Santa Rosa City Council
October 8, 2024

11. Timber Cove Fire Protection District
11-9
Type of Event Date Damage Assessment
Wild Fire-Prairie 10/16/2005 <5 acres, State Park
Wild Fire-Stump Beach 09/11/2004 >5 acres, State Park
High Wind & Storm Event 01/01/2002-01/03/2002 Heavy rain, trees down, flooding road closures, PGE outages High Wind & Storm Event 12/13/2002-12/16/2002 Heavy rain, trees down, flooding road closures, PGE outages Wild Fire-Ocean Cove 07/14/2001 >5 acres, powerlines down Wild Fire-Burn Pile 09/03/2001 >5 acres, big burn pile
High Wind & Storm Event 02/13/2000-02/14/2000 Heavy rain, trees down, flooding road closures, PGE outages High Wind & Storm Event 02/02/1998-02/25/1998 Series of storms, flooding, debris flow, road closures, trees down, PGE outages
High Wind & Storm Event 12/29/1996-01/03/1997 Heavy rain, trees down, flooding, debris flow, road closures, PGE outages
Wild Fire-Gerstle 09/1993 700 acres, prairie to ocean burn area Both sides of Hwy 1

11.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 11-11 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.

Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.

Table 11-11. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Risk Rating Score Category
1 Wildfire 39 High
2 Earthquake 34 High
3 Dam Failure 34 High
4 Severe Weather 30 Medium
5 Landslide 26 Medium
6 Sea Level Rise 18 Medium
7 Flood 14 Low
8 Tsunami 6 Low
9 Drought 6 Low

11.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.

The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Wildfire access to water, must be hauled; rugged terrain; narrow access roads which function as evacuation routes.
• Earthquake may cause infrastructure failure; water; power; communications, State Hwy 1 collapse into ocean limiting accessibility to affected area.
• Water company dam failure would deny water to 25% of community as well as level everything between it and Hwy 1.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 11-10
• Limited landslide activity along State Hwy 1, closure would limit accessibility to area. • Sea Level Rise eroding cliffs and encroaching on businesses and homes located on bluffs. • Flooding generally comes with severe weather and affects local streams and roadways. • Drought may become a greater risk depending on length, number of failed wells, capacity of Water Company and increase hazardous fuel loads from dead and dying trees.

Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan in this annex.

11.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Table 11-12 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction. Table 11-13 identifies the priority for each action. Table 11-14 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.

Table 11-12. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action TIM-1—Develop community chipping program to reduce fuel load in WUI, increase visibility on roadways for incoming fire personnel and outgoing evacuees, and create safety/evacuation zones.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, Earthquake, Severe Weather New 4, 5, 6 TCFPD Medium HMGP, PDM, FMA Ongoing
Action TIM-2—Develop evacuation plans and staging areas for implementation in a disaster, educate and post out to community.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, Earthquake, Flood, Dam Failure, Landslide, Tsunami, Severe Weather, New 1, 4, 6 TCFPD Low Volunteer Short-term
Action TIM-3—Update existing Disaster Preparedness plan Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, Earthquake, Flood, Dam Failure, Landslide, Tsunami, Severe Weather New 1, 4, 6 TCFPD Low Funding secured from grant &
use of volunteer labor
Ongoing

Action TIM-4—Develop an assessment and Fire Mitigation educational plan Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire
New 5, 6 TCFPD Low Funding secured
from grant
Ongoing

Action TIM-5—Purchase a communication trailer to provide internet, radio, and phone in a disaster Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, Earthquake, Flood, Dam Failure, Landslide, Tsunami, Severe Weather New 4, 5, 6 TCFPD High Grant not secured at this time Long-term a. Short-term = Completion within 5 years; Long-term = Completion within 10 years; Ongoing= Continuing new or existing program with no completion date
See the introduction to this volume for list of acronyms used here.

11. Timber Cove Fire Protection District
11-11
Table 11-13. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
TIM-1 3 High Medium Yes Yes No High High
TIM-2 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High Low
TIM-3 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High Low
TIM-4 2 High Low Yes Yes Yes High Low
TIM-5 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.

Table 11-14. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Wild Fire TIM-1, 2, 3, 4 TIM-1, 3, 4 TIM-2, 3, 4, 5 TIM-1 TIM-3, 5 Earthquake TIM-1, 2, 3, TIM-2, 3, 5 TIM-5
Dam Failure TIM-1, 2, 3 TIM-2, 3, 5 TIM-5
Medium-Risk Hazards
Severe Weather TIM-1, 2, 3 TIM-1, 3, 4 TIM-2, 3, 5 TIM-1 TIM-5 Landslide TIM-2, 3 TIM-1 TIM-2, 3, 5 TIM-1 TIM-5
Sea level Rise TIM-2, 3 TIM-2, 3, 5 TIM-5
Low-Risk Hazards
Flood TIM-1, 2, 3, 4 TIM-1, 3, 4 TIM-2, 3, 5 TIM-5
Tsunami TIM-2, 3 TIM-2, 3, 5 TIM-5
Drought TIM-2, 3 TIM-2, 3, 5 TIM-5
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.

11.8 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed for this annex. • Disaster Preparedness in Timber Cove (2010)
• Timber Cove Forest and Fuel Management Plan (2001)
The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the development of the mitigation action plan.
• Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan (April 2017)
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 11-12

11.9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Timber Cove Fire Protection District is comprised of 48% State and County Parks as well as a number of notable vineyards, wineries, lodging and resorts. These attractions and the natural beauty of the area draw upwards of 1,500 visitors to the area and increases our seasonal population to nearly 2,500 people daily. State Highway 1 is our main road. There are three additional side routes from State Highway 1 that lead east and inland. We have had three overturned fuel tankers that have closed State Highway 1 in the last seven years. Two of these incidents dumped 2,500 gallons plus of fuel into streams feeding the ocean, closed State Hwy 1 for more than 24 hours, and created evacuations of nearby homes and campgrounds. During the Meyers and Walbridge Fires in 2020 all three inland routes and State Hwy 1 were closed. There was essentially one way out from the area—north toward Fort Bragg. Our concern is being able to receive resources and move people to safety in an emergency situation given our small department size, limited evacuation routes and additional population created by tourism.

12-1

12. GOLD RIDGE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

12.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Brittany Jensen
Executive Director
2776 Sullivan Rd
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Telephone: 707-823-5244 ext. 11
E-Mail: [email protected]
Adriana Stagnaro
Outreach/Project Manager
2776 Sullivan Rd
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Telephone: 707-823-5244 ext. 13
E-Mail:[email protected]
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in Table 12-1.

Table 12-1. Local Mitigation Planning Team Members
Name Title
Brittany Jensen Executive Director
Adriana Stagnaro Outreach and Project Manager
Cailin Notch AmeriCorps CivicSpark Fellow

12.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE

12.2.1 Overview
Gold Ridge RCD was established in 1941 as one of the original Resource Conservation Districts and the first RCD in Sonoma County. Gold Ridge RCD provides free, non-discriminatory assistance and education opportunities to agricultural producers, land users, educators, and anyone with land-based resource conservation needs on a voluntary basis. Gold Ridge RCD provides non-regulatory assistance to the community on conservation education, soil erosion control, water quality enhancement, range management, vineyard development, woodland, forestry and wildlife management, watershed and stream enhancement, and wildfire prevention and preparedness.

According to a document on Sonoma County’s climate from the University of California, Davis, Sonoma County has three traditional microclimate zones: marine, coastal cool, and coastal warm. The Gold Ridge RCD’s boundary falls into areas that primarily experience a marine or coastal cool climate. The marine zone lies west of the first mountain ridges and is under direct ocean influence. It is the coolest of the three climates. The coastal cool climate includes the areas east of the western hills of Sebastopol and is characterized by cold foggy air. According to the North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative, climatic trends from human -caused climate change which are projected Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 12-2
to occur more frequently include more extreme heat, frequent droughts, increased wildfires, warme r winters, increased floods, and higher seas.

Gold Ridge RCD is a special district that is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors in lieu of elections. The Board of Directors assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the Executive Director will oversee its implementation. Gold Ridge RCD currently employs a staff of 14, including two partner staff shared with Sonoma RCD. Last fiscal year Gold Ridge RCD’s budget was just under $2 million. Funding primarily came through federal (37.6%), state (37.1%), and local (7.7%) grants, fees-for-service (11.9%), foundations (2.7%), parcel taxes (1.8%) and donations (1.2%).

12.2.2 Service Area
The Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District (RCD) is a 134,000-acre district in west Sonoma County, bordered by Marin County to the south, the Russian River to the north, the Pacific coastline to the west, and the Laguna de Santa Rosa to the east. Population estimates from the most available census data from within the Gold Ridge RCD boundary are listed in Table 12-2. This population information does not include unincorporated areas within the county.

Table 12-2. District Population Breakdown
Community Population Census Community Population Census Monte Rio 1,152 2010 Bodega 220 2010
Forestville 3,293 2010 Valley Ford 147 2010
Graton 1,707 2010 Bloomfield 345 2010
Sereno del Mar 126 2010 Sebastopol 7,674 2019 (estimate from US Census) Carmet 47 2010 Occidental 1,115 2010
Salmon Creek 86 2010 Camp Meeker ~350 homes
Bodega Bay 1,077 2010 TOTAL 17,339

Based on GIS parcel data from 2019, there are 134,000 acres and approximately 3,450 residential parcels in unincorporated Sonoma County within Gold Ridge RCD’s service district. Gold Ridge RCD’s district boundary also includes parts of western Cotati and western Rohnert Park. From the 2019 GIS parcel data, there are approximately 733 and 5 residential parcels in Cotati and Rohnert Park respectively that fall within Gold Ridge RCD’s service district.

12.2.3 Assets
Table 12-3 summarizes the assets of the District and their value.

12.3 CURRENT TRENDS
The district provides assistance on a voluntary basis to agricultural producers, land users, educators, and anyone with land-band resource conservation needs. The RCD assists on a number of conservation projects including natural and agricultural resource conservation projects for farmers through the LandSmart Planning program, water conservation, erosion control, and carbon farm planning. Gold Ridge RCD also assists residents and communities on wildfire prevention and preparedness measures, including healthy forest management education and assistance in drafting and approving neighborhood-level Community Wildfire Prevention Plans (CWPPs).

12. Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
12-3
Table 12-3. Special Purpose District Assets
Asset Value
Property
See Valley Ford Schoolhouse below --
Equipment
No-till drill (6 foot) $5,000
No-till drill (10 foot) $10,000
Pick-up Truck $25,000
Total: $40,000
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Valley Ford Schoolhouse—14355 School St, Valley Ford, CA 94972, APN 026-010-014 $350,000 Gold Ridge RCD Office (rented)—2776 Sullivan Rd, Sebastopol, CA 95472 N/A Total: $350,000

12.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning. Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity-building mitigation actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 12-4. • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 12-5. • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 12-6. • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 12-7. • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 12-8. • The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 12-9.

Table 12-4. Planning and Regulatory Capability
Plan, Study or Program
Date of Most
Recent Update Comment
County of Sonoma General Plan 2020 2008 Update currently underway.

Sonoma County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2016 Update currently underway.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2016 Update currently underway.

Public Resources Code, Section 9—Resource Conservation 2017 Enabling state legislation for natural resource conservation.

Sonoma County Recovery and Resiliency Framework 2018 Potential Actions: NR 1.2.4-.6, 1.2.8, 1.3.1, 2.1.1-.3,

2.1.5, 2.2.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.5, 3.1.2, 3.1.8, 3.2.6,

3.4.3. Fire Safe Occidental CWPP 2020 Approved Fall 2020. Assist with implementation of prioritized treatment areas and current activities.

Fire Safe Camp Meeker CWPP 2021 (est.) In progress. Est. completion date 2021

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 12-4
Table 12-5. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No Federal Grant Programs Yes

Table 12-6. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices
Yes Engineer, Lead Scientist, Forester, Project Manager.

Engineers or professionals trained in building or
infrastructure construction practices
Yes Engineer, Lead Scientist.

Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural
hazards
Yes Engineer, Lead Scientist, Forester, Project Manager.

Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes We can hire a consultant for this work Surveyors Yes Engineer, Lead Scientist, Forester.

Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Engineer, Lead Scientist, Forester, Project Manager, Project Coordinator, Program Director.

Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes Engineer, Lead Scientist, Forester, Outreach and Project Manager, Project Manager, Project Coordinator, Program
Director, Ecologist.

Emergency manager No N/A
Grant writers Yes Executive Director, Lead Scientist, Forester, Outreach and Project Manager, Project Manager, Project Coordinator,
Program Director, Ecologist.

Outreach and Education Yes Executive Director, Lead Scientist, Forester, Outreach and Project Manager, Project Coordinator, Ecologist.

Table 12-7. Education and Outreach
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes, we use consultants for this Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes If yes, please briefly describe Erosion control, stormwater management, water conservation, LandSmart Planning, Carbon farm
planning, etc.

Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes If yes, please briefly describe Facebook, Instagram, Email Newsletter Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation?
Yes
If yes, please briefly specify Board of Directors

12. Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
12-5
Criterion Response
Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information?
Yes
If yes, please briefly describe Webinars, Meetings, Workshops, Mailers Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? No If yes, please briefly describe

Table 12-8. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code N/A N/A N/A
DUNS # Yes 615324790 N/A
Community Rating System N/A N/A N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule N/A N/A N/A Public Protection N/A N/A N/A
Storm Ready N/A N/A N/A
Firewise N/A N/A N/A
Tsunami Ready N/A N/A N/A

Table 12-9. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Rating
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High Comment
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts High Comment
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Medium Comment
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low Comment
Capital planning and land-use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High Comment
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Medium Comment
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes High Comment
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High Comment
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High
Comment
Champions for climate action in local government departments High Comment
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High Comment
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 12-6
Criterion Jurisdiction Rating
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation High Comment
Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted Low Comment No authority.

Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk High Comment
Local residents support of adaptation efforts High
Comment
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment
Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment
Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist but is not used or could use some improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.

12.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for future integration. Resources listed at the end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.

12.5.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and the following other local plans and programs:
• Gold Ridge RCD Strategic Plan—4-year plan which outlines strategies for Gold Ridge RCD to achieve vision of healthy and sustainable natural resources and resilient landscapes. The previous strategic plan ten planned actions including carbon farming and climate resiliency. The Strategic Plan is currently being updated.
• Sonoma County Recovery and Resiliency Framework—Draws from structure, functions, roles, and principles in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Disaster Recovery Framework and focuses on five key strategic areas including community preparedness and natural resources. • Fire Safe Occidental CWPP—Provides a general overview and assessment of wildfire risks and prioritizes tasks to increase fire resiliency in the community of Occidental. • Sonoma County Draft Local Coastal Plan—Important planning document in managing the conservation and development of Sonoma County’s coastal regions.

12. Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
12-7
• California Water Plan—The State’s strategic plan for sustainably managing and developing water resources for current and future generations.
• CAL FIRE Strategic Plan—The plan identifies strategies to fulfill CAL FIRE’s goals of improving core capabilities, enhancing internal operations, ensuring health and safety, and building an engaged, motivated, innovative workforce.

12.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex identified the following plans and programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do so in the future:
• Sonoma County CWPP Update—The update includes more robust stakeholder participation in the planning and prioritization of wildfire risk reduction projects, and increased science-based risk assessment and GIS mapping.
• Sonoma County Strategic Plan—The five-year Strategic Plan will provide context to inform policies and projects that are funding for the next five years. The plan will guide how to align short and long-term objectives, so the County Board of Supervisors’ actions reflect a clear sense of purpose. • Sonoma County General Plan Update—The General Plan is a policy document that establishes a vision for the future of Sonoma County. It prioritizes, organizes, and directs development and conservation for 20-year increments and was last updated in 2008.
• Sonoma County Local Coastal Plan Update—Important planning document in managing the conservation and development of Sonoma County’s coastal regions. The intent of the current update is not to encourage new or increased development.
• Future Local CWPPs or similar plans—Additional documents that provide a general overview and assessment of wildfire risks and prioritizes tasks to increase fire resiliency at the neighborhood level and certified by local officials.
• Climate Action Plan/Climate Emergency Mobilization Plan • Gold Ridge RCD Strategic Plan
• City Plans (Rohnert Park, Cotati and/or Sebastopol)
• Groundwater Sustainability Plan

12.6 RISK ASSESSMENT

12.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History Table 12-10 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in Gold Ridge RCD. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including Gold Ridge RCD, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan. Gold Ridge RCD did not include valuation of damage assessment to building or infrastructure in our planning or analysis. We do want to acknowledge that we qualitatively included the valuation of natural resources, for instance, natural capital in Sonoma County has been valued at $2.2 to $6.6 billion annually ($2,200 to $6,500 per acre). Damage assessment does not apply to Gold Ridge RCD as we do not have jurisdiction over buildings or other build infrastructure.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 12-8
Table 12-10. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date Damage Assessment
Historical CA Droughts 1841, 1864, 1924, 1928-35, 1947-50, 1959-60, 1976-77, 1986-92, 2007-09
Unknown
Heavy Rains and Flooding December 24, 1964 Unknown
Severe Storms, Flooding January 26, 1969 Unknown
Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides, High Tide December 19, 1981 – January 8, 1982 Unknown Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides, Tornadoes January 21 – March 30, 1983 Unknown Severe Storms, Flooding February 12 – March 10, 1986 Unknown Freeze of ’91 1990 – 1991 Unknown
Flood of ’93 1993 Unknown
Fishing Emergency May – September 1994 Unknown
Flood of '95, Part 1 January 8 – 31, 1995 Unknown
Flood of '95, Part 2 March 7 – 15, 1995 Unknown
December Winter Storm 1995 Unknown
Cavedale Fire 1996 Unknown
Jenner Sandbarrier 1996 Unknown
Porter Creek Fire October 27-28, 1996 Unknown
New Year’s Flood December 30, 1996 – January 4, 1997 Unknown Superbowl Flood January 25, 1997 Unknown
Flood of '98/ Rio Nido Debris Flow February 2, 1998 – January 4, 2000 Unknown February Winter Storm February 8-10, 1999 Unknown
December Winter Storms December 17, 02 – April 8, 03 Unknown Geysers Fire September 3 – 8, 2004 Unknown
New Year’s Floods December 31, 2005 – January 3, 2006 Unknown Late Spring Storms March 29 – April 16, 2006 Unknown
SF Oil Spill November 7, 2007 Unknown
H1N1 Influenza Pandemic April – May, 2009 Unknown
Great Tohoku Tsunami March 11, 2011 Unknown
Holiday Decoration Flood December 2, 2012 Unknown
Drought 2014 – 2016 Unknown
South Napa Earthquake August 24, 2014 Unknown
December Winter Storm August 24, 2014 Unknown
Valley Fire September 12-25, 2015 Unknown
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides January 3-12, 2017 Unknown Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides February 1-23, 2017 Unknown LNU Complex Fires October, 2017 Unknown
Wildfires October 8-31, 2017 Unknown
PG&E Power Shutoff October, 2018 Unknown
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides February 24 – March 1, 2019 Unknown PG&E Power Shutoff October 2019 Unknown
Kincade Fire October 23 – November 7, 2019 Unknown
COVID-19 Pandemic January 2020 – present Unknown
Wildfires August 14 – September 26, 2020 Unknown
Wildfires September 4 – November 17, 2020 Unknown

12. Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
12-9
Type of Event Date Damage Assessment
Green Valley Road Flood 2000-2019 Unknown
Drought 2021 Unknown
Valley Ford Freestone Road Flooding 2000-2019 Unknown

12.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 12-11 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. As an evaluation of risk for RCDs is not based solely on loss of infrastructure, we used our own ranking methodology. Gold Ridge RCD ranked risk by multiplying probability of occurrence by magnitude of impact on service by geographic extent. Hazards scoring in the top third were ranked high, hazards scoring in the middle third were ranked medium, and hazards scoring in the lower third were ranked low.

Table 12-11. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Category
1 Wildfire High
2 Severe Weather High
3 Drought High
4 Landslide Medium
5 Dam Failure Medium
6 Earthquake Medium
7 Flood Medium
8 Sea level Rise Low
9 Tsunami Low

12.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.

The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Flood—While the geographic extent of areas affected by flood in the District is less than 10 percent, floods cause a frequent and great deal of impact from loss of property, impassable or damaged roads, mudslides, habitat destruction, and pollution. There are several areas in the District that flood multiple times a year making roads impassable and sometimes strand threatened and endangered species.

Disconnection of streams from their floodplains has increased downstream flooding, bank erosion, and habitat loss for aquatic species.
• Tsunami—Coastal towns susceptible to tsunami include Bodega Bay, Valley Ford, Rio Nido, Monte Rio, and Salmon Creek. While these areas are not a large percentage of the District the impact of a Tsunami could be significant.
• Agricultural Hazards—Agricultural land and rangeland are vital to the economy and important to consider when addressing issues related to groundwater, watersheds, and wildfire. Most of the agricultural hazards in the District are weather-related (e.g., freeze, hail, prolonged high temperatures, wind, rain (flood), drought. Other hazards include insects and disease.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 12-10
• Drought—Many residents and farms and ranches in the Gold Ridge RCD jurisdiction do not have access to municipal water and instead rely on wells, riparian water, or ponds. Drought not only affects the communities’ access to water for meeting basic needs but also to grow food and affect conservation efforts aimed at improving fish and wildlife habitat. Streamflow and groundwater issues are a recurring theme on private lands within the District and are specifically addressed in watershed management plans, streamflow improvement plans, and the upcoming Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

Parts of the District are in state-recognized groundwater basins and are now affected by new legislation that was enacted in September of 2014 by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. when he signed a three-bill package known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

Crop losses and reduced plantings have occurred during past droughts. Generally, trucking water, riparian water pumping, and ground pumping were used to offset the impacts of past droughts. Both of these alternatives are becoming less reliable as surface water is diverted to other uses, and groundwater is unreliable or scarce in some areas. The District had a prolonged drought from 2012 through 2016. The winter and spring of 2017 brought a significant amount of precipitation after which the Governor declared the official end of the 5-year drought in April 2017. Additionally, water year 2019 and 2021 to date has seen precipitation totals severely below average and a local drought emergency has been declared.

Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan in this annex.

12.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Table 12-12 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction. Table 12-13 identifies the priority for each action. Table 12-14 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.

Table 12-12. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency Support Agency Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action GOL-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard areas, prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard areas.

Hazards Mitigated: Earthquake, flooding, landslide, tsunami, wildfire, dam failure Existing 3, 4, 10 County of
Sonoma
Gold Ridge RCD,
Sonoma RCD, Ag &
Open Space
High HMGP, BRIC, FMA,

USDA NRCS EWP
Short-
term
Action GOL-2—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.

Hazards Mitigated: All hazards
New & Existing 1, 4, 5, 8, 12 County of
Sonoma
Gold Ridge RCD Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-
term
Action GOL-3—Provide outreach and education to the community regarding hazards and opportunities to mitigate on a personal scale.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought, landslide, severe storm, tsunami, earthquake New & Existing 4, 10, 2 County of
Sonoma
Ag + Open Space,
Gold Ridge RCD,
Sonoma RCD,
Sonoma Water, UC
Cooperative
Extension, local fire
districts
Medium General funds;
cooperative agreements
with local government
agencies; grants and
contracts from agencies
such as CA Department
of Food & Agriculture, CA
Wildlife Conservation
Board, CalFire
Ongoing

12. Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
12-11
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency Support Agency Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action GOL-4—Provide technical and funding assistance to individual landowners and communities to improve soil health including organic matter content, aggregate stability, water holding capacity, and carbon sequestration.

Hazards Mitigated: Landslide, severe weather, drought
Existing 4, 10 Gold Ridge RCD Ag + Open Space,
Sonoma RCD,
Regional Climate
Protection Authority,
Zero Waste Sonoma,
NRCS
High CA Department of Food
& Agriculture; USDA-
NRCS; Restore CA; CA
Wildlife Conservation
Board
Ongoing
Action GOL-5—Provide technical and funding assistance to individual landowners and communities in planning and implementing agroforestry practices including hedgerows, windrows, riparian plantings).

Hazards Mitigated: drought, severe storms, agricultural hazards New & Existing 4, 6, 9 Gold Ridge RCD Ag + Open Space,
Sonoma RCD,
Regional Climate
Protection Authority,
Zero Waste Sonoma,
NRCS
High CA Department of Food
& Agriculture; USDA-
NRCS; Restore CA; CA
Wildlife Conservation
Board
Ongoing
Action GOL-6—Provide technical and funding assistance to individual landowners and communities to install water source and storage systems including rainwater catchment projects.

Hazards Mitigated: drought, flooding, wildfire, severe storms, tsunami New & Existing 4, 10 Gold Ridge RCD Sonoma RCD,
Sonoma Water
High CA Wildlife Conservation
Board, DWR, CA Dept of
Fish & Wildlife, USDA

NRCS EQIP
Ongoing
Action GOL-7—Protect, enhance, or restore inland buffers by improving wetland health and size, and reducing saltwater intrusion.

Hazards Mitigated: sea-level rise, flood, tsunami
New & Existing 4, 8, 10 Gold Ridge RCD Ag & Open Space, Sonoma RCD,
Sonoma Water,
Sonoma Land Trust,
USDA
High Ag & Open Space, BRIC,
Sonoma Water, Sonoma
Land Trust, USDA, EPA,
State Coastal
Conservancy, Private
Foundations
Long-
Term
Action GOL-8—Support and implement streamflow enhancement projects on individual properties or with communities.

Hazards Mitigated: Drought
New & Existing 4, 10 Gold Ridge RCD Sonoma RCD,
Sonoma Water
High CA Wildlife Conservation
Board, DWR, CA Dept of
Fish & Wildlife, USDA

NRCS EQIP
Ongoing
Action GOL-9—Plan, design, and implement stormwater management and attenuation projects.

Hazards Mitigated: Flood, drought
New & Existing 2, 4, 9, 10 Gold Ridge RCD Sonoma RCD,
Sonoma Water, Santa
Rosa Plan
Groundwater
Sustainability Agency,
Ag + Open Space,
Sonoma County
Regional Parks
High State Water Board;
Department of
Conservation; Wildlife
Conservation Board;
BRIC
Ongoing
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 12-12
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency Support Agency Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action GOL-10—Support for communities to plan and implement defensible space programs to reduce the risk of damage from catastrophic wildfire (including support for prescribed burn association, community grazing programs, forest management planning, and strategic fuel breaks along strategic locations including along evacuation routes).

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, landslide, drought, severe storm New & Existing 2, 9, 4 County of
Sonoma
Gold Ridge RCD,
Sonoma RCD, Ag +
Open Space,
University of California
Cooperative Extension
Medium National Association of
Conservation Districts;
BRIC; USDA-NRCS;
CalFire
Ongoing
Action GOL-11—Plan, design, and implement groundwater recharge projects.

Hazards Mitigated: sea-level rise, drought
New & Existing 4 Gold Ridge RCD Gold Ridge RCD,
Sonoma RCD,
Sonoma Water,
County of Sonoma,
Santa Rosa Plan
Groundwater
Sustainability Agency
Medium Department of Water
Resources, USDA

NRCS, BRIC
Ongoing
Action GOL-12—Provide technical and funding assistance to agricultural producers with water conservation measures including irrigation scheduling and efficiency, alternative manure management, and alternative water sources.

Hazards Mitigated: Drought
New & Existing 4, 6 Gold Ridge RCD Sonoma RCD,
University of California
Cooperative Extension
High CA Department of Food
& Agriculture; USDA-
NRCS; CA Department
of Water Resources
Ongoing
Action GOL-13—Plan, design and implement slope stability and erosion control measures where necessary and feasible.

Hazards Mitigated: Landslide, wildfire
New & Existing 4, 9 County of
Sonoma
Gold Ridge RCD,
Sonoma RCD, NRCS
High USDA-NRCS Ongoing
a. Short-term = Completion within 5 years; Long-term = Completion within 10 years; Ongoing= Continuing new or existing program with no completion date
See the introduction to this volume for a list of acronyms used here.

12. Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
12-13
Table 12-13. Mitigation Action Priority
Action #
# of
Objective
s Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be
Funded Under
Existing Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Priority
Grant
Pursuit
Priority
GOL-1 3 Medium High No Yes No Low Low
GOL-2 5 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
GOL-3 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium Medium
GOL-4 2 High High Yes Yes Yes Medium Medium
GOL-5 3 Medium High No Yes No Low Medium
GOL-6 2 High High Yes Yes No High High
GOL-7 3 Medium High No Yes No Low Low
GOL-8 2 High High Yes Yes No High High
GOL-9 4 Medium High No Yes No Low Low
GOL-10 3 High High Yes Yes No High High
GOL-11 1 Medium High No Yes No Low Low
GOL-12 2 High High Yes Yes No Medium Medium
GOL-13 2 High High Yes Yes No Medium Medium
a. See the introduction to this volume for the explanation of priorities.

Table 12-14. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Wildfire GOL-2 GOL-1, 10,
13 GOL-3 GOL-6, 13 GOL-1 GOL-6, 10 GOL-3, 10
Severe
Weather
GOL-2 GOL-1, 10 GOL-3 GOL-4, 5, 6 GOL-4, 6, 10 GOL-3, 10 Drought GOL-2 GOL-1, 10 GOL-3, 12 GOL-4, 5, 6,
8, 9, 11, 12
GOL-4, 6, 9, 10 GOL-3, 10
Medium-Risk Hazards
Landslide GOL-2 GOL-1, 10,
13 GOL-3 GOL-4, 13 GOL-1 GOL-4, 10 GOL-3, 10
Dam Failure GOL-2, GOL-1 GOL-1
Earthquake GOL-2 GOL-1 GOL-3 GOL-1 GOL-3
Low-Risk Hazards
Sea level Rise GOL-2 GOL-7 GOL-7, 11 GOL-7
Flood GOL-2 GOL-1, 7 GOL-3 GOL-6, 7, 9 GOL-1 GOL-6, 7, 9 GOL-3 Tsunami GOL-2 GOL-1 GOL-3 GOL-1, 6, 7 GOL-1 GOL-1, 6, 7 GOL-3 a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 12-14

12.8 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed for this annex. • Abt Associates (2015). The Economic Value of Natural Capital on the Sonoma Coast. Prepared for:

Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp-content/uploads/HLHE-Case-Study-Ag-Open-Space-Technical- Report-Sonoma-Coast.pdf
• Sonoma County Ag + Open Space. (2018). Healthy Lands & Healthy Economies: The Multiple Benefits of Sonoma County Working and Natural Lands. Santa Rosa, CA. Resource services provide natural capital that provides value to the Sonoma County economy. Table 12-15 presents a range including the low and high values estimated using the benefit transfer method for each service. This table is from page 13 of Sonoma County’s Ag + Open Space report titled “Healthy Lands & Healthy Economies.”https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/projects/healthy-lands-healthy-economies/

• Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018). Sierra RCD Annex These plans were used as an example of how an RCD can participate in a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and provided insight on how hazards impact agricultural and natural lands.

Table 12-15. Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in Sonoma County Ecosystem Service
$ Millions Per Year Countywide
(Low Estimate)
$ Millions Per Year Countywide
(High Estimate)
Water Supply $9 million $180 million
Wastewater Treatment $35 million $117 million
Moderation of Extreme Events $82 million $220 million
Urban Stormwater Management $0.2 million $8 million
Soil Retention and Formation $4 million $620 million
Carbon Sequestration $58 million $197 million
Air Quality $19 million $22 million
Pollination $218 million $367 million
Habitat and Nursery $4 million $43 million
Biological Control $8 million $23 million
Natural Beauty $1.214 million $4.182 million
Recreation and Tourism $500 million $596 million
Total $2.151 million (or $2.2 billion) $6.575 million (or $6.6 billion)

The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the development of the mitigation action plan.

12.9 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY Better understanding the value of ecosystem services, local food security, and biodiversity would serve to protect residents of Sonoma County from impacts of climate change including an increase of most of the hazards listed

12. Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
12-15
above. Solely focusing on built infrastructure misses out on all the things humans need to survive such as clean water for people and wildlife, resilience to climate change and extreme events, and community health.

13-1

13. SONOMA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

13.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Valerie Quinto, Executive Director
1221 Famers Lane, Suite F
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Telephone: 707-569-1448 x102
e-mail Address: [email protected]
Aaron Fairbrook, Program Manager
1221 Farmers Lane, Suite F
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Telephone: 707-569-1448 x 106
e-mail Address: [email protected]
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in Table 13-1.

Table 13-1. Local Mitigation Planning Team Members
Name Title
Valerie Quinto Executive Director
Aaron Fairbrook Program Manager
Erica Mikesh Partner Engineer
Jessica Pollitz Engineer
Jason Wells Forester
Anya Starovoytov Project Manager
Katie Robbins Project Manager

13.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE

13.2.1 Overview
Sonoma RCD was incorporated in its current form in 2013. The District was the result of a series of District formations and reorganizations between 1946 and 2013. Each District was formed by vote of local landowners (as made possible by Division 9 of the CA Public Resources Code), and the reorganizations were each carried out to increase efficiency and consistent delivery of conservation services throughout th at majority of the county. In its more than 70 year history, Sonoma RCD has focused on providing conservation services to willing landowners, helping them be part of the solution to pressing natural resource issues through non-regulatory pathways.

The climate of Sonoma RCD varies from the fog-influenced coastline to the warmer interior valleys. Rainfall varies widely across the landscape, averaging around 25 inches per year in much of the District, but reaching an average of 75 inches per year in the wetter northwest corner.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 13-2
The Sonoma RCD is governed by a 7-member Board of Directors, each of whom serve as volunteers and are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The RCD Board also includes non-voting Associate and Emeritus Directors.

The Sonoma RCD Board of Directors assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan and for overseeing its implementation. Development of this annex was carried out by Executive Director Valerie Quinto.

13.2.2 Service Area
Sonoma Resource Conservation District (RCD) is in Sonoma County The current boundaries generally extend from the area south of the Sonoma -Mendocino county line, west of the Sonoma-Lake and Sonoma -Napa county line, north of the mainstem Russian River, east of the Laguna de Santa Rosa mainstem, and south of the Stemple Creek watershed divide to the Sonoma-Marin county line, encompassing an area of over 1,500 square miles.

13.2.3 Assets
Table 13-2 summarizes the assets of the District and their value.

Table 13-2. Special Purpose District Assets
Asset Value
Equipment
Pickup truck $35,000
Office equipment $45,000
Total: $80,000
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Office (rented) 1221 Farmers Lane, Suite F, Santa Rosa 95405 N/A Total: $0

13.3 CURRENT TRENDS
According to the 2010 US Census, less the population claimed by Gold Ridge RCD (the two RCDs make up the entirety of the County), the population of Sonoma RCD as of 2010 was over 460,000. According to the Sonoma County Economic Development Board, between 2010 and 2017 the population of Sonoma County has grown by

7.4 percent.

The Sonoma RCD District includes a wide variety of land uses, reflecting the overall diversity of land uses within the County. The RCD does not have authority of land use decisions, and as such does not maintain data on development trends.

Areas added to the District in recent years consisted of 12 islands that were surrounded by the District’s boundaries but not previously included in its sphere of influence. The annexation was part of the District’s 2013 reorganization, and was carried out at the request of the Local Agency Formation Commission and with the consent of the two Districts involved with the reorganization.

13. Sonoma Resource Conservation District
13-3

13.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.

Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 13-3. • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 13-4. • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 13-5. • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 13-6. • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 13-7. • The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 13-8.

Table 13-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability
Plan, Study or Program
Date of Most
Recent Update Comment
Lower Sonoma Creek Flood Management and Ecosystem
Enhancement Study
2012
Sonoma and Carriger Creek Alluvial Fan Assessment 2012
Petaluma Valley Historical Hydrology and Ecology Study 2018 Petaluma Watershed Enhancement Plan (draft) 2015 Update currently underway Mill Creek Watershed Management Plan 2015
Maacama and Upper Mark West Creek Integrated Watershed
Management Plan (draft)
2015
Program: LandSmart Planning N/A
Program: LandSmart On-the-Ground N/A
Program: LandSmart Water Resources N/A
Sonoma County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) 2016 Update currently underway Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2016 Update currently underway Public Resources Code, Section 9—Resource Conservation 2017 Enabling state legislation for natural resource conservation.

Sonoma County Recovery and Resiliency Framework 2018 Potential Actions: NR 1.2.4-.6, 1.2.8, 1.3.1, 2.1.1-.3,

2.1.5, 2.2.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.5, 3.1.2, 3.1.8, 3.2.6,

3.4.3. Upper Mark West Watershed CWPP 2018
Fitch Mountain CWPP 2019
Fort Ross Area CWPP
Grove Street Area CWPP 2020
Mill Creek Area CWPP 2020
Santa Rosa Fire Department CWPP 2020
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 13-4
Table 13-4. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No Federal Grant Programs Yes
Other—Foundation Grants, Donations Yes

Table 13-5. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices
Yes 2 Licensed Civil Engineers (1 shared with Gold
Ridge RCD); 1 Registered Professional Forester
(shared with Gold Ridge RCD); 1 Certified
Professional In Erosion & Sediment Control; several
other staff with professional expertise in land
management practices
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices
Yes 2 Licensed Civil Engineers (same as above)
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Same as above Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis No N/A
Surveyors Yes Engineers
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Several of the staff identified above Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes Same as above Emergency manager No N/A
Grant writers Yes Same as above + Executive Director

Table 13-6. Education and Outreach
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes If yes, briefly describe: Fire recovery resources page
https://sonomarcd.org/resources/fire-recovery/

Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes If yes, briefly describe: Posts directing the public to written resources, informational meetings, and technical assistance available

Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation?
Yes
If yes, briefly describe: Board of Directors and project-specific advisory committees (e.g. convened to prioritize projects to be implemented through a specific grant)

13. Sonoma Resource Conservation District
13-5
Criterion Response
Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information?
Yes
If yes, briefly describe: Workshops (in-person and virtual); youth education programs; one-on-one or small group technical assistance

Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? No If yes, briefly describe:

Table 13-7. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code No
DUNS# Yes 170143106
Community Rating System No
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule No
Public Protection No
Storm Ready No
Firewise No
Tsunami Ready No

Table 13-8. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High Comment: Our team regularly uses knowledge of wildfire, drought, and sensitive species impacts in our work Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Low Comment: In most cases, we rely on partners or consultants for monitoring. Our most active widespread monitoring efforts are groundwater level monitoring.

Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Medium Comment: Our team has significant experience with construction feasibility of land management practices, and incorporates climate change considerations such as drought into project planning Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low Comment:

Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Medium Comment: We have capacity for this in the rural and agricultural setting, not for public infrastructure Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Medium Comment: Collaboration with other RCDs, Carbon Cycle Institute, other technical partners, Regional Climate Protection Authority Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes High Comment: Division 9 of Public Resources Code; CEQA; grant program requirements Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High Comment: Carbon farming, forest management
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High
Comment: Numerous climate adaption projects, including carbon farming, water reliability, forest management Champions for climate action in local government departments High Comment: Champions at both Board and staff levels
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 13-6
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High Comment: Elected officials, agencies, landowners, and other stakeholders rely on us to implement climate adaptation through our programs
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Medium Comment: We bring in significant grant funding for this work, but our capacity is limited by the need to seek grants Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted Low Comment: We have no regulatory authority.

Public Capacity
Local residents knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Medium Comment: We serve a large and diverse district. While many residents have knowledge and understanding of risks, others are not as connected to these issues.

Local residents support of adaptation efforts Medium
Comment: Similar to the above, there are many passionate supporters of adaptation efforts, and others who are not as connected to this issue.

Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment: In addition to gaps in knowledge and interest among some residents, technical and financial resources are also a barrier for some.

Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment:

Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.

13.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future. Resources listed at the end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.

13.5.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and the following other local plans and programs:
• Sonoma RCD Strategic Direction 2017-2020—Includes the following goal: Landowners and managers are empowered to manage their land in ways that promote resiliency to wildfires and other natural disasters. Communities are supported to come together and plan for natural disasters and emergencies in ways that protect natural resources in addition to human health & safety • Mill Creek Integrated Hydrologic Model & Streamflow Enhancement Study and Mark West Creek Flow Availability Analysis (both currently in draft)—Address climate change impacts in hydrologic

13. Sonoma Resource Conservation District
13-7
modeling and identify projects to mitigate drought impacts to flow availability for both humans and fish/wildlife
• Watershed planning documents identified in Table 13-3—These documents identify and prioritize various actions relevant to climate adaptation
• CWPPs identified in Table 13-3—Provide a general overview and assessment of wildfire risks and prioritizes tasks to increase fire resiliency at the neighborhood level and certified by local officials.

13.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex identified the following plans and programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do so in the future:
• Future hydrologic or sediment modeling—The RCD has identified watersheds where such modeling would be helpful to inform projects that alleviate flooding and/or stream bank erosion. • Watershed- or neighborhood-wide forest management plans—This approach could more efficiently (than individual plans) meet forest management planning needs for some areas • County CWPP Update—The update includes more robust stakeholder participation in the planning and prioritization of wildfire risk reduction projects, and increased science-based risk assessment and GIS mapping.
• Sonoma County Strategic Plan—The five-year Strategic Plan will provide context to inform policies and projects that are funding for the next five years. The plan will guide how to align short and long-term objectives so the County Board of Supervisors’ actions reflect a clear sense of purpose. • Sonoma County General Plan Update—The General Plan is a policy document that establishes a vision for the future of Sonoma County. It prioritizes, organizes, and directs development and conservation for 20-year increments and was last updated in 2008.
• Future Local CWPPs or similar plans—Additional documents that provide a general overview and assessment of wildfire risks and prioritizes tasks to increase fire resiliency at the neighborhood level and certified by local officials.

13.6 RISK ASSESSMENT

13.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History Table 13-9 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in Sonoma RCD.

Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including Sonoma RCD, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.

13.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 13-10 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property, and the economy.

Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 13-8
Table 13-9. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date
Damage
Assessment
Drought (Sonoma & Mendocino Counties) N/A Declared April 21, 2021 Unknown Wildfire (Glass) FM-5376-CA September 27, 2020 Unknown
Wildfire (LNU Lightning) FM-5331-CA August 17, 2020 Unknown Wildfire (Kincade) FM-5295-CA October 24, 2019 Unknown
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides DR-4434-CA February 24 – March 1, 2019 Unknown Wildfire (Nuns) FM-5220-CA October 8, 2017 Unknown
Wildfire (Tubbs) FM-5215-CA October 8, 2017 Unknown
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4308-CA February 1 – 23, 2017 Unknown Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4305-CA January 18 – 23, 2017 Unknown Drought N/A 2014-2016 Unknown

Table 13-10. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Category
1 Wildfire High
1 Drought High
1 Flood High
2 Landslide Medium
2 Severe Weather Medium
2 Earthquake Medium
2 Dam Failure Medium
2 Sea Level Rise Medium
3 Tsunami Low

13.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.

The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Agricultural Hazards—Agricultural land and rangeland are vital to the economy and important to consider when addressing issues related to groundwater, watersheds, and wildfire. Most of the agricultural hazards in the District are weather related (e.g., freeze, hail, prolonged high temperatures, wind, flood, drought). Other hazards include insects and disease.

Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan in this annex.

13.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Table 13-11 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction. Table 13-12 identifies the priority for each action. Table 13-13 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.

13. Sonoma Resource Conservation District
13-9
Table 13-11. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Benefits
New or
Existing
Assets
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action SRCD-1—Prepare a Continuation of Operations Plan for the District Hazards Mitigated: Earthquake, dam inundation, wildfire, severe weather Existing 6 Sonoma
RCD
N/A Low General funds Short-
term
Action SRCD-2—Relocate District electronic file storage to the cloud in order to avoid service interruptions during disasters that may cause damage or inaccessibility at the office..

Hazards Mitigated: Earthquake, dam inundation, wildfire, severe weather Existing 6 Sonoma
RCD
N/A Medium HMGP Short-
term
Action SRCD-3—Provide outreach and education to the community regarding hazards and opportunities to mitigate on a personal scale
Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought, landslide, severe weather Existing &
New
4, 10, 2 Sonoma
RCD
Ag + Open Space, RCDs, Sonoma
Water, UC Cooperative Extension,
County of Sonoma, NGOs, Fire Safe
Sonoma, local fire districts
Medium General funds; cooperative
agreements with local government
agencies; grants and contracts
from agencies such as CA
Department of Food & Agriculture,
CA Wildlife Conservation Board,
CalFire
Ongoing
Action SRCD-4—Develop water source and storage systems for communities and individuals.

Hazards Mitigated: Drought, wildfire
Existing 4, 2 Sonoma
RCD
Russian River Coho Partnership High CA Wildlife Conservation Board Ongoing Action SRCD-5—Implement strategies to Improve soil health including organic matter content, aggregate stability, water holding capacity with individuals and communities.

Hazards Mitigated: Drought, flood, landslide, agricultural hazards Existing &
New
4, 2, 10 Sonoma
RCD
Ag + Open Space, RCDs, Regional
Climate Protection Authority, Zero
Waste Sonoma, Carbon Cycle
Institute, North Coast Soil Health Hub,
NGOs
High CA Department of Food &
Agriculture; USDA-NRCS; Restore
CA; CA Wildlife Conservation
Board
Ongoing
Action SRCD-6—Plan and implement agroforestry practices including hedgerows, windrows, riparian plantings with individuals and communities.

Hazards Mitigated: Drought, severe storms, agricultural hazards Existing 4, 6, 9 Sonoma
RCD
Ag + Open Space, RCDs, Regional
Climate Protection Authority, Zero
Waste Sonoma, Carbon Cycle
Institute, North Coast Soil Health Hub,
NGOs
High CA Department of Food &
Agriculture; USDA-NRCS; Restore
CA; CA Wildlife Conservation
Board
Ongoing
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 13-10
Benefits
New or
Existing
Assets
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action SRCD-7—Develop water conservation measures with agricultural producers including irrigation scheduling and efficiency, alternative manure management, and alternative water sources.

Hazards Mitigated: Drought
Existing 4, 2 Sonoma
RCD
Agricultural support organizations (e.g.

RCDs, University of California
Cooperative Extension, Farm Bureau,
Community Alliance with Family
Farmers)
High CA Department of Food &
Agriculture; USDA-NRCS; CA
Department of Water Resources
Ongoing
Action SRCD-8—Plan, design, and implement stormwater management and attenuation projects Hazards Mitigated: Flood, Drought
Existing &
New
10, 4, 2, 9 Sonoma
RCD
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies,
Land protection organizations
High State Water Board; Department of
Conservation; Wildlife
Conservation Board; BRIC
Ongoing
Action SRCD-9—Protect, enhance, or restore inland buffers by improving wetland health and size, and reducing saltwater intrusion.

Hazards Mitigated: Sea level rise, flood, tsunami
Existing &
New
4, 8, 10 Sonoma
RCD
Ag & Open Space, Sonoma Water,
Sonoma Land Trust, USDA
High Ag & Open Space, BRIC, Sonoma
Water, Sonoma Land Trust,
USDA, EPA, State Coastal
Conservancy, Private Foundations
Ongoing
Action SRCD-10—Pursue long-term permitting solutions for levee maintenance Hazards Mitigated: Flood
Existing 10, 2 Sonoma
RCD
Participating landowners/managers;
state, federal, regional, and local
permitting agencies
High Participating landowner
contributions; HMGP
Ongoing
Action SRCD-11—Plan, design and implement slope stability and erosion control measures where necessary and feasible Hazards Mitigated: Landslide, wildfire
Existing 9 Sonoma
RCD

High USDA-NRCS Ongoing
Action SRCD-12—Work with communities to plan and implement defensible space programs to reduce the risk of damage from catastrophic wildfire (including support for prescribed burn association, community grazing programs, forest management planning, and strategic fuel breaks along strategic locations including along evacuation routes).

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire
Existing &
New
2, 9, 4 Sonoma
RCD
RCDs, County of Sonoma, COPE
groups, Fire Safe Councils, Good Fire
Alliance, Land protection
organizations, Audubon Canyon
Ranch Fire Forward program
High National Association of
Conservation Districts; BRIC;
USDA-NRCS; CalFire
Ongoing
Action SRCD-13—Engage with and provide guidance to communities developing community-scale plans such as CWPPs or forest management plans.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire
Existing &
New
2, 9, 4 Sonoma
RCD
Fire Safe Sonoma, COPE groups, Fire
Safe Councils
Medium National Association of
Conservation Districts; BRIC
Ongoing

13. Sonoma Resource Conservation District
13-11
Benefits
New or
Existing
Assets
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timeline
Action SRCD-14—Plan and implement landscape-scale vegetation management to reduce the risk of damage from catastrophic wildfire
Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire
Existing &
New
2, 4, 9 Sonoma
RCD
Land protection organizations,
Audubon Canyon Ranch Fire Forward
program;
High USDA-NRCS; CalFire; BRIC Ongoing
a. Short-term = Completion within 5 years; Long-term = Completion within 10 years; Ongoing= Continuing new or existing program with no completion date
See the introduction to this volume for list of acronyms used here.

Table 13-12. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
SRCD-1 1 Medium Low Yes Unknown Yes High Low
SRCD-2 1 High Medium Yes Unknown Yes High Low
SRCD-3 3 High Medium Yes Yes Partially High Medium
SRCD-4 2 High High Yes Yes No High High
SRCD-5 3 High High Yes Yes No High High
SRCD-6 3 Medium High No Yes No Medium Medium
SRCD-7 2 High High Yes Yes No Medium Medium
SRCD-8 4 High High Yes Yes No Medium Medium
SRCD-9 3 Medium High No Yes No Low Low
SRCD-10 2 High Medium Yes Unknown Partially High High
SRCD-11 1 High High Yes Yes No Medium Medium
SRCD-12 3 High High Yes Yes No High High
SRCD-13 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium Medium
SRCD-14 3 High High Yes Yes No High High
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 13-12
Table 13-13. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Wildfire SRCD-11, 12, 14 SRCD-3, 13 SRCD-11, 14 SRCD-1, 2 SRCD-4 SRCD-4, 14 SRCD-3, 12, 13, 14
Drought SRCD-3 SRCD-4, 5,
6, 7, 8
SRCD-4, 8 SRCD-4, 5, 7,
8 SRCD-3
Flood SRCD-9, 10 SRCD-3 SRCD-5, 8, 9 SRCD-8 SRCD-5, 8, 9 SRCD-3, 10 Medium-Risk Hazards
Landslide SRCD-11 SRCD-3 SRCD-5, 11 SRCD-5 SRCD-3
Severe weather SRCD-3 SRCD-6 SRCD-1, 2 SRCD-3
Dam Failure SRCD-1, 2
Earthquake SRCD-1, 2
Sea Level Rise SRCD-9 SRCD-9 SRCD-9
Low-Risk Hazards
Tsunami SRCD-9 SRCD-9 SRCD-9
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.

13.8 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed for this annex. • County of Sonoma General Plan 2020 for identifying pertinent development and conservation regulations.
• Sonoma County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) for identifying measures to reduce wildfire risk.
• Sonoma County Recovery and Resiliency Framework for identifying relevant potential actions and community resiliency.

The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the development of the mitigation action plan.

14-1

14. SONOMA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION &

OPEN SPACE DISTRICT

14.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Sheri Emerson, Stewardship Manager
747 Mendocino Ave., Ste. 100
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Telephone: 707-565-7358
e-mail Address: [email protected]
Allison Schichtel, Senior Conservation Planner
747 Mendocino Ave., Ste. 100
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Telephone: 707-565-7353
e-mail Address: [email protected]
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in Table 14-1.

Table 14-1. Local Mitigation Planning Team Members
Name Title
Sheri Emerson Stewardship Manager, Ag + Open Space
Allison Schichtel Senior Conservation Planner, Ag + Open Space

14.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE

14.2.1 Overview
The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation District (Ag + Open Space) is a special district of the County of Sonoma established in 1990 to permanently protect the diverse agricultural, natural resource, and scenic open space lands of Sonoma County for future generations. In 1990, Sonoma County voters approved Measures A and C to establish Ag + Open Space. Measure A established Ag + Open Space pursuant to California Public Resources Code sections 5500 et seq., which allows for the creation of an open space district, furthering California state policy on the preservation of open space. Measure C called for a quarter-cent sales tax over a 20- year period to fund protection of agricultural lands and open space in perpetuity. In 2006, voters extended the sales tax through 2031 by passing Measure F, which updated the Expenditure Plan directing how the collected tax revenue can be spent. As of June 2020, Ag + Open Space has protected over 122,000 acres in Sonoma County, primarily through acquisition of conservation easements over land owned and managed by others, and outright purchase of some land that Ag + Open Space owns and manages.

The climate of Sonoma County is generally Mediterranean, characterized by a summer dry season, winter rainy season, and cool nights and temperate days. Within Sonoma County there is an array of microclimates; areas Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 14-2
closer to the coast are cooler throughout the summer and receive more fog, while inland areas, including the Santa Rosa Plain, are typically hotter and drier. Rainfall varies throughout the County from 20 to 70 inches annually.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors serves as the Ag + Open Space Board of Directors, and the Board assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the General Manager will oversee its implementation.

14.2.2 Service Area
The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District was formed to serve all areas within Sonoma County.

Sonoma County is the northernmost of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The current boundaries generally extend from about forty miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge, between Marin and Mendocino Counties, and from the Pacific coastline east to the Mayacamas Range bordering Napa County, encompassing an area of 1,576 square miles.

14.2.3 Assets
Table 14-2 summarizes the assets of the district and their value.

Table 14-2. Special Purpose District Assets
Asset Value
Property
4,178 acres of land (fee title) $39,326,263
113,203 acres of land (conservation easement) $391,309,458 Total: $430,635721
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Administrative Building—747 Mendocino Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401 $2,300,000 Total: $2,300,000

14.3 CURRENT TRENDS
According to United States Census Bureau, the population of Sonoma County as of April 2010 was 483,878.

Since 2010, the population has grown at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent.

14.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.

Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation actions. The findings of the assessment are presented as follows:

14. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District 14-3
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 14-3. • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 14-4. • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 14-5. • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 14-6. • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 14-7. • The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 14-8.

Table 14-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability
Plan, Study or
Program
Date of Most
Recent Update Comment
Expenditure Plan 2006 Governs Ag + Open Space’s expenditure of tax revenues; Exhibit “A” to Measure F, the legislation passed in 2006 to reauthorize Ag + Open Space through 2031.

https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp-content/uploads/Measure-F_Expenditure-Plan- 2006_Exhibit-A.pdf
Vital Lands Initiative January 2021 Directs Ag + Open Space’s conservation planning, acquisition, and stewardship efforts

https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-VLI-FULL-REPORT-

01.26.2021_-ADA.pdf
Fee Lands Strategy February 2021 Guides the stewardship and conveyance of lands held in fee by Ag + Open Space

https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp-content/uploads/Fee-Lands- Strategy_FINAL_20210301-REMEDIATED.pdf
Initial Public Access,
Operation &
Maintenance Policy
February 2016 Policy for budgeting and administering funds under Paragraph 6 of the Expenditure Plan

https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp-content/uploads/IPAOM_Reso_20160203.pdf Stewardship Policy February 2021 Establishes guidelines for staff implementation of stewardship responsibilities

https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp-content/uploads/Stewardship- Policy_FINAL_20210301-REMEDIATED.pdf
Mitigation Policy July 2017 Describes Ag + Open Space’s role with respect to environmental mitigation and process for evaluating environmental mitigation proposals

https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-District-Mitigation- Policy_20170718.pdf

Table 14-4. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds No
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No Federal Grant Programs Yes
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 14-4
Table 14-5. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land
development and land management practices
Yes Acquisition Manager, Conservation Planning Manager, Stewardship Manager, Stewardship Coordinator, Acquisition Specialists, Stewardship Specialists, Senior Conservation Planner
Engineers or professionals trained in building
or infrastructure construction practices
Yes Provided through contract support
Planners or engineers with an understanding
of natural hazards
Yes Acquisition Manager, Conservation Planning Manager, Stewardship Manager, Stewardship Coordinator, Acquisition Specialists, Stewardship Specialists, Senior Conservation Planner
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Provided through contract support Surveyors Yes Provided through contract support
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Conservation GIS Coordinator, Senior Conservation Planner, Acquisition Assistant, Stewardship Specialists, Stewardship Technicians
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local
area
Yes Provided through contract support
Emergency manager No
Grant writers Yes Acquisition Specialists, Stewardship Specialists, Senior Conservation Planner; also provided through contract support Other Yes All staff trained to fill ICS operations positions

Table 14-6. Education and Outreach
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? No Through contract support only
Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes If yes, please briefly describe Blog posts about Ag + Open Space activities related to hazard mitigation and studies on benefits and economic
values of open space (including for hazard mitigation)
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes If yes, please briefly describe Social media (Facebook, Instagram) and e-newsletters to notify the public of Ag + Open Space activities related to hazard mitigation
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation?
Yes
If yes, please briefly specify Ag + Open Space Board of Directors, Fiscal Oversight Commission, and Citizens Advisory Committee provide
direction and input on Ag + Open Space projects related to hazard mitigation
Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information?
Yes
If yes, please briefly describe Outreach and education program; volunteer program Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? No If yes, please briefly describe

14. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District 14-5
Table 14-7. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code No
DUNS# Yes 143290547
Community Rating System No
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule No
Public Protection No
Storm Ready No
Firewise No
Tsunami Ready No

Table 14-8. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts Medium Comment: Ag + Open Space maintains a library of GIS, remote sensing, technical reports, and studies related to local documented and projected impacts from climate change, including impacts to water quality and supply, sensitive habitats and species, ecosystem health/stability, agricultural productivity and viability, and threats to communities from fires, floods, sea level rise, and other hazards Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Medium Comment: Ag + Open Space maintains fine-scale maps of vegetation and other land cover types in Sonoma County and intends to monitor changes in vegetation over time. In addition, the organization maintains a library of GIS, remote sensing, technical reports, and studies related to local documented and projected impacts from climate change Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Medium Comment: Ag + Open Space may conduct assessments using expertise of internal staff and/or through technical consultant support Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Low Comment: Ag + Open Space does not have internal capacity to develop a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and relies on inventories prepared by the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority and other regional and state entities Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts Medium Comment: Ag + Open Space evaluates potential climate impacts when designing conservation easements, land management or improvement projects, and in developing countywide priorities for land conservation Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Medium Comment: Ag + Open Space participates in climate change-related planning, education, and community engagement efforts led by the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority, North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative, Sonoma County Office of Recovery & Resiliency, and local, regional, and state organizations Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes Medium Comment: Climate change is not explicitly addressed in Ag + Open Space’s Expenditure Plan and authorizing legislation, though the Ag + Open Space Board of Directors strongly supports decisions that limit or mitigate environmental impacts from climate change, and has declared a Climate Emergency (resolution 19-0367)
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts Medium Comment: Through guiding policy documents, Ag + Open Space prioritizes conservation of open space areas and implements stewardship projects that promote carbon sequestration and avoided emissions Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Medium
Comment: Ag + Open Space has conducted case studies to evaluate the role of land conservation in mitigating impacts from climate change and extreme events, and is the process of developing targeted strategies to mitigate risks to community safety and ecosystem health from fire, flood, sea level rise, and drought
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 14-6
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Champions for climate action in local government departments High Comment: Ag + Open Space staff have been active in developing County goals and strategies for climate adaptation and mitigation and providing data for climate action planning
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High Comment: The Ag + Open Space Board of Directors, partners, and stakeholders strongly support decisions that limit or mitigate environmental impacts from climate change
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Medium Comment: Ag + Open Space’s core function of conserving and stewarding land supports climate change adaptation, but the organization does not have dedicated funding specifically for climate change projects Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted Low Comment: Ag + Open Space does not have local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted Public Capacity
Local residents knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Low Comment: Unsure of residents’ knowledge and understanding Local residents support of adaptation efforts Medium
Comment: According to a 2016 poll conducted by Ag + Open Space, a majority of residents thought that climate change adaptation is an important benefit of Ag + Open Space’s work
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low Comment:

Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low Comment:

Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.

14.5 INTEGRATION REVIEW
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future. Resources listed at the end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.

14.5.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and the following other local plans and programs:
• County’s Emergency Operation Plan—Ag + Open Space participates and supports the County’s Emergency Operation Plan.
• Sonoma County’s General Plan—Ag + Open Space was established as a result of the 1990 General Plan, and the agency implements and complements several key elements of the current General Plan.

14. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District 14-7
• Ag + Open Space’s Emergency Operation and Response Plan—Ag + Open Space has developed and continues to implement its own Emergency Operation and Response Plan. • Ag + Open Space Comprehensive Plan—Ag + Open Space developed a long-term comprehensive plan, the Vital Lands Initiative. The Vital Lands Initiative identifies objectives and strategies for integrating climate change and extreme event mitigation and adaptation into all aspects of Ag + Open Space’s work • Fee Lands Strategy—Ag + Open space updated its Fee Lands Strategy, which highlights the natural resources management practices (including understory thinning and prescribed burning) implemented by the organization to enhance ecosystem health and support hazard mitigation.

14.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex identified the following plans and programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do so in the future:
• The Sonoma County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) which was being updated as of this plan update.
• Future General Plan updates
• County Capital Facilities Planning
• Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan
• Local Coastal Plan

14.6 RISK ASSESSMENT

14.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History Table 14-9 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in County of Sonoma. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including County of Sonoma, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.

Table 14-9. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event Date
Historical CA Droughts 1841, 1864, 1924, 1928-35, 1947-50, 1959-60, 1976-77, 1986-92, 2007-09 Heavy Rains and Flooding December 24, 1964
Severe Storms, Flooding January 26, 1969
Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides, High Tide December 19, 1981 – January 8, 1982 Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides, Tornadoes January 21 – March 30, 1983 Severe Storms, Flooding February 12 – March 10, 1986
Freeze of ‘91 1990 – 1991
Flood of ‘93 1993
Fishing Emergency May – September 1994
Flood of ‘95, Part 1 January 8 – 31, 1995
Flood of ‘95, Part 2 March 7 – 15, 1995
December Winter Storm 1995
Cavedale Fire 1996
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 14-8
Type of Event Date
Jenner Sandbarrier 1996
Porter Creek Fire October 27-28, 1996
New Year’s Flood December 30, 96–January 4, 97
Superbowl Flood January 25, 1997
Flood of '98/ Rio Nido Debris Flow February 2, 1998–January 4, 2000 February Winter Storm February 8-10, 1999
December Winter Storms December 17, 02–April 8, 03
Geysers Fire September 3-8, 2004
New Year’s Floods December 31, 2005–January 3, 2006
Late Spring Storms March 29-April 16, 2006
SF Oil Spill November 7, 2007
H1N1 Influenza Pandemic April – May, 2009
Great Tohoku Tsunami March 11, 2011
Holiday Decoration Flood December 2, 2012
Drought 2014 – 2016
South Napa Earthquake August 24, 2014
December Winter Storm August 24, 2014
Valley Fire September 12-25, 2015
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides January 3-12, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides February 1-23, 2017 LNU Complex Fires October, 2017
Wildfires October 8-31, 2017
PG&E Power Shutoff October, 2018
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides February 24 – March 1, 2019 PG&E Power Shutoff October 2019
Kincade Fire October 23 – November 7, 2019
COVID-19 Pandemic January 2020 – present
Wildfires August 14 – September 26, 2020
Wildfires—various ones September 4 – November 17, 2020
Green Valley Road Flood 2000-2019
Drought 2021
Valley Ford Freestone Road Flooding 2000-2019

14.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 14-10 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.

Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings. Ag + Open Space completed a qualitative ranking of potential hazards, resulting in an overall significance ranking of High, Moderate, or Low for each hazard.

14. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District 14-9
Table 14-10. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Geographic Extent
Probability of Future
Occurrences Magnitude/Severity Significance Rank
1 Wildfire Extensive Highly Likely Catastrophic High
2 Flood Significant Likely Catastrophic High
3 Drought Extensive Likely Critical High
4 Earthquake Significant Occasional Catastrophic High
5 Severe Weather Extensive Likely Critical Medium
6 Soil Hazards, including
Erosion and Landslide
Significant Likely Limited Low
7 Sea Level Rise Limited Likely Limited Low
8 Dam Failure Limited Occasional Catastrophic Low
9 Tsunami Limited Occasional Critical Low

Note that the column headings are defined as follows (definitions are based on an example annex from Sierra Resource Conservation District in Fresno County, California):
• Geographic Extent: Limited (less than 10% of the service area); Significant (10-50% of the service area); Extensive (50-100% of the service area).
• Probability of Future Occurrence: Highly Likely (happens almost every year); Likely (Has a recurrence interval of every 10 years or less); Occasional (Has a recurrence interval of every 11 to 100 years); Unlikely (Has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years). • Magnitude/Severity: Catastrophic (more than 50 percent of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities for more than 30 days, and /or multiple deaths); Critical (25-50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two weeks; and /or injuries and /or illnesses result in permanent disability); Limited (10-25 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than a week; and /or injuries/illnesses treatable do not result in permanent disability); Negligible (Less than 10 percent of property severely damaged, shutdowns of facilities and services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid). • Significance Rank: Low (minimal potential impact); Medium (moderate potential impact); High (widespread and/or extensive potential impact).

14.6.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.

The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources.

Assets at risk from the hazards identified in this plan include approximately 122,000 acres in conservation easements and land. These properties include agricultural areas, wilderness areas, riparian corridors, mountaintops, wetlands, woodlands, and coastline, regional park land and trail systems, urban parks, and greenbelts between urban areas. These real property assets support key conservation and monetary values, providing a variety of services and benefits to our communities. Sonoma County’s natural capital, including lands currently protected by Ag + Open Space, has the potential to adapt in the face of climate change, to reduce hazard risk for communities, and provide a high quality of life. Critical working and natural lands at risk include:

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 14-10
• Agricultural lands and rangeland
 Farms, ranches, dairies, vineyards, and orchards are important contributors to Sonoma County’s economy, providing local food and fiber, jobs, and revenue. In addition, working lands provide ecosystem services such as soil retention and formation, above- and below-ground carbon sequestration, reduced fuel loading, regulation of water flow and water quality, habitat for pollinators and threatened and endangered species, scenic benefits, and tourism opportunities  Agricultural lands and rangelands are subject to wildfires, severe weather (e.g., freeze), drought, and floods; risks include destruction of crops, livestock, and associated structures and reduction in jobs • Wetlands, floodplains, and riparian corridors
 Wetland and stream ecosystems are biologically rich areas that also provide numerous ecosystem services to human communities, including moderation of extreme events (e.g. flood attenuation), carbon sequestration, soil retention, assimilation of pollutants, reduction in stream temperature, support for the commercial and recreational fishery, habitat for threatened and endangered species, and recreational benefits. Tidal wetlands reduce wave action and provide flood protection and are critical for reducing impacts of sea level rise on human communities  Wetlands, floodplains, and riparian corridors are subject to wildfire and drought; risks include reduced water quality for people and natural communities (including from toxins in runoff, sedimentation, and increase in water temperatures), destruction of aquatic habitat for fish and amphibians, and mortality of vegetation
• Forests
 Conifer and hardwood forests of Sonoma County are important for wood and fiber production, and also provide various ecosystems services, including carbon sequestration, avoided sedimentation, flood mitigation, habitat for threatened and endangered species, and scenic, spiritual, and recreation benefits
 Forestlands are subject to devastating wildfires, drought, and floods. In some cases, high intensity fires may destroy this critical resource, resulting in a loss of jobs and the provision of ecosystem services
• Other wildland ecosystems, including grasslands and shrublands  Wildland ecosystems, including forestlands described above, grassland, and shrubland communities, are undeveloped areas that are important for maintaining high native biodiversity and providing community benefits such as clean drinking water, groundwater supply, flood control, carbon sequestration, and scenic and recreational benefits
 Wildland ecosystems are subject to unnatural fire events which may result in vegetation mortality, species compositional shifts, erosion (from loss of tree canopy as well as fire suppression efforts), and loss of habitat. In addition, these systems are susceptible to drought, landslides, and floods which may reduce the ecosystem services provided by these areas
• Urban open space and parklands
 Urban open spaces and parklands, including urban forests, parks, and trails, are important places for exercise and recreation and also provide community benefits such as enhancing air quality, reducing the urban heat island effect and providing areas of shade during high heat events, reducing transport of pollutants from developed areas to waterways, and helping to manage storm water (e.g., through green infrastructure projects)
 Urban open spaces and parklands are subject to fires and floods which may destroy park infrastructure, inhibit public access, and negatively impact natural systems and ecosystem services provided within these areas

14. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District 14-11
In 2015 Ag + Open Space led a study to evaluate and quantify the ecosystem services provided by Sonoma County’s natural capital, and found that working and natural landscapes of Sonoma County yield $2.2 to $6.6 billion per year in economic value. The ecosystem services provided and the associated annual values are described in Table 14-11.

Table 14-11. Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in Sonoma County Ecosystem Service
$ Millions Per Year Countywide
(Low Estimate)
$ Millions Per Year Countywide
(High Estimate)
Water Supply $9M $180M
Wastewater Treatment $35M $117M
Moderation of Extreme Events $82M $220M
Urban Stormwater Management $0.2M $8M
Soil Retention and Formation $4M $620M
Carbon Sequestration $58M $197M
Air Quality $19M $22M
Pollination $218M $367M
Habitat and Nursery $4M $43M
Biological Control $8M $23M
Natural Beauty $1,214M $4,182M
Recreation and Tourism $500M $596M
Grand Total $2.2 Billion $6.6 Billion

An additional asset is the Ag + Open Space administration building, currently occupied by Ag + Open Space staff pursuant to a lease agreement. This property, as well as the staff and the public who are present during working hours, are vulnerable to the identified hazards as well.

Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan in this annex.

14.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Table 14-12 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction. Table 14-13 identifies the priority for each action. Table 14-14 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 14-12
Table 14-12. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Benefits New or
Existing Assets
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action SAO-1—Participate in and support the County’s Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP) efforts, Watershed Task Force, and other emergency response/recover efforts.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought, earthquake, public safety power shutoff, severe weather, soil hazards, sea level rise, dam failure, tsunami
New & Existing 2, 4, 5, 6, 8,
9, 10
County of
Sonoma
Ag + Open Space,
Sonoma
Low Staff Time, General Funds Ongoing
Action SAO-2—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought, earthquake, public safety power shutoff, severe weather, soil hazards, sea level rise, dam failure, tsunami
New & Existing 1, 4, 8, 12 County of
Sonoma
Any Supporting
Departments
Low Staff Time, General Funds Short-term
Action SAO-3—Coordinate vegetation management grant awards using funds from PG&E settlement Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, severe weather, soil hazards New & Existing 2, 4, 9 Ag + Open
Space
County of Sonoma Low PG&E Settlement Funds Short-term
Action SAO-4—Partner with County departments and other organizations to acquire countywide LiDAR and update land use/land cover, hydrology, topography, and vegetation structure (including fuel load) datasets Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought, earthquake, public safety power shutoff, severe weather, soil hazards, sea level rise, dam failure, tsunami
New & Existing 2, 6, 8 County of
Sonoma
Ag + Open Space, County
of Sonoma, Sonoma
Water, USGS, NGOs
High BRIC, USGS, General Funds,
Private Foundations
Short-term
Action SAO-5—Develop and implement a public outreach and education campaign about the role of land conservation and stewardship in mitigating flood, drought, and wildfire risks and impacts from climate change Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought, severe weather, soil hazards, sea level rise New & Existing 4, 8 Ag + Open
Space
Low General Funds Short-term
Action SAO-6—Map potential riparian (and shoreline) buffers of adequate width, length, hydrology, soils, and vegetation to provide effective fuel breaks, flood conveyance, and groundwater recharge.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought
New & Existing 4, 8, 10 Ag + Open
Space
Sonoma Water, County of
Sonoma, CA Department
of Conservation
Medium Staff Time, General Funds, BRIC,
CA Department of Conservation
Short-term
Action SAO-7—Identify priority areas and acquire conservation easements over multi-benefit natural and working lands in hazard-prone areas to ensure fewer people and structures are at risk and to allow first responders to stage suppression and response operations Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought, earthquake, soil hazards, sea level rise, dam failure, tsunami New & Existing 4, 7, 9, 10 Ag + Open
Space
Sonoma Land Trust,
County of Sonoma, NGOs
Medium General Funds, BRIC, HMGP, PDM,
FMA, USDA-NRCS, State Coastal
Conservancy, CA Department of
Conservation, CA Natural
Resources Agency, Strategic
Growth Council/ Sustainable
Agricultural Lands Conservation,
CAL FIRE, Private Foundations
Long-term

14. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District 14-13
Benefits New or
Existing Assets
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action SAO-8—Partner with public agencies, non-profit organizations, and private landowners to establish strategically placed fuel buffer zones between wildlands and at-risk communities
Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, severe weather, soil hazards New & Existing 4, 7, 9 Ag + Open
Space
County of Sonoma,
NGOs, CAL FIRE
Medium General Funds, HMGP, PDM, BRIC,
CAL FIRE, USDA-NRCS, State
Coastal Conservancy, CA
Department of Conservation, CA
Natural Resources Agency,
Strategic Growth Council/
Sustainable Agricultural Lands
Conservation, Private Foundations
Long-term
Action SAO-9—Identify priority areas and acquire conservation easements over natural and working lands which provide drought, flood, and climate change resiliency benefits, including lands with high recharge potential; wetlands, floodplains, and headwater streams; and coastal areas (including coastal wetlands)
Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought, soil hazards, sea level rise, tsunami New & Existing 4, 7, 9, 10 Ag + Open
Space
Sonoma Land Trust,
County of Sonoma,
Sonoma Water, CA
Department of Fish &
Wildlife, Coastal
Conservancy
Medium General Funds, BRIC, HMGP, PDM,
FMA, USDA-NRCS, State Coastal
Conservancy, CA Department of
Conservation, CA Natural
Resources Agency, Strategic
Growth Council/ Sustainable
Agricultural Lands Conservation,
Private Foundations
Ongoing
Action SAO-10—Partner with public agencies and non-profit organizations to expand, create, or connect new parks and open space preserves and trails and to implement open space projects in or near incorporated cities and other communities in Sonoma County, including acquisition projects and improvement projects (restoration, public access, agriculture, recreation development) Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, public safety power shutoff, severe weather, sea level rise New & Existing 4, 7, 9, 10 Ag + Open
Space
Incorporated cities,
County of Sonoma,
NGOs, California State
Parks
Medium General Funds, BRIC, State Coastal
Conservancy, CA Department of
Conservation, CA Natural
Resources Agency, USDA, Private
Foundations
Ongoing
Action SAO-11—Conduct and encourage forest and grassland management activities, including ecologically appropriate thinning, prescribed burning, and livestock grazing, to improve forest health and resiliency to wildfire, disease, and drought; to reduce wildfire hazards; enhance wildlife habitat; and increase carbon sequestration.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, severe weather, soil hazards New & Existing 2, 4, 9 County of
Sonoma
Ag + Open Space, RCDs,
CAL FIRE, California
Conservation Corps,
NGOs
Medium HMGP, PDM, General Funds,

CAL FIRE
Ongoing
Action SAO-12—Stabilize burned slopes and remove hazard trees to reduce risk of debris flows and other damage to structures, roads, and waterways following a fire
Hazards Mitigated: Severe weather, soil hazards
New & Existing 9, 10 County of
Sonoma
Ag + Open Space,
Sonoma Water,
CAL FIRE, NGOs
Medium HMGP, PDM, FMA, USDA-NRCS
EWP
Ongoing
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 14-14
Benefits New or
Existing Assets
Objectives
Met
Lead
Agency Support Agency
Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action SAO-13—Monitor and assess vegetation response, carbon loss, erosion and sedimentation risks, stream channel response, and invasive/noxious species establishment on burned lands to prioritize and implement remedial efforts as needed to minimize hazards.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, severe weather, soil hazards New & Existing 4, 8, 9, 10 County of
Sonoma
Ag + Open Space,
Sonoma Water, CA State
Parks, Regional Water
Board, USGS, USFS,
NGOs
Medium Staff Time, General Funds, Private
Foundations
Ongoing
Action SAO-14—Partner with RCDs and other organizations on technical assistance and outreach efforts to landowners regarding best practices and mitigation measures for wildfire, flood, and drought hazards.

Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire, flood, drought
New & Existing 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 RCDs Ag + Open Space,
Sonoma Water, UC
Cooperative Extension,
County of Sonoma,
NGOs, Fire Safe Sonoma,
local fire districts
Medium HMGP, PDM, FMA, BRIC, USDA-
NRCS, State Coastal Conservancy,
CA Department of Food &
Agriculture, CA Wildlife
Conservation Board, CAL FIRE
Ongoing
Action SAO-15—Partner with RCDs and other organizations to implement habitat restoration projects to reduce flood risk and/or risk of post-fire landslide or debris flows.

Hazards Mitigated: Flood, soil hazards
New & Existing 2, 4, 6, 10 RCDs Ag + Open Space,
Sonoma Water, UC
Cooperative Extension,
NGOs
Medium HMGP, PDM, FMA, BRIC, USDA-
NRCS, State Coastal Conservancy,
State Water Resources Control
Board
Ongoing
Action SAO-16—Partner with RCDs and other organizations to improve soil health, including organic matter content, aggregate stability, water holding capacity, and carbon sequestration
Hazards Mitigated: Drought, severe weather, soil hazards Existing 2, 4, 6, 10 RCDs Ag + Open Space,
Regional Climate
Protection Authority, Zero
Waste Sonoma, Carbon
Cycle Institute, North
Coast Soil Heath Hub,
NGOs
Medium CA Department of Food &
Agriculture, USDA-NRCS, Restore
CA, CA Wildlife Conservation Board
Ongoing
a. Short-term = Completion within 5 years; Long-term = Completion within 10 years; Ongoing= Continuing new or existing program with no completion date
See the introduction to this volume for list of acronyms used here.

14. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District 14-15
Table 14-13. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
SAO-1 7 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
SAO-2 4 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
SAO-3 3 High Low Yes No Yes High Low
SAO-4 3 Low High No No No Low Low
SAO-5 2 Low Low Yes No Yes Medium Low
SAO-6 3 Low Low Yes No Yes Medium Low
SAO-7 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
SAO-8 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
SAO-9 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
SAO-10 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium Medium
SAO-11 3 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
SAO-12 2 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
SAO-13 4 Medium Medium Yes No Yes Medium Low
SAO-14 5 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
SAO-15 4 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High High
SAO-16 4 High Medium Yes No Yes Medium Low
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.

Table 14-14. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
Wildfire SAO-3, 7, 8,
9, 10
SAO-14 SAO-1, 5, 14 SAO-3, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 14
SAO-1 SAO-14 SAO-5, 6, 8,
9, 10, 11, 14
SAO-1, 2, 4,
6, 13
Flood SAO-7, 9, 10 SAO-14 SAO-1, 5, 14 SAO-6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15
SAO-1 SAO-14 SAO-5, 6, 9,
10, 14, 15
SAO-1, 2, 4,
6, 13
Drought SAO-7, 9 SAO-14 SAO-1, 5, 14 SAO-6, 7, 9, 11,
14, 16
SAO-1 SAO-14 SAO-5, 6, 9,
11, 14, 16
SAO-1, 2, 4,
6,
Earthquake SAO-7 SAO-1 SAO-7 SAO-1 SAO-1, 2, 4
Medium-Risk Hazards
Severe Weather SAO-3, 8, 9,
10 SAO-1, 5 SAO-3, 8, 9, 10,
12, 16
SAO-1 SAO-5, 8, 9,
10, 16
SAO-1, 2, 4,
13 Low-Risk Hazards
Soil Hazards SAO-3, 7, 8,
9, 10
SAO-1, 5 SAO-3, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 15, 16
SAO-1 SAO-5, 8, 9,
10, 11, 15, 16
SAO-1, 2, 4,
13 Sea Level Rise SAO-7, 9 SAO-1, 5 SAO-7, