm 0 0
Above 6,000 feet, significant snowfall (12 to 20 inches) was reported. Along with the heavy snowfall, gusty south winds in excess of 65 mph were reported.
410
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 14-4
Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage
September 13, 2011 Lightning/Thunderstorm 3 0
At the Lockwood Valley Fire Station, three firefighters were injured when lightning struck within 50 feet of the station. All three firefighters reported disorientation and ringing in the ears.

March 20-21, 2011 Winter Storm 0 0
Elevations above 4,500 feet received 1 to 4 feet of snow that, combined with gusty southerly winds, produced hazardous conditions.

February 26, 2011 Winter Storm 0 0
Above 6,000 feet, snowfall totals ranged between 12 and 24 inches. Below 6,000 feet, snowfall amounts ranged between 3 and 8 inches.

Along with the heavy snowfall, southerly winds gusting between 40 and 50 mph produced very hazardous winter storm conditions.

February 19-20, 2011 Winter Storm/Thunderstorm 0 0
Snowfall between 12 and 24 inches was reported above 6,000 feet; 3 to 8 inches was reported between 3,500 and 6,000 feet. Strong winds with gusts between 60 and 70 mph were reported. Cold and unstable air generated some strong thunderstorms across the area.

January 3, 2011 Winter Storm 0 0
Snowfall totals generally ranged between 4 and 8 inches. Southeast winds gusting between 45 and 55 mph accompanied the snowfall, producing reduced visibilities in blowing snow.

December 30, 2010 Winter Storm 0 0
Significant winter storm conditions developed across the mountains of Ventura County. Dangerous winter storm conditions were reported across the Interstate 5 corridor with a snow and gusty winds. Snowfall totals ranged between 3 and 7 inches. Northerly winds gusting in excess of 60 mph generated near zero visibilities in blowing snow and wind chills below 0 ºF. Interstate 5 was shut down.

December 22, 2010 Winter Storm 0 0
High elevation areas received over 12 inches of snowfall. Along with the snowfall, southeasterly winds gusted between 45 and 55 mph and produced dangerous winter storm conditions.

October 19, 2010 Thunderstorm/Hail 0 0
A trained weather spotter reported one-inch hail in association with a severe thunderstorm.

April 12, 2010 Winter Storm 0 0
Cuddy Valley reported 4 to 8 inches of snowfall. Along with the snowfall, strong southerly winds developed with gusts to 61 mph reported.

February 9-10, 2010 Winter Storm 0 0
Over 10 inches of snowfall was reported above 6,000 feet with southerly winds gusting as high as 60 mph.

January 21, 2010 Thunderstorm/Hail 0 0
A trained spotter in the Agoura Hills area reported large hail with a diameter of 1.50 inches.

January 20-21, 2010 Winter Storm 0 0
Cuddy Valley received 15 inches of snowfall while Mount Pinos reported between 12 and 18 inches of snowfall. Along with the heavy snowfall, strong and gusty southerly winds were reported across the mountains.

Source: NOAA 2021

14.2.2 Location
The entire county is susceptible to severe storms. Only higher elevation areas (typically at or above 4,000 feet) experience snowfall; lower elevation areas experience heavy rains. Thunderstorms affect relatively small, localized areas, rather than large regions like severe winter storms.

14.2.3 Frequency
Predicting the frequency of severe storm events in a constantly changing climate is a difficult task.

Based on reports of past occurrences since 2010, Ventura County experiences at least two winter storms and one thunderstorm annually (Table 14-1). The planning area can expect to experience exposure to and adverse impacts from both winter storms and thunderstorms at least annually. 411
Severe Storms
14-5

14.2.4 Severity
The most common problems associated with severe storms are immobility and loss of utilities. Fatalities are uncommon, but can occur. Roads may become impassable due to snowfall, flooding, downed trees, or mudflows and landslides. 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.

Heavy rain can have significant impacts, including crop damage, soil erosion, and increased risk of flood. Stormwater runoff from heavy rains can also impair water quality by washing pollutants into local waterways (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2021). Soil erosion, particularly in areas affected by wildfire and along the coast, is a significant concern.

Lightning severity is typically based on both property damage and life safety (injuries and fatalities). The relationship of lighting to wildfire ignitions increases the significance of this hazard. There are no recorded instances of lightning appearing alone (without a storm) in Ventura County, and any lightning damage is likely to be compounded by other storm damage.

14.2.5 Warning Time
Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a severe storm 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 Los Angeles/Oxnard Weather Forecast Office of the NWS monitors weather stations and issues watches and warnings to alert government agencies and the public of possible or impending weather events when appropriate. The watches and warnings are broadcast over NOAA weather radio, posted on the NWS website, and forwarded to the local media for retransmission using the Emergency Alert System.

14.3 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY
All people and property and the entire environment of the planning area are exposed to some degree to the severe storm hazard.

14.3.1 Population
Thunderstorm-related deaths and injuries in the planning area are most likely to result from accompanying wind and flood events. There are no recorded fatalities from lightning within the planning area. Winter storm-related deaths and injuries are most likely to result from dangerous road conditions and accompanying wind, landslide and flood events.

The most common impacts on people associated with severe storm events are immobility and loss of utilities. All populations in the planning area are exposed to severe storm events, and some are especially vulnerable. The most vulnerable populations are generally those who lack adequate shelter during severe weather events, who are reliant on sustained sources of power in order to survive, and who live in isolated areas with limited ingress and egress options. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Populations living at higher elevations with 412
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 14-6
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.

14.3.2 Property
All property is vulnerable during severe weather events, but properties in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. The most common impacts of specific weather event types on property are as follows:
• Thunderstorms—Damage from thunderstorms in the planning area is most likely to be related to secondary hazards accompanying the event, such as flooding, landslides, or damaging winds. If lightning directly strikes a building, it may cause substantial damage and may even set the structure on fire.
• Winter storms—Damage from winter storms in the planning area is most likely to be related to secondary hazards accompanying the event, such as freezing, flooding, landslides or damaging winds. Freezing events can also cause pipes to burst in buildings leading to structural flooding.

No modeling is available for quantitative loss estimations for the severe weather hazard. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent, and 50 percent of the replacement value of exposed structures:
• Loss of 10 percent of planning area replacement value—$18,075,696,763 • Loss of 30 percent of planning area replacement value—$54,227,090,289 • Loss of 50 percent of planning area replacement value—$90,378,483,815

14.3.3 Critical Facilities
All critical facilities are vulnerable during severe weather events, especially those that lack backup power generation capabilities. When facilities supplying power to planning area land-line telephone systems are frequently disrupted, significant issues arise with communication in the planning area. In addition, some facilities are particularly vulnerable to specific types of severe weather events:
• Thunderstorm—Facilities located in areas prone to localized or major flooding are vulnerable.

Transportation systems are vulnerable to disruption from secondary hazards such as flooding or landslides.
• Winter storms—Facilities located in areas prone to freezing and snow accumulation are vulnerable. Transportation systems are vulnerable to disruption from secondary hazards such as road closures, flooding, or landslides.

14.3.4 Environment
The environment is highly vulnerable to severe storm events. Natural habitats such as streams and trees exposed to the elements during a severe storm risk major damage. Prolonged rains can saturate soils and lead to slope failure. Flood events caused by severe storms can produce river channel migration or damage riparian habitat. Storm surges can erode beachfront bluffs and redistribute sediment loads.
413
Severe Storms
14-7

14.4 SCENARIO
Impacts of severe storms can be significant, particularly when secondary hazards of flood and landslide occur. A worst-case event would involve thunderstorms with prolonged high winds. 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. In more rural areas, some subdivisions could experience limited ingress and egress. Prolonged rain could produce flooding, overtopped culverts with ponded water on roads, and landslides on steep slopes. Significant erosion and landslides along the coast may occur, further increasing the vulnerability of residents living right on the edge of coastal cliffs. Flooding and landslides could obstruct roads and bridges, isolating residents.

Fog after the storm, resulting from the heavy moisture still in the area, could increase traffic accidents as visibility worsens.

14.5 ISSUES
Severe local storms are probably the most common widespread hazard. They affect large numbers of people in the planning area when they occur. Severe storms can quickly overwhelm city and county resources. Residents should be prepared for these types of storms: family plans should be developed, disaster kits should be put in homes, workplaces, schools, and cars, and every family member should be taught how to shut off household utilities. Initiating early dismissal from schools and business is an effective mitigation measure and should be encouraged.

Severe storms cannot be prevented, but measures can be taken to mitigate the effects. Critical infrastructure and utilities can be hardened to prevent damage during an event. The secondary effect of flooding can be addressed through decreasing runoff and water velocity. Important issues associated with severe storms in the Ventura County planning area include the following:
• Redundancy of power supply throughout the planning area must be evaluated to better understand what areas may be vulnerable.
• Although primarily thought of as an urban area, the County has a larger physical land mass containing rural communities and must also consider the needs of these residents (as well as their possible isolation during storm events).
• Public education on dealing with the impacts of severe storms needs to continue to be provided so that residents can be better informed and prepared for severe storm events. • Debris management (downed trees, etc.) must be addressed, because debris can impact the severity of severe storm events, it requires coordination efforts, and may require additional funding.
• The effects of climate change may result in an increase of heavy rain or more intense storm events and will likely lead to changes in overall precipitation amounts. • Older building stock in the planning area is built to low code standards or none at all. These structures could be highly vulnerable to severe winter weather effects. • Urban forest management programs should be evaluated to help reduce impacts from treerelated damage. 414
415
15-1

15. SEVERE WEATHER

15.1 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, among other events. The most common severe weather events that impact the planning area are severe storms (as described in Chapter 14), damaging winds (including straight-line winds and tornadoes), and extreme temperatures (heat and cold). The frequency and intensity of severe weather events can be affected by El Niño conditions, as described in Section 14.1.3.

15.1.1 Damaging Winds
Straight-Line Winds
Straight-line wind is a general term used to describe winds that have no rotation (i.e., are not tornadoes). Damaging straight-line winds are those that exceed 50 to 60 mph. The Beaufort wind chart (Table 15-1) provides terminology and a description of potential impacts at different levels.

Table 15-1. Beaufort Wind Chart
Beaufort
Number
Range
(mph) Terminology Description
0 0 Calm Calm. Smoke rises vertically.
1 1-3 Light air Wind motion visible in smoke.
2 4-7 Light breeze Wind felt on exposed skin. Leaves rustle. 3 8-12 Gentle breeze Leaves and smaller twigs in constant motion. 4 13-18 Moderate breeze Dust and loose paper are raised. Small branches begin to move. 5 19-24 Fresh breeze Smaller trees sway
6 25-31 Strong breeze Large branches in motion. Whistling heard in overhead wires. Umbrella use is difficult. 7 32-38 Near gale Whole trees in motion. Some difficulty when walking into the wind. 8 39-46 Gale Twigs broken from trees. Cars veer on road. 9 47-54 Sever gale Light structure damage.
10 55-63 Storm Trees uprooted. Considerable structural damage. 11 64-73 Violent storm Widespread structural damage.
12 74-95 Hurricane Considerable and widespread damage to structures.

Source: NWS, n.d.
416
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 15-2
Santa Ana Winds
In Southern California, strong, dry, gusty downslope winds known as Santa Ana winds form when air from a region of high pressure over the desert region of the southwestern U.S. flows westward toward low pressure areas off the California coast. As the wind flows over the Sierra Nevada and Santa Ana mountains, it drops from high elevation to sea level. The air becomes compressed and heats up as it sinks, and its relative humidity drops. Gaps in mountains form wind tunnels that strengthen these winds as they pour warm air east to west through the canyons (Figure 15-1). These winds play a major role in increasing wildfire risk in the Ventura region because of the dryness of the winds and the speed with which they can cause a fire to spread, complicating containment efforts.

Figure 15-1. Santa Ana Winds
Santa Ana winds may occur year-round, but are most common during the cooler months, typically from September through March. A Santa Ana wind event can yield sustained winds of 40 miles per hours; isolated wind gusts of over 80 miles per hour have been recorded. Most Santa Ana wind events peak for a 12- to 24-hour period but can persist for a few days.

Public Safety Power Shutoff Events
High winds can uproot trees, blow branches onto power lines or create sparks if power lines contact one another. When this occurs in combination with extreme heat and low humidity that dry out vegetation, it poses increased risks of wildfire. In 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission ruled that California Public Utilities Code gives electric utilities authority to shut off electric power to protect public safety by reducing the potential to ignite wildfires (California Public Utilities Commission 2021).

Such shutoffs are referred to as public safety power shutoff events. Given the long, connected nature of power supply systems, a shutoff event targeted to a small at-risk area can affect a larger area outside the risk zone. The duration of a shutoff is tied directly to the severe weather that triggers it; the shutoff typically ends within 24 hours after the severe weather has passed (Pacific Gas & Electric n.d.). 417
Severe Weather
15-3
Tornadoes
Although uncommon in the Ventura County area, a tornado is potentially the most dangerous of storms on a local scale (National Weather Service 2009b). Tornadoes are formed by the turbulent mixing of layers of air with contrasting temperature, moisture, density, and wind flow. Most of California’s documented tornadoes have taken place primarily in winter or spring. Since 1950, NOAA has tracked six tornadoes touching down in Ventura County. All six were classified as F0, using the Fujita Tornado Damage Scale shown in Table 15-2.

Table 15-2. Operational Enhanced Fujita Scale
Enhanced Fujita Number Wind, Damage
F0 (weak) 40-72 mph, light damage
F1 (weak) 73-112 mph, moderate damage
F2 (strong) 113-157 mph, considerable damage
F3 (strong) 158-206 mph, severe damage
F4 (violent) 207-260 mph, devastating damage
F5 (violent) 261-318 mph (rare), incredible damage
Source: (National Weather Service 2009b)

15.1.2 Extreme Temperatures
Extreme Heat
Extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover 10 ºF or more above the average high temperatures for a region for several days or weeks. Extreme heat events can lead to an increase in heat-related illnesses and deaths, cause drought, and impact water supplies. Such events do not typically impact buildings; however, losses may be associated with the urban heat island effect and overheating of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.

Extreme heat is the primary weather-related cause of death in the United States. Excessive heat claims over 100 lives each year in this country. In a 30-year record of weather fatalities across the nation (1990-2019), excessive heat claimed more lives each year than floods, lightning, tornadoes, and hurricanes (Erdman 2021). 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, in a span of 60 years, only four heat emergencies (August 14, 2020; September 2, 2020; June 16, 2021; July 9, 2021) were proclaimed in California at the state level and none were proclaimed at a federal level. Heat waves do not strike victims immediately, but their cumulative effects slowly cause harm to vulnerable populations. Older adults, children, and sick or overweight individuals are at greater risk from extreme heat.

Extreme Cold
In areas that typically have mild winter weather, extreme cold is defined as near freezing temperatures.

Frost or freeze warnings are issued when temperatures below freezing are expected. Whenever temperatures drop below normal and as wind speed increases, heat can leave the body more rapidly.

These conditions are dangerous to those without shelter, those who are stranded, and those who live in 418
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 15-4
homes that have no heat or are poorly insulated. Extreme cold can cause hypothermia and frostbite if a person is exposed for a long period of time.

In addition to direct risks to people, extreme cold can cause freezing rain, which can leave a coating of ice on roads and walkways. Rain that turns to ice pellets before reaching the ground, referred to as sleet, may become slippery.

15.1.3 Secondary Hazards
Strong Santa Ana winds can quickly cause or spread wildfires (see Chapter 17 for more information on wildfires). Erosion along coastal cliffs can be affected when high winds associated with winter storms increase the intensity of the surf (see Chapter 13 for more information on coastal erosion). Extreme heat can exacerbate drought conditions (see Chapter 9 for more information on drought).

15.2 HAZARD PROFILE

15.2.1 Past Events
Table 15-3 summarizes recent severe weather events in Ventura County as recorded in the NCEI Storm Events Database. Of 136 high wind events recorded, only those recorded at 70 knots or greater or that had a death, injury, or reported property damage are listed in this table. Ventura County was included in federal disaster declarations for extreme cold/freezing events that occurred in December 1990-January 1991, December 1998, and January 2007. The 1998 freeze was particularly damaging to citrus crops.

Table 15-3. Recent Severe Weather Events in the Planning Area Date Event Typea Deaths or Injuries Property Damage
January 19, 2021 High Wind 0 Gusty winds produced numerous reports of downed small trees and branches.

Very strong and gusty Santa Ana winds impacted many areas of Ventura and Los Angeles counties. Winds gusting up to 99 mph were reported across many areas.

November 26, 2020 High Wind 0 0
Strong Santa Ana winds impacted the mountains of Ventura County. Sycamore Canyon reported wind gusts between 67 and 86 mph.

December 25, 2019 Tornado 0 Only very minor damage was reported.

A strong thunderstorm generated a weak tornado over Ventura Harbor (in Ventura County).

December 6, 2017 High Wind 0 0
Across the interior valleys of Ventura County, northeast wind gusts up to 85 mph were reported. This event coincided with Thomas Fire.

December 25, 2014 High Wind 0 0
Strong north winds developed near the Interstate 5 corridor. Wind gusts in excess of 80 mph were reported at the higher elevations.

April 7, 2013 High Wind 0 0
Strong northerly winds developed across the mountains of Ventura County. Gusts between 65 and 85 mph were reported in some areas.

February 24, 2013 High Wind 0 0
Strong Santa Ana winds developed across Ventura County. Wind gusts in excess of 70 mph were reported.

October 25, 2012 High Wind 0 0
Strong and gusty north to northeast winds were reported across the mountains of Ventura County. The strongest wind gusts occurred near the Interstate 5 corridor with gusts near 80 mph reported. 419
Severe Weather
15-5
Date Event Typea Deaths or Injuries Property Damage
May 29, 2010 High Wind 0 0
Gusty northwest to north winds developed across the mountains of Ventura County through the Interstate 5 corridor. Sustained winds between 40 and 48 mph were reported along with wind gusts between 66 and 87 mph.

January 21, 2010 Tornado 0 Several homes, a car and a farm outbuilding were damaged.

A small EF-0 tornado touched down in the City of San Buenaventura.

January 13, 2010 High Wind 0 0
Strong and gusty north winds affected the mountains of Ventura County especially near the Interstate 5 corridor. Wind gusts between 60 and 83 mph affected the area.

October 27, 2009 High Wind 0 0
Very strong and gusty winds were reported across the mountains of Ventura County through the Interstate 5 corridor. Wind gusts between 60 and 80 mph were reported.

May 6, 2009 High Wind 0 0
Strong north winds were reported through the Interstate 5 corridor. Sustained winds between 40 and 50 mph with gusts as high as 85 mph were reported.

October 13, 2008 High Wind 0 0
Gusty northeast winds to 84 mph were reported across eastern sections of the Ventura County mountains.

June 20-21, 2008 Excessive Heat 0 0
An automated sensor at Newbury Park reported a high temperature of 108 ºF with a heat index of 106 ºF.

January 24, 2008 Tornado 0 Tore the roof off a building, knocked over several trash cans.

A weak tornado moved onshore across Point Mugu Naval Air Station.

August 31-September 1, 2007 Excessive Heat 0 0
The combination of above normal temperatures and relative humidity produced excessive heat across the interior valleys of Ventura County. Heat index values between 105 and 112 ºF were reported.

April 12, 2007 High Wind 0 0
RAWS observations across the mountains measured very strong and gusty winds. At Whitaker Peak RAWS a peak northwest wind gust of 86 mph was reported. Other sensors, including Sandberg and Warm Springs, indicated sustained winds and gust that met warning criteria.

January 13-15, 2007 Frost/Freeze 0 0
Widespread freezing conditions were reported across agricultural areas of Ventura County. Total crop damage in Ventura County was estimated to be around $280 million.

July 22-26, 2006 Heat 0 0
The combination of high pressure aloft and above-normal relative humidity resulted in an extended period of excessive heat across San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angeles counties. At times, heat index values ranged from 100 to 119 ºF.

July 15, 2006 Heat 0 0
The combination of strong high pressure aloft and high relative humidity produced excessive heat conditions across the mountains of Ventura County. Heat index values ranged from 100 to 105 ºF in the mountains.

January 10, 2005 Tornado 0 0
A California Highway Patrol officer reported a weak tornado in the community of El Rio.

October 27, 2004 Funnel Cloud 0 0
An early-season storm brought rain, snow, and funnel clouds to Central and Southern California. Across Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, two funnel clouds were reported.

February 24, 2003 Funnel Cloud 0 0
A weather observer at the Point Mugu Naval Base reported a funnel cloud offshore of the base.

February 9, 2002 High Wind 1 Strong winds knocked down power lines and overturned a wooden bus stop structure in Moorpark.

Strong and gusty Santa Ana winds developed across the interior valleys of Ventura County. Reports from spotters indicated northeast winds gusting between 50 and 70 mph. In Simi Valley, a man was killed when a 45-foot tree was knocked down and pinned him.

Sources: NOAA 2021
a. This list represents only high wind events recorded at 70 knots or greater, or that had a death, injury, or reported property damage. 420
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 15-6
The NCEI Storm Events Database lists 19 wildfire events in Ventura County from 2000 through 2021, and all but two of those events are directly attributed to wind events or occurred within one or two days of high wind events recorded in the database (National Centers for Environmental Information 2022).

15.2.2 Location
The entire county is susceptible to damage from wind. Wind events are most damaging to areas that are heavily wooded. The State of California has a low risk for serious tornados compared to other parts of the country (Croswell 1995). Tornadoes are usually localized and have historically formed in the southwest portion of Ventura County during the winter.

All of Ventura County is subject to extreme temperatures. The mountains are more likely to experience extreme cold. Extreme heat impacts may be exacerbated in inland areas more prone to urban heat island effects, such as Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley, than coastal regions (Oakley, et al. 2019).

15.2.3 Frequency
Based on reports since 2000, Ventura County experiences an average of two damaging wind events each year and an extreme temperature event every two years (Table 15-3). The planning area can expect to experience exposure to and adverse impacts from severe weather events at least annually, including damaging wind events every year and extreme temperature events biennially.

15.2.4 Severity
Damaging Winds
Windstorms can be a frequent problem in the planning area and have been known to cause damage to utilities. The predicted wind speed given in wind warnings issued by the National Weather Service is for a one-minute average; gusts may be 25 to 30 percent higher. Lower wind speeds typical in the lower valleys are still high enough to knock down trees and power lines and cause other property damage.

Higher elevations in the County can experience much higher winds under more varied conditions.

According to the FEMA Winds Zones of the United States map (Figure 15-2), Ventura County is in Wind Zone I, where wind speeds can reach up to 130 mph. The map indicates the strength of windstorms in the United States, and the general location of the most wind activity (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2021).

Tornadoes are potentially highly dangerous. If a major tornado were to strike within the populated areas of the County, damage could be widespread. Because the County has never experienced a tornado more severe than an F0, however, such severity is unlikely.

Extreme Temperatures
The record high temperature in the county (120 ºF) was set in Fillmore and Oak View in September 2020. The record low (25 ºF) was set in December 1998.
421
Severe Weather
15-7
Figure 15-2. Wind Zones in the United States
Source: FEMA 2021

15.2.5 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 weather events may come on more quickly and have only a few hours of warning time. The Los Angeles/Oxnard 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, posted on the NWS website, and are forwarded to the local media for retransmission using the Emergency Alert System.
422
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 15-8

15.3 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY

15.3.1 Population
All people in the planning area are exposed to some degree to the severe weather hazard. The most common problems associated with severe weather events are immobility and loss of utilities.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with lifethreatening 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. Populations living at higher elevations with large stands of trees or power lines may be more susceptible to wind damage and black out. The most common impacts of specific weather event types on people are as follows:
• Windstorms—Damaging winds can cause injuries and fatalities in a number of ways. Downed trees may fall on homes or cars, killing or injuring those inside. Objects that are not secured can be picked up in wind events and become projectiles.
• Tornado—Structures that collapse or blow over during tornadoes may kill or injure those inside. • Excessive heat—Heat exhaustion or heat stroke can cause illness or death. Toddlers are especially vulnerable if left or trapped in a parked vehicle. Seniors in residences without air conditioning are at more risk of heat illness and death during excessive heat waves. • Extreme cold— Extreme cold can cause hypothermia and frostbite, especially among the population that does not have adequate shelter.

15.3.2 Property
All property in the planning area is exposed to some degree to the severe weather hazard. Properties in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. The most common impacts of specific weather event types on property are as follows:
• Windstorm—Mobile homes can be seriously damaged by wind gusts over 80 mph, even if they are anchored (National Severe Storms Laboratory 2018). Properties at higher elevations or on ridges may be more prone to wind damage. Falling trees can result in significant damage to structures.
• Tornado—A major tornado could cause widespread damage to property in the planning area, but such an event is unlikely.
• Excessive heat—Periods of high heat do not typically pose risks to structures, but when power fails during high heat events, air conditioning systems also fail and result in secondary shutdowns of heat-sensitive electronic or networking systems housed in those structures. • Extreme cold—Infrastructure and building systems can be damaged by extreme cold when pipes freeze. Roofs can be damaged by ice buildup.

No modeling is available for quantitative loss estimations for the severe weather hazard. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 1 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent of the replacement value of exposed structures:
• Loss of 10 percent of planning area replacement value—$18,075,696,763 • Loss of 30 percent of planning area replacement value—$54,227,090,289 423
Severe Weather
15-9
• Loss of 50 percent of planning area replacement value—$90,378,483,815

15.3.3 Critical Facilities
All critical facilities are exposed to some degree to the severe weather hazard. Those that lack backup power generation capabilities are especially vulnerable. When facilities supplying power to planning area land line telephone systems are disrupted, significant issues arise with communication. Some facilities are particularly vulnerable to specific types of severe weather events:
• Windstorms—Facilities located near trees or power lines that are likely to fall are vulnerable.

Roads and other transportation infrastructure could be blocked by downed trees or other debris. • Tornado—Critical facilities in the direct path of a tornado are particularly vulnerable. • Excessive heat—Transportation systems can be impacted if extreme heat causes roads or railways to buckle.
• Extreme cold—Facilities that lack backup power are more likely to be impacted during extreme cold events. Pipes freeze more quickly in unheated buildings.

15.3.4 Environment
The entire environment of the planning area is exposed to some degree to the severe weather hazard.

High winds can cause extensive damage to forested areas. Storm surges increased by high winds can erode beachfront bluffs and redistribute sediment loads. Periods of prolonged heat can increase pest and disease pressure on crops and increase the effects of drought.

15.4 SCENARIO
A worst-case severe weather event would involve prolonged high winds accompanied by thunderstorms. Initially, schools and roads would be closed due to power outages caused by high winds and downed tree obstructions. In more rural areas, some subdivisions could experience limited ingress and egress. If these events coincided with extreme heat or cold, the impacts on the population would be even greater.

15.5 ISSUES
Severe weather cannot be prevented, but measures can be taken to mitigate the effects. Critical infrastructure and utilities can be hardened to prevent damage during an event. Important issues associated with severe weather in the Ventura County planning area include the following:
• Redundancy of power supply throughout the planning area must be evaluated to better understand what areas may be vulnerable.
• Public education on dealing with the impacts of severe weather needs to continue to be provided so that residents 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.
424
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 15-10
• Climate change may result in more intense weather events and will likely lead to increased temperatures.
• Older building stock in the planning area is built to low code standards or none at all. These structures could be highly vulnerable to severe wind.
• Urban forest management programs should be evaluated to help reduce impacts from forestrelated wind damages. 425
16-1

16. TSUNAMI

16.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
A tsunami is a series of high-energy waves that radiate outward like pond ripples from an area where a generating event occurs, arriving at shorelines over an extended period. Tsunamis can be induced by earthquakes, landslides, and submarine volcanic explosions (see Figure 16-1). Tsunamis are typically classified as local or distant, depending on the location of their source in comparison to where waves occur:
• The waves nearest to the generating source represent a local tsunami. Such events have minimal warning time, leaving few options except to run to high ground after a strong, prolonged local earthquake. Damage from the tsunami adds to damage from the triggering earthquake due to ground shaking, surface faulting, liquefaction, and landslides. • The waves far from the generating source represent a distant tsunami. Distant tsunamis may travel for hours before striking a coastline, giving a community a chance to implement evacuation plans if a warning is received.

Figure 16-1. Common Sources of Tsunamis

In the open ocean, a tsunami may be only a few inches or feet high, but it can travel with speeds approaching 600 miles per hour. As a tsunami enters the shoaling waters near a coastline, its speed diminishes, its wavelength decreases, and its height increases greatly. At the shoreline, tsunamis may take the form of a fast-rising tide, a cresting wave, or a bore (a large, turbulent wall-like wave). The bore phenomenon resembles a step-like change in the water level that advances rapidly (from 10 to 60 miles per hour). The first wave is usually followed by several larger and more destructive waves. 426
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-2

16.1.1 Factors Affecting Tsunami Impact
The configuration of the coastline, the shape of the ocean floor, and the characteristics of advancing waves play important roles in the destructiveness of the waves. Bays, sounds, inlets, rivers, streams, offshore canyons, islands, and flood control channels may alter the level of damage. Offshore canyons can focus tsunami wave energy, and islands can filter the energy. A tsunami wave entering a flood control channel could reach a mile or more inland, especially if it enters at high tide. The orientation of the coastline determines whether the waves strike head-on or are refracted from other parts of the coastline. A wave may be small at one point and much larger at others. The inundation area for a tsunami event is often described as runup as illustrated in Figure 16-2.

Figure 16-2. Runup Distance and Height in Relation to the Datum and Shoreline Source: UNESCO, Retrieved from Different Directions: Tsunami, n.d.

16.1.2 Secondary Hazards
The secondary hazards most directly associated with tsunamis are flooding and coastal erosion, which are likely results of tsunami events.
427
Tsunami
16-3

16.2 HAZARD PROFILE

16.2.1 Past Events
More than 80 tsunamis have been recorded or observed in California, according to state records; however, many of these events were small and led to little or no damage. All tsunamis from the past century have been distant, not local. That is, they have all resulted from earthquakes far across the Pacific basin (as opposed to earthquakes near the American coastline). Ventura County has been affected by major statewide tsunamis as well as more local minor tsunamis. Table 16-1 lists known tsunami events that have struck the County or one of its jurisdictions since 1812.

Table 16-1. Tsunami Events in Ventura County
Date Description
March 11, 2011 A 7.1 magnitude earthquake in Japan caused a run-up within Ventura Harbor. A federal disaster declaration was issued (DR-1968).

February 27, 2010 An 8.8 magnitude earthquake in Chile caused a 3-foot run-up in Ventura, as well as damage to 21 docks in Ventura Harbor.

September 29, 2009 An 8.2 magnitude earthquake in Samoa moved buoys within Ventura Harbor.

March 28, 1964 A 9.2 magnitude earthquake in Alaska caused the tide in Ventura to drop 8 feet and large swells were reported in Oxnard.

May 24, 1960 A 9.5 magnitude earthquake in Chile created a 4.4-foot run-up in Port Hueneme causing damage to docks and ships.

March 9, 1957 An 8.3 magnitude earthquake along the Aleutian Islands caused an approximate 2-foot run-up 6 hours after the first wave hit in Port Hueneme.

November 4, 1952 An 8.2 magnitude earthquake in Kamchatka caused a 2.3-foot run-up in Port Hueneme.

April 1, 1946 An 8.8 magnitude earthquake along the Aleutian Islands caused sand to sweep over the railroad tracks near Ormond Beach and minor ship berthing problems in Port Hueneme.

December 21, 1812 A 7.1 magnitude earthquake centered in the Santa Barbara or Ventura area caused a 6.5-foot run-up and damage to San Miguelito Chapel.

Source: Ventura County 2021

16.2.2 Location
The California Department of Conservation maintains detailed tsunami inundation maps for Ventura County and other parts of the state. These maps are generated through computer modeling of the areas most likely to be affected by a tsunami event and serve as an important preparedness tool. The tsunami hazard areas identified in the mapping are based on a suite of tsunami sources, both local and distant, and do not, therefore, represent risk from a single-source event. Tsunami risk areas are shown in Figure 16-3.

16.2.3 Frequency
Generally, four or five tsunamis occur every year in the Pacific Basin, and those that are most damaging are generated in the Pacific waters off South America rather than in the northern Pacific.

Based on risk factors for the County and past occurrences, it is highly likely that tsunamis will continue to strike the coastline in Ventura County. Tsunami probabilities are tied to earthquake and other geologic events; however, not all earthquakes or submarine landslides will trigger a tsunami. 428
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
Lake Piru
Lake
Casitas
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 16-3. Tsunami Risk Areas for Ventura County
Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
CGS, Esri
Tsunami Inundation Zones
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
429
Tsunami
16-5

16.2.4 Severity
A tsunami’s size and speed, as well as the coastal area’s form and depth, affect the impact of the tsunami. At some locations, the advancing turbulent wave front will be the most destructive part of the tsunami wave. In other situations, the greatest damage will be caused by the outflow of water back to the sea between crests, sweeping away items on the surface and undermining roads, buildings, bulkheads, and other structures. This outflow action can carry enormous amounts of highly damaging debris, resulting in further destruction. Ships and boats, unless moved away from shore, may be forced against breakwaters, wharves, and other craft, or be washed ashore and left grounded after the withdrawal of the seawater (National Tsunami Warning Center 2021).

16.2.5 Warning Time
Visible Indications
Tsunamis are difficult to detect in the open ocean; with waves generally less than 3 feet high. The first visible indication of an approaching tsunami may be either a rise or drop in water surface levels (National Tsunami Warning Center 2021):
• A drop in water level (draw down) can be caused by the trough preceding the advancing, large inbound wave crest. Rapid draw down can create strong currents in harbor inlets and channels that can severely damage coastal structures due to erosive scour around piers and pilings. As the water’s surface drops, piers can be damaged by boats or ships straining at or breaking their mooring lines. The vessels can overturn or sink due to strong currents, collisions with other objects, or impact with the harbor bottom.
• The advancing tsunami may initially arrive as a strong surge increasing the sea level. This can be similar to the rising tide, but the tsunami surge rises faster and does not stop at the shoreline. Even if the wave height appears to be small, 3 to 6 feet for example, the strength of the accompanying surge can be deadly. Waist-high surges can cause strong currents that float cars, small structures, other debris, and hazardous materials. Boats and debris are often carried inland by the surge and left stranded when the water recedes.

Warning System
The tsunami warning system for the Pacific Ocean evolved from a program initiated in 1946. It is a cooperative effort involving 26 countries along with numerous seismic stations, water level stations and information distribution centers. The National Weather Service operates two regional information distribution centers: The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Ewa Beach, Hawaii; and the National Tsunami Warning Center covering the California coast in Palmer, Alaska. The warning centers issue tsunami watches, warnings, and advisories. A watch is issued when a large earthquake has occurred far away from the region and the threat is still being determined.

A warning is issued when damaging tsunami waves inundating dry land are expected. An advisory is issued when tsunami waves less than 1 meter high and dangerous strong currents will occur in harbors. The warning system is activated when a Pacific basin earthquake of magnitude 6.5 occurs or an earthquake is widely felt along the North American coast. When this occurs, the following sequence of actions occurs:
• Data is interpolated to determine epicenter and magnitude of the event. 430
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-6
• If the earthquake is of the right type, depth, magnitude, and is far away from California coast, a TSUNAMI WATCH is typically issued for the California coastline. • A TSUNAMI WATCH is upgraded to a TSUNAMI WARNING if tsunami wave heights are forecast to be 1 meter or larger. A TSUNAMI ADVISORY is issued if tsunami wave heights are forecast to be 0.3 meters to less than 1 meter.
• Tsunami travel times are calculated, and the warning is transmitted to disseminating agencies who relay it to the public.
• The National Tsunami Warning Center will cancel/expire watches, warnings, or advisories if tide gauges and buoys indicate no significant tsunami was generated or if tsunami waves no longer meet the criteria for at least 3 hours.

This system is not considered to be effective for communities close to the tsunami source, because the first wave would arrive before the data can be processed and analyzed, and communications systems may be impacted by the precipitating event. In this case, strong ground shaking would provide the first warning of a potential tsunami and evacuations should begin immediately.

Estimated Travel Times
The NOAA National Center for Environmental Information website provides maps that show estimated travel times to coastal locations for various tsunami-generating events. Figure 16-4 shows one example of the travel time for a tsunami generated in Aburatsu, Japan to reach the planning area— approximately 13 hours.

16.3 EXPOSURE
Exposure and vulnerability estimates are based on tsunami inundation maps. The value of exposed buildings in the tsunami inundation zone was generated by overlaying the inundation areas on the general building stock. The population living in tsunami hazard zones was estimated using the percent of buildings within the tsunami inundation areas and applying this percent to the estimated planning area population. Detailed results by jurisdiction are included in Appendix D; results for the total planning area are presented below.

16.3.1 Population
The estimated total population living in the evaluated tsunami inundation zone is 27,626 (3.3 percent of the total planning area population). People recreating along beaches, low-lying coastal areas, tidal flats, and stream deltas that empty into ocean-going waters also would be exposed.

16.3.2 Property
Table 16-2 summarizes the estimated property exposure in the evaluated tsunami inundation areas.

Figure 16-5 shows the Hazus-defined occupancy class of all buildings in the tsunami inundation areas.

These occupancy classes provide an indication of land use within the mapped hazard area. Some land uses are more vulnerable to inundation, such as single-family homes, while others are less vulnerable, such as agricultural land or parks.
431
Tsunami
16-7
Figure 16-4. Potential Tsunami Travel Times in the Pacific Ocean, in Hours Source: National Centers for Environmental Information, 2021 Table 16-2. Exposed Property in the Tsunami Inundation Zone Acres of Inundation Area 4,690
Number of Buildings Exposed 7,300
Value of Exposed Structures $2,703,527,102
Value of Exposed Contents $1,659,832,511
Total Exposed Property Value $4,363,359,613
Total Exposed Value as % of Planning Area Total 2.4%
432
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-8
Figure 16-5. Structures in the Tsunami Inundation Zone, by Building Occupancy Class

16.3.3 Critical Facilities
Figure 16-6 shows critical facilities located in the tsunami inundation zone by facility type. The total count of critical facilities in the tsunami inundation zone (22) represents 1.4 percent of the planning area total of 1,588.

Figure 16-6. Critical Facilities in Tsunami Inundation Area Residential
6,725
92%
Commercial
274
4%
Industrial
4 0%
Agriculture
18 0%
Religion
0 Government 0%
263
4%
Education
16 0%
4 1
13 0 0
3 7
0 4
8 12
16 20
Number of Facilties in Hazard Area
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation

1.6% 0.9%

6.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Facilties in Hazard Area as % of Planning Area Total
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
433
Tsunami
16-9

16.3.4 Environment
All waterways and beaches would be exposed to the effects of a tsunami; inundation of water and introduction of foreign debris could be hazardous to the environment. All wildlife inhabiting the area also is exposed.

16.4 VULNERABILITY
The vulnerability of people, property, and critical facilities was evaluated for the mapped tsunami inundation areas. Appendix D shows results by jurisdiction; countywide summaries are provided below.

16.4.1 Population
The populations most vulnerable to the tsunami hazard are the elderly, disabled, and very young who reside or recreate near beaches, low-lying coastal areas, tidal flats, and stream or river deltas that empty into ocean-going waters. Visitors recreating in or around inundation areas also would be vulnerable, as they may not be as familiar as residents with appropriate responses to a tsunami or ways to reach higher ground.

Impacts on persons and households in the mapped tsunami inundation area were estimated through the Level 2 Hazus analysis. Countywide results are as follows:
• Number of Displaced Population = 21,957
• Number of Residents Requiring Short-Term Shelter= 1,584

16.4.2 Property
Property Impacted
The impact of tsunami waves and the scouring associated with debris that may be carried in the water could be damaging to all structures along beaches, low-lying coastal areas, tidal flats, and river deltas.

The most vulnerable are those in the front line of tsunami impact and those that are structurally unsound. The Hazus analysis indicated that 17.8 percent of the exposed structures (1,297 structures) would be impacted by the modeled scenario event.

Damage Estimates
Table 16-3 summarizes Hazus estimates of tsunami damage in the planning area. The estimated damage value is associated with the tsunami wave only; it does not include additional damage that may occur as a result of debris battering structures as the tsunami wave rushes in and out of the inundation area or fires caused by an earthquake and tsunami event. The debris estimate includes only structural debris and building finishes; it does not include additional debris that may result from a tsunami event, such as from boats, trees, sediment, building contents, bridges, or utility lines. Structures that were built to current floodplain regulations in the tsunami inundation area may have some level of protection, particularly if they were built to withstand wave action. 434
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-10
Table 16-3. Estimated Impact of a Tsunami Event in the Planning Area Structure Debris (tons) 1,755,480
Buildings Impacted 1,297
Structure Value Damaged $125,195,566
Content Value Damaged $198,643,647
Total Value Damaged 4323,839,203
Damage as % of Total Value 0.2%

16.4.3 Critical Facilities
Significant facilities predicted by Hazus to be affected by the modeled tsunami event include one fire station, one school, and five road bridges
Damage Estimates
Hazus was used to estimate the number of critical facilities affected by tsunami and the resulting percent of damage to the building and contents. Figure 16-7 compares the predicted number of affected facilities to the number of exposed facilities. Figure 16-8 shows the estimated damage to critical facilities from a tsunami event. Depending on critical facility category, the average amount of damage to structures, measured as a percentage of total value, ranges from 1.3 to 13.0 percent of total value, and average damage to contents ranges from 0 to 47.4 percent.

Figure 16-7. Critical Facilities Exposed to and Affected by Mapped Tsunami Inundation Area 4 1
7 0 0
3 7
2 1 1
0 0
2 5
0 2
4 6
8 10
Communications Energy Food, Water &
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation
Number of Faciliities Exposed or Affected
Exposed Facilities
Affected Facilities
435
Tsunami
16-11
Figure 16-8. Average % of Damage to Critical Facilities Caused by Modeled Tsunami Vulnerable Infrastructure
In addition to the vulnerable critical facilities identified by the Hazus analysis, the following infrastructure is also generally vulnerable to damage:
• Water Proximate Infrastructure—Breakwaters and piers collapse, sometimes because of scouring actions that sweep away their foundation material and sometimes because of the sheer impact of the tsunami waves.
• Flood Control Systems—Floodwaters can back up drainage systems, causing localized flooding. Culverts can be blocked by debris from tsunami events, also causing localized urban flooding.
• Utility Systems—Floodwaters can get into drinking water supplies, causing contamination.

Sewer systems can be backed up, causing waste to spill into homes, neighborhoods, rivers, and streams. Tsunami waves can knock down power lines and radio/cellular communication towers.

Power generation facilities can be severely impacted by wave action and by inundation from floodwater.

16.4.4 Environment
Environmental impacts on local waterways and wildlife would be most significant in areas closest to the point of impact. Areas near gas stations, industrial areas and facilities storing hazardous materials are vulnerable. The vulnerability of aquatic habit and associated ecosystems in low-lying areas close to the coastline is high. Tsunami waves can carry destructive debris and pollutants that can have devastating impacts on all facets of the environment. A tsunami event has the potential to alter the shoreline, depending on the force of the run-up.

10.2 6.2

13.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3

47.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8.8 0.0
0 20
40 60
80 100
Communications Energy Food, Water &
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation
Average Damage as % of Total Value
Damage to Structure
Damage to Contents
436
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-12
Most environmental and ecological impacts from tsunamis derive from direct damage from the waves, which can physically remove vegetation and wildlife, increase sediment load, and smother vegetation that is not physically carried away. Other environmental impacts from tsunamis include chemical changes from saltwater intruding into freshwater sources; eutrophication (enrichment) of water from increased runoff; and decomposition of vegetation, wildlife, rotting property (boats or buildings) and unrecovered remains. Non-biodegradable waste, such as plastics, can lead to a buildup in marine debris, and toxic wastes, if inadequately stored, may be released into the environment. Lastly, exotic wildlife may be introduced or may escape into the local ecosystem.

16.5 SCENARIO
The presentation Tsunami Hazards and Preparedness in Ventura County shows that local tsunamis may cause serious impact. A worst-case-scenario for the Ventura coastline would be a nearshore tsunami caused by a significant off-shore seismic event. While history has shown that these type events are not likely, should one occur, damage for this type of event would exceed what is estimated in the risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan.

16.6 ISSUES
The planning team has identified the following issues related to the tsunami hazard for the planning area:
• Hazard Identification—To truly measure and evaluate the probable impacts of tsunamis on planning, hazard mapping based on probabilistic scenarios must continue to be updated regularly. The science and technology in this field are emerging. Accurate probabilistic tsunami mapping will need to be a key component for tsunami hazard mitigation programs to be effective.
• Building Code Revisions—Present building codes and guidelines may not adequately address the impacts of tsunamis on structures. Planning partners, in the cities of Ventura, Oxnard, and Port Hueneme, should review their building code for requirements for tsunami-resistant construction standards in vulnerable areas.
• Enhancement of Current Capabilities—As tsunami warning technologies evolve, the tsunami warning capability within the planning area will need to be enhanced to provide the highest degree of warning.
• Vulnerable Populations Planning—Special attention will need to be focused on the vulnerable communities in the tsunami zone and on hazard mitigation through public education, outreach, and warning capabilities. This issue may be especially important for visitors to Ventura County. 437
17-1

17. WILDFIRE

17.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Although wildfires can occur naturally and are important to many ecosystem processes, most are started by human activity.

17.1.1 CAL FIRE Wildfire Mapping
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CAL FIRE has modeled and mapped wildfire hazard zones
using a computer model that designates moderate, high or very high fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ). FHSZ ratings are derived from a combination of fire frequency (how often an area burns) and expected fire behavior under severe weather conditions. CAL FIRE’s model derives fire frequency from 50 years of fire history data. Fire behavior is based on factors such as the following (CAL FIRE 2021):
• 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 Arundo donax and other grasses, leaves, and
needles quickly 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.

When the temperature is high, relative humidity is low, wind speed is increasing and coming from the east (offshore flow), and there has been little or no precipitation, so vegetation is dry, conditions are very favorable for extensive and severe wildfires. These conditions occur more frequently inland where temperatures are higher and fog is less prevalent. • 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;

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY AS

DETERMINED BY CAL FIRE
CAL FIRE classifies areas of the state as
having a moderate, high, or very high fire
hazard, based on how a fire would behave
in a given area and the probability of
flames and embers threatening buildings.

For wildland areas, the FHSZ model uses
burn probability and expected fire behavior
based on weather, fuel (the vegetation in
the area), and terrain. For urban areas,
hazard levels are based on vegetation
density, distance from wildlands, and the
levels assigned to surrounding zones.

Each area gets a score for flame length,
embers, and the likelihood of the area
burning. Scores of smaller areas are then
averaged over larger zones that
encompass them.
438
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-2
potential barriers to fire spread, such as highways and lakes; and elevation and slope of landforms (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.

Wildfire Protection Responsibility Areas
Hundreds of agencies have fire protection responsibility for wildland and wildland/urban interface fires in California. Local, state, tribal, and federal organizations have primary legal (and financial) responsibility for wildfire protection. 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 2018 California State 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 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, and 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. LRAs may include flammable vegetation and wildland/urban interface areas where the financial and jurisdictional responsibility for improvement and wildfire protection is that of a local government agency.
439
Wildfire
17-3

17.1.2 State Codes and Policies for Mitigating the Fire Hazard Urbanization tends to alter the natural fire regime and can lead to expansion of urbanized areas into wildland areas. State and local policies and regulations require landowners to carry out activities such as maintaining defensible space and reducing vulnerability to damage or loss from wildfire. The most important policies and regulations related to residential wildfire safety in California are as follows:
• General Plan Safety Element Review: Government Code 65302.5—The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (BOF) must provide recommendations to a local jurisdiction’s general plan safety element at the time that the general plan is being amended. BOF recommendations include goals and policies that provide for contemporary fire-prevention standards for the jurisdiction. This is not a direct and binding fire-prevention requirement for individuals. • Sprinkler Systems: California Residential Code, Chapter 3, Section R313—All new dwellings, dwelling units, and one- and two-family townhomes must be equipped with an automatic fire-sprinkler system that can protect the entirety of the dwelling. Dwellings and homes constructed prior to January 1, 2011, that do not have a sprinkler system may be retrofitted, but it is not required.
• Fire Safety Standards: California Public Resources Code 4290 and 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 1270—These regulations govern roads, driveway width, clearance, turnarounds, signing, and water related to fire safety throughout California. Public Resources Code 4290 is typically enacted through regulation at the county level, as described below. • Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards: California Government Code 51189—The Office of the State Fire Marshal is required to create building standards for wildfire resistance.

Construction of buildings in the wildland-urban interface must use fire-resistant materials to save life and property. As of 2011, the standards relevant to fire-safe construction for all new structures in the SRA are the California Building Code, Chapter 7A (for commercial construction) and the California Residential Code, Chapter 3, Section R327 (for residential construction).
• State Responsibility Area: Public Resources Code 4102, 4125-4229 and 14 CCR 1220— These statutes and regulations establish the locations where CAL FIRE has the financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires. These designations define financial arrangements for fire protection services and establish the locations where fire safe and defensible space laws or regulations apply.
• Hazardous Fire Areas: Public Resources Code 4251-4255 and 14 CCR 1200—These laws and regulations allow petitioners to the BOF or CAL FIRE to establish hazardous fire areas, providing for area closures and other restrictions for fire prevention. • Defensible Vegetation Clearing Around Structures: Public Resources Code 4291/14 CCR 1299— Public Resources Code 4291 regulates fuel management around a property. It states that a person who owns or controls a building or structure in or adjoining to forest, brush, or grass covered lands shall follow certain guidelines outlined in the code. At least 100 feet of defensible space is required. The owner of the property is liable for making these changes to protect habitable structures. The 100 feet is separated into two zones, with the closer zone, 30 feet out from the structure, being managed more intensively. 440
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-4

17.1.3 Secondary Hazards
Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. Wildfires strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soils and cause failures on slopes. 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.

17.2 HAZARD PROFILE

17.2.1 Past Events
Ventura County has a prolific fire history, including 11 events since 2000 that have triggered federal disaster declarations, as listed in Table 17-1. Most of these fires coincided with strong Santa Ana wind events.

Table 17-1. Federally Declared Wildfire Events in Ventura County Date Started FEMA Declaration # Description
October 31, 2019 FM-5302 Maria Fire 9,999 acres burned, 4 structures destroyed October 30, 2019 FM-5298 Easy Fire 2,375 acres burned, 1 structure damaged, 1 structure destroyed November 8, 2018 DR-4407 Woolsey Fire 96,949 acres, 1,643 structures destroyed, 3 fatalities December 4, 2017 FM-5224
DR-4353
Thomas Firea 281,893 acres burned, 280 structures damaged, 1,063 structures destroyed, 2 fatalities
May 2, 2013 FM-5024 Springs Fire 24,251 acres burned, 12 structures damaged, 10 structures destroyed September 22, 2009 FM-2839 Guiberson Fire 17,500 acres burned December 3, 2006 FM-2681 Shekell Fire 13,600 acres burned, 7 structures burned September 4, 2006 FM-2677 Day Fire 162,702 acres burned November 17, 2005 FM-2586 School Fire 3,891 acres burned September 28, 2005 FM-2583 Topanga Fire 24, 175 acres burned, 6 structures burned October 25, 2003 DR-1498 Simi Fire 107,560 acres burned, 48 structures lost Source: FEMA 2021, CAL FIRE 2021
a. Statistics include Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties CAL FIRE maintains statistics on historical wildfire activity through its annual reporting (Redbooks).

Wildfire statistics include state and county information, cause and size, acres burned, and dollar damage, among other details. Figure 17-1 shows the wildfire activity for Ventura County between 2011 and 2019, the most recent annual report available. CAL FIRE has Redbooks available for every year back through 1942.
441
Wildfire
17-5
Figure 17-1. CAL FIRE Wildfire Activity Statistics for Ventura County 2011-2019

17.2.2 Location
Figure 17-2 shows the moderate, high, and very high FHSZs for Ventura County. These maps are the basis for the wildfire risk assessment.

17.2.3 Frequency
The wildfire season in coastal Southern California displays a distinct seasonality. Unlike the rest of western North America, which is mainly susceptible to wildfires during the summer, Southern California’s fire season historically peaks in the fall. This is the result of two factors: the long dry summer defining the local Mediterranean climate regime; and the dry, gusty downslope Santa Ana winds, whose season starts in the fall when vegetation is at its driest.

Based on its history of past events, Ventura County has a high chance of a wildfire in any given year.

The most common causes of wildfires, based on recent past events, will be “undetermined,” miscellaneous, equipment use, playing with fire, and arson.

17.2.4 Severity
The Thomas Fire in 2017 had greater impact on Ventura County than any other wildfire to date. This fire started near Santa Paula and spread quickly, aided by strong Santa Ana winds. It burned for 38 days, covering 282,000 acres in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and destroying or damaging more than 1,300 structures. Two people lost their lives. The agriculture industry in Ventura County suffered losses of at least $171 million.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Number of Fires
Reported Cause
2011-13
2014-16
2017-19
442
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
Lake Piru
Lake
Casitas
¬«33 ¬«118
¬«34
¬« ¬«118 126
¬«150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«23
¬«126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«33
¬«34
¬«1
¬«150
¬«232
¬«33
¬«23
£¤101
Figure 17-2. Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones in Ventura County Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
CAL FIRE, Esri
Moderate
High
Very High
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
443
Wildfire
17-7
In CAL FIRE’s July 2021 list of the deadliest, largest, and most destructive wildfires that have occurred in the state, the Thomas Fire ranks as the 8th largest and 15th most destructive. The 2018 Woolsey Fire ranks as the 8th most destructive. Both these fires were exacerbated by strong Santa Ana wind conditions. Although no Ventura County fires are listed among the top 20 deadliest events, four of the deadliest fires recorded were in neighboring Los Angeles County.

17.2.5 Warning Time
Whether intentionally or accidentally, most wildfires are caused by humans. There is no way to predict when one might break out. Dry seasons, prolonged droughts, and Santa Ana wind events are factors that greatly increase fire likelihood. Severe weather can be predicted, so special attention can be paid during weather events that may increase wildfire risk. Since fireworks often cause brush fires, extra diligence also is warranted around holidays, such as Fourth of July, when the use of fireworks is highest.

If a fire does break out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within days or hours.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, a fire’s peak burning period generally is between 10 a.m. and sundown. 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 significant improvements in warning time.

17.3 EXPOSURE
A quantitative assessment of exposure to the wildfire hazard was conducted using the hazard mapping shown in Figure 17-2 and the asset inventory developed for this plan. Detailed results by municipality are provided in Appendix D; results for the total planning area are presented below.

17.3.1 Population
Population exposure was estimated by calculating the number of buildings in each hazard area as a percent of total planning area buildings and applying this percentage to the planning area population.

Table 17-2 summarizes the estimated countywide population living in the mapped risk areas. In addition to populations who reside in risk areas where fires may occur, visitors, hikers and campers may be exposed to wildfires. The entire population of the planning area has the potential to be exposed to smoke from nearby wildfires.

Table 17-2. Exposed Population in Mapped Relative Fire Hazard Zones Moderate FHSZ High FHSZ Very High FHSZ
Population Exposed 6,101 4,188 175,759
% of Total Planning Area Population 0.7% 0.5% 20.8%

17.3.2 Property
Table 17-3 summarizes the estimated countywide property exposure in the mapped wildfire risk areas.

Figure 17-3 shows the occupancy class for all buildings in the mapped fire hazard areas. These 444
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-8
occupancy classes provide an indication of land use within the mapped hazard area. Some land uses are more vulnerable to fire, such as single-family homes, while others are less vulnerable, such as agricultural land or parks.

Table 17-3. Exposed Property in Mapped Relative Fire Hazard Zones Moderate FHSZ High FHSZ Very High FHSZ
Number of Buildings Exposed 4,648 2,872 58,678
Value of Exposed Structures $1,444,900,462 $955,204,682 $24,250,894,229 Value of Exposed Contents $1,099,162,715 $725,563,443 $15,324,915,299 Total Exposed Property Value $2,544,063,177 $1,680,768,126 $39,575,809,528 Total Exposed Value as % of Planning Area Total 1.4% 0.9% 21.9% Figure 17-3. Structures in the Moderate, High or Very High FHSZs, by Occupancy Class Residential
2,089
45%
Commercial
281
6%
Industrial
12 0%
Agriculture
2,133
46%
Religion
59 1%
Government
64 2%
Education
10 0%

MODERATE FHSZ
Residential
1,451
50%
Commercial
178
6% Industrial
0 0%
Agriculture
1,141
40% Religion
28 1%
Government
56 2%
Education
18 1%

HIGH FHSZ
Residential
51,856
88%
Commercial
2,274
4%
Industrial
491
1%
Agriculture
2,922
5%
Religion
421
1%
Government
243
0%
Education
471
1%

VERY HIGH FHSZ
445
Wildfire
17-9

17.3.3 Critical Facilities
Figure 17-4 shows critical facilities located in the high or very high fire hazard severity zones, by facility type. The total count of critical facilities in these risk areas (386) represents 25 percent of the planning area total of 1,588. A breakdown by municipality is provided in Appendix D.

Figure 17-4. Critical Facilities in High or Very High Severity Zones

17.3.4 Environment
All natural resources and habitats in mapped fire hazard severity zones are exposed to the risk of wildfire.

17.4 VULNERABILITY

17.4.1 Population
All people exposed to the wildfire hazard are potentially vulnerable to wildfire impacts. Persons with access and functional needs, the elderly and very young may be especially vulnerable to a wildfire if there is not adequate warning time for them to evacuate if needed. In addition, people outside the mapped risk areas are susceptible to health hazards associated with smoke and air pollution from wildfires, especially sensitive populations including children, the elderly, and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. In addition, wildfires threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires.

17.4.2 Property
All property exposed to the wildfire hazard is vulnerable. Structures that were not constructed to standards designed to protect a building from a wildfire may be especially vulnerable. As of 2008, 72 36
79 14
2 69
131
0 30
60 90
120
150
Number of Facilties in Hazard Area
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation

28.8%

32.4%

37.6%

15.1%

20.0% 17.6%

25.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Facilties in Hazard Area as % of Planning Area Total
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
446
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-10
California State Building code requires minimum standards be met for new buildings in fire hazard severity zones. According the 2019 American Community Survey estimates, most of the housing in the planning area—96.8 percent—was built prior to this code requirement. It is unknown how many of these structures are located in fire hazard zones.

Estimates were developed to indicate the loss that would occur if wildfire damage were equal to 1, 10, 30 or 50 percent of the exposed property value, as summarized in Table 17-4. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure.

Table 17-4. Loss Estimates for Fire Hazard Severity Zones Exposed Value Loss Value Loss as % of Total Planning Area Replacement Value Moderate FHSZ
Loss = 1% of Exposed Value
$2,544,063,177
$25,440,632 0.01%
Loss = 10% of Exposed Value $254,406,318 0.14%
Loss = 30% of Exposed Value $763,218,953 0.42%
Loss = 50% of Exposed Value $1,272,031,589 0.70%
High FHSZ
Loss = 1% of Exposed Value
$1,680,768,126
$16,807,681 0.01%
Loss = 10% of Exposed Value $168,076,813 0.09%
Loss = 30% of Exposed Value $504,230,438 0.27%
Loss = 50% of Exposed Value $840,384,063 0.45%
Very FHSZ
Loss = 1% of Exposed Value
$39,575,809,528
$395,758,095 0.22%
Loss = 10% of Exposed Value $3,957,580,953 2.19%
Loss = 30% of Exposed Value $11,872,742,858 6.57%
Loss = 50% of Exposed Value $19,787,904,764 10.95%

17.4.3 Critical Facilities
Currently there are 14 hazardous material containment sites identified in wildfire risk zones. During a wildfire event, containers with these materials could rupture because of the 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 most infrastructure. Most roads would not be damaged except in the worst scenarios, although roads and bridges can be blocked by debris or fire-related conditions and become impassable. Power poles 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.
447
Wildfire
17-11

17.4.4 Environment
Fire is a natural and critical ecosystem process in most terrestrial ecosystems, affecting the types, structure, and spatial extent of native vegetation. However, in some circumstances it can also cause severe environmental impacts, such as the following:
• 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.
• Reduced Agricultural Resources—Wildfire can have disastrous consequences on agricultural resources, removing them from production and necessitating lengthy restoration programs. • Spread of Invasive Plant Species—Non-native plant species, such as Arundo donax, 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—Wildfire can have negative consequences for endangered species by degrading their habitat.
• Soil Sterilization—Some wildfires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil. Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil nutrients may be lost. • Damaged Fisheries—Fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation, and changes in water quality.
• Damaged Cultural and Historical Resources—The destruction of cultural and historic resources may occur, scenic vistas can be damaged, and access to recreational areas can be reduced.

17.5 SCENARIO
With Ventura County’s Mediterranean climate, high moisture levels during the winter rainy season can significantly increase the growth of plants, followed by that vegetation becoming dried during the long, hot summers, decreasing plant moisture content and increasing the ratio of dead fuel to living fuel. As a result, fire susceptibility increases dramatically, particularly in late summer and early autumn.

The worst conditions for local wildfires also depend on how long it has been since the last fire. For several years after a fire has occurred, easily flammable herbaceous species predominate and increase the likelihood of new fires. When woody species become re-established, they contribute to a lower overall level of fire susceptibility for approximately 10 years. However, after this period, the slow aging plant community becomes ever more likely to burn because of increased levels of dead plant material and lowered plant moisture levels.

Santa Ana winds contribute to the likeliness of wildfires in Ventura County, bringing extremely dry air and high wind speeds that further desiccate plant communities during the period of the year when the constituent species have very low moisture content. The effect of these winds on existing fires is particularly dangerous; the winds can greatly increase the rate at which fires spread. 448
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-12
A worst-case scenario would include an active fire season throughout the American west, spreading resources thin. Firefighting teams would be exhausted or unavailable. Many federal assets would be responding to other fires that started earlier in the season.

To further complicate the problem, heavy rains could follow, causing flooding and landslides in areas where vegetation has been removed by the fire.

17.6 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 actions such as defensible space and advance identification of evacuation routes and safe zones. • Wildfires could cause landslides as a secondary natural hazard. • Wildfire preparedness and response planning should emphasize being alert to any predictions of Santa Ana winds, which are significant contributors to wildfire in Ventura County. • Climate change could exacerbate the wildfire hazard.
• Future growth into interface areas should continue to be managed. • Area fire districts need to continue to train on wildland-urban interface events. • Vegetation management activities—This issue 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. • Firefighters in remote and rural areas are faced with limited water supply and lack of hydrant taps.
• Expand certifications and qualifications for fire department personnel. • Ensure that all firefighters are trained in basic wildfire behavior, basic fire weather, and that all company officers and chief level officers are trained to the wildland command and strike team leader level.
449
18-1

18. CLIMATE CHANGE

18.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND

18.1.1 What is Climate Change?
“Climate change” refers to alterations in the long-term patterns of temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind and seasons that play a fundamental role in shaping natural ecosystems and the human economies and cultures that depend on them. These shifts may result from natural processes (e.g., cyclical ocean patterns like El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, volcanic activity, changes in the sun’s energy output, variations in Earth’s orbit), but they can also be driven by human activity. Many of the changes observed in Earth’s climate since the early 20th century have been attributed to human activity.

The well-established worldwide warming trend of recent decades 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; however, 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, and changes in land use. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), carbon dioxide concentrations measured about 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial era began in the late 1700s and have risen dramatically since then, surpassing 400 ppm in 2013 for the first time in recorded history (see Figure 18-1).

18.1.2 How Climate Change Affects Hazard Mitigation
Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems of the planning area in a variety of ways. Consequences of climate change include increased periods of prolonged drought, potential for heat-related illnesses, detrimental impacts on agricultural productivity, and increased flood vulnerability. The most important effect for the development of this hazard mitigation plan is that climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of many natural hazards.

An essential aspect of hazard mitigation is predicting the likelihood of future hazard events. 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.
450
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-2
Figure 18-1. Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over Time Source: NASA 2021
For hazards that are affected by climate conditions though, the assumption that future behavior will be equivalent to past behavior is not valid. For example, flooding is generally associated with precipitation frequency and quantity. However, the frequency of flooding will not remain constant if broad precipitation patterns change over time. Specifically, as hydrology changes, storms currently considered to be the 100-year flood might strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk.

The risks of landslide, severe storms, severe weather, 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.

18.1.3 Current Indicators of Climate Change
Global Indicators
The major scientific agencies of the United States—including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—have presented evidence that climate change is occurring. NASA summarizes key evidence as follows (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2021):
• Global Temperature Rise—The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.12 ºF since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide emissions into 451
Climate Change
18-3
the atmosphere and other human activities. Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the seven most recent years being the warmest. The years 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year on record. The ocean has absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 100 meters (about 328 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.6 ºF since 1969. Earth stores 90 percent of its extra energy in the ocean.
• Shrinking Ice Sheets—The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 279 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2019, while Antarctica lost about 148 billion tons of ice per year.
• Glacial Retreat—Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world—including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
• Decreased Snow Cover—Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier
• Sea-Level Rise—Global sea levels rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year. • Declining Arctic Sea Ice—Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades
• Extreme Events—The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed an increasing number of intense rainfall events. • Ocean Acidification—Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing to about 7 to 10 billion metric tons per year.

California Indicators
Monitoring and research efforts across California have generated data that describe changes already underway in the state. Notable examples across the state include the following (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2018):
• Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters is declining throughout the south coast survey region • Since 1950, the northern Sierra Nevada showed an overall snowpack decline of 7.4 inches. • Unusually warm waters occurred in the Pacific Ocean in 2014-2015, leading to widespread impacts on marine life. This marine heat wave first appeared as a large area of exceptionally high sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska in November 2013 and later extended along the entire west coast of North America.
• The surface area of seven Sierra Nevada glaciers has decreased dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century. In 2014, the size of these glaciers ranged from 14 to 52 percent of their 1903 area.
• Sea level has risen by about 7 inches since 1900 at San Francisco and by about 6 inches since 1924 at La Jolla.
• Since 1906, the fraction of annual snowmelt runoff that flows into the Sacramento River between April and July has decreased by about 9 percent. 452
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-4
• Compared to the 1930s, forests across much of California today have lower densities of large trees, and higher densities of small trees. Water stress, which increases in a warming climate, poses a greater risk to large trees than to small trees. • Annual tree mortality in California forests increased in 2014, and steep increases in mortality followed in subsequent years; the highest number, 62 million tree deaths, was recorded in 2016. • Future droughts may be hotter, as warm temperatures coincide with periodic dry years; 2016 and 2020 were the warmest years on record.
• Heat-related deaths and illnesses in California increased dramatically in 2006 following a record-breaking heat wave. At least 140 deaths occurred between July 15 and August 1. Deaths related to this heat wave were largely attributed to elevated nighttime temperatures. • The number of acres burned by wildfires statewide has been increasing since 1950. Large fires affecting 1,000 acres or more account for most of the area burned each year.

18.1.4 Projected Future Impacts
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. Despite this uncertainty, climate change projections present valuable information to help guide decision-making for possible future conditions.

Global and National Projections
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, project that Earth’s average temperatures will raise 2.5 to 10 ºF over the next century (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2021). The Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports indicate the following:
• Change Will Continue Through This Century and Beyond—Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally, and how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to those emissions. • Temperatures Will Continue to Rise—Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country or over time.
• Frost-Free Season and Growing Season will Lengthen—The length of the frost-free season and the corresponding growing season has been increasing nationally since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture.

Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen.

In a future in which heat-trapping gas emissions continue to grow, increases of a month or more in the lengths of the frost-free and growing seasons are projected across most of the United States by the end of the century, with slightly smaller increases in the northern Great Plains.

The largest increases in the frost-free season (more than eight weeks) are projected for the 453
Climate Change
18-5
western United States, particularly in high elevation and coastal areas. The increases will be smaller if heat-trapping gas emissions are reduced.
• Changes in Precipitation Patterns—Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have had increases greater than the national average, and some areas have had decreases. More winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.

Projections of future climate over the United States suggest that the recent trend toward increased heavy precipitation events will continue. This trend is projected to occur even in regions where total precipitation is expected to decrease, such as the Southwest. • More Droughts and Heat Waves—Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves everywhere are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense everywhere. Summer temperatures are projected to continue rising, and a reduction of soil moisture, which exacerbates heat waves, is projected for much of the western and central United States in summer. By the end of this century, what have been once-in-20-year extreme heat days (oneday events) are projected to occur every two or three years over most of the nation. • Hurricanes Will Become Stronger and More Intense—The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm. • Arctic Likely to Become Ice-Free in Summer—The Arctic Ocean is currently expected to become essentially ice free in summer before 2050.
• Sea Level Will Rise 1 to 8 feet by 2100—Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 8 feet by 2100. This is the result of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.

In the next several decades, storm surges and high tides could combine with sea-level rise and land subsidence, resulting in increased flooding in many regions. Sea-level rise will continue past 2100 because the oceans take a very long time to respond to warmer conditions at the Earth’s surface. Ocean waters will therefore continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for many centuries at rates equal to or higher than those of the current century. Figure 18-2 shows the projected rate of global sea-level rise under different greenhouse gas scenarios (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2021).

Projections for California
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, the state can expect the following climate change impacts (State of California 2021):
• By 2100, the average annual maximum daily temperature is projected to increase by 5.6 to 8.8 ºF
• By 2100, the water supply from snowpack is projected to decline by two-thirds • By 2050, a study estimates California’s agricultural production could face climate-related water shortages of up to 16 percent in certain regions
• By 2100, the frequency of extreme wildfires will increase, and the average area burned statewide would increase by 77 percent
454
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-6
Figure 18-2. Possible Future Sea Levels for Different Greenhouse Gas Pathways Source: NOAA, 2021
• By 2100, 13 to 67 percent of Southern California beaches may completely erode due to sealevel rise • By 2100, the miles of highways susceptible to coastal flooding in a 100-year storm event will triple
• By 2050, heat waves in cities could cause 2 to 3 times more heat-related deaths Projections for Ventura County
The 2019 report, Projected Changes in Ventura County Climate, lists the following local projections (Oakley, et al. 2019):
• Changes in temperature—Both annual average temperatures and the frequency of extreme temperatures will increase across Ventura County. Inland areas are likely to see an increase of at least 3 to 5 ºF. Coastal areas are likely to see an increase of at least 2 to 3 ºF. Figure 18-3 shows the projected maximum temperature changes from the average temperature for 1950 – 2005, to the average temperature for 2021 – 2040. Increases in maximum temperatures and overnight minimum temperatures as well as frequency of extreme temperatures will likely have negative impacts on human health and ecosystems, disproportionately affecting disadvantaged communities and impacting species extent and abundance. • Changes in Precipitation—Precipitation is likely to intensify, meaning that the same amount of precipitation will fall in fewer days. Projections suggest a 7 percent decrease in winter precipitation days, an 11 percent decrease in spring precipitation days, and a 20 percent decrease in fall precipitation days with little overall projected change in seasonal precipitation totals. Changes in precipitation characteristics (intensification and concentration into winter season) may have implications for groundwater recharge and how surface water is conveyed, captured, and stored. There may be increased potential for post-fire flash flooding and/or debris flows due to more frequent short-duration, high intensity rainfall. 455
Climate Change
18-7
Figure 18-3. Changes in Projected Maximum Temperatures in Ventura County • Changes in evaporative demand—The greatest changes are likely in inland terrain, particularly in the headwaters of the Santa Clara River (Los Angeles County). Seasonally, the greatest total evaporation changes in demand will be in the spring, followed by summer and fall, with modest changes during the winter. The fall season demonstrates the largest percentage increases in evaporative demand over the largest area while the greatest percentage increases during spring and summer occur in the Topatopa Mountains. Increased evaporative demand may affect what crops can be grown economically, alter ecosystem function, and increase drought susceptibility.

18.1.5 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” has multiple meanings across disciplines. Mitigation in emergency management, as generally addressed in this hazard mitigation plan, is typically defined as the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. Mitigation in climate change discussions is defined as a human intervention to reduce impacts on the climate system. It includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas sources and emissions and enhance greenhouse gas sinks. In this chapter, mitigation is used as defined by the climate change community. In the other chapters of this plan, mitigation is primarily used in an emergency management context.

Adaptation refers to adjustments in natural or human systems in response to the actual or anticipated effects of climate change and associated impacts. These adjustments may moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. 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 initiatives 456
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-8
and actions can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support adaptation to likely future conditions.

Societies across the world are facing the need to adapt to changing conditions associated with natural disasters and climate change. 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 are able 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.

18.2 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON HAZARDS OF CONCERN

18.2.1 Dam Failure
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 Dam Safety 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 (California Department of Water Resources 2021b).

A strategy called Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) is being developed and tested in California as a way to inform decisions to retain or release water by allowing flexibility in operation policies and rules with enhanced monitoring and improved weather and water forecasts (Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes 2021).
457
Climate Change
18-9
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.

The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population—Population exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard are unlikely to change as a result of climate change.
• Property—Property exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard are unlikely to change as a result of climate change.
• 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 and levee 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.

18.2.2 Drought
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” (U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit 2021).

Because changes in precipitation patterns are still uncertain, the potential impacts and likelihood of drought are uncertain. DWR has noted impacts of climate change on statewide water resources by charting changes in snowpack, sea level, and river flow. As temperatures rise and more precipitation 458
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-10
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 other parts of the state, will experience a 48- to 65-percent loss by the end of the century compared to the historical April 1 average (California Department of Water Resources 2021a).

Projections for the planning area show a significant decline in projected snow water equivalent in April snowpack. Increasing temperatures may also increase net evaporation from reservoirs, which would reduce water availability for ecosystems and human use (Mount, Escriva-Bou and Sencan 2021).

By addressing current stresses on water supplies and by building a flexible, robust program, the County will be able to more adeptly respond to changing conditions and to survive dry years.

The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the drought hazard resulting from climate change:
• 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 crops and 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. Prolonged or more frequent drought resulting from climate change may stress ecosystems in the region, which include many special-status species.

18.2.3 Earthquake
The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown, although scientists have identified tiny earthquakes triggered by the change of fault stress loads from rain and snow. Similarly, long-term drought can result in a significant change in the stress load on earth’s crust.

Pumping of groundwater from underground aquifers by humans, which is exacerbated during times of drought, has also been shown to impact patterns of stress loads by “unweighting” Earth’s crust. A 2014 study looked at the effects of groundwater extraction in California’s Central Valley on seismicity on the adjacent San Andreas Fault. The researchers found that such extractions can promote lateral changes in stress to the two sides of the San Andreas, which move horizontally against each other along the boundary of two major tectonic plates. This could potentially cause them to unclamp and slip, resulting in an earthquake (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2019).

Because impacts on the earthquake hazard are not well understood, increases in exposure and vulnerability of local resources are not able to be determined. 459
Climate Change
18-11

18.2.4 Flood
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 in particular will likely increase with a changing climate. What is currently considered a 1-percent-annual-chance also 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 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.

The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the flood hazard resulting from climate change:
• 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. 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, bypass channels and levees, as well as the design of local sewers and storm drains.
• 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 460
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-12
events may have broader ecosystem impacts that alter the ability of already stressed species to survive.

18.2.5 Landslide
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. Each these factors would increase the probability of landslides.

The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the landslide hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population and Property—Population and property exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase because of climate change impacts on the landslide hazard. These 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 due to climate change impacts on the landslide hazard; however, critical facility owners and operators may experience more frequent disruption to service provision resulting from landslide hazards. For example, transportation systems may experience more frequent delays if movements blocking these systems occur more frequently. • Environment—Exposure and vulnerability of the environment would be unlikely to increase because of climate change, but more frequent movements in river systems may impact water quality and have negative impacts on stressed species.

18.2.6 Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Erosion
Coastal areas are sensitive to sea-level rise, changes in precipitation and the frequency and intensity of storms, and warmer ocean temperatures. According to NASA, warmer temperatures may lead to an increase in the intensity of storms, leading to weather events that can have increase impacts on coastal erosion. A study on increased storm wave heights from climate change indicated that coastal erosion and flooding may occur twice as fast from sea-level rise alone and up to four times as fast as a doubling of the frequency of major El Niño events. Should all these potential events from climate change occur simultaneously, there could be up to an order of magnitude increase in coastal erosion compared to current rates (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2010).

Climate change-related sea-level rise could exacerbate sea water intrusion issues under the agricultural lands of the Oxnard coastal plain, which were first observed in the 1930s and became a serious problem in the 1950s. This could result in diminishing returns or even render existing, valuable crop lands completely unusable.

18.2.7 Severe Storms
Climate change presents a challenge for risk management associated with severe storms. The science for linking the severity of specific severe storm events to climate change is still evolving; however, a 461
Climate Change
18-13
number or trends provide some indication of how climate change may be impacting these events.

According to the Fourth National Climate Change Assessment, heavy rainfall events are becoming more severe (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2018). Climate change impacts on other severe storm events such as thunderstorms are still not well understood. The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the severe weather hazard resulting from climate change:
• 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 storm hazard.

Severe winter storms and thunderstorms 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 storm 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 more intense rainfall may place additional stress on already stressed systems.

18.2.8 Severe Weather
According to the Fourth National Climate Change Assessment, over the past two decades, the number of high temperature records in the United States far exceed the number of low temperature records (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2018). The increase in average surface temperatures can lead to more intense heat waves. Evidence suggests that heat waves are already increasing, especially in western states.

Climate change impacts on winds are still not well understood. Until recently, scientists had predicted rapid inland warming would weaken one of the primary drivers for Santa Ana winds and reduce their frequency. But a 2021 study found that bouts of hot Santa Ana winds are not declining and could even be increasing (Science 2021).

The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the severe weather hazard resulting from climate change:
• 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.
• 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 windstorms may cause more frequent disruptions in power service. • Environment—Exposure and vulnerability of the environment would be unlikely to increase; however, more frequent wind and heat events may place additional stress on already stressed systems.
462
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-14

18.2.9 Tsunami
The impacts of global climate change on tsunami probability are unknown. However, even if climate change does not increase the frequency with which tsunamis occur, it may result in more destructive waves. As sea levels continue to rise, tsunami inundation areas would likely extend further inland.

The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the tsunami hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population, Property, and Critical Facility—Population, property, and critical facility exposure and vulnerability to the tsunami hazard may increase as a result of climate change-related sealevel rise. As sea levels rise, tsunami impact areas may reach into parts of the community that were previously outside the tsunami risk area. The extent of this change will depend on the size of the tsunami, the local topography, and the extent of sea-level rise in the area. • Environment—Exposure and vulnerability of the environment to tsunamis may be impacted by the effects of climate change. In particular, sea-level rise could alter the shape of the existing shoreline, placing different structures and ecosystems at risk from potential tsunami impacts.

Additionally, ice crust melt could lead to a rise of the earth’s crust, especially at higher latitudes, causing more submarine landslides and a greater vulnerability to tsunamis.

18.2.10 Wildfire
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.

Climate change may increase winds or change the timing/seasonality of winds that spread fires. Most of California’s worst wildfires occur in the fall, when vegetation is driest and the Santa Ana winds start to pick up. Some research indicates a shift in the annual pattern of Santa Ana winds that would move the wildfire season later in the year (AGU 2019).

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.

The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the wildfire hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population, Property and Critical facilities—According to Projected Changes in Ventura County Climate, wildfire risk in Ventura County is expected to increase, with wildfire season starting earlier and extending later in the year due to drought, increased temperatures, and greater evaporative demand. While the future frequency, size and intensity of wildfires is uncertain, it is likely that exposure and vulnerability to the wildfire hazard would increase. • Environment—It is likely 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 frequent or higher intensity burns. These impacts may alter the composition of the ecosystems in areas in and surrounding planning area. Whether areas burn more frequently, or more acreage is burned in each fire, wildlife has the potential to become more stressed as suitable habitat is lost.
463
Climate Change
18-15

18.2.11 Other Hazards of Interest
Agricultural and Biological Hazards
The impacts of global climate change on agricultural and biological hazards are still being studied, however climate change is known to be influencing the spread of many invasive species. Increased temperatures, and both intense rainfall and drought can facilitate the spread and establishment of nonnative species, creating new opportunities for them to become invasive (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2021b). Prolonged drought stresses trees and can result in higher susceptibility to detrimental pests.

Pandemic
Climate change will likely have significant indirect impacts on disease outbreaks. In California, injuries and premature deaths related to extreme weather events, changes in the prevalence and geographical distribution of food- and water-borne illnesses and other infectious diseases should be anticipated. The fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that climate change has altered the distribution of some infectious disease vectors.
464
465
19-1

19. OTHER HAZARDS OF INTEREST
After reviewing the previous plan and considering options for other hazards of interest to address, the Steering Committee selected a limited number of hazards of interest to include in this update of the Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The sections below provide short profiles of each hazard of interest, including a qualitative discussion of their potential impact in Ventura County.

No formal risk assessment was performed, no mitigation actions have been developed to address them, and the hazards are not included in the risk ranking. However, all planning partners for this plan should be aware of these hazards and take steps to reduce the risks they present whenever it is practical to do so.

19.1 AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL

19.1.1 Overview
Agricultural infestation generally involves the artificial introduction of an insect, disease, vertebrate, or weed pest. These pests are particularly destructive to local agricultural crops because they have no natural enemies to keep them under control. The type and severity of an agricultural infestation will vary based on many factors, including weather, crop diversity, and proximity to urban areas.

The onset for an agricultural infestation can be rapid. Controlling its spread is critical to limiting the impacts of the infestation. Methods for detecting, limiting, and eradicating exotic pests include delimitation trapping, quarantining the area and preventing the shipment of products from the designated area, aerial and ground application of pesticides, and in extreme cases, premature harvest and/or crop destruction. Duration is largely affected by the degree to which the infestation is aggressively controlled but is commonly more than a week. The warning time needed to control infestation is typically more than 24 hours. Maximizing warning time is also critical for reducing damage from this hazard.

Ventura County’s agriculture industry provides a significant base to the County’s economy. The agricultural output of Ventura County in 2020 reached almost $2 billion and encompassed more than 96,500 acres of irrigated cropland (Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner 2020). Ventura County is one of the top 10 agricultural counties in California. The impact of infestation by a pest or disease can include economic losses due to crop losses from pest damage, limitations on the ability to export products from the area, and increased costs for pest control.

Many pests not only damage the agricultural economy but also affect residential areas and open space.

Damage to landscape plants and vegetable gardens can be significant. 466
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 19-2

19.1.2 Identified Agricultural and Biological Hazards
The Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner and the USDA have identified agricultural and biological hazards that currently affect the County or have the potential to do so in the future. Many of these are listed in Table 19-1.

Table 19-1. Agricultural and Biological Hazards That Threaten Ventura County Type Description
Invertebrates
Quagga Mussels A mollusk that covers hard surfaces in waterways. It clogs water infrastructure, covers boats, disrupts the food chain for native species, and releases toxins that affect other species.

Insects
Asian Citrus Psyllid An insect that causes damage to citrus plants and is a carrier of Huanglongbing disease.

Glassy Winged Sharpshooter An insect that transmits a bacterial disease (Pierce’s Disease) that can seriously damage grapevines Light Brown Apple Moth A tortricid leafroller that affects over 2,000 types of plants.

Mediterranean Fruit Fly An insect that infests more than 300 varieties of fruits, vegetables, and nuts by laying eggs in the produce. The larvae feed on the produce, ruining it for human consumption.

Shot Hole Borer An invasive beetle that attacks over 110 kinds of trees. These tiny beetles tunnel into host trees and spread Fusarium Dieback.

Invasive Weeds
Artichoke Thistle An invasive weed with an aggressive root system.

Arundo Grass Tall perennial grass that forms dense growth, choking out other plants.

Dalmation Todflax Displaces native plants and may increase soil erosion and surface runoff.

Distaff Thistle Crowds out grasses and native species.

Geraldton Carnation Spurge Produces a toxic sap and has allelopathic properties that reduce germination of native plants.

Russian Knapweed Aggressive plant with allelopathic effects (releases a substance that does not allow other plants to grow).

Scotch Thistle Dense growths of the spiny plants interrupt grazing lands for livestock and wildlife.

Silverleaf Nightshade Noxious weed competes with crops, interferes with livestock, acts as a host for insects and plant diseases, and spreads by forming dense colonies from its extensive root system as well as by propagation of seeds.

Skeletonweed Deep rooted noxious weed with minimal feed value that crowds out native grasses and forage for livestock and wildlife.

Spotted Knapweed A highly invasive weed that can reduce the availability of desirable forage for livestock operations, degrade wildlife habitats, and hinder reforestation and landscape restoration efforts.

Stinkweed Rapidly spreading invasive weed.

Tree Spurge Small invasive shrub that has an economic impact on crop production in the County.

Diseases
Charcoal Rot A fungal disease that affects strawberries.

Fusarium Dieback A fungal disease that disrupts the transport of water and nutrients inside the tree, leading to branch dieback and overall decline
Huanglongbing A disease spread by the Asian citrus psyllid that kills citrus trees. It has no known cure.

Pierce’s Disease A bacteria-caused disease spread by the Glassy Winged Sharpshooter. Pierce’s Disease blocks the water-conducting system in grapevines.

Sudden Oak Death A tree disease caused by the fungus-like plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. It kills oaks, rhododendrons, camellias, and other common horticulture plants. 467
Other Hazards of Interest
19-3

19.1.3 Location, Extent and Magnitude
Ventura County’s agricultural areas are most susceptible to insect pests, agriculture biological diseases, and invasive weeds. Range land, open spaces, and areas affected by wildfire are also susceptible to many of the invasive weeds. Quagga mussels are found in Lake Piru and the Santa Clara River.

Injurious pests commonly enter Ventura County in a number of ways. They may, for example, be inadvertently shipped by a private individual in an infested plant, fruit, or vegetable. When the package is received and the article is found to contain pests, the recipient throws it out and the pests multiply and infest nearby agricultural crops, waterways, or urban properties. Pests can also travel easily on plants and plant parts shipped from uncertified and unlicensed nurseries; on plants offered for sale at swap meets and other open air markets; or in vehicles or luggage. Inspectors from the Agricultural Commissioner’s office inspect incoming plants at nurseries, farmer’s markets, and swap meets to check for the presence of pests not occurring in this area.

Future agricultural and waterway infestations in Ventura County are likely based on past occurrences.

Based on previous history, infestations causing widespread damage have occurred about once every 10 to 20 years. Another factor increasing the likelihood of future infestations is the mild climate in Ventura County, which increases the ability of pests to proliferate.

The extent of a devastating event would depend on many factors, including the specific pest introduced, climatic conditions at the time of introduction, fluctuations in funding for pest detection and eradication, and public pressure regarding aerial and ground applications of pesticides proximate to urban areas.

19.2 PANDEMIC

19.2.1 Overview
According to the World Health Organization, a pandemic involves the international spread of a new disease. While an epidemic remains limited to one city, region, or country, a pandemic spreads beyond national borders and possibly worldwide. Authorities consider a disease to be an epidemic when the number of people with the infection is higher than the forecast number within a specific region. A pandemic is an epidemic that becomes widespread in several countries at the same time. A pandemic affects a higher number of people and can be more deadly than an epidemic.

A new virus strain or subtype that easily transmits between humans can cause a pandemic. Bacteria that become resistant to antibiotic treatment may also be behind the rapid spread. Sometimes, pandemics occur when new diseases develop the ability to spread rapidly, such as COVID-19. Humans may have little or no immunity against a new virus. Often, a new virus cannot spread between animals and people. However, if the disease changes or mutates, it may start to spread easily, and a pandemic may result. Seasonal flu epidemics generally occur because of a viral subtype that is already circulating among people. Novel subtypes, such as COVID-19, generally cause pandemics. These subtypes will not previously have circulated among humans. A pandemic can lead to social disruption, economic loss, and general hardship on a wide scale (Felman 2020). 468
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 19-4

19.2.2 Identified Health Hazards
The California Department of Public Health has identified the conditions described in Table 19-2 as reportable human communicable diseases that could contribute to a serious epidemic in the state.

Table 19-2. Naturally Spread Diseases Seen in California Description Examples
Animal Transmitted
These are diseases that are transmitted to humans by domestic or nondomestic animals. • Brucellosis (undulant fever)
• Campylobacteriosis
• Escherichia coli (E. coli)
• Giardiasis
• Middle Eastern Respiratory
Syndrome (MERS)
• Plague
• Psittacosis (ornithosis,
parrot fever)
• Q Fever
• Rabies
• Salmonellosis
• Tularemia
Bloodborne
Viruses, bacteria and parasites that can be carried in blood and cause disease are known as bloodborne pathogens. Transmission of these diseases may be from direct blood contact, needle sticks, intravenous drug use, sexual behavior, insects or other vectors.
• Hepatitis C
• Malaria
Community-Acquired Infections
Community-acquired infections are infections that are contracted outside of a hospital (or are diagnosed within 48 hours of admission) without any previous health care encounter.
• Campylobacteriosis
• Influenza due to novel strains
• Legionellosis
• Meningitis (viral, bacterial,
fungal, parasitic)
• Respiratory syncytial
virus
• Smallpox
• Tularemia
Foodborne
Foodborne diseases can be spread when food becomes contaminated with fecal matter containing bacteria, viruses, or parasites. This contamination can happen at a farm, manufacturing plant, restaurant, or home. Foodborne diseases usually result in gastrointestinal illness, which can include symptoms such as diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, stomachache, and fever. People who are ill with a foodborne disease can give the infection to others, so proper hygiene and hand washing practices are essential to limit the spread of disease.
• Brucellosis
• Campylobacteriosis
• Cholera
• Ciguatera fish poisoning
• Cryptosporidiosis
• Cyclosporiasis
• Escherichia coli (E. coli)
• Giardiasis
• Listeriosis
• Salmonellosis
• Scombroid fish
poisoning
• Shigellosis
• Tularemia
• Typhoid Fever
• Vibriosis
• Yersinia enterocolitica
Mosquito-Transmitted
In addition to causing severe annoyance and allergic reaction, mosquitoes found in California are capable of spreading many diseases to humans. • Chikungunya
• Dengue
• Malaria
• West Nile
• Yellow Fever
• Zika
Respiratory Viruses
Respiratory viruses are responsible for influenza-like illness. They can also cause the common cold. The virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic is a respiratory virus. People at high risk (those with certain underlying conditions, the elderly, the very young, and pregnant women) can develop severe illness that results in hospitalization or death. • Coronaviruses (including
SARS and MERS CoV)
• Influenza
• Respiratory Syncytial Virus
• Measles
• Pertussis (whooping
cough)
Waterborne Diseases
Diseases caused by micro-organisms transmitted in water can be spread while bathing, washing, drinking water, or eating food exposed to contaminated water.
• Cholera
• Giardiasis
• Legionellosis
• Leptospirosis
• Typhoid Fever
• Vibriosis
469
Other Hazards of Interest
19-5
Description Examples
Sexually Transmitted Disease
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses community engagement methods in their Community Approaches to Reducing Sexually Transmitted Diseases (CARS). California has state-mandated HIV/AIDS prevention education in middle and high schools. In 2019, 154 of every 100,000 people in Ventura County were living with HIV. • Hepatitis A, B, and C
• Human Immunodeficiency
Virus/Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome
(HIV/AIDS)
• Syphilis
• Zika
As this plan is being prepared, Ventura County, the State of California, and the rest of the world are still dealing with impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, Ventura County was included in the FEMA Major Disaster Declaration for the COVID-19 pandemic. As of December 2021, about 107,000 people, or 7.86 percent of the Ventura County population, have had the disease. More than 1,200 people, or 0.14 percent of the population, have died from the disease. Over 572,000 residents are fully vaccinated. Figure 19-1 shows the COVID-19 case rates among the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated populations for the last half of 2021.

Figure 19-1. Ventura County COVID-19 Case Rate June – December 20, 2021 Throughout the cycle of the COVID-19 pandemic, safety precautions have changed or been adapted to current infection rates and circumstances. Ventura County has provided public service outreach through numerous channels, including the Ventura County Recovers website, which provides regular updates regarding:
• Vaccine information
• Business information
470
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 19-6
• Booster shots
• COVID-19 testing
• School/childcare and sports information
• Quarantine guidance
• Monoclonal antibody treatment
• Outreach activities.

19.2.3 Location, Extent and Magnitude
Health hazards that affect the residents of Ventura County may arise in a variety of situations, such as during a communicable disease outbreak or after a natural disaster. All populations in Ventura County are susceptible to pandemic events. Populations who are young or elderly or have compromised immune systems are likely to be more vulnerable. The relative ease of world-wide travel ensures that all countries are vulnerable to pandemic events at any time. 471
20-1

20. PLANNING AREA RISK RANKING
A risk ranking was performed for the 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. The risk ranking was conducted via facilitated brainstorming sessions with the Steering Committee. Estimates of risk were generated with data from Hazus using methodologies promoted by FEMA. The results are used in establishing mitigation priorities. This chapter presents results for all of Ventura County. Results for individual municipalities are provided in Appendix D and in the Volume 2 annexes for individual planning partners.

20.1 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. Figure 20-1 summarizes the probability assessment for each hazard of concern for this plan.

Figure 20-1. Probability Factors for Hazards of Concern 2 3
1 3
3 2
2 3
2 2
0 1 2 3
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Flooding
Landslide
Sea Level Rise/Erosion
Severe Storms
Severe Weather
Tsunami
Wildfire
Probability Factor
472
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 20-2

20.2 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 assessed property value (Impact Factor = 3)
 Medium—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent to 19 percent of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 2)
 Low—Estimated loss from the hazard is 9 percent or less of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 1)
 No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) 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 operations was given a weighting factor of 1.

Figure 20-2 and Figure 20-3 summarize the unweighted and weighted impact factors, respectively, for each hazard.
473
Planning Area Risk Ranking
20-3
Figure 20-2. Impact Factors for Hazards of Concern
Figure 20-3. Weighted Impact Factors for Hazards of Concern

20.3 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 Figure 20-4.

Based on these ratings, a priority of high, medium, or low was assigned to each hazard. The hazards ranked as being of highest concern are dam failure, landslide, and earthquake. Hazards ranked as being of medium concern are flood, severe storms, severe weather, and wildfire. The hazards ranked as being of lowest concern are drought, sea-level rise/coastal erosion, and tsunami. Figure 20-5 shows the hazard risk ranking.
3 0
3 1
2 1
2 2
1 1
3 0
3 1
2 1 1 1 1 1
2 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Flooding Landslide Sea Level Rise /
Erosion
Severe
Storms
Severe
Weather
Tsunami Wildfire
Impact Factor
Impact Factor (People) Impact Factor (Property) Impact Factor (Economy) 9 0
3 9
6 3
6 6
3 6 6
0 2
6 4
2 1 1
2 4
2 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
Dam Failure Drought Flooding Earthquake Landslide Sea Level Rise /
Erosion
Severe
Storms
Severe
Weather
Tsunami Wildfire
Weighted Impact Factor
Weighted Impact Factor (People, x3) Weighted Impact Factor (Property, x2) Weighted Impact Factor (Economy, x1) 474
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 20-4
Figure 20-4. Total Risk Rating for Hazards of Concern
Figure 20-5. Hazard Risk Ranking
34 9
32 18
33 12
24 24
12 24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Flooding
Landslide
Sea Level Rise / Erosion
Severe Storms
Severe Weather
Tsunami
Wildfire
Hazard Risk Rating
Dam Failure
34 Landslide
33 Flooding
18 Earthquake
32 Severe Storms
24 Severe Weather
24 Wildfire
24 Drought
9 Sea Level Rise / Erosion
12 Tsunami
12 0
2 4
6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Values shown are risk ratings. Larger circles indicate higher rating.

High
Priority
Medium
Priority
Low
Priority
475
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Part 3—MITIGATION PLAN
476
477
21-1

21. VISION STATEMENT, 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 reviewed the previous plan and noted that neither a vision statement nor a list of objectives was part of the plan. The goals in the previous plan needed to be expanded to better reflect the purpose of this plan update.

The vision statement, goals, objectives, and actions in this plan all support each other. Goals were selected to support the vision statement. Objectives were selected that meet multiple goals. Actions (presented in Chapter 23) were prioritized based on their ability to meet multiple objectives.

21.1 VISION STATEMENT
A vision statement focuses the range of objectives and actions to be considered. A vision statement is not a goal because it does not describe a hazard mitigation outcome and it is broader than a hazardspecific objective. The vision statement for this hazard mitigation plan is as follows:

The Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will establish and promote a comprehensive mitigation strategy and efforts to equitably reduce risk and increase the resiliency of the community and environment from natural hazards.

21.2 GOALS
The following are the mitigation goals for this plan:

1. Protect life, property, and the environment, and minimize displacement due to natural hazards events.

2. Effectively communicate natural hazard risks and mitigation strategies to the whole community.

3. Pursue development and implementation of feasible, cost-effective, and environmentally sound hazard mitigation measures.

4. Prioritize multi-objective hazard mitigation actions and those that reduce risk to vulnerable communities.

5. Coordinate with other plans and programs that can support or enhance hazard mitigation.

6. Enhance the County’s capability and capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the impacts of natural hazards.

7. Proactively anticipate the risks of future impacts from hazards.

8. Increase the County’s adaptive capacity to reduce risk from hazard impacts. 478
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 21-2

9. Promote proactive, self-sufficient mitigation and response abilities.

10. Reduce risk to and increase the resilience of critical infrastructure and community lifelines.

21.3 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. Utilize the best available data, science, and technology to identify and communicate the risk exposure to hazards to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as the private sector and non-profit groups.

2. Support efforts to improve the resilience of community lifelines in socially vulnerable communities.

3. Enhance supply chain diversity and improved resilience by supporting local food and energy production and increased multi-modal transportation.

4. Research, develop, promote, adopt, and enforce codes and standards to preserve life and property that are affordable and feasible to implement.

5. Promote and implement measures to mitigate the risk of wildfires, such as greenbelts and fire breaks around communities and along roadways.

6. Support the protection of vital records, and strengthen or replace buildings, infrastructure, and lifelines to minimize post-disaster disruption and facilitate short-term and long-term recovery.

7. Improve and expand systems that provide warning and emergency communications to the whole community.

8. Continue developing and strengthening inter-jurisdictional coordination and cooperation in the area of emergency services.

9. Promote and implement the retrofit or replacement of at-risk structures and lifelines to increase community resilience.

10. Incentivize mitigation measures for high-risk and repetitive loss areas to address repairs, major alterations, development plans, and practices to increase community resilience.

11. Reduce repetitive property losses due to hazard impacts through acquisition, retrofitting, design, and updated construction and land use regulations.

12. Encourage and support leadership within the private sector, non-profit agencies, and community-based organizations to promote and implement local hazard mitigation activities.

13. Proactively manage and care for natural resources, including grasslands, forests, oak woodlands, riparian forests, stream channels, coastal wetlands, and beaches, to enhance their ability to withstand and recover from natural disasters and minimize public safety risks.

14. Support hazard mitigation measures that promote and enhance natural processes.

15. Support hazard mitigation measures, where feasible, that utilize nature-based practices and solutions (e.g., holistic watershed management and green belts) and support and enhance natural processes.
479
Vision Statement, Goals and Objectives
21-3

16. Encourage the creation of financial and regulatory incentives to motivate stakeholders such as homeowners, private sector businesses, and non-profit community organizations to mitigate hazards and risks.

17. Conduct public outreach activities that increase community awareness and understanding of hazard risk, mitigation options, and preparedness strategies.

18. Minimize impacts of hazard events on the economic drivers for the County.

19. Align the hazard mitigation plan with state mitigation plans; city and county general, community, capital improvement plans; special-purpose district plans; and climate action, resilience, and adaptation plans.
480
481
22-1

22. MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES

22.1 MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES
Catalogs of hazard mitigation best practices were developed that present a broad range of alternatives to be considered for use by the planning partners, 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 hazard
 Reduce exposure to the hazard
 Reduce vulnerability to the hazard
 Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard.

Hazard mitigation actions recommended in this plan were selected from an analysis of 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 generally within the capabilities of the planning partners to implement. They provide a list of what could be considered to reduce risk from natural hazards. Not all actions listed are feasible for this plan. Planning partners selected actions based their ability to implement the action. Actions in the catalog that are not included in partners’ action plans were not selected for one or more of the following reasons:
• The action is not feasible.
• The action is already being implemented.
• The planning partner does not have the capability to implement the action. • 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 22-1 through Table 22-9. 482
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-2
Table 22-1. Alternatives to Mitigate the Dam Failure Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
 None
• Reduce exposure:
 Relocate out of dam
failure inundation
areas
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Elevate home to
appropriate levels
• Build local capacity:
 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
 Harden dams
• Reduce exposure:
 Replace earthen
dams with hardened
structures
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Flood-proof facilities
within dam failure
inundation areas
• Build local capacity:
 Educate employees
on the probable
impacts of a dam
failure
 Develop a continuity
of operations plan
• Manipulate the hazard:
 Remove dams
 Harden dams
• Reduce exposure:
 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:
 Adopt higher floodplain standards in mapped dam failure inundation areas
 Retrofit critical facilities within dam failure inundation areas • Build local capacity:
 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 change 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
483
Mitigation Best Practices
22-3
Table 22-2. Alternatives to Mitigate the Drought Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
 None
• Reduce exposure:
 None
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Drought-resistant
landscapes
 Reduce water system
losses
 Modify plumbing
systems (through
water saving kits)
 For homes with onsite water systems:
increase storage,
utilize rainwater
catchment
• Build local capacity:
 Practice active water
conservation
• Manipulate the hazard:
 None
• Reduce exposure:
 None
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Drought-resistant
landscapes
 Reduce private water
system losses
 Support alternative
irrigation techniques to
reduce water use and
encourage use of
climate-sensitive water
supplies
 For businesses with onsite water systems:
increase storage, utilize
rainwater catchment
• Build local capacity:
 Practice active water
conservation
 Participate in the County
Integrated Regional
Water Management
(IRWM) program
• Manipulate the hazard:
 Groundwater recharge through stormwater management
 Develop a water recycling program
 Increase “above-the-dam” regional natural water storage systems • Reduce exposure:
 Identify and create groundwater backup sources
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Water use conflict regulations
 Reduce water system losses
 Distribute water saving kits
 increase conventional storage that is filled during high-flow periods • Build local capacity:
 Public education on drought resistance
 Identify alternative water supplies for times of drought; mutual aid agreements with alternative suppliers
 Develop drought contingency plan
 Develop criteria “triggers” for drought-related actions  Improve accuracy of water supply forecasts
 Modify rate structure to influence active water conservation techniques
 Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the drought hazard
 Support, participate in and advocate for funding for the County Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) program
 Support, encourage, and implement multi-benefit nature-based recharge projects such as off-channel wetlands that provide habitat and groundwater filtration and infiltration
484
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-4
Table 22-3. Alternatives to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
 None
• Reduce exposure:
 Locate outside of hazard area (off
soft soils)
• Reduce vulnerability:
 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
• Build local capacity:
 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:
 Locate or relocate missioncritical functions outside hazard area where possible
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Build redundancy for critical
functions and facilities
 Retrofit critical buildings and
areas housing mission-critical
functions
• Build local capacity:
 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:
 Locate critical facilities or functions outside hazard area where possible
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Harden infrastructure
 Provide redundancy for critical functions
 Adopt higher regulatory standards
 Encourage and invest in renewable energy and
back-up and storage, such as microgrids, for vital
systems redundancy during power outages and
interruptions
• Build local capacity:
 Provide better hazard maps
 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.
485
Mitigation Best Practices
22-5
Table 22-4. Alternatives to Mitigate the Flood Hazard
Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the
hazard:
 Clear storm
drains and
culverts
 Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
exposure:
 Locate outside
of hazard area
 Elevate utilities
above base
flood elevation
 Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
vulnerability:
 Raise
structures
above base
flood elevation
 Elevate items
within house
above base
flood elevation
 Build new
homes above
base flood
elevation
 Flood-proof
structures
• Build local
capacity:
 Buy flood
insurance
 Develop
household
plan, such as
retrofit savings,
communication
with outside,
72-hour selfsufficiency
during and
after an event
• Manipulate the
hazard:
 Clear storm
drains and
culverts
 Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce exposure:
 Locate critical
facilities or
functions
outside hazard
area
 Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
vulnerability:
 Build
redundancy for
critical functions
or retrofit critical
buildings
 Provide floodproofing when
new critical
infrastructure
must be located
in floodplains
• Build local
capacity:
 Keep cash
reserves for
reconstruction
 Support and
implement
hazard
disclosure for
sale of property
in risk zones.
 Solicit costsharing 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, only when no nature-based
alternative is feasible
 Stormwater management regulations and master
planning
 Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses
in developing watersheds to control increases in
runoff
• Reduce exposure:
 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
 Preserve undeveloped and vulnerable shoreline
 Restore existing flood control and riparian
corridors, including the removal of invasive
species in the floodplain to reduce bulk flows and
infrastructure impacts (e.g., Arundo donax
removal)
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Harden infrastructure, bridge replacement
program
 Provide redundancy for critical functions and
infrastructure
 Adopt regulatory standards such as freeboard
standards, cumulative substantial improvement
or damage, lower substantial damage threshold;
compensatory storage, non-conversion deed
restrictions.
 Stormwater management regulations and master
planning.
 Adopt “no-adverse impact” floodplain
management policies that strive to not increase
the flood risk on downstream communities
 Facilitate managed retreat from, or
upgrade of, the most at-risk areas
 Require accounting of sea-level rise
in all applications for new
development in shoreline areas
 Implement Assembly Bill 162 (2007)
requiring flood hazard information in
local general plans
• Build local capacity:
 Produce better hazard maps
 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 risk associated
with the flood hazard
 Consider the residual risk associated
with structural flood control in future
land use decisions
 Enforce National Flood Insurance
Program requirements
 Adopt a Stormwater Management
Master Plan
 Develop an adaptive management
plan to address the long-term
impacts of sea-level rise
486
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-6
Table 22-5. 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:
 Locate structures outside of
hazard area (off unstable land
and away from slide-run out
area)
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Retrofit home
• Build local capacity:
 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:
 Locate structures outside of
hazard area (off unstable land
and away from slide-run out
area)
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Retrofit at-risk facilities
• Build local capacity:
 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:
 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:
 Adopt higher regulatory standards for new development within unstable slope areas.
 Armor/retrofit critical infrastructure against the impact of landslides.
• Build local capacity:
 Produce better hazard maps
 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.
 Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the landslide hazard
487
Mitigation Best Practices
22-7
Table 22-6. Alternatives to Mitigate Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Erosion Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
Manipulate the hazard:
 Barriers (sea wall),
only when no
nature-based
alternative is
feasible
 Pump Stations
 Protect, preserve,
and restore
beaches and dunes
Reduce exposure to the
hazard:
 Voluntary retreat
 Elevate on fill
above sea-level rise
elevation
 Elevate utilities
above base flood
elevation
 Use low-impact
development
techniques
Reduce vulnerability to
the hazard:
 Elevate
 Floodproof
Build local capacity to
respond to or prepare
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:
 Barriers (sea wall), only
when no nature-based
alternative is feasible
 Pump Stations
 Protect, preserve, and
restore wetlands
 Protect, preserve, and
restore beaches and dunes
Reduce exposure to the
hazard:
 Relocate out hazard zone
 Elevate on fill above sealevel rise elevation
 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
 Maintain drainage facilities
that service your property.
 Provide flood-proofing
when new critical
infrastructure must be
located in floodplains
Build local capacity to respond
to or prepare for the hazard:
 Be informed and
understand future impacts
of sea-level rise on your
business
 Develop a Continuity of
Operations Plan
Manipulate the hazard:
 Barriers (sea wall), only when no nature-based alternative is feasible  Pump Stations
 Protect, preserve, and restore wetlands
 Protect, preserve, and restore beaches and dunes
Reduce exposure to the hazard:
 Buyout/Relocation Program
 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
 Provide redundancy for critical functions and infrastructure  Adopt higher regulatory standards in sea-level rise zones  Facilitate managed retreat from, or upgrade of, the most at-risk areas  Implement tree management programs.
 Elevate roads that are vital/critical to evacuation and local community operations.
 Include nature-based elements in infrastructure adaptation projects (e.g., roads) such as living shorelines, ecotone levees, and habitat restoration to increase resilience
 Design or enhance existing drainage systems for higher design storms to provide increased capacity of the drainage system.  Maintain the drainage infrastructure to levels that equal or exceed their design specifications.
 Require accounting of sea-level rise in all applications for new development in shoreline areas
Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard:
 Provide technical information and guidance
 Promote the purchase of flood insurance
 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  Provide incentives to guide development away from hazard areas or to retrofit in place
 Provide residents with sea-level rise inundation maps 488
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-8
Table 22-7. Alternatives to Mitigate the Severe Storm and Severe Weather Hazards Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
 None
• Reduce exposure:
 None
• Reduce vulnerability:
 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)
• Build local capacity:
 Trim or remove trees that
could affect power lines
 Promote 72-hour selfsufficiency
 Obtain a NOAA weather
radio.
 Obtain an emergency
generator.
• Manipulate the hazard:
 None
• Reduce exposure:
 None
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Relocate critical
infrastructure (such as
power lines)
underground
 Reinforce or relocate
critical infrastructure
such as power lines to
meet performance
expectations
 Install tree wire
• Build local capacity:
 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.
• Manipulate the hazard:
 None
• Reduce exposure:
 Develop an urban heat island reduction program that includes an urban forest program or plan
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Harden infrastructure such as locating utilities underground  Trim trees back from power lines
 Designate snow routes and strengthen critical road sections and bridges
• Build local capacity:
 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
 Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the severe weather hazard
 Review and update heat response plan in light of climate change (heat events) projections
489
Mitigation Best Practices
22-9
Table 22-8. Alternatives to Mitigate the Tsunami Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
 None
• Reduce exposure:
 Locate outside of hazard
area
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Apply personal property
mitigation techniques to
your home such as
anchoring your foundation
and foundation openings
to allow flow though.
• Build local capacity:
 Develop and practice a
household evacuation plan
 Educate yourself on the
risk exposure from the
tsunami hazard and ways
to minimize that risk
 Understand tsunami
warning signs and signals
• Manipulate the hazard:
 None
• Reduce exposure:
 Locate structure or
mission critical functions
outside of hazard area
whenever possible
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Mitigate personal
property for the impacts
of tsunami
• Build local capacity:
 Develop and practice a
corporate evacuation
plan
 Educate employees on
the risk exposure from
the tsunami hazard and
ways to minimize that risk
• Manipulate the hazard:
 Build wave abatement structures (e.g. the “Jacks” looking structure designed by the Japanese)
• Reduce exposure:
 Locate structure or functions outside of hazard area whenever possible
 Harden infrastructure for tsunami impacts
 Relocate identified critical facilities located in tsunami high hazard areas
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Adopt higher regulatory standards that will provide higher levels of protection to structures built in a tsunami inundation area  Utilize tsunami mapping to guide development away from high risk areas through land use planning
• Build local capacity:
 Use probabilistic tsunami mapping and land use guidance from the state when published
 Provide incentives to guide development away from hazard areas
 Improve the tsunami warning and response system
 Provide residents with tsunami inundation maps
 Join NOAA’s Tsunami Ready program
 Develop and communicate evacuation routes
 Enhance the public information program to include risk reduction options for the tsunami hazard
490
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-10
Table 22-9. 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:
 Create and maintain
defensible space around
structures
 Locate outside of hazard
area
 Mow regularly
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Create and maintain
defensible space around
structures and provide
water on site
 Use fire-resistant building
materials
 Create defensible spaces
around home
• Build local capacity:
 Employ techniques from
the National Fire
Protection Association’s
Firewise USA program to
safeguard home
 Identify alternative water
supplies for fire fighting
 Install/replace roofing
material with noncombustible roofing
materials and implement
other strategies to harden
homes from embers and
flame impingement
• Manipulate the
hazard:
 Clear potential fuels
on property such as
dry underbrush and
diseased trees
• Reduce exposure:
 Create and maintain
defensible space
around structures
and infrastructure
 Locate outside of
hazard area
• Reduce vulnerability:
 Create and maintain
defensible space
around structures
and infrastructure
and provide water on
site
 Use fire-resistant
building materials
 Use fire-resistant
plantings in buffer
areas of high wildfire
threat.
• Build local capacity:
 Support Firewise
USA 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
 Remove invasive non-native hazardous fuels in riparian areas (e.g., Arundo donax) and restore native habitat
 Implement best management practices on public lands
• Reduce exposure:
 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:
 Create and maintain defensible space around structures and infrastructure
 Use fire-resistant 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
 Reintroduce fire (controlled or prescribed burns) to fire-prone ecosystems while also protecting critical native habitat resilience, such as chaparral and sage scrub
 Manage fuel load through thinning and brush removal
 Establish integrated performance standards for new development to harden homes.
 Investigate opportunity to create and manage multi-benefit greenbelts for resilience (also known as wildfire risk reduction buffers zones), such as SOAR (Save Open Space & Agricultural
Resources)-designated and wildlife corridors
• Build local capacity:
 More public outreach and education efforts, including an active Firewise USA program
 Possible weapons of mass destruction funds available to enhance fire capability in high-risk areas
 Identify fire response and alternative evacuation routes and establish where needed
 Seek alternative water supplies
 Become a Firewise USA community
 Use academia to study impacts/solutions to wildfire risk  Establish/maintain mutual aid agreements between fire service agencies
 Develop, adopt, and implement integrated plans for mitigating wildfire impacts in wildland areas bordering on development  Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the wildfire hazard in future land use decisions  Establish a management program to track forest and rangeland health
 Provide incentives to for existing structures to be hardened against wildfire.
491
Mitigation Best Practices
22-11

22.2 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” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021). 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 OES 2020). • 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, neighboring communities, and private and non-profit partners 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. • Update safety elements to reflect existing hazards and projected climate change impacts on hazards.
• 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, 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. 492
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-12
• Identify gaps in legal and regulatory capabilities and develop ordinances or guidelines to address them.
• 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. 493
23-1

23. RECOMMENDED PLANNING-AREA-WIDE ACTIONS

23.1 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ACTIONS FOR ALL PARTNERS
The Steering Committee reviewed the catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives and selected planningarea-wide actions to be included in a hazard mitigation action plan for all planning partners. 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-23-1 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.

Additional jurisdiction-specific action plans for each planning partner are included in the partner annexes in Volume 2 of this hazard mitigation plan.

Table-23-1. Action Plan—Countywide Mitigation Initiatives Hazards
Addressed Lead Agency Possible Funding Sources or Resources Time Line Objectives CW-1— Continue to maintain a website that will house the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan and any amendments to it adopted during the next 5-year period to provide the planning partners and the public with ongoing access to the plan and its implementation.

All Hazards Ventura County General Funds Short term, Ongoing 1, 2, 7, 17 CW-2— Continue to leverage/support/enhance ongoing, regional public education and awareness programs, such as VCAlert, CERT (Community Emergency Response Team), DART (Disaster Assistance Response Team), TsunamiReady, and StormReady, as methods to educate the public on risk, risk reduction, and community resilience.

All Hazards Planning Partners Cost sharing from the partnership General fund allocations
Cost sharing with stakeholders
Short term, Ongoing 1, 2, 7, 12, 17
CW-3— Continue to provide a virtual hub for sharing information on hazard mitigation resources on the readyventuracounty.org website that will support mitigation efforts and awareness of grant funding opportunities to the planning partnership.

All Hazards Ventura County General funds Short term, Ongoing 1, 2, 17

23.2 AREA-WIDE ACTION PLAN PRIORITIZATION
The actions recommended in the action plan were prioritized based on the following factors:
• Cost and availability of funding
• Benefit, based on likely risk reduction to be achieved 494
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 23-2
• Number of plan objectives achieved
• Timeframe for project implementation
• Eligibility for grand funding programs
Two priorities were assigned for each action:
• A high, medium, or low priority for implementing the action • A high, medium, or low priority for pursuing grant funding for the action.

The sections below describe the analysis of benefits and costs and the assignment of the two priority ratings.

23.2.1 Benefit and Cost
The action plan must be prioritized according to a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed actions (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(3)(iii)). For this hazard mitigation plan, a qualitative benefit-cost review was performed for each action by assigning ratings for benefit and cost as follows:
• Cost:
 High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the action; implementation would require new 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 reapportionment 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 ongoing existing program.
• Benefit:
 High—Action will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.  Medium—Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or action will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.  Low—Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.

To assign priorities, each action with a benefit rating equal to or higher than its cost rating (such as high benefit/medium cost, medium benefit/medium cost, medium benefit/low cost, etc.) was considered to be cost-beneficial. This is not the detailed level of benefit/cost analysis required for some FEMA hazardrelated grant programs. Such analysis would be performed at the time a given action is being submitted for grant funding.

23.2.2 Implementation Priority
Implementation priority ratings were assigned as follows:
• High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and has a secured source of funding. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). • Medium Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and is eligible for funding though no funding has yet been secured for it. Action can be completed in 495
Recommended Planning-Area-Wide Actions
23-3
the short term (1 to 5 years), once funding is secured. Medium-priority actions become highpriority 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 secured 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 may be eligible for grant funding from programs that have not yet been identified.

23.2.3 Grant Pursuit Priority
Grant pursuit priority ratings were assigned as follows:
• High Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has high benefits, and is listed as high or medium implementation 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 implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable.
• Low Priority—An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility requirements.

23.2.4 Prioritization Summary for Countywide Actions
Table 23-2 lists the priority of each action.

Table 23-2. Mitigation Action Priority
Action #
# of
Objectives
Met Benefit Cost
Do Benefits
Equal or Exceed
Costs?
Is Action
Grant
Eligible?
Can Action be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Implementation
Priority
Grant
Pursuit
Priority
CW-1 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
CW-2 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
CW-3 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low

23.3 CLASSIFICATION OF AREA-WIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS
Each recommended action was classified based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Table 23-3 shows these classifications. 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.
• 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.
496
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 23-4
• 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.

Table 23-3. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Actions That Address the Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Prevention
Property
Protection
Public Education
and Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resiliency
Community
Capacity
Building

HIGH-PRIORITY HAZARDS
Dam Failure CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Landslide CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3

MEDIUM-PRIORITY HAZARDS
Earthquake CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Flooding CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Severe Storms CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Severe Weather CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Wildfire CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3

LOW-PRIORITY HAZARDS
Drought CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Sea-Level Rise CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Tsunami CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
• 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 Resiliency—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.
497
24-1

24. PLAN ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE

24.1 PLAN ADOPTION
A hazard mitigation plan must document formal adoption by the governing body of the jurisdiction 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 preadoption 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 FEMA approval and planning partner resolutions adopting this plan can be found in Appendix F of this volume.

24.2 PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
This section describes a formal plan maintenance process to ensure that the hazard mitigation plan remains an active and relevant document. It includes an explanation of the responsibilities of a hazard mitigation plan Project Management Team and the planning partners. It outlines steps to ensure that the plan remains an active and relevant document and that any improvements and revisions to the hazard mitigation plan occur in a well-managed, efficient, and coordinated manner. Requirements for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• 44 CFR 201.6, Local Mitigation Plans (Element A)—Inclusion of a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current (monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a 5-year cycle. (Requirement § 201.6(c)(4)(1))
• CRS 510 Floodplain Management Planning, CRS Step 10:
 A. Procedures to monitor and recommend revisions.
 B. Same planning committee or successor committee that qualifies under Section 511.a.2 (a) does the evaluation.

A Project Management Team, composed of Ventura County staff members, will take the lead on monitoring, evaluating, and updating the hazard mitigation plan over the 5-year performance period.

Table 24-1 summarizes the plan maintenance strategy over the 5-year performance period of the plan.

The sections below further describe each element.
498
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 24-2
Table 24-1. Plan Maintenance Matrix
Approach Timeline Lead Responsibilitya
Plan Monitoring
Track the implementation of plan actions Continuous All planning partners will report annually to Ventura County Sheriff’s
OES on action implementation. Points
of contact are listed in Volume 2.

Plan Evaluation
Review the status of previous actions; assess
changes in risk; evaluate success of integration
Upon initiation of hazard mitigation
plan update, comprehensive General
Plan update, or major disaster
All planning partners
Grant Monitoring and Coordination
The County will consider options to pursue grants to
fund actions identified in this plan.

Continuous, as grants become
available
Ventura County Sheriff’s OES
Plan Update
Initiate the process to comprehensively update the
plan at least every 5 years.

At the end of year 3 (mid-2025),
coordinate with the planning partners,
and work to identify grant funding
opportunity for update. Obtain grant
funding by the end of year 4 (mid
2026).

Ventura County Sheriff’s OES will
lead the plan update. All planning
partners will support the effort.

Integration into Other Planning Mechanisms
Create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan
and individual jurisdictions’ general plans or similar
plans identified in the core capability assessments
Continuous All planning partners
Continuing Public Involvement
Maintain and update the
www.readyventuracounty.org website with relevant
hazard mitigation information and public participation
opportunities.

Continuous Ventura County Sheriff’s OES will
lead continuing public participation. All
planning partners will support the
effort.
a. Responsible lead party may designate an alternate. Jurisdictional points of contact identified in Volume 2 have support responsibility.

24.2.1 Plan Monitoring
Ventura County Sheriff’s OES will be the lead agency responsible for oversight and the Project Management Team will support plan monitoring, evaluation, and the plan update schedule. Each planning partner will monitor plan implementation by tracking the status of mitigation actions in its action plan. Staff or departments with primary responsibility are identified in each jurisdictional annex (see Volume 2).

24.2.2 Plan Evaluation
Plan evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partners identified as lead agencies in the area-wide and jurisdiction-specific action plans. The plan will be analyzed for which goals and objectives were achieved. Additionally, a review of any changes in risk over the performance period will be analyzed by the degree to which those changes may impact and require revision to the mitigation goals and objectives and how they are incorporated into jurisdictional plans, policies and programs.

Review of the hazard mitigation plan can include the following:
499
Plan Adoption and Maintenance
24-3
• Discussion of hazard events that occurred during the prior year and their impact on the planning area
• Impact of potential grant opportunities on the implementation of mitigation actions • Re-evaluation of the action plans to determine if the timeline for identified actions needs to be amended (such as changing a long-term action to a short-term action because of funding availability)
• Recommendations for new actions
• Impact of any other planning programs or initiatives that involve hazard mitigation

24.2.3 Grant Monitoring and Coordination
Ventura County Sheriff’s OES, in consultation with the planning partners, will identify hazard mitigation grant funding opportunities and assume lead responsibility for planning and facilitating grant opportunity calls or meetings. The Project Management Team will communicate and coordinate with the planning partners to review the hazard mitigation plan and pursue a strategy to capture grant funding.

24.2.4 Plan Update
FEMA requires the hazard mitigation plan to be revised and resubmitted for review and approval by Cal OES and FEMA prior to the five-year anniversary date of the plan’s adoption in order to remain eligible for benefits under the DMA (44 CFR, Section 201.6(d)(3)). To meet this timeline, at the end of year 3 (2025), Ventura County Sheriff’s OES, with support from the Project Management Team, will coordinate with the planning partners to identify a grant funding opportunity for the update. Grant funding for the update will be obtained by the end of year 4 (2026). This cycle may be accelerated to less than five years based on the following triggers:
• A federal disaster declaration that impacts Ventura County • A hazard event that causes loss of life
• A comprehensive update of the Ventura County General Plan The revision process may include the following elements, as required by FEMA at the time of the next update:
• The revision process will be convened through a new steering committee • The hazard risk assessment will be reviewed and, if necessary, revised using best available information and technologies
• The action plan will be reviewed for any actions completed, ongoing, or withdrawn, and will be reconciled to account for changes in the risk assessment or new policies identified under other plans (such as the General Plan)
• The draft plan revision will be sent to appropriate agency departments and divisions for comment
• The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the revised plan prior to adoption • The Ventura County Board of Supervisors will adopt the updated plan once the reviews by Cal OES and FEMA have been conducted
500
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 24-4

24.2.5 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 planning partners, through adoption of General Plans and zoning ordinances, have planned for the impact of natural hazards. The hazard mitigation plan development process provided them with an opportunity to review and expand on policies contained within these planning mechanisms. The planning partners used their general 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 General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan.

All municipal planning partners have committed to creating a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and their individual General Plans within one of their identified mitigation actions. Other planning processes and programs to be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan may include:
• Climate action plans
• Emergency operations plans
• Resilience plans
• Recovery plan
• Emergency response plans
• Training and exercise of emergency response plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Debris management plans
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Community development block grant-disaster recovery action plans • Public information/education plans.

Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the 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 can be incorporated via the next hazard mitigation plan update.

For the special purpose district planning partners to this plan, identified planning capabilities include capital facility plans, emergency operations plan, continuity of operations plans, and community wildfire 501
Plan Adoption and Maintenance
24-5
protection plans. Special purpose districts do not have land use authority, so integration with land use plans is not a capability for districts. However, for the planning capabilities that the districts do possess, they will integrate where appropriate relevant sections of this plan when those plans are scheduled for updates. This has already occurred for most of the district planning partners as indicated in Volume 2 of this plan.

24.2.6 Continuing Public Involvement
The public will continue to be apprised of the plan’s progress through the www.readyventuracounty.org website. The website will house the final plan and the StoryMap and will provide information regarding the plan, plan implementation, and plan update process. The website will continue to be updated as additional information becomes available. This may include examples of local mitigation in action, planning partner updates, resources, and public participation opportunities.

Upon initiation of future update processes, a new public involvement strategy will be developed. This strategy will be based on the needs and capabilities of Ventura County and its planning partners at the time of the update and will include web, social media, and the use of other local media outlets in the planning area.
502
503
Reference-1

REFERENCES
AGU. 2019. Climate Change Suppresses Santa Ana Winds of Southern California and Sharpens Their Seasonality. January 31. Accessed February 15, 2022.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL080261.

Brown, William M. III, David M. Perkins, Edgar V. Leyendecker, Arthur D. Frankel, James W. II Hendley, and Peter H. Stauffer. 1998. Hazard Maps Help Save Lives and Property. USGS.

CAL FIRE. 2021. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

Cal OES. 2020. "California Adaptation Planning Guide ." March. Accessed December 20, 2021. https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/01APG_Planning_for_Adaptive_Communities. pdf.

Cal OES. 2021. Dam Safety Planning Division. Accessed November 17, 2021. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/hazard-mitigation/dam-safety-planning-division.

California Department of Conservation. 2019a. Earthquakes and Faults. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes.

California Department of Conservation. 2019b. Ground Motion Interpolator. Accessed November 20, 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/PSHA/ground-motion-interpolator.aspx.

California Department of Conservation. 2021. Pace of Urbanization Slows in Los Angeles, Ventura Counties, New Doc Maps Show. August 20. Accessed December 22, 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20141023082054/http:/www.conservation.ca.gov/index/news/2001%20Ne ws%20Releases/Pages/NR2001-55%20LA,%20Ventural%20FMMP.aspx.

California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 Update 2003.

State of California.

California Department of Water Resources. 2021a. Climate Change and Water. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Climate-Change-Program/Climate-Change-andWater.

California Department of Water Resources. 2021b. Division of Safety of Dams. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://water.ca.gov/programs/all-programs/division-of-safety-of-dams. 504
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Reference-2
California Division of Safety of Dams. 2021. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-Safety-ofDams/Files/Publications/Dams-Within-Jurisdiction-of-the-State-of-California-Listed-Alphabetically-byCounty.pdf.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. California Environmental Protection Agency.

California Public Utilities Commission. 2021. Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) / De-Energization.

Accessed 2021. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/psps/.

Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes. 2021. Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations.

Accessed November 23, 2021. https://cw3e.ucsd.edu/firo/.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. Health Implications of Drought. January 16.

Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/drought/implications.htm.

City of Camarillo. 2007. "Memorandum." Responses to Grand Jury Report on Evacuation Planning.

Camarillo: Office of the City Manager, August 22.

Croswell, Ken. 1995. "California Tornado Risk." Earth 12.

Erdman, Jonathan. 2021. America's No. 1 Weather Killer Is Not Tornadoes, Flooding, Lightning or Hurricanes. June 3. Accessed November 22, 2021. https://weather.com/safety/heat/news/2021-06-03- heat-america-fatalities.

ESA. 2021. "Ormond Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Preferred Alternative and Preliminary Design Plan." Plan.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2016. Be Aware of Potential Risk of Dam Failure in Your Community. August. Accessed November 17, 2022. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 08/fema_dam-safety_aware-community_fact-sheet_2016.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. Flood Zones. July 8. Accessed October 1, 2021. https://www.fema.gov/glossary/flood-zones.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2021. Taking Shelter from the Storm. March 3. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_taking-shelter-from-thestorm_p-320.pdf.

Felman, Adam. 2020. "What to know about pandemics." Medical News Today, March 30.

Frederikse, T., F. Landerer, L. Caron, S. Adhikari, D. Parkes, V. Humphrey, S. Dangendorf, et al. 2020. "The causes of sea-level rise since 1900." Nature 584, 393–397.

Georgetown Climate Center. 2011. Surfer's Point Managed Shoreline Retreat Project. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/surfer-s-point-managedshoreline-retreat-project.html. 505
References
Reference-3
Heady, Walter N., Brian S. Cohen, Mary G. Gleason, Joshua N. Morris, Sarah G. Newkirk, Kirk R.

Klausmeyer, Hilary R. Walecka, Elizabeth Gagneron, and Mary Small. 2018. Conserving California's Coastal Habitats: A Legacy and a Future with Sea Level Rise. San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA: The Nature Conservancy, California State Coastal Conservancy.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . 2021. Glossary. Accessed December 20, 2021. https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/glossary/glossary_a.html.

Lee, S., H. Lopez, E Chung, P. DiNezio, S. Yeh, and A. Wittenberg. 2017. "On the Fragile Relationship Between El Niño and California Rainfall." Geophysical Research Letters.

Mount, Jeffrey, Alvar Escriva-Bou, and Gokce Sencan. 2021. Droughts in California. April. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.ppic.org/publication/droughts-in-california/.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2019. Can Climate Affect Earthquakes, Or Are the Connections Shaky? October 29. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2926/can-climate-affect-earthquakes-or-are-the-connections-shaky/.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2021. Climate Change: How Do We Know? November

18. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2010. How Will Global Warming Change Earth? June

3. Accessed November 23, 2021.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page6.php.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2021. The Effects of Climate Change. November 18.

Accessed November 23, 2021. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/.

National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021. Climate at a Glance. Accessed December 22, 2021. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/county/time-series/CA-111/tavg/3/11/2000-2020.

National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021. DROUGHT: Monitoring Economic, Environmental, and Social Impacts. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/drought-monitoring-economic-environmental-and-social-impacts.

National Centers for Environmental Information. 2022. Storm Events Database; Search Results for Ventura County, California. February 15. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp?eventType=%28Z%29+High+Wind&eventType= %28Z%29+Marine+Strong+Wind&eventType=%28Z%29+Marine+Thunderstorm+Wind&eventType=% 28Z%29+Strong+Wind&eventType=%28C%29+Thunderstorm+Wind&eventType=%28Z%29+Wildfire& b.

National Drought Mitigation Center. 2021. Drought Impact Reporter. October 31. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://droughtreporter.unl.edu/map/.

National Integrated Drought Information System. 2021. Current Conditions for Ventura County.

November 16. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.drought.gov/states/california/county/Ventura. 506
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Reference-4
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Climate Change: Global Sea Level. October

7. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understandingclimate/climate-change-global-sea-level.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Is sea level rising? February 26. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Sea Level Trends. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Tides & Currents. October 31. Accessed November 21, 2021.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/waterlevels.html?id=9410660&units=standard&bdate=19500101&ed ate=20211031&timezone=GMT&datum=MLLW&interval=m&action=.

National Severe Storms Laboratory. 2018. Severe Weather 101. Accessed 2018. https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/wind/types/.

National Tsunami Warning Center. 2021. Tsunami Frequently Asked Questions. November 19.

Accessed November 22, 2021. https://www.tsunami.gov/?page=tsunamiFAQ.

National Weather Service. 2009a. Flood Categories. June 25. Accessed October 1, 2021. https://w1.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?word=flood+categories.

National Weather Service. 2009b. National Weather Service Glossary. Accessed November 22, 2021. https://w1.weather.gov/glossary/.

Oakley, N.S., B.J. Hatchett, D. McEvoy, and L. Rodriguez. 2019. Projected Changes in Ventura County Climate. Reno, Nevada: Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute.

Pacific Gas & Electric. n.d. Learn about Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events. Accessed 2021. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/outages/public-safety-power-shuttoff/learn-about-psps.page.

Santa Clara River Estuary Scientific Review Panel. 2018. "Technical Memorandum SRP Recommendations - FINAL." City of Ventura. June 25. Accessed November 20, 2021. https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13035/2018-June-Scientific-Review-PanelSRP-Final-Recommendations-.

Sarkar, Subharthi, and Rajib Maity. 2020. "Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipitation in the context of climate change." Methods X.

Science. 2021. California's fire-fanning Santa Ana winds may not get any better with climate change.

June 18. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.science.org/content/article/california-s-fire-fanningsanta-ana-winds-may-not-get-any-better-climate-change.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2021a. 6th Cycle RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment. July 1. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/rhna. 507
References
Reference-5
Southern California Association of Governments. 2021b. Allocation By County. July 1. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-final-allocationplan.pdf?1625161899.

Southern California Earthquake Center. 2018. A Site Conditions Map for California Based on Geology and Shear Wave Velocity. Accessed 2018. http://scecinfo.usc.edu/phase3/wills.html.

State of California. 2021. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/overview/.

The Nature Conservancy. 2021a. Coastal Resilience Ventura County. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://coastalresilience.org/project/ventura-county/.

The Nature Conservancy. 2021b. PLACES WE PROTECT L.A.-Ventura Project California. Accessed November 20, 2021. https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/places-we-protect/laventura/.

Tuser, Christina. 2019. "VENTURA APPROVES $200 MILLION WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT." Water & Waste Digest, October 16.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2021. Corps to begin dredging project at Port of Hueneme. January 5.

Accessed November 21, 2021. https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-ReleaseArticle-View/Article/2462330/corps-to-begin-dredging-project-at-port-of-hueneme/.

U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2021. Coastal Erosion. April 1. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal-flood-risk/coastal-erosion.

U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2021. Drought. September 28. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/water/drought.

U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2021. Restoring Surfers' Point: Partnership's Persistence Pays Off.

August 6. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://toolkit.climate.gov/case-studies/restoring-surfers-pointpartnerships-persistence-pays.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2021a. Disaster Designation Information. September 24. Accessed September 24, 2021. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/disaster-assistanceprogram/disaster-designation-information/index.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2021b. National Invasive Species Information Center - Climate Change. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/subject/climate-change.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. "Soil Survey Ventura Area, California." Accessed December 22, 2021.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/venturaCA1970/venturaCA1970.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Climate Adaptation and Stormwater Runoff. May 26.

Accessed November 22, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/climate-adaptation-and-stormwater-runoff. 508
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Reference-6
U.S. Geolgoical Survey. 2021a. U.S. Quaternary Faults. USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center.

Accessed 2021.
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf U.S. Geological Survey. 2021c. Earthquake Magnitude, Energy Release, and Shaking Intensity.

Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquakehazards/science/earthquake-magnitude-energy-release-and-shaking-intensity?qtscience_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. How many deaths result from landslides each year? Accessed 2020. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-deaths-result-landslides-each-year?qtnews_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2021e. ShakeMap. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/shakemap/.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. ShakeMap Scientific Background. March 9. Accessed November 19, 2021.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110623092131/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/back ground.php#intmaps.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2021b. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/modified-mercalli-intensity-scale?qtscience_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2021d. What is "El Niño" and what are its effects? Accessed November 21, 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-el-ni-o-and-what-are-its-effects?qtnews_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products.

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2018. "Fourth National Climate Assessment; Chapter 2, Our Changing Climate." Accessed 2021. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/.

Ventura County. 2015. "2015 Ventura County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan." Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner. 2020. "County of Ventura 2020 Crop & Livestock Report." Ventura County. 2018. "Final Report Ventura County Dam Safety." Final Report.

Ventura County Public Works Agency. 2020a. Flood Warning System. Accessed December 17, 20221. https://www.vcwatershed.net/fws/.

Ventura County Public Works Agency. 2020. Groundwater Resources. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.vcpublicworks.org/wp/waterresourcesdivision/groundwaterresources/.

Ventura County Public Works Agency. 2020b. Watershed Protection. Accessed November 20, 2021. https://www.vcpublicworks.org/wp/.
509
References
Reference-7
Ventura County. 2020. Ventura County 2040 General Plan. September. Accessed November 21, 2021. file:///C:/Users/Megan.Brotherton/Documents/HMP%20-
%20Ventura%20County/General%20Plan/Ventura_County_2040_General_Plan.pdf.

Ventura County. 2020. "Ventura County 2040 General Plan Housing Element." September. Accessed August 25, 2021.
https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/plans/Final_2040_General_Plan_docs/VCGPU_03_Housin g_Element_2020_09_15_web.pdf.

Ventura County Watershed Protection District. 2015. 2015 Annual Report of Groundwater Conditions.

Ventura County.
510
511
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A. Public Involvement Materials
512
513
A-1
A. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MATERIALS
Steering Committee meeting agendas and notes are available online at https://www.readyventuracounty.org/calendar-of-events/
Survey results are provided on the following pages.
514
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 1 / 35
Q1 Where in Ventura County do you live?
Answered: 831 Skipped: 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
San
Buenaventura...

Camarillo
Moorpark
Unincorporated
Ventura County
Ojai
Oxnard
I don't live
in Ventura...

Fillmore
Santa Paula
Port Hueneme
515
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 2 / 35

24.55% 204

20.22% 168

14.20% 118

9.27% 77

7.82% 65

7.46% 62

4.93% 41

3.49% 29

3.49% 29

2.29% 19

1.81% 15

0.48% 4
TOTAL 831

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
San Buenaventura (Ventura)
Camarillo
Moorpark
Unincorporated Ventura County
Ojai
Oxnard
I don't live in Ventura County
Fillmore
Santa Paula
Port Hueneme
516
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 3 / 35

62.58% 520

8.42% 70

6.86% 57

22.14% 184
Q2 Do you work in Ventura County?
Answered: 831 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 831
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes (includes
people worki...

No, I work
outside the...

No, I am not
currently...

No, I am
retired

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes (includes people working remotely from home)
No, I work outside the County
No, I am not currently employed
No, I am retired
517
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 4 / 35
Q3 Which of the following natural hazard events have you experienced or been affected by within Ventura County? (Check all that apply) Answered: 831 Skipped: 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Wildfire
Earthquake
Drought
Severe Weather
(i.e. wind,...

Agricultural
Biological...

Severe Storms
Flood
Landslide
Sea Level Rise
+ Coastal...

Dam Failure
Tsunami
518
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 5 / 35

84.60% 703

64.50% 536

62.94% 523

49.10% 408

15.64% 130

15.40% 128

12.03% 100

9.51% 79

4.93% 41

1.20% 10

0.96% 8
Total Respondents: 831

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Wildfire
Earthquake
Drought
Severe Weather (i.e. wind, cold, heat)
Agricultural Biological (e.g. west nile, epidemic diseases) Severe Storms
Flood
Landslide
Sea Level Rise + Coastal Erosion
Dam Failure
Tsunami
519
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 6 / 35
Q4 How prepared is your household to deal with a hazard event? Answered: 792 Skipped: 40

5.30%
42 43.69%
346

29.17%
231

17.55%
139

4.29%
34 792 2.72
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not at all p… Somewhat … Adequately… Well prepar…
Very well pr…
Check one:

NOT AT ALL

PREPARED

SOMEWHAT

PREPARED

ADEQUATELY

PREPARED
WELL

PREPARED

VERY WELL

PREPARED

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE
Check
one:
520
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 7 / 35
Q5 What steps has your household taken to prepare for a disaster? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 791 Skipped: 41
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Received First
Aid/CPR...

Made a fire
escape plan
Designated an
evacuation...

Identified
utility shut...

Maintain a
emergency...

Installed
smoke and...

Written and
practiced an...

Participated
in neighborh...

Maintain a
working fire...

Maintain extra
medical...

None
521
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 8 / 35

57.90% 458

43.49% 344

31.98% 253

69.53% 550

71.30% 564

90.52% 716

11.00% 87

9.86% 78

69.79% 552

73.07% 578

2.53% 20
Total Respondents: 791

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Received First Aid/CPR training
Made a fire escape plan
Designated an evacuation meeting place
Identified utility shutoff locations
Maintain a emergency supply kit (e.g. batteries, flashlights, battery-powered radio, food/water) Installed smoke and carbon monoxide detectors
Written and practiced an individual or family disaster plan Participated in neighborhood preparedness and planning
Maintain a working fire extinguisher at home
Maintain extra medical supplies (e.g. first aid kit, medications) None
522
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 9 / 35

75.76% 600

59.22% 469

40.28% 319

46.21% 366

26.89% 213

26.39% 209

21.97% 174

3.91% 31
Q6 What resources/experiences have helped you to become more prepared? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 792 Skipped: 40
Total Respondents: 792
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Lived
experience f...

Information
from governm...

Information
from TV news...

Information
from interne...

Education from
schools and...

Attending
meetings wit...

Participating
in Community...

None

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Lived experience from one or more hazards or disasters
Information from government sources (e.g. federal, state, or local) Information from TV news, radio news
Information from internet or social media
Education from schools and other academic institutions
Attending meetings with information on disaster preparedness Participating in Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) or other disaster training program (e.g. DART) None
523
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 10 / 35

36.76% 290

30.80% 243

29.02% 229

14.58% 115

10.77% 85

9.76% 77

4.18% 33
Q7 What are the hurdles preventing you from being more prepared? Answered: 789 Skipped: 43
Total Respondents: 789
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1.2k 1.4k 1.6k 1.8k 2k
Time const… Not applica… Financial co… Other (plea…
Renting vs. … Lack of edu… Limited acc…

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Time constraints
Not applicable, I feel adequately prepared already
Financial constraints
Other (please specify below)
Renting vs. owning home or business
Lack of education about disasters
Limited access to information resources
524
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 11 / 35
Q8 Which information sources on emergency preparedness do you use most? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 792 Skipped: 40
Internet
Social Media
(e.g. Twitter)
Radio
TV
Public Meetings
Workshops
Schools
f
TV Ads
h
Radio Ads
Government
Sources
Billboards
Fire Department
Church and
other...

CERT/DART
Classes
Public
Awareness...

Books
525
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 12 / 35
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Chamber of
Commerce
Academic
Institutions
Public Library
American Red
Cross...

Community
Safety Fairs
Newspaper
Informational
Brochures
526
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 13 / 35

78.54% 622

36.74% 291

24.75% 196

35.73% 283

13.26% 105

10.10% 80

6.57% 52

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

41.92% 332

1.14% 9

33.46% 265

5.68% 45

13.13% 104

12.37% 98

0.00% 0

1.01% 8

4.04% 32

4.80% 38

18.18% 144

9.47% 75

18.56% 147

12.88% 102
Total Respondents: 792

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Internet
Social Media (e.g. Twitter)
Radio
TV
Public Meetings
Workshops
Schools
f
TV Ads
h
Radio Ads
Government Sources
Billboards
Fire Department
Church and other faith-based groups
CERT/DART Classes
Public Awareness Campaign (e.g. Flood Awareness Week)
Books
Chamber of Commerce
Academic Institutions
Public Library
American Red Cross Information
Community Safety Fairs
Newspaper
Informational Brochures
527
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 14 / 35
Q9 How concerned are you about the following hazards? (Check one response for each hazard)
Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
528
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 15 / 35
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not Concer… Somewhat … Concerned Very Conce…
Extremely …
Wildfire
Drought
Earthquake
Severe Weather
(i.e. wind,...

Agricultural
Biological...

Severe Storms
Sea Level Rise
+ Coastal...

Other Hazard
Flood
Landslide
Tsunami
Dam Failure
n/a
Radiological
Incident
Space Weather
Terrorism
Transportation
Incident
529
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 16 / 35

1.95%
13 5.55%
37 12.44%
83 26.39%
176

53.67%
358 667 4.24

4.17%
28 14.29%
96 18.30%
123

31.85%
214

31.40%
211 672 3.72

2.84%
19 13.88%
93 30.60%
205

29.25%
196

23.43%
157 670 3.57

10.96%
73 20.57%
137

27.48%
183

22.37%
149

18.62%
124 666 3.17

25.37%
170

29.85%
200

22.39%
150

14.03%
94 8.36%
56 670 2.50

25.46%
167

27.59%
181

28.05%
184

11.89%
78 7.01%
46 656 2.47

40.03%
265

21.60%
143

19.94%
132

10.57%
70 7.85%
52 662 2.25

50.65%
157

12.58%
39 15.48%
48 8.06%
25 13.23%
41 310 2.21

44.29%
287

27.62%
179

18.21%
118

6.64%
43 3.24%
21 648 1.97

45.14%
297

27.20%
179

18.54%
122

6.23%
41 2.89%
19 658 1.95

61.31%
404

20.49%
135

11.53%
76 4.10%
27 2.58%
17 659 1.66

66.62%
439

20.49%
135

9.26%
61 3.19%
21 0.46%
3 659 1.50

0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0 0.00

0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0 0.00

0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0 0.00

0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0 0.00

0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0 0.00
NOT

CONCERNED

SOMEWHAT

CONCERNED

CONCERNED VERY

CONCERNED

EXTREMELY

CONCERNED

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE
Wildfire
Drought
Earthquake
Severe Weather (i.e.
wind, cold, heat)
Agricultural Biological
(e.g. west nile,
epidemic diseases)
Severe Storms
Sea Level Rise +
Coastal Erosion
Other Hazard
Flood
Landslide
Tsunami
Dam Failure
n/a
Radiological Incident
Space Weather
Terrorism
Transportation
Incident
530
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 17 / 35
Q10 Is your current residence located within a known earthquake fault zone, liquefaction zone, or landslide zone? (Check all that apply) Need help answering? Add your address to this tool:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
Answered: 679 Skipped: 153

29.72%
200

44.87%
302

25.41%
171 673

18.55%
123

50.68%
336

30.77%
204 663

8.47%
56 70.35%
465

21.18%
140 661
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No Not Sure
Earthquake
fault zone
Liquefaction
zone
Landslide zone

YES NO NOT SURE TOTAL
Earthquake fault zone
Liquefaction zone
Landslide zone
531
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 18 / 35

8.69% 59

71.87% 488

19.44% 132
Q11 Is your current residence located in a FEMA designated floodplain? Need help answering? Add your address to this tool:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
TOTAL 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Not Sure

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not Sure
532
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 19 / 35

47.57% 323

42.27% 287

10.16% 69
Q12 Is your current residence in a high-risk area for wildfire? Need help answering? Add your address to this tool:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?
appid=5e96315793d445419b6c96f89ce5d153
Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
TOTAL 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Not Sure

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not Sure
533
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 20 / 35

69.07% 469

30.93% 210
Q13 Are you aware that California law requires the disclosure of a natural hazard risk zone (e.g. earthquake fault zone, dam failure zone, or high fire risk area) before you purchase or move into a home?
Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
TOTAL 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
534
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 21 / 35

83.80% 569

16.20% 110
Q14 Would the disclosure of natural hazard information influence your decision to purchase or move into a home today?
Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
TOTAL 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
535
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 22 / 35

14.60% 99

38.64% 262

17.55% 119

9.29% 63

29.50% 200
Q15 To the best of your knowledge, does the home in which you live have:

Answered: 678 Skipped: 154
Total Respondents: 678
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Flood
insurance...

Earthquake
insurance...

Not sure
Decline to
state
Neither

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Flood insurance policy
Earthquake insurance policy
Not sure
Decline to state
Neither
536
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 23 / 35

18.14% 123

68.73% 466

8.85% 60

4.28% 29
Q16 Have you ever had difficulty obtaining homeowners or renters insurance due to risks from natural hazards?
Answered: 678 Skipped: 154
TOTAL 678
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Not sure
Decline to
state

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not sure
Decline to state
537
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 24 / 35

41.97% 285

63.33% 430

39.91% 271

67.30% 457

22.39% 152

40.35% 274

43.15% 293

5.30% 36

13.99% 95
Q17 Which incentives would encourage you to retrofit your home to protect against natural disasters? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
Total Respondents: 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Building
permit fee...

Insurance
premium...

Mortgage
discount
Property tax
break or...

Low interest
loan
Free local
government...

Grant funding
None of the
above
Not applicable

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building permit fee waiver
Insurance premium discount
Mortgage discount
Property tax break or incentive
Low interest loan
Free local government technical assistance
Grant funding
None of the above
Not applicable
538
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 25 / 35
Q18 Please indicate how you feel about the following statement:"I think it is important to provide education and programs that promote community members to take action to reduce their exposure and risks to natural hazards."
Answered: 678 Skipped: 154

6.05%
41 2.80%
19 6.19%
42 24.93%
169

60.03%
407 678 4.30
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly Di… Somewhat … Neither Agr… Somewhat …
Strongly Ag…
Choose one:

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT
AGREE

STRONGLY
AGREE

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE
Choose
one:
539
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 26 / 35

68.34% 464

8.69% 59

60.24% 409

26.07% 177

21.35% 145
Q19 If a natural disaster such as a large earthquake were to strike tomorrow... (Check all that apply)
Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
Total Respondents: 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I feel
confident th...

I am unsure
how to prote...

I keep an
emergency ki...

I have
practiced an...

I am unsure
where I woul...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I feel confident that I know how to protect myself during an earthquake I am unsure how to protect myself during an earthquake
I keep an emergency kit with spare food and water for myself and my family I have practiced an evacuation plan and/or know where I and my family would go if we needed to evacuate our home I am unsure where I would go if I needed to evacuate my home 540
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 27 / 35

11.50% 78

88.50% 600
Q20 Does your street (or another street that you know of) typically flood during rain events?
Answered: 678 Skipped: 154
TOTAL 678
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes (Please
specify below)
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes (Please specify below)
No
541
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 28 / 35

0.45% 3

6.77% 45

16.69% 111

17.59% 117

25.41% 169

33.08% 220
Q21 Please indicate your age range:

Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
TOTAL 665
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
under 18
18 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
61 or older

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
under 18
18 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
61 or older
542
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 29 / 35

99.25% 660

0.75% 5

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q22 Please indicate the primary language spoken in your household.

Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
TOTAL 665
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
English
Spanish
Mixteco
Chinese
Vietnamese
Tagalog

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
English
Spanish
Mixteco
Chinese
Vietnamese
Tagalog
543
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 30 / 35

2.11% 14

5.11% 34

1.05% 7

9.47% 63

1.65% 11

0.45% 3

73.68% 490

1.95% 13

13.53% 90
Q23 Which category best describes you? (Check all that apply) Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
Total Respondents: 665
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
American
Indian or...

Asian (ie.

Chinese,...

Black or
African...

Hispanic,
Latino or...

Middle Eastern
or North...

Native
Hawaiian or...

White (ie.

German, Iris...

A
race/ethnici...

Decline to
state

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
American Indian or Alaska Native (ie. Navajo nation, Blackfeet tribe, Mayan, Aztec, Nome Eskimo Community, etc) Asian (ie. Chinese, Filipino, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, etc) Black or African American (ie. African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somalian, etc) Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin (ie. Spanish, Mexican or Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, Colombian, etc.)
Middle Eastern or North African (ie. Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan, Algerian, etc) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (ie. Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Tongan, Fijian, etc) White (ie. German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, French, etc) A race/ethnicity not listed here
Decline to state
544
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 31 / 35

18.67% 124

77.41% 514

3.77% 25

0.15% 1
Q24 Do you, or anyone in your household, identify as a person with a disability (e.g. mobility, hard of hearing/deaf, low vision/blind, intellectual)? Answered: 664 Skipped: 168
TOTAL 664
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Decline to
state
Other (please
specify below)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Decline to state
Other (please specify below)
545
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 32 / 35
Q25 What is your annual (gross) household income?
Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
<$10,000
$10,000 -
$30,000
$30,001 -
$50,000
$50,001 -
$70,000
$70,001 -
$90,000
$90,001 -
$110,000
$110,001 -
$130,000
$130,001 -
$150,000
$150,001 -
$170,000
$170,001 -
$190,000
$190,001 -
$210,000
$210,001 -
$230,000
>$230,001
Decline to
state
546
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 33 / 35

0.60% 4

2.11% 14

4.96% 33

5.26% 35

7.97% 53

7.82% 52

8.72% 58

7.67% 51

3.46% 23

2.86% 19

4.21% 28

4.06% 27

7.97% 53

32.33% 215
TOTAL 665

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
<$10,000
$10,000 - $30,000
$30,001 - $50,000
$50,001 - $70,000
$70,001 - $90,000
$90,001 - $110,000
$110,001 - $130,000
$130,001 - $150,000
$150,001 - $170,000
$170,001 - $190,000
$190,001 - $210,000
$210,001 - $230,000
>$230,001
Decline to state
547
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 34 / 35
Q26 What is your zipcode?
Answered: 612 Skipped: 220
548
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 35 / 35

79.25% 527

85.71% 570

1.95% 13

0.30% 2
Q27 How do you typically access the internet? (Check all that apply) Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
Total Respondents: 665
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Cellphone
Personal
computer
Shared or
public resou...

I do not
access the...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Cellphone
Personal computer
Shared or public resource computer (e.g. library)
I do not access the internet
549
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B. Federal and State Agencies,
Programs and Regulations
550
551
B-1
B. FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES, PROGRAMS AND

REGULATIONS
Existing laws, ordinances, plans and programs at the federal and state 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 to review 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.

FEDERAL
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeks to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and government activities. 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 all 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 other visual alerts.

Two technical documents for shelter operators address physical accessibility needs of people with disabilities, as well as medical needs and service animals.

The ADA 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 (e.g., 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.
552
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-2
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.

Bureau of Land Management
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funds and coordinates wildfire management programs and structural fire management and prevention on BLM lands. BLM works closely with the Forest Service and state and local governments to coordinate fire safety activities. The Interagency Fire Coordination Center in Boise, Idaho serves as the center for this effort.

Civil Rights Act
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.

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, and 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. Numerous 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.

The CWA is important to hazard mitigation in several ways. There are often permitting requirements for any construction within 200 feet of water of the United States, which may have implications for mitigation projects identified by a local jurisdiction. Additionally, CWA requirements apply to wetlands, which serve important functions related to preserving and protecting the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains and are linked with a community’s floodplain management program. Finally, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is part of the CWA and addresses local stormwater management programs. Stormwater management plays a critical role in hazard mitigation by addressing urban drainage or localized flooding issues within jurisdictions.

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. 553
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-3
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 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. CDBG-DR funding is a potential alternative source of funding for actions identified in this plan.

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.

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 discount partially depends on location of the property. Properties outside the special flood hazard area receive smaller discounts: a 10-percent discount if the community is at Class 1 to 6 and a 5-percent discount if the community is at Class 7 to 9.

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.
554
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-4
CRS activities can help to save lives and reduce property damage. Communities participating in the CRS represent a significant portion of the nation’s flood risk; over 66 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.

Disaster Mitigation Act
The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be in place before Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant funds are available to communities. This plan is designed to meet the requirements of DMA, improving eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds.

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. 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.

Emergency Watershed Program
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) 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, windstorms, and other natural occurrences. EWP is an emergency recovery program.

Financial and technical assistance are available for the following activities:
• 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. 555
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-5
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 residents 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.
• 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 556
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-6
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.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. More than 3,000 dams are part of regulated hydroelectric projects in the FERC program. Two-thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety and integrity grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important.

FERC 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 engineer approved by the FERC must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet (10 meters), or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acrefeet.

FERC monitors seismic research and applies it in performing structural analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams.

During and following floods, FERC 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 if there is an actual or potential sudden release of water from a dam due to failure. The plans include operational procedures that may be used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream flows, as well as procedures for notifying affected residents and agencies responsible for emergency management.

These plans are frequently updated and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations.
557
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-7
Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003). These documents call for a single comprehensive federal fire policy for the Interior and Agriculture Departments (the agencies using federal fire management resources). They mandate community-based collaboration to reduce risks from wildfire.

National Dam Safety Act
Potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Inspection Act in 1972, creation of the National Dam Safety Program in 1996, and reauthorization of the program through the Dam Safety Act in 2006. National Dam Safety Program, administered by FEMA requires a periodic engineering analysis of the majority of dams in the country; exceptions include 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.

National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions, alongside technical and economic considerations. The National Environmental Policy Act established the Council on Environmental Quality, whose regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) set standards for compliance. Consideration and decision-making regarding environmental impacts must be 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.

National Fire Plan
The 2001 National Fire Plan was developed based on the National Fire Policy. A major aspect of the National Fire Plan is joint risk reduction planning and implementation carried out by federal, state and 558
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-8
local agencies and communities. The National Fire Plan presented a comprehensive strategy in five key initiatives:
• Firefighting—Be adequately prepared to fight fires each fire season. • Rehabilitation and Restoration—Restore landscapes and rebuild communities damaged by wildfires.
• Hazardous Fuel Reduction—Invest in projects to reduce fire risk. • Community Assistance—Work directly with communities to ensure adequate protection. • Accountability—Be accountable and establish adequate oversight, coordination, program development, and monitoring for performance.

National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities that enact floodplain regulations. Participation and good standing under NFIP are prerequisites to grant funding eligibility under the Robert T. Stafford Act.

For most participating communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent-annualchance flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood. Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the flood hazard areas are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. Flood Insurance Rate Maps are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under the local floodplain management program. In recent years, Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been digitized as Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are more accessible to residents, local governments and stakeholders.

NFIP participants must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met:
• New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. • New floodplain development must 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.

NFIP participation is limited to local governments that possess permit authority and have the ability to adopt and enforce regulations that govern land use. This does not typically apply to special purpose districts. None of the special purpose district planning partners covered by this plan are eligible to participate in the NFIP, so their action plans do not address NFIP participation. 559
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-9
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 some cases, success depends on the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, levels of government, functional agencies, and emergency responder disciplines. These cases necessitate coordination across a 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, technological hazards, and human-caused hazards) 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.

The content of this plan is considered to be a viable support tool for any phase of emergency management. The NIMS program is considered as a response function, and information in this hazard mitigation plan can support the implementation and update of all NIMS-compliant plans within the planning area.

National Landslide Preparedness Act
The 2021 National Landslide Preparedness Act authorized a national landslide hazards reduction program and a 3D elevation program within the USGS. This broadened the existing Landslide Hazards Program (under the Natural Hazards Mission Area) and the 3D Elevation Program (under the National Geospatial Program). The act required coordination among federal agencies through an Interagency Coordinating Committee on Landslide Hazards representing USGS and other agencies. The act calls for development of a national strategy for landslide loss reduction and a publicly accessible national landslide database of landslide hazard and risk.

Presidential Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and shortterm 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:
• 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. 560
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-10
Presidential Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands 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:
• 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.

Rural Development Program
The mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Program is to help improve the economy and quality of life in rural America. The program provides project financing and technical assistance to help rural communities provide the infrastructure needed by rural businesses, community facilities, and households. The program addresses rural America’s need for basic services, such as clean running water, sewage and waste disposal, electricity, and modern telecommunications and broadband. Loans and competitive grants are offered for various community and economic development projects and programs, such as the development of essential community facilities including fire stations. This program is a potential source of funding for actions identified in this plan.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains approximately 700 dams nationwide. It is also responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non-federal dams in the United States that meet the 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 the dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety. The Corps maintains the National Inventory of Dams, which contains information about a dam’s location, size, purpose, type, last inspection and regulatory status.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Hazard Management
The following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorities and programs related to flood hazard management:
• The Floodplain Management Services program offers 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.
561
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-11
• 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 nonstructural 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 costshared 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 is provided in the flowing 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—Public Law 84-99 allows the Corps of Engineers to supplement state and local entities in flood fighting urban and other non-agricultural areas under certain conditions (Engineering Regulation 500-1-1 provides specific details). All flood fight efforts require a project cooperation agreement signed by the public sponsor and the sponsor must remove all flood fight material after the flood has receded. Public Law 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 Public Law 84-99, an eligible flood protection system can be rehabilitated if damaged by a flood event. The flood system would be restored to its predisaster status at no cost to the federal system owner, and at 20-percent cost to the eligible non-federal system owner. All systems considered eligible for Public Law 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.

These authorities and programs are all available to the planning partners to support any related mitigation actions.
562
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-12
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams Program The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams Program was officially implemented in 1978 with passage of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act (Public Law 95-578). This act was amended in 1984 under Public Law 98-404, in 2000 under Public Law 106-377, in 2002 under Public Law 107-117, and in 2004 under Public Law 108-439. Program development and administration of dam safety activities is the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Dam Safety Office located in Denver, Colorado.

Dams must be operated and maintained in a safe manner, ensured through inspections for safety deficiencies, analyses utilizing current technologies and designs, and corrective actions if needed based on current engineering practices. In addition, future evaluations should include assessments of benefits foregone with the loss of a dam. For example, a failed dam can no longer provide needed fish and wildlife benefits.

The primary emphasis of the Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams program is to perform site evaluations and to identify potential safety deficiencies on Bureau of Reclamation and other Interior Department dams. The basic objective is to quickly identify dams which pose an increased threat to the public, and to quickly complete the related analyses in order to expedite corrective action decisions and safeguard the public and associated resources. The selected course of action relies on assessments of risks and liabilities with environmental and public involvement input to the decision-making process.

U.S. Fire Administration
There are federal agencies that provide technical support to fire agencies/organizations. For example, the U.S. Fire Administration, which is a part of FEMA, provides leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support for fire agencies and organizations.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fire management strategy uses prescribed fire to maintain early successional fire-adapted grasslands and other ecological communities throughout the National Wildlife Refuge system.

STATE
AB 9: Fire safety: wildfires: fire adapted communities.

Establishes the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program to support regional leadership, build local and regional capacity, and develop, prioritize, and implement strategies and projects that create fireadapted communities by improving watershed health, forest health, community wildfire preparedness, and fire resilience.

AB 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act
This bill identifies the following potential adverse impacts of global warming:
563
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-13
“… 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 andtrade” programs—to ensure that the required reductions occur.

The Air Resources Board has 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 38: Fire safety: Low-Cost Retrofits: Regional Capacity Review: Wildfire Mitigation
Requires the seller of any real property located in a high or very fire hazard severity zone to provide a disclosure notice, as specified, to the buyer with information relating to fire hardening improvements on the property.

Requires the California Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal and the Forest Management Task Force, to review the regional capacity of each county that contains a very high fire hazard severity zone to improve forest health, fire resilience, and safety.

Requires the California Office of Emergency Services to enter into a joint powers agreement with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to administer a comprehensive wildfire mitigation and assistance program to encourage cost-effective structure hardening and facilitate vegetation management, contingent upon appropriation by the Legislature.

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.
564
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-14
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 state Department of Water Resources (DWR). During 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 purpose 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, and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) • Historical data on flooding
• Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones.

The general plan must establish goals, policies and objectives related to 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 related to flooding risks. It establishes procedures for the determination of available land suitable for urban development, which may exclude lands where FEMA or DWR has concluded that the flood management infrastructure is not adequate to avoid the risk of flooding.

AB 267: California Environmental Quality Act: Exemption: Prescribed Fire, Thinning, and Fuel Reduction Projects
Current law, until January 1, 2023, exempts from the requirements of CEQA prescribed fire, thinning, or fuel reduction projects undertaken on federal lands to reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire that have been reviewed under the federal National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Current law requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, beginning December 31, 2019, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2023, to report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature the number of times the exemption was used. This extends the exemption from CEQA and the requirement on the department to report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature to January 1, 2026.

AB 380: Forestry: Priority Fuel Reduction Projects
On March 22, 2019, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency directing the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to implement fuel reduction projects for communities at greatest risk of wildfire to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The proclamation of a state of emergency exempts the identified fuel reduction projects from various legal requirements, including, 565
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-15
among others, requirements regarding public contracting for those projects, requirements for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act for those projects, and licensure requirements for individuals conducting certain activities for those projects.

This bill requires the department, before December 31, 2022, and before December 31 of each year thereafter, to identify priority fuel reduction projects, as provided. The bill exempts the identified priority fuel reduction projects from legal requirements in a similar manner as provided in the proclamation of a state of emergency described above.

AB 431: Forestry: Timber Harvesting Plans: Defensible Space: Exemptions The Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 prohibits a person from conducting timber operations, as defined, unless a timber harvesting plan prepared by a registered professional forester has been submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The act authorizes the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to exempt from some or all of those provisions of the act a person engaging in specified forest management activities, as prescribed, including, only until January 1, 2022, the cutting or removal of trees on the person’s property in compliance with specified defensible space requirements. This bill extends to January 1, 2026, the board’s authorization to exempt a person engaging in the cutting or removal of trees on the person’s property in compliance with the specified defensible space requirements.

AB 497: Forestry and Fire Protection: Local Assistance Grant Program: Fire Prevention Activities: Street and Road Vegetation Management Under existing law, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is required to develop, implement, and administer forest improvement and fire prevention programs in the state. Existing law requires the department to establish a local assistance grant program for fire prevention activities in California.

Existing law requires the department to prioritize, to the extent feasible, projects that are multiyear efforts and to prioritize grant applications from specified local agencies.

This bill appropriated $25,000,000 to provide the local assistance grants. It requires the department to prioritize projects that manage vegetation along streets and roads to prevent the ignition of wildfire and that require the funds for purposes of purchasing equipment necessary for the project.

AB 575: Civil Liability: Prescribed Burning Activities: Gross Negligence This bill provides that a private entity engaging in a prescribed burning activity that is supervised by a person certified as burn boss is liable for damages to a third party only if the prescribed burning activity was carried out in a grossly negligent manner.

AB 642: Wildfires
This omnibus fire prevention bill makes changes to support cultural and prescribed fire, including the creation of a Cultural Burning Liaison at the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and requires a proposal for creating a prescribed fire training center in California. The Act requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas in the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones and to classify areas into fire hazard severity zones based on additional factors including 566
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-16
possible lightning caused ignition. The bill requires a local agency, within 30 days of receiving a transmittal from the director that identifies fire hazard severity zones, to make the information available for public comment.

AB 747: Required Information for General Plan Safety Elements This bill requires California communities with general plans to address evacuation routes in the safety element of the general plan. Information on the evacuation routes and their capacity, safety and viability under a range of emergency scenarios must be provided. For communities that have not adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, the safety element must be updated with this information by January 1, 2022. For those with a local hazard mitigation plan, the requirement applies upon the next revision of the hazard mitigation plan on or after January 1, 2022. Communities that have adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, emergency operations plan, or other document that fulfills the goals and objectives of this law may comply with this requirement by summarizing and incorporating by reference the other plan or document in the safety element.

In subsequent revisions to the safety element, communities also will be required to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. These subsequent updates must occur upon each revision of the general plan housing element or local hazard mitigation plan and not less than once every eight years.

AB 800: Wildfires: Local General Plans: Safety Elements: Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Existing law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas of the state as very high fire hazard severity zones, and requires each planning agency to prepare, and the legislative body of each county and city to adopt, a comprehensive, long-term general plan, including a safety element, for the physical development of the county or city. Existing law requires each city or county that contains a very high fire hazard severity zone to submit the draft element of, or draft amendment to the safety element its general plan to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the city or county at least 90 days before adoption or amendment.

This requires the director to also identify areas of the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. It requires the draft element of, or draft amendment to, the safety element of a county or city’s general plan to be submitted to the state board and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the city or county at least 90 days before the adoption or amendment to the safety element of its general plan for each city or county that contains a moderate or high fire hazard severity zone.

Existing law requires the state board and authorizes a local agency to review the draft or an existing safety element and recommend changes to the planning agency regarding uses of land and policies in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones and regarding methods and strategies for wildland fire risk reduction and prevention within state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones.
567
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-17
This bill also requires the state board and authorizes a local agency to review the draft or an existing safety element and recommend changes to the planning agency regarding uses of land and policies in moderate and high fire hazard severity zones and regarding methods and strategies for wildland fire risk reduction and prevention within moderate and high fire hazard severity zones.

The existing Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency, and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, and requires the local agency to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. Before approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for an area located in a state responsibility area or a very high fire hazard severity zone, existing law requires a legislative body of a county to make specified findings. Existing law requires a legislative body of a county to transmit these findings to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

This requires a legislative body of a county to make specified findings before approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for areas located in moderate and high fire hazard severity zones, and requires these findings to be transmitted to the state board.

By requiring new duties on a county, the bill imposes a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to statutory provisions.

AB 1255: Fire Prevention: Fire Risk Reduction Guidance: Local Assistance Grants
This bill requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, in coordination with the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, to facilitate regional, habitat-specific, and area-specific approaches to fire risk reduction, prevention, and restoration of projects that improve community safety, protect sites and structures, restore burned habitat, reduce catastrophic wildfires, and protect natural resources. It requires the department to develop policies, funding programs for which the funding shall be contingent upon subsequent appropriation in the annual Budget Act or a similar statute for this purpose, and relevant program guidelines that promote specified objectives. The bill requires various state entities to establish grant programs, for which funding shall be contingent upon subsequent appropriation, to fulfill the specified objectives.

AB 1295: Residential Development Agreements: Very High Fire Risk Areas Current law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas in the state as very high fire hazard severity zones based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas and requires each local agency to designate, by ordinance, the very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction. Current law additionally requires the director to classify lands within state responsibility areas into fire hazard severity zones. This bill, prohibits the legislative body of a city or county from entering into a residential development agreement for property in a very high fire risk area. 568
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-18
The bill defines “very high fire risk area” for these purposes to mean a very high fire hazard severity zone designated by a local agency or a fire hazard severity zone classified by the director.

AB 1439: Property Insurance Discounts
This bill requires a residential property insurance policy to include a discount if a local government of the jurisdiction where the insured property is located funds a local wildfire protection or mitigation program. Because the bill mandates discounts for specified residential property insurance policies, thus affecting the Insurance Commissioner’s consideration of a rate, the bill would amend Proposition 103.

AB 1500: Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2022
If approved by the voters, this bill would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $6,700,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, drought preparation, flood protection, extreme heat mitigation, and workforce development programs.

AB 2140: General Plans—Safety Element
This bill provides that the state may allow for more than 75 percent of 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 preference for federal mitigation funding to cities and counties that have adopted local hazard mitigation plans. The intent of the bill is to encourage cities and counties to create and adopt hazard mitigation plans.

AB 2800: Climate Change—Infrastructure Planning
This California State Assembly bill passed in 2016 and until 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, by July 1, 2017, and until July 1, 2020, requires an agency to establish a Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group to examine how to integrate scientific data concerning projected climate change impacts into state infrastructure engineering.

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 569
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-19
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. All seismic hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Safe Regulations California’s Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is authorized to adopt regulations to implement specified programs. To become effective, the Office of Administrative Law must approve these regulations. Once adopted, Board regulations are placed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection then implements the regulations.

Since 1991, the Board’s Fire Safe Regulations have set the floor for fire safety standards for perimeters and access to all residential, commercial, and industrial building construction in state responsibility areas. They address road standards for fire equipment access, standards for road and building signs, minimum private water supplies for emergency fire use, and fuel breaks and greenbelts. Starting on July 1, 2021, these requirements will also apply in the local responsibility areas and will address construction on ridgelines.

California Coastal Management Program
The California Coastal Management Program under the California Coastal Act requires each city or county lying wholly or partly within the coastal zone to prepare a local coastal plan. The specific contents of such plans are not specified by state law, but they must be certified by the Coastal Commission as consistent with policies of the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code, Division 20). The Coastal Act has provisions relating to geologic hazards, but does not mention tsunamis specifically.

Section 30253(1) of the Coastal Act states that new development shall minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. Development should be prevented or limited in high hazard areas whenever possible. However, where development cannot be prevented or limited, land use density, building value, and occupancy should be kept at a minimum. Any mitigation project identified in this plan that intersects the mapped coastal zone will be consistent with the recommendations of the local coastal plan.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL FIRE has responsibility for wildfires in areas of the county that are not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service or a local fire organization, including lands designated as State Responsibility Areas.

CAL FIRE also has fire protection responsibilities by contract and mutual aid agreements. For example, CAL FIRE provides year-round fire protection under Amador Plan agreements with certain local government agencies (Public Resources Code §4144). Through these agreements, CAL FIRE provides local structural and wildfire protection or dispatch services to a community and maintains a staffing level that otherwise would be available only during the fire season. The local entity pays the additional cost of the service.
570
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-20
California Department of Parks and Recreation
State Parks manages portions of the California coastline including coastal wetlands, estuaries, beaches, and dune systems. The State Parks Resources Management Division has limited wildfire protection resources available to suppress fires on State Park lands.

California Department of Water Resources
In California, the DWR is the coordinating agency for floodplain management. The 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 the DWR.

California Division of Safety of Dams
California’s Division of Safety of Dams (a division of the DWR) monitors the dam safety program at the state level and maintains a working list of dams in the state. 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 is done in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. After construction, the Division inspects each dam to ensure that it is performing as intended and is not developing problems. The Division periodically reviews the stability of dams and their major appurtenances in light of improved design approaches and requirements, as well as new findings regarding earthquake hazards and hydrologic estimates in California. Over 1,200 dams are inspected by Division engineers on a yearly schedule to ensure performance and maintenance of dams.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970, shortly after the federal government enacted 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 decisionmaking process.

CEQA establishes a statewide environmental policy and mandates actions all state and local agencies must take to advance the policy. Jurisdictions conduct analysis of the project to determine if there are potentially significant environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures, and possible project alternatives by preparing environmental reports for projects that requires CEQA review. This environmental review is required before an agency takes action on any policy, program, or project. Any project action identified in this plan will seek full CEQA compliance upon implementation. 571
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-21
California Fire Alliance
The California Fire Alliance (CFA) was established in response to directives from the 2001 National Fire Plan. The CFA pursues four strategies to deal with the National Fire Plan’s community assistance initiative:
• Work with communities at risk from wildfires to develop community-based planning leadership and facilitate the development of community fire loss mitigation plans, which transcend jurisdiction and ownership boundaries.
• Assist communities in development of fire loss mitigation planning, education and projects to reduce the threat of wildfire losses on public and private lands. • Develop an information and education outreach plan to increase awareness of wildfire protection program opportunities available to communities at risk. • Work collaboratively to develop, modify and maintain a comprehensive list of communities at risk.

California Fire Plan
The State Board of Forestry and CAL FIRE have prepared a comprehensive update of the California Fire Plan for wildfire protection. The planning process included defining a level of service measurement; considering assets at risk; incorporating the cooperative interdependent relationships of wildfire protection providers; providing for public stakeholder involvement; and creating a fiscal framework for policy analysis. The California Fire Plan’s overall goal is to reduce costs and losses from wildfire in the state by protecting assets at risk through pre-fire management and by reducing the spread of fire through more successful initial response.

California Fire Safe Council
In 1993, the statewide Fire Safe Council, consisting of private and public membership, was formed to educate and encourage Californians to plan and prepare for wildfires by reducing the risk of fire to property, communities, and natural/structural resources. In 2002, this group created a nonprofit organization and board of directors, called the California Fire Safe Council. The Council works with the California Fire Alliance to facilitate the distribution of National Fire Plan grants for wildfire risk reduction and education (www.grants.firesafecouncil.org). The Council also provides assistance to local Fire Safe Councils through its website (www.firesafecouncil.org), the distribution of educational materials, and technical assistance, primarily through regional representatives. More than 130 local Fire Safe Councils have formed in California to plan, coordinate, and implement fire prevention activities.

California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Fire and Rescue Branch administers the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan. The agency provides guidance and procedures for agencies developing emergency operations plans, as well as training and technical support, primarily to overall emergency service organizations and urban search and rescue teams. 572
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-22
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, 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 and county 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.

California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Under the DMA, California must adopt a federally approved state multi-hazard mitigation plan to be eligible for certain disaster assistance and mitigation funding. The intent of the State of California MultiHazard 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, and 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.

Under 44 CFR Section 201.6, local hazard mitigation plans must be consistent with their state’s hazard mitigation plan. In updating this plan, the Steering Committee reviewed the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan to identify key relevant state plan elements (see Section 3.7).

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 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. 573
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-23
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.

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.

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 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.

Disadvantaged and Low-income Communities Investments
Senate Bill (SB) 535 directs state and local agencies to make investments that benefit California’s disadvantaged communities. It also directs the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify disadvantaged communities for the purposes of these investments based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria. Assembly Bill (AB) 1550 increased the percent of funds for projects located in disadvantaged communities from 10 to 25 percent and added a focus on investments in low-income communities and households. This program is a potential alternative source of funding for actions identified in this plan.

Division of the State Architect’s AB 300 List of Seismically At-Risk Schools In 2002, California’s Division of the State Architect completed an inventory of public school buildings built before 1978 that identifies buildings with characteristics that might make them unsafe in future 574
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-24
earthquakes. This inventory provides a list of potentially at‐risk schools known as the AB 300 list (the inventory was authorized by Assembly Bill 300 in 1999). Using available information on school buildings’ dates of construction, seismic retrofits, and structural systems (wood‐frame, concrete shear wall, or steel moment frame, etc.), the inventory categorized California public school buildings into one of two categories: those expected to perform well in future earthquakes; and those that are not expected to perform well and require more detailed seismic evaluation.

The Division of the State Architect recommends that public schools on this list undergo detailed seismic evaluations to determine if they pose life safety risks, but the state has neither required nor funded school districts to do this.

Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08
Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08 enhances the state’s management of climate impacts from sealevel rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme weather events. There are four key actions in the executive order:
• 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. 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.

Office of the State Fire Marshal
The Office of the State Fire Marshal is a division of CAL FIRE that has a wide variety of fire safety and training responsibilities and provides technical support to fire agencies/organizations.

Senate Bill 12: Local Government: Planning and Zoning: Wildfires This bill imposes new planning requirements on local governments, as follows:
• Defines “very high fire risk areas” to be the VHFHSZ in both the SRA and the Local Responsibility Area.
• Requires each city or county, upon the next revision of the housing element or local hazard mitigation plan on or after July 1, 2024, whichever occurs first, to review and update its safety element to include a comprehensive retrofit strategy that includes specified contents. • Requires a city or county with VHFHSZ within its jurisdiction to amend the land use element of its general plan upon the next revision of the housing element on or after July 1, 2024. This amendment of the land use element must include the locations of all VHFHSZ within the city or county, the data and analysis described in the Office of Planning and Research’s publication 575
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-25
Fire Hazard Planning–General Plan Technical Advice Series, and other specified goals, objectives, and implementation measures.
• Requires, after the initial amendment to the land use element, that a city or county review upon each revision of the housing element the implementation of the wildfire risk reduction standards within the jurisdiction and the designation of VHFHSZ.
• Provides for review and comment on draft findings by the Board and local fire agencies on whether the city or county has implemented the standards or made adequate progress, as defined.
• Requires, on or before January 1, 2023, to develop and post on its web site a clearinghouse of local ordinances, policies, and best practices relating to land use planning in VHFHSZ, wildfire risk reduction, and wildfire preparedness. The Office of Planning and Research must also regularly update the clearinghouse.

Senate Bill 92: Public Resources Portion of Biennial Budget Bill The State of California updated its requirements regarding emergency action plans (EAPs) via Senate Bill 92, which became effective in June 2017 as part of the state Legislature’s biennial budget process.

The bill required dam owners to submit EAPs to Cal OES and the Department of Water Resources for approval by January 1, 2018 (for extremely high hazard dams), January 1, 2019 (for high-hazard dams), and January 1, 2021 (for significant hazard dams). The EAPs were to include the following (California Government Code Section 8589.5):
• Emergency notification flow charts
• Information on a four-step response process
• Description of agencies’ roles and actions in response to an emergency incident • Description of actions to be taken in advance of an emergency • Inundation maps
• Additional information such as revision records and distribution lists.

After the EAPs are approved by the state, the law requires dam owners to send the approved EAPs to relevant stakeholders. Local public agencies can then adopt emergency procedures that incorporate the information in the EAP in a manner that conforms to local needs and includes methods and procedures for alerting and warning the public and other response and preparedness related items.

SB 92 also requires dams other than low-risk dams to have current inundation mapping, which must be updated every 10 years, or sooner if specific circumstances change. EAPs also must be updated every 10 years. It provides DWR with enforcement tools, including fines and operational restrictions for failure to comply. Cal OES is required by the law to work with state and federal agencies, dam owners, planners, and the public to make dam failure inundation maps available to citizens interested in learning their dam failure inundation risk.

Senate Bill 97: Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, amends CEQA to clearly establish that greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. It directs the 576
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-26
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop draft CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or their effects by July 1, 2009 and directs the California Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt the CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010.

Senate Bill 99: Evacuation Route Planning
Senate Bill 99, enacted in 2019, requires that cities’ and counties’ general plans address evacuation routes from any hazard area identified in the safety element. Under this law, the safety element must include information to identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. Each city or county must update its safety element with the new information upon the next revision of its housing element on or after January 1, 2020.

Senate Bill 182 Local Government: Planning and Zoning: Wildfires California Senate Bill 182 made a number of changes to state law regarding planning for and permitting development in areas designated as very high fire risk areas. The bill requires a local jurisdiction to do the following:
• Include a comprehensive retrofit strategy in its safety element to reduce the risk of property loss and damage during wildfires.
• Amend its land use element to identify all very high fire risk areas and to establish measures to protect lives and property from unreasonable risk of wildfire. • Adopt a very high fire risk overlay zone for its zoning ordinance. • Allocate a lower portion of projected future housing to very high fire hazard severity zones This bill prohibits local governments from entering into a development agreement for property in a very high fire risk area, approving a permit for a project in a very high fire risk area, or approving a tentative map for a subdivision in a very high fire risk area, unless the jurisdiction makes specified findings based on substantial evidence.

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.

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 577
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-27
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 1035: Fire, Flood, and Adaptation Safety Element Updates Senate Bill 1035 clarifies that revisions to a community’s General Plan Safety Element—to address fire hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resilience strategies—must occur upon each revision to a Housing Element or Local Hazard Mitigation Program.

Senate Bill 1241: General Plans: Safety Element—Fire Hazard Impacts In 2012, Senate Bill 1241 passed requiring that the safety elements of all future general plans address fire risk in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones. The bill requires cities and counties to make findings regarding available fire protection and suppression services before approving a tentative map or parcel map.

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, to be eligible for state funding of response-related personnel costs under CCR Title 19 (Sections 2920, 2925 and 2930). The roles and responsibilities of Individual agencies contained in existing laws or the state emergency plan are not superseded by these regulations. This hazard mitigation plan is considered to be a support document for all phases of emergency management, including those associated with SEMS.

Western Governors Association Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy The Western Governors Association Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy: A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildfire Risks to Communities and the Environment (August 2001) is strategy implementation plan prepared by federal and Western state agencies that outlines measures to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuels.
578
579
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources
580
581
C-1
C. MAPPING METHODS & DATA SOURCES

DAM FAILURE INUNDATION MAPPING
Dam breach inundation maps, including inundation boundaries and depth grids, were downloaded from the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) website (https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/). As required by California Water Code section 6161, the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) at DWR reviews and approves inundation maps prepared by licensed civil engineers and submitted by dam owners for extremely high, high, and significant hazard dams and their critical appurtenant structures. Inundation maps are based on a hypothetical failure of a dam or critical appurtenant structure, and the information depicted on the maps is approximate. The dams and failure scenarios are as follows:
• Arundel Barranca (National Dam ID CA01412)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Spillway. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 5/13/2020.
• Bouquet Canyon (National Dam ID CA00088)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Saddle Dam 1 (Dam No. 2). Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 7/22/2019.
• Castaic (National Dam ID CA00044)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam, Low Level Outlet, and Spillway. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 4/9/2019.
• Lake Eleanor (National Dam ID CA00737)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/24/2018. • Lake Sherwood (National Dam ID CA00736)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Spillway 1. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 10/10/2019.
• Lang Creek Detention Basin (National Dam ID CA01368)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Spillway 1. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 8/12/2020.
• Las Llajas (National Dam ID CA01217)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 8/12/2020. • Matilija (National Dam ID CA00312)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/24/2019. • Pyramid (National Dam ID CA00052)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam, Low Level Outlet, and Spillway 1 (Gated Spillway). Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 4/10/2019.
582
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-2
• Runkle (National Dam ID CA00313)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 3/27/2020. • Santa Felicia (National Dam ID CA00805)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Spillway 1. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 9/20/2019.
• Senior Canyon (National Dam ID CA01019)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam, Dam No. 2 and Dam No. 3. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/4/2019.
• Sinaloa Lake (National Dam ID CA01018)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 10/13/2019. • Stewart Canyon Debris Basin (National Dam ID CA01159)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 5/14/2020.
• Sycamore Canyon (National Dam ID CA01266)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 4/8/2020. • Westlake Reservoir (National Dam ID CA00904)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and West Dam. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 11/1/2018.
• Wood Ranch (National Dam ID CA00850)—Scenarios show inundation extents for storminduced failures of Main Dam, Dike 1, Dike 2, Dike 3, Dike 4, Dike 5 and Dike 6. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/19/2019.

EARTHQUAKE MAPPING
Liquefaction Zones
Seismic Hazard Zone Maps for Liquefaction dataset downloaded from the California Geological Survey’s geologic hazards data website (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/). The seismic hazards zones datasets include areas where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake. Developers of properties falling within the zones may be required to investigate the potential hazard and mitigate its threat during the local permitting process. The data is used by cities and counties to regulate development and by property owners selling property within areas where seismic hazard zones have been identified. Local governments can withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into development plans. Sellers of property use the data to check the location of their specific site and, if applicable, disclose to the buyer that the property lies within a seismic hazard zone as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter

7.8). This data may not show all areas that have potential for liquefaction. Also, a single earthquake capable of causing liquefaction will not uniformly affect the entire zone. The identification and location of liquefaction zones are based on the best available data. However, the quality of data used is varied.

Zone boundaries have been drawn as accurately as possible at the map scale (1:24,000). 583
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-3
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soils NEHRP soils information is derived from a shear wave velocity (Vs30) data produced by the California Geological Survey in 2015. The Vs30 data represents simplified geologic units that have been correlated to the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 meters of the earth’s surface. The geologic units were compiled from published maps that range in scale from 1:250,000 to 1:24,000. (Wills, et al., 2015)
Probabilistic Peak Ground Acceleration Maps
Probabilistic peak ground acceleration data, by Census tract, are generated by Hazus 4.2 SP03. In Hazus’ probabilistic analysis procedure, the ground shaking demand is characterized by spectral contour maps developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as part of a 2018 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps. USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps are revised about every six years to reflect newly published or thoroughly reviewed earthquake science and to keep pace with regular updates of the building code. Hazus includes maps for eight probabilistic hazard levels: ranging from ground shaking with a 39 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (100-year return period) to the ground shaking with a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (2,500-year return period).

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 from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors (accelerometers), with interpolation based on 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 by the USGS for four earthquake scenarios:
• An earthquake on the Oak Ridge (Onshore) fault with the following characteristics:
 Magnitude: 7.16
 Epicenter: N 34.31 W 118.96
 Depth: 12.8 km
• An earthquake on the San Cayetano fault with the following characteristics:
 Magnitude: 7.16
 Epicenter: N 34.54 W 118.95
 Depth: 10.2 km
• An earthquake on the S. San Andreas fault with the following characteristics:
 Magnitude: 8.03
 Epicenter: N 34.80 W 118.85
 Depth: 9.1 km
• An earthquake on the Ventura-Pitas Point fault with the following characteristics:
 Magnitude: 7.12
 Epicenter: N 34.32 W 119.28
584
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-4
 Depth: 10.0 km

FLOOD MAPPING
Flood hazard areas are from the countywide effective FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) dated January 29, 2021 with the latest incorporated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) dated June 18, 2021.

LANDSLIDE MAPPING
Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides 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 base map. 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)

SEA-LEVEL RISE MAPPING
Projected sea level rise data are from the USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS), accessed via the Our Coast Our Future web platform (Point Blue Conservation Science and USGS). The projections were generated using the latest downscaled climate projections and calibrated hydrodynamic models by the CoSMoS project team led by Patrick Barnard, at the USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center.

TSUNAMI MAPPING
Initial tsunami modeling was performed by the University of Southern California Tsunami Research Center funded through the California Emergency Management Agency by the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. The tsunami modeling process utilized the MOST (Method of Splitting Tsunamis) computational program (Version 0), which allows for wave evolution over a variable bathymetry and topography used for the inundation mapping (Titov and Gonzalez, 1997; Titov and Synolakis, 1998).

The bathymetric/topographic data that were used in the tsunami models consist of a series of nested grids. Near-shore grids with a 3 arc-second (75- to 90-meters) resolution or higher were adjusted to “mean high water” sea-level conditions, representing a conservative sea level for the intended use of the tsunami modeling and mapping. A suite of tsunami source events was selected for modeling, representing realistic local and distant earthquakes and hypothetical extreme undersea, near-shore landslides. Local tsunami sources that were considered include offshore reverse-thrust faults, restraining bends on strike-slip fault zones and large submarine landslides capable of significant seafloor displacement and tsunami generation. Distant tsunami sources that were considered include great subduction zone events that are known to have occurred historically (1960 Chile and 1964 Alaska earthquakes) and others that can occur around the Pacific Ocean “Ring of Fire.” 585
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-5
In order to enhance the result from the 75- to 90-meter inundation grid data, a method was developed utilizing higher-resolution digital topographic data (3- to 10-meters resolution) that better defines the location of the maximum inundation line. The location of the enhanced inundation line was determined by using digital imagery and terrain data on a GIS platform with consideration given to historical inundation information (Lander, et al., 1993). This information was verified, where possible, by field work coordinated with local county personnel.

The accuracy of the inundation line shown on these maps is subject to limitations in the accuracy and completeness of available terrain and tsunami source information, and the current understanding of tsunami generation and propagation phenomena as expressed in the models. Thus, although an attempt has been made to identify a credible upper bound to inundation at any location along the coastline, it remains possible that actual inundation could be greater in a major tsunami event. This map does not represent inundation from a single scenario event. It was created by combining inundation results for an ensemble of source events affecting a given region. For this reason, all of the inundation region in a particular area will not likely be inundated during a single tsunami event. (State of California, 2009)

WILDFIRE MAPPING
PRC 4201 – 4204 and Govt. Code 51175-89 directed the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CALFIRE - FRAP) to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), define the application of various mitigation strategies to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. CAL FIRE remapped Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) recommendations in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) in 2005 – 2008 to provide updated map zones, based on new data, science, and technology.

Mapping of the areas referred to as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) was based on data and models of potential fuels over a 30- to 50-year time horizon and their associated expected fire behavior, and expected burn probabilities to quantify the likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure (including firebrands) to buildings. The goal of the mapping effort was to create more accurate fire hazard zone designations such that mitigation strategies would be implemented in areas where hazards warrant these investments. The fire hazard zones provide specific designation for application of defensible space and building standards consistent with known mechanisms of fire risk to people, property, and natural resources.

REFERENCES
Barnard, P.L., Erikson, L.H., Foxgrover, A.C., Finzi Hart, J.A., Limber, P., O’Neill, A.C., van Ormondt, M., Vitousek, S., Wood, N., Hayden, M.K., and Jones, J.M., 2019. Dynamic flood modeling essential to assess the coastal impacts of climate change. Scientific Reports, Volume 9, Article #4309, 13 pp., http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40742-z.
586
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-6
Lander, J.F., Lockridge, P.A., and Kozuch, M.J., 1993, Tsunamis Affecting the West Coast of the United States 1806-1992: National Geophysical Data Center Key to Geophysical Record Documentation No. 29, NOAA, NESDIS, NGDC, 242 p.

State of California. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning; produced by California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California – Tsunami Research Center; dated December 9, 2009.

Titov, V.V., and Gonzalez, F.I., 1997, Implementation and Testing of the Method of Tsunami Splitting (MOST): NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL PMEL –112, 11 p.

Titov, V.V., and Synolakis, C.E., 1998, Numerical modeling of tidal wave runup: Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, 124 (4), pp 157-171.

Wills, C.J., Gutierrez, C.I., Perez, F.G., and Branum, D.B., 2015, A next-generation Vs30 map for California based on geology and topography: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

Wills C.J., Perez, F., Gutierrez, C. 2011. Susceptibility to deep-seated landslides in California:

California Geological Survey Map Sheet 58.
587
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results
588
589
Appendix D.1
Exposure and Vulnerability of People and Property
590
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Dam Failure ‐ Combined
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 $180,756,967,629 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.(4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.(6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.

Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) (1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population. 591
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Dam Failure ‐ Combined
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
3,193 10,113 14.3% $1,825,655,234 $1,714,652,312 $3,540,307,546 20.0%2,230 7,882 48.0% $647,367,412 $389,746,474 $1,037,113,886 42.0%2,410 7,440 20.5% $1,342,208,186 $1,285,066,640 $2,627,274,826 32.0% 315 730 9.6% $106,146,197 $60,372,872 $166,519,069 7.1% 38,418 168,971 83.6% $14,966,842,858 $11,247,144,546 $26,213,987,404 79.7% 5,610 19,370 88.2% $2,153,487,223 $1,633,337,353 $3,786,824,576 81.3%1,643 4,929 4.5% $856,674,472 $760,613,648 $1,617,288,120 6.8%3,755 12,312 40.2% $1,386,519,268 $1,184,477,947 $2,570,997,214 56.2%4,606 14,993 11.9% $1,747,376,403 $1,359,059,306 $3,106,435,709 12.8%1,105 3,626 2.9% $481,014,948 $283,093,686 $764,108,634 2.5%9,163 16,770 17.8% $3,308,551,348 $2,712,590,423 $6,021,141,770 20.6% 72,448 267,136 31.7% $28,821,843,548 $22,630,155,206 $51,451,998,753 28.5% % of Total Value
Exposed
Estimated Building Exposure
Buildings Exposed
(2)
Population
Exposed (3)
% of Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
592
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Dam Failure ‐ Combined
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
1,046 3,585 333 495 $15,418,010 $16,471,533 $31,889,543 0.2% 119,360 6,212 355 2,207 $384,865,558 $271,540,819 $656,406,377 26.6% 9,231 3,318 217 967 $64,152,417 $111,003,160 $175,155,577 2.1%1,411 302 13 312 $12,264,840 $12,255,418 $24,520,258 1.0% 752,753 147,071 9,832 36,343 $3,473,281,467 $3,970,766,596 $7,444,048,063 22.6% 38,366 17,062 1,266 5,303 $346,121,830 $781,138,156 $1,127,259,987 24.2%45,581 1,474 102 1,472 $214,837,863 $333,576,589 $548,414,452 2.3% 291,295 10,518 1,015 3,726 $805,629,910 $861,507,999 $1,667,137,909 36.5% 33,331 4,959 307 3,338 $256,466,127 $288,433,026 $544,899,154 2.2%26,709 936 75 1,097 $126,531,174 $120,995,496 $247,526,670 0.8% 377,812 11,720 739 8,676 $1,096,303,200 $1,358,579,626 $2,454,882,825 8.4% 1,696,896 207,158 14,254 63,936 $6,795,872,395 $8,126,268,419 $14,922,140,815 8.3% Structure Debris
(Tons) (4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter (5)
Economic Impact
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
593
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Dam Failure ‐ Combined
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 5,678 2,810 97 240 0 4 4 38 31935,184 2,069 97 16 2 7 35 4 22304,784 2,003 184 126 5 9 50 33 2410 131 279 30 0 4 1 1 0 315
28,779 33,843 2,796 711 90 137 382 459 38418
4,708 4,926 275 26 0 16 312 55 56104,529 1,366 137 73 16 0 51 0 16435,017 2,896 543 168 21 35 34 58 37556,070 4,229 263 74 2 15 1 22 4606 797 1,038 57 0 0 0 3 7 1105
189,084 5,810 789 263 1,756 39 368 138 9163254,761 61,269 5268 1697 1896 263 1241 814 72448 Number of Structures in Inundation Area (2) Acres of
Inundation Area
594
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure NEHRP Soils D&E
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) NEHRP soils data provided by the California Geological Survey.(4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. `
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.

Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) 595
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure NEHRP Soils D&E
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
15,491 49,350 69.76% 7,456,431,275 6,204,632,212 13,661,063,487 77.15% 4,822 16,316 99.37% 1,464,670,770 982,603,711 2,447,274,481 99.17%4,356 13,910 38.34% 2,125,297,386 1,864,215,595 3,989,512,981 48.52%2,917 6,501 85.13% 995,851,526 660,566,859 1,656,418,385 70.78% 45,834 201,963 99.95% 18,438,842,169 14,422,099,593 32,860,941,762 99.87% 6,367 21,785 99.23% 2,627,243,574 2,014,522,828 4,641,766,402 99.70% 32,419 100,893 91.09% 12,521,527,404 9,707,584,462 22,229,111,866 93.25% 7,994 28,489 92.93% 2,443,835,102 1,841,164,958 4,285,000,060 93.74% 27,124 89,850 71.11% 9,989,487,724 7,169,804,343 17,159,292,067 70.53% 5,270 16,176 12.74% 3,187,049,866 2,461,055,120 5,648,104,986 18.48% 25,385 43,142 45.89% 8,656,246,083 7,004,485,366 15,660,731,449 53.70% 177,979 588,376 69.73% 69,906,482,879 54,332,735,047 124,239,217,926 68.73% NEHRP D & E Soils
Estimated Exposure
596
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure NEHRP Soils D&E
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 13,713 481 818 11 52 257 159 15,491
4,283 325 39 6 17 67 85 4,8223,745 289 144 47 12 57 62 4,3562,484 278 30 8 38 23 56 2,917 40,451 3,099 961 92 150 427 654 45,834
5,540 298 26 0 18 428 57 6,367
27,959 2,827 776 64 187 226 380 32,419
6,701 819 190 53 69 44 118 7,994
25,343 1,005 275 1 93 33 374 27,124
4,631 440 43 0 20 55 81 5,270
14,947 1,844 384 6,898 311 652 349 25,385
149,797 11,705 3,686 7,180 967 2,269 2,375 177,979
Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
597
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ Oak Ridge M7.16
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100%Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100%Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100%Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100%Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100%Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100%San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100%Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100%Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100%Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100%Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100%TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100% (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.(4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.

Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021. 598
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ Oak Ridge M7.16
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL Jurisdiction Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged
255.47 16 9 $1,254,097,388 $564,455,389 $1,818,552,777 10.3%

59.46 3 3 $323,437,723 $126,271,963 $449,709,687 18.2%95.45 5 4 $655,376,665 $296,600,537 $951,977,202 11.6%

6.66 0 0 $33,663,983 $15,264,779 $48,928,763 2.1%
890.52 47 49 $4,073,453,482 $1,886,216,754 $5,959,670,236 18.1%355.11 5 4 $754,540,064 $293,494,435 $1,048,034,499 22.5%780.02 50 30 $2,576,223,556 $1,110,614,262 $3,686,837,817 15.5%182.62 11 12 $603,461,204 $260,943,809 $864,405,014 18.9%224.01 10 6 $1,616,097,167 $689,355,027 $2,305,452,194 9.5%

96.58 1 1 $956,864,836 $407,551,372 $1,364,416,209 4.5% 472.31 11 10 $2,062,054,977 $956,099,540 $3,018,154,517 10.3% 3,418.21 160 127 $14,909,271,045 $6,606,867,869 21,516,138,914 11.9% Economic Impact
599
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ San Cayetano M7.16
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100%Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100%Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100%Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100%Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100%Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100%San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100%Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100%Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100%Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100%Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100%TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100% (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.(4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.

Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021. 600
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ San Cayetano M7.16
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL Jurisdiction Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged

24.30 0 0 $332,511,840 $161,595,849 $494,107,689 2.8%68.22 4 3 $325,134,215 $127,875,613 $453,009,828 18.4%23.26 0 0 $389,471,231 $180,226,732 $569,697,964 6.9%32.98 3 1 $114,379,858 $46,864,014 $161,243,872 6.9%55.56 0 0 $856,288,550 $393,290,347 $1,249,578,897 3.8%12.62 0 0 $112,352,575 $50,525,161 $162,877,736 3.5%83.85 0 0 $724,508,648 $321,387,735 $1,045,896,383 4.4%93.74 2 2 $314,494,935 $130,588,518 $445,083,453 9.7%50.58 0 0 $786,013,425 $362,021,100 $1,148,034,525 4.7%21.83 0 0 $365,047,679 $161,480,442 $526,528,122 1.7% 146.29 6 5 $1,047,501,134 $491,424,407 $1,538,925,541 5.3% 613.21 14 11 $5,367,704,090 $2,427,279,918 7,794,984,008 4.3% Economic Impact
601
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ S San Andreas M8.03
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100%Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100%Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100%Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100%Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100%Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100%San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100%Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100%Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100%Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100%Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100%TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100% (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.(4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.

Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021. 602
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ S San Andreas M8.03
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL Jurisdiction Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged

8.03 0 0 $72,606,865 $36,652,157 $109,259,022 0.6%6.78 0 0 $71,641,229 $26,926,763 $98,567,992 4.0%3.50 0 0 $111,151,410 $51,817,233 $162,968,643 2.0%2.87 0 0 $19,176,336 $8,813,983 $27,990,319 1.2%

30.04 0 0 $114,269,681 $61,286,102 $175,555,783 0.5%11.78 0 0 $28,011,094 $12,126,052 $40,137,146 0.9%30.20 0 0 $164,878,846 $70,237,390 $235,116,236 1.0%11.46 0 0 $74,173,536 $32,450,321 $106,623,857 2.3%12.49 0 0 $278,004,931 $135,279,174 $413,284,105 1.7%

6.07 0 0 $124,654,628 $57,664,112 $182,318,740 0.6%

30.72 0 0 $308,335,672 $144,080,027 $452,415,699 1.6%
153.94 0 0 $1,366,904,227 $637,333,313 2,004,237,540 1.1% Economic Impact
603
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ Ventura‐Pitas Point M7.12
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100% 70.37 1Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100% 25.92 1Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100% 11.74 0Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100% 19.19 0Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100% 407.03 6Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100% 119.50 1San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100% 889.88 85Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100% 184.76 11Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100% 13.38 0Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100% 18.60 0Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100% 318.60 7TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100% 2,078.98 112 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.(4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.

Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021. 604
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ Ventura‐Pitas Point M7.12
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL Jurisdiction People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged
0 $618,222,748 $291,545,429 $909,768,177 5.1%1 $246,340,734 $94,279,012 $340,619,745 13.8%0 $289,384,837 $136,815,405 $426,200,242 5.2%0 $66,661,698 $28,680,957 $95,342,655 4.1%6 $2,825,603,981 $1,243,802,712 $4,069,406,692 12.4%0 $410,536,239 $155,884,805 $566,421,043 12.2% 54 $2,875,871,126 $1,267,121,649 $4,142,992,775 17.4%12 $566,018,120 $243,512,464 $809,530,584 17.7% 0 $281,527,722 $141,026,273 $422,553,996 1.7%0 $316,498,805 $142,979,353 $459,478,158 1.5%6 $1,576,389,169 $737,714,488 $2,314,103,657 7.9% 79 $10,073,055,177 $4,483,362,547 14,556,417,724 8.1%
Economic Impact
605
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ 100‐yr Probabilistic
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100%Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100%Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100%Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100%Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100%Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100%San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100%Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100%Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100%Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100%Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100%TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100% (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.(4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.

Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021. 606
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ 100‐yr Probabilistic
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL Jurisdiction Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged

41.80 14 8 $317,154,975 $166,355,625 $483,510,601 2.7%

7.40 2 2 $96,688,052 $38,647,908 $135,335,960 5.5%

16.07 5 4 $251,966,583 $121,552,386 $373,518,968 4.5%

4.85 2 1 $20,372,924 $10,811,020 $31,183,944 1.3%

89.40 35 38 $1,671,772,446 $792,894,847 $2,464,667,293 7.5%26.26 6 5 $238,732,202 $108,091,762 $346,823,964 7.4%87.02 35 21 $621,218,009 $294,425,700 $915,643,709 3.8%19.90 7 7 $95,059,205 $47,029,170 $142,088,375 3.1%78.45 53 33 $789,228,569 $366,293,069 $1,155,521,638 4.7%44.82 26 14 $489,697,195 $235,427,670 $725,124,865 2.4%87.35 20 13 $814,238,984 $395,932,641 $1,210,171,626 4.1% 503.31 205 147 $5,406,129,145 $2,577,461,798 7,983,590,943 4.4% Economic Impact
607
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 $180,756,967,629 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.(4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.(6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.

Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) (1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population. 608
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
1,361 4,077 5.8% $811,577,706 $847,038,963 $1,658,616,669 9.4% 121 427 2.6% $44,066,967 $26,622,071 $70,689,039 2.9%229 691 1.9% $171,600,334 $182,716,297 $354,316,631 4.3% 84 152 2.0% $32,023,450 $24,758,767 $56,782,217 2.4%
263 839 0.4% $153,350,315 $153,090,160 $306,440,475 0.9% 3 4 0.0% $5,817,027 $5,723,892 $11,540,919 0.2%
186 350 0.3% $189,050,175 $196,450,450 $385,500,626 1.6% 2,800 9,493 31.0% $863,746,680 $706,530,251 $1,570,276,932 34.4%3,388 10,643 8.4% $1,550,461,207 $1,397,529,498 $2,947,990,705 12.1% 411 1,132 0.9% $270,559,337 $214,327,558 $484,886,895 1.6% 3,701 5,395 5.7% $1,173,621,479 $926,591,347 $2,100,212,825 7.2% 12,547 33,202 3.9% $5,265,874,679 $4,681,379,253 $9,947,253,933 5.5% % of Total Value
Exposed
Estimated Building Exposure
Buildings Exposed
(2)
Population Exposed
(3)
% of Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
609
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
995 874 80 924 $18,136,547 $14,704,765 $32,841,312 0.2%445 80 6 67 $1,947,318 $1,702,111 $3,649,429 0.1% 8,372 154 12 126 $13,667,492 $21,518,311 $35,185,803 0.4% 55 24 1 17 $455,128 $328,839 $783,967 0.0%
970 134 7 142 $3,868,280 $6,765,501 $10,633,781 0.0%
0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
12,604 30 2 71 $11,004,892 $28,605,208 $39,610,101 0.2% 8,063 6,168 528 1,871 $59,011,117 $71,219,090 $130,230,207 2.8% 15,198 2,358 114 2,273 $104,290,055 $140,715,076 $245,005,131 1.0% 1,293 133 8 274 $13,907,582 $29,357,341 $43,264,924 0.1% 48,715 874 27 2,120 $81,700,290 $120,988,721 $202,689,011 0.7%96,710 10,829 785 7,885 $307,988,701 $435,904,963 $743,893,665 0.4% Structure Debris
(Tons) (4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People
Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter (5)
Economic Impact
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
610
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 1,566 1,133 63 153 1 1 6 4 1361
545 112 1 1 1 1 3 2 121522 186 18 18 0 0 7 0 229285 58 11 8 0 0 7 0 84974 168 44 45 0 0 6 0 263132 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1,180 97 33 31 12 0 13 0 1861,421 2,233 336 109 41 17 14 50 28002,091 3,002 231 126 0 7 0 22 3388 568 324 34 0 0 2 7 44 411
58,760 1,869 319 46 1,372 34 30 31 370168,046 9,183 1091 537 1427 62 94 153 12547 Number of Structures in Floodplain (2) Acres of
Floodplain
611
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 $180,756,967,629 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.(4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.(6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.

Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) (1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population. 612
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
7,952 24,425 34.5% $4,183,612,188 $3,705,692,898 $7,889,305,086 44.6% 312 998 6.1% $81,648,513 $49,666,004 $131,314,517 5.3%
2,434 7,473 20.6% $1,316,023,676 $1,233,811,450 $2,549,835,126 31.0% 988 2,143 28.1% $318,177,110 $214,977,791 $533,154,901 22.8% 16,417 72,101 35.7% $6,271,339,016 $5,053,125,090 $11,324,464,106 34.4% 6,120 20,857 95.0% $2,570,735,967 $1,978,060,303 $4,548,796,270 97.7%1,520 3,969 3.6% $1,089,151,905 $1,055,150,082 $2,144,301,988 9.0%4,955 16,742 54.6% $1,549,736,567 $1,200,236,084 $2,749,972,651 60.2%4,309 13,430 10.6% $2,227,840,029 $2,075,195,072 $4,303,035,101 17.7% 698 2,040 1.6% $418,573,237 $303,132,032 $721,705,268 2.4% 9,273 16,594 17.7% $3,205,899,184 $2,633,930,786 $5,839,829,970 20.0% 54,978 180,772 21.4% $23,232,737,392 $19,502,977,592 $42,735,714,984 23.6% % of Total Value
Exposed
Estimated Building Exposure
Buildings Exposed
(2)
Population Exposed
(3)
% of Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
613
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
35,705 14,896 1,210 4,556 $323,354,969 $610,659,310 $934,014,279 5.3% 1,300 260 19 112 $2,834,318 $3,389,276 $6,223,594 0.3%
18,723 4,812 358 1,449 $161,918,925 $282,897,898 $444,816,823 5.4% 8,058 1,140 81 709 $52,652,213 $58,900,791 $111,553,003 4.8% 40,476 54,691 3,603 5,622 $217,744,567 $368,166,618 $585,911,185 1.8%47,197 20,268 1,573 5,396 $476,053,503 $1,091,892,221 $1,567,945,724 33.7%24,795 1,217 98 681 $113,780,470 $247,453,885 $361,234,355 1.5% 1,804 9,745 746 769 $25,853,761 $38,739,391 $64,593,152 1.4% 83,396 3,685 198 1,313 $176,300,670 $358,500,485 $534,801,155 2.2% 1,855 319 19 368 $17,928,380 $39,947,125 $57,875,505 0.2% 133,015 6,068 317 6,687 $415,808,250 $640,849,397 $1,056,657,647 3.6%396,325 117,102 8,221 27,662 $1,984,230,028 $3,741,396,396 $5,725,626,424 3.2% Structure Debris
(Tons) (4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People
Requiring ShortTerm Shelter (5)
Economic Impact
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
614
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 5,203 6,787 277 492 12 25 249 110 7952
613 262 22 1 1 1 23 2 312
1,519 2,012 199 126 0 9 50 38 2434
673 819 113 33 0 2 13 8 988
6,540 14,441 951 572 29 28 261 135 164172,812 5,304 299 26 0 17 430 44 61201,851 1,100 210 169 18 3 20 0 15202,122 3,938 646 147 46 64 36 78 49552,847 3,788 267 179 0 14 0 61 4309 685 584 55 0 0 2 13 44 698
77,155 5,749 698 197 2,266 55 145 163 9273
102,019 44,784 3737 1942 2372 220 1240 683 54978
Number of Structures in Floodplain (2) Acres of
Floodplain
615
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629 Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2)Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) 616
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.

Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) (1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.(3) Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides in California (CGS Map Sheet 58) provided by the CA Geological Survey. Susceptibility classes categorized as follows: Very High 617
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotalCamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal JurisdictionJurisdiction Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
319 1,098 1.6% $145,360,202 $76,937,994 $222,298,196 1.3% 17 57 0.3% $7,191,809 $4,831,118 $12,022,927 0.5%
177 591 1.6% $104,729,266 $82,711,386 $187,440,653 2.3% 6 16 0.2% $6,143,914 $3,071,957 $9,215,871 0.4%1 0 0.0% $2,295,792 $2,295,792 $4,591,584 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% 1,218 4,240 3.8% $418,645,287 $216,801,830 $635,447,117 2.7% 79 319 1.0% $27,764,158 $14,198,759 $41,962,917 0.9%
214 716 0.6% $141,777,522 $118,366,473 $260,143,994 1.1%821 2,756 2.2% $385,793,664 $213,145,840 $598,939,504 2.0% 1,891 2,707 2.9% $562,531,836 $390,036,748 $952,568,584 3.3%4,743 12,500 1.5% $1,802,233,448 $1,122,397,897 $2,924,631,346 1.6% Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
3,310 11,376 16.1% $1,276,555,651 $760,035,742 $2,036,591,394 11.5% 282 956 5.8% $84,242,891 $56,428,708 $140,671,600 5.7%
2,408 8,190 22.6% $1,093,504,171 $656,025,717 $1,749,529,888 21.3% 608 1,392 18.2% $246,345,265 $152,323,811 $398,669,076 17.0%522 2,347 1.2% $211,406,543 $139,856,728 $351,263,272 1.1% 18 59 0.3% $3,256,669 $1,881,834 $5,138,503 0.1%
4,764 15,528 14.0% $1,623,676,875 $990,475,247 $2,614,152,122 11.0%1,201 4,626 15.1% $352,153,064 $207,857,159 $560,010,223 12.3%7,205 24,505 19.4% $3,049,935,458 $1,890,121,993 $4,940,057,452 20.3% 15,214 50,335 39.6% $6,861,797,417 $4,488,875,991 $11,350,673,408 37.1%16,522 32,552 34.6% $5,398,296,121 $3,556,065,421 $8,954,361,542 30.7%52,054 151,866 18.0% $20,201,170,128 $12,899,948,351 $33,101,118,479 18.3% Landslide Susceptibility Category High (3)
Estimated Exposure
Landslide Susceptibility Category Very High (3)
Estimated Exposure
618
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
334 1,112 1.6% $160,265,279 $85,604,299 $245,869,578 1.4% 11 38 0.2% $2,567,876 $1,334,235 $3,902,111 0.2%
1,006 3,458 9.5% $474,259,020 $288,593,875 $762,852,896 9.3% 63 131 1.7% $18,627,630 $10,296,846 $28,924,475 1.2%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
17 58 0.1% $2,799,965 $1,446,188 $4,246,153 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
2,944 10,115 8.0% $1,424,660,482 $816,256,331 $2,240,916,814 9.2%4,759 16,148 12.7% $1,875,554,525 $1,049,243,077 $2,924,797,602 9.6%2,716 4,898 5.2% $1,019,871,610 $672,102,212 $1,691,973,823 5.8% 11,850 35,958 4.3% $4,978,606,389 $2,924,877,062 $7,903,483,451 4.4% Landslide Susceptibility Category Moderate (3)
Estimated Exposure
619
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotalCamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal JurisdictionJurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 305 7 0 1 0 6 0 319
15 0 0 1 0 1 0 17
159 4 2 2 1 2 7 177
6 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 1 010 0 0 0 0 0 00
1,175 28 0 2 3 10 0 1,218
75 1 0 2 0 1 0 79
202 10 2 0 0 0 0 214789 16 0 0 5 10 1 821938 153 3 744 42 8 3 1,891 3,664 219 7 752 51 39 11 4,743
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 3,161 88 17 12 7 9 16 3,310
251 17 3 0 0 4 7 282
2,205 86 10 69 0 4 34 2,408
532 28 4 13 19 10 2 608470 28 0 0 0 24 0 522
15 1 0 0 0 2 0 18
4,303 319 15 7 23 57 40 4,7641,088 74 4 3 1 6 25 1,2016,912 165 46 10 8 13 51 7,205 14,410 448 130 1 75 71 79 15,21411,278 888 64 3,874 261 85 72 16,52244,625 2,142 293 3,989 394 285 326 52,054 Number of Structures in Category Very High (2)
Number of Structures in Category High (2)
620
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 309 21 0 0 2 1 1 334
10 1 0 0 0 0 0 11
931 33 1 17 0 1 23 1,006
50 6 0 6 0 1 0 63
0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00
16 1 0 0 0 0 0 17
0 0 0 0 0 0 00
2,853 49 8 10 2 8 14 2,9444,623 87 10 3 13 9 14 4,7591,697 195 7 757 31 8 21 2,716 10,489 393 26 793 48 28 73 11,850
Number of Structures in Category Moderate (2)
621
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 25cm
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) 25cm of sea level rise inundation areas downloaded from Our Coast Our Future website.(4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.

Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) (1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021. 622
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 25cm
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%6 30 0.01% 1,844,110 922,055 2,766,165 0.01%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%1 0 0.00% 13,147,511 13,147,511 26,295,022 0.11%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%3 9 0.01% 782,482 391,241 1,173,722 0.00% 10 39 0.00% 15,774,103 14,460,807 30,234,909 0.02%
Sea Level Rise 25cm (3)
Estimated Exposure
623
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 25cm
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 006 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 1 010 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 003 0 0 0 0 0 039 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
624
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 100cm
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) 100cm of sea level rise inundation areas downloaded from Our Coast Our Future website(4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.

Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) (1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021. 625
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 100cm
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 71 320 0.16% 19,837,269 11,436,689 31,273,958 0.10%26 0 0.00% 41,938,508 41,938,508 83,877,017 1.80% 9 22 0.02% 17,805,334 16,492,114 34,297,448 0.14%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 143 222 0.24% 61,259,909 51,582,876 112,842,786 0.39%249 563 0.07% 140,841,021 121,450,187 262,291,208 0.15% .

Sea Level Rise 100cm (3)
Estimated Exposure
626
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 100cm
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00 64 0 0 0 0 7 0 71
0 0 0 0 0 26 0 266 2 0 0 0 1 090 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00 77 5 0 0 0 61 0 143
147 7 0 0 0 95 0 249
Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
627
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Tsunami
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 $180,756,967,629 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.(4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.(6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.

Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) (1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population. 628
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Tsunami
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% 3,680 17,365 8.6% $1,353,632,901 $772,006,907 $2,125,639,808 6.5% 179 79 0.4% $286,568,639 $285,192,330 $571,760,969 12.3% 1,324 4,338 3.9% $455,402,336 $284,490,968 $739,893,304 3.1% 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% 2,117 5,845 6.2% $607,923,225 $318,142,306 $926,065,532 3.2%7,300 27,626 3.3% $2,703,527,102 $1,659,832,511 $4,363,359,613 2.4% % of Total Value
Exposed
Estimated Building Exposure
Buildings Exposed
(2)
Population
Exposed (3)
% of Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
629
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Tsunami
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 1,681,815 13,969 991 1,136 $118,372,314 $190,275,068 $308,647,382 0.9% 2,743 13 1 6 $72,738 $351,789 $424,527 0.0%
12,848 2,772 293 22 $735,705 $1,320,813 $2,056,518 0.0% 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
58,074 5,202 299 133 $6,014,799 $6,695,977 $12,710,776 0.0% 1,755,480 21,957 1,584 1,297 $125,195,556 $198,643,647 $323,839,203 0.2% Structure Debris
(Tons) (4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter (5)
Economic Impact
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
630
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Tsunami
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 1,566 3,478 93 1 0 0 108 0 3680
555 20 43 0 0 0 116 0 179782 1,202 77 3 18 0 18 6 1324
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
1,788 2,025 61 0 0 0 21 10 21174,690 6,725 274 4 18 0 263 16 7300 Number of Structures in Inundation Area (2) Acres of
Inundation Area
631
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629 Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2)Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) 632
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County.(4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.

Jurisdiction Estimated Population (1) Total Number of Buildings (2) Total Number of Residential Buildings (2) Total Building Value (Structure and contents in $) (2) (1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.(3) Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) wildfire severity zones data provided by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 633
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotalCamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal JurisdictionJurisdiction Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
1,241 4,322 6.1% $412,245,811 $253,108,930 $665,354,741 3.8% 590 2,084 12.7% $135,636,784 $73,425,732 $209,062,516 8.5% 5,516 18,798 51.8% $2,426,708,694 $1,612,958,481 $4,039,667,175 49.1% 341 827 10.8% $103,962,503 $54,880,475 $158,842,977 6.8% 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
4,482 14,629 13.2% $1,398,813,270 $814,379,281 $2,213,192,552 9.3% 530 2,181 7.1% $170,305,792 $92,229,228 $262,535,020 5.7% 10,911 37,102 29.4% $4,922,319,612 $3,113,957,340 $8,036,276,952 33.0%17,407 58,118 45.8% $8,260,681,793 $5,081,079,764 $13,341,761,557 43.7%17,660 37,699 40.1% $6,420,219,970 $4,228,896,068 $10,649,116,038 36.5%58,678 175,759 20.8% $24,250,894,229 $15,324,915,299 $39,575,809,528 21.9% Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% 25 0 0.0% $12,204,790 $12,204,790 $24,409,581 0.1%
2,847 4,188 4.5% $942,999,892 $713,358,653 $1,656,358,545 5.7%2,872 4,188 0.5% $955,204,682 $725,563,443 $1,680,768,126 0.9% Very High Wildfire Severity Zone (3)
Estimated Exposure
High Wildfire Severity Zone (3)
Estimated Exposure
634
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
1 0 0.0% $2,956,756 $2,956,756 $5,913,513 0.0%
28 107 0.6% $11,077,799 $5,538,900 $16,616,699 0.7%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% 45 140 0.5% $8,041,685 $4,930,717 $12,972,401 0.3%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
4,574 5,854 6.2% $1,422,824,222 $1,085,736,342 $2,508,560,564 8.6%4,648 6,101 0.7% $1,444,900,462 $1,099,162,715 $2,544,063,177 1.4% Moderate Wildfire Severity Zone (3)
Estimated Exposure
635
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotalCamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal JurisdictionJurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 1,201 38 2 0 0 0 0 1,241
547 38 2 1 0 2 0 590
5,061 190 67 101 2 18 77 5,516
316 16 0 9 0 0 0 341
0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00
4,054 287 38 8 22 34 39 4,482
513 11 0 0 0 6 0 530
10,465 248 75 56 6 25 36 10,91116,638 378 125 7 76 88 95 17,40713,061 1,068 182 2,740 315 70 224 17,66051,856 2,274 491 2,922 421 243 471 58,678 Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 000000000
0 0 0 0 0 25 0 25
1,451 178 0 1,141 28 31 18 2,8471,451 178 0 1,141 28 56 18 2,872 Number of Structures in Category Very High (2)
Number of Structures in Category High (2)
636
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 01
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00 33 11 0 1 0 0 0 45
0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00
2,028 270 12 2,132 59 63 10 4,5742,089 281 12 2,133 59 64 10 4,648 Number of Structures in Category Moderate (2)
637
Appendix D.2
Exposure of Critical Facilities
638

COUNT OF ALL CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 20 5 34 14 1 35 32 141
Fillmore 3 1 4 1 0 10 3 22
Moorpark 5 1 7 9 0 19 11 52
Ojai 6 1 14 0 1 13 2 37
Oxnard 24 33 11 23 2 59 36 188
Port Hueneme 7 2 1 2 0 7 8 27
San Buenaventura 34 10 6 6 3 54 63 176
Santa Paula 5 1 3 3 1 15 20 48
Simi Valley 19 4 4 13 1 51 71 163
Thousand Oaks 53 7 20 13 1 55 54 203
Unincorporated 74 46 106 9 0 73 223 531
Total 250 111 210 93 10 391 523 1,588
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 24
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 66
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12
United Water Conservation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 72
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 1 0 0 210 0 211
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Other 250 110 89 93 10 98 523 1,173
Total 250 111 210 93 10 391 523 1,588
639

CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO DAM FAILURE
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 1 1 7 9 0 3 7 28
Fillmore 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 7
Moorpark 5 1 0 8 0 6 2 22
Ojai 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3
Oxnard 23 27 11 16 2 46 28 153
Port Hueneme 7 2 1 2 0 7 7 26
San Buenaventura 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 6
Santa Paula 5 1 3 2 0 8 20 39
Simi Valley 2 1 0 7 0 4 13 27
Thousand Oaks 4 1 3 0 0 1 6 15
Unincorporated 6 5 19 4 0 12 42 88
Total 54 41 48 48 2 91 130 414
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
United Water Conservation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 19
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 1 0 0 52 0 53
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 54 41 28 48 2 19 130 322
Total 54 41 48 48 2 91 130 414
640
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 4 1 1 3 0 0 11 20
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moorpark 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
Ojai 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 10
Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Port Hueneme 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 8
San Buenaventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10
Santa Paula 0 1 1 1 0 4 4 11
Simi Valley 9 0 0 7 0 5 31 52
Thousand Oaks 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 8
Unincorporated 5 2 10 0 0 3 91 111
Total 23 5 22 11 0 13 159 233
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 14
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 23 5 4 11 0 2 159 204
Total 23 5 22 11 0 13 159 233
641
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 13 3 18 10 0 22 20 86
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Moorpark 4 1 1 5 0 7 3 21
Ojai 0 1 9 0 0 4 2 16
Oxnard 5 13 6 9 0 12 19 64
Port Hueneme 7 2 1 2 0 6 8 26
San Buenaventura 3 1 0 1 0 1 12 18
Santa Paula 3 1 1 1 0 9 5 20
Simi Valley 9 0 0 8 0 10 34 61
Thousand Oaks 2 1 1 0 0 1 5 10
Unincorporated 6 8 24 1 0 10 103 152
Total 52 31 61 37 0 82 213 476
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 20
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 1 0 0 46 0 47
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 52 31 26 37 0 15 213 374
Total 52 31 61 37 0 82 213 476
642

CRITICAL FACILITIES IN HIGH OR VERY HIGH LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ZONE Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 1 1 3 1 0 2 3 11
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Moorpark 0 0 4 2 0 3 4 13
Ojai 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 5
Oxnard 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Buenaventura 4 1 1 0 0 8 6 20
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 6
Simi Valley 0 0 0 3 0 9 22 34
Thousand Oaks 5 3 10 2 0 18 20 58
Unincorporated 28 21 53 1 0 18 82 203
Total 38 27 74 9 1 64 140 353
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 14
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 40
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Other 38 26 13 9 1 17 140 244
Total 38 27 74 9 1 64 140 353
643

CRITICAL FACILITIES ON NEHRP D OR E SOILS
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 16 3 29 13 1 29 27 118
Fillmore 3 1 4 1 0 10 3 22
Moorpark 5 1 3 9 0 10 7 35
Ojai 4 1 11 0 0 11 1 28
Oxnard 24 33 11 23 2 59 36 188
Port Hueneme 7 2 1 2 0 7 8 27
San Buenaventura 32 9 5 6 3 53 63 171
Santa Paula 5 1 3 3 0 14 20 46
Simi Valley 18 4 4 13 1 45 62 147
Thousand Oaks 28 3 6 3 0 7 34 81
Unincorporated 9 16 50 6 0 36 191 308
Total 151 74 127 79 7 281 452 1,171
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 32
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
United Water Conservation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 53
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 1 0 0 161 0 162
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Other 151 73 74 79 7 63 452 899
Total 151 74 127 79 7 281 452 1,171
644
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO 25-CENTIMETER SEA-LEVEL RISE Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moorpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
San Buenaventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simi Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thousand Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
645
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO 100-CENTIMETER SEA-LEVEL RISE Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moorpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oxnard 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
San Buenaventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simi Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thousand Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
Total 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 6
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 5
Total 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 6
646

CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moorpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oxnard 2 1 2 0 0 1 3 9
Port Hueneme 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
San Buenaventura 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 4
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simi Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thousand Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 11
Total 4 1 13 0 0 3 7 28
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 4 1 5 0 0 0 7 17
Total 4 1 13 0 0 3 7 28
647

CRITICAL FACILITIES IN HIGH OR VERY HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 5
Fillmore 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Moorpark 1 1 6 4 0 9 8 29
Ojai 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 5
Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Buenaventura 2 1 1 0 0 2 4 10
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Simi Valley 2 0 1 5 1 5 24 38
Thousand Oaks 10 2 14 2 0 17 17 62
Unincorporated 57 31 52 3 0 34 74 251
Total 72 36 79 14 2 69 131 403
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 17
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 28
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 28
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Other 72 35 19 14 2 18 131 291
Total 72 36 79 14 2 69 131 403
648
Appendix D.
3 Risk Ranking
649
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Dam Failure ‐ Combined
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 14.30% Medium 2 6
Fillmore Medium 2 48.00% High 3 9Moorpark Medium 2 20.50% Medium 2 6Ojai Medium 2 9.56% Low 1 3Oxnard Medium 2 83.62% High 3 9Port Hueneme Medium 2 88.23% High 3 9San Buenaventura Medium 2 4.45% Low 1 3Santa Paula Medium 2 40.16% High 3 9Simi Valley Medium 2 11.87% Medium 2 6Thousand Oaks Medium 2 2.86% Low 1 3Unincorporated Medium 2 17.84% Medium 2 6Total Medium 2 31.66% High 3 9 Probability Impact on People
650
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Dam Failure ‐ Combined
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal % of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating

19.99% Medium 2 4 0.18% Low 1 1 22 Medium

42.03% High 3 6 26.60% High 3 3 36 High31.95% High 3 6 2.13% Low 1 1 26 Medium

7.12% Low 1 2 1.05% Low 1 1 12 Low

79.67% High 3 6 22.62% High 3 3 36 High81.33% High 3 6 24.21% High 3 3 36 High

6.78% Low 1 2 2.30% Low 1 1 12 Low

56.24% High 3 6 36.47% High 3 3 36 High12.77% Medium 2 4 2.24% Low 1 1 22 Medium

2.50% Low 1 2 0.81% Low 1 1 12 Low

20.65% Medium 2 4 8.42% Medium 2 2 24 Medium28.46% High 3 6 8.26% Medium 2 2 34 High Impact on Property Impact on Economy
651
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ Oak Ridge M7.16
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Moorpark Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Ojai Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Oxnard Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Port Hueneme Low 1 100.00% High 3 9San Buenaventura Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Santa Paula Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Simi Valley Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Thousand Oaks Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Unincorporated Low 1 100.00% High 3 9TOTAL Low 1 100.00% High 3 9 Probability Impact on People
652
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ Oak Ridge M7.16
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL % of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 10.27% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 18.22% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 11.58% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 2.09% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 18.11% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 22.51% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 15.47% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 18.91% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 9.48% Medium 2 2 17 Medium100.00% High 3 6 4.46% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 10.35% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 11.90% High 3 3 18 Medium Impact on Property Impact on Economy
653
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ San Cayetano M7.16
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Moorpark Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Ojai Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Oxnard Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Port Hueneme Low 1 100.00% High 3 9San Buenaventura Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Santa Paula Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Simi Valley Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Thousand Oaks Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Unincorporated Low 1 100.00% High 3 9TOTAL Low 1 100.00% High 3 9 Probability Impact on People
654
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ San Cayetano M7.16
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL % of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 2.79% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 18.36% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 6.93% Medium 2 2 17 Medium100.00% High 3 6 6.89% Medium 2 2 17 Medium100.00% High 3 6 3.80% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 3.50% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 4.39% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 9.74% Medium 2 2 17 Medium100.00% High 3 6 4.72% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 1.72% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 5.28% Medium 2 2 17 Medium100.00% High 3 6 4.31% Low 1 1 16 Medium Impact on Property Impact on Economy
655
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ S San Andreas M8.03
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Moorpark Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Ojai Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Oxnard Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Port Hueneme Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9San Buenaventura Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Santa Paula Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Simi Valley Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Thousand Oaks Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Unincorporated Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9TOTAL Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9 Probability Impact on People
656
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ S San Andreas M8.03
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL % of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 0.62% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 3.99% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 1.98% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 1.20% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 0.53% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 0.86% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 0.99% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 2.33% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 1.70% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 0.60% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 1.55% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 1.11% Low 1 1 32 Medium Impact on Property Impact on Economy
657
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ Ventura‐Pitas Point M7.12
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Moorpark Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Ojai Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Oxnard Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Port Hueneme Low 1 100.00% High 3 9San Buenaventura Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Santa Paula Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Simi Valley Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Thousand Oaks Low 1 100.00% High 3 9Unincorporated Low 1 100.00% High 3 9TOTAL Low 1 100.00% High 3 9 Probability Impact on People
658
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ Ventura‐Pitas Point M7.12
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL % of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk
Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 5.14% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 13.80% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 5.18% Medium 2 2 17 Medium100.00% High 3 6 4.07% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 12.37% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 12.17% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 17.38% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 17.71% High 3 3 18 Medium100.00% High 3 6 1.74% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 1.50% Low 1 1 16 Medium100.00% High 3 6 7.94% Medium 2 2 17 Medium100.00% High 3 6 8.05% Medium 2 2 17 Medium Impact on Property Impact on Economy
659
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ 100‐yr Probabilistic
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Moorpark Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Ojai Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Oxnard Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Port Hueneme Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9San Buenaventura Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Santa Paula Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Simi Valley Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Thousand Oaks Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9Unincorporated Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9TOTAL Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9 Probability Impact on People
660
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ 100‐yr Probabilistic
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTOTAL % of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 2.73% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 5.48% Medium 2 2 34 High100.00% High 3 6 4.54% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 1.33% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 7.49% Medium 2 2 34 High100.00% High 3 6 7.45% Medium 2 2 34 High100.00% High 3 6 3.84% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 3.11% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 4.75% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 2.37% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 4.15% Low 1 1 32 Medium100.00% High 3 6 4.42% Low 1 1 32 Medium Impact on Property Impact on Economy
661
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo High 3 5.76% Low 1 3
Fillmore High 3 2.60% Low 1 3Moorpark High 3 1.90% Low 1 3Ojai High 3 1.99% Low 1 3Oxnard High 3 0.42% Low 1 3Port Hueneme High 3 0.02% Low 1 3San Buenaventura High 3 0.32% Low 1 3Santa Paula High 3 30.97% High 3 9Simi Valley High 3 8.42% Low 1 3Thousand Oaks High 3 0.89% Low 1 3Unincorporated High 3 5.74% Low 1 3Total High 3 3.93% Low 1 3 Probability Impact on People
662
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal % of Total
Value Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor Risk Ranking Score Hazard Risk Rating

9.37% Low 1 2 0.19% Low 1 1 18 Medium

2.86% Low 1 2 0.15% Low 1 1 18 Medium4.31% Low 1 2 0.43% Low 1 1 18 Medium2.43% Low 1 2 0.03% Low 1 1 18 Medium0.93% Low 1 2 0.03% Low 1 1 18 Medium0.25% Low 1 2 0.00% None 0 0 15 Low1.62% Low 1 2 0.17% Low 1 1 18 Medium

34.35% High 3 6 2.85% Low 1 1 48 High12.12% Medium 2 4 1.01% Low 1 1 24 Medium

1.59% Low 1 2 0.14% Low 1 1 18 Medium7.20% Low 1 2 0.70% Low 1 1 18 Medium5.50% Low 1 2 0.41% Low 1 1 18 Medium Impact on Property Impact on Economy
663
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 34.53% High 3 9
Fillmore Medium 2 6.08% Low 1 3Moorpark Medium 2 20.60% Medium 2 6Ojai Medium 2 28.07% High 3 9Oxnard Medium 2 35.68% High 3 9Port Hueneme Medium 2 95.00% High 3 9San Buenaventura Medium 2 3.58% Low 1 3Santa Paula Medium 2 54.61% High 3 9Simi Valley Medium 2 10.63% Medium 2 6Thousand Oaks Medium 2 1.61% Low 1 3Unincorporated Medium 2 17.65% Medium 2 6Total Medium 2 21.42% Medium 2 6 Probability Impact on People
664
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal % of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating

44.55% High 3 6 5.27% Medium 2 2 34 High

5.32% Low 1 2 0.25% Low 1 1 12 Low

31.01% High 3 6 5.41% Medium 2 2 28 Medium22.78% Medium 2 4 4.77% Low 1 1 28 Medium34.42% High 3 6 1.78% Low 1 1 32 Medium97.70% High 3 6 33.68% High 3 3 36 High

9.00% Low 1 2 1.52% Low 1 1 12 Low

60.16% High 3 6 1.41% Low 1 1 32 Medium17.69% Medium 2 4 2.20% Low 1 1 22 Medium

2.36% Low 1 2 0.19% Low 1 1 12 Low

20.03% Medium 2 4 3.62% Low 1 1 22 Medium23.64% Medium 2 4 3.17% Low 1 1 22 Medium Impact on Property Impact on Economy
665
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Landslide
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Camarillo High 3 1.55% Low 1 3
Fillmore High 3 0.35% Low 1 3Moorpark High 3 1.63% Low 1 3Ojai High 3 0.21% Low 1 3Oxnard High 3 0.00% None 0 0Port Hueneme High 3 0.00% None 0 0San Buenaventura High 3 3.83% Low 1 3Santa Paula High 3 1.04% Low 1 3Simi Valley High 3 0.57% Low 1 3Thousand Oaks High 3 2.17% Low 1 3Unincorporated High 3 2.88% Low 1 3Total High 3 1.48% Low 1 3 Probability Impact on People
666
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Landslide
CamarilloFillmoreMoorparkOjaiOxnardPort HuenemeSan BuenaventuraSanta PaulaSimi ValleyThousand OaksUnincorporatedTotal % of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating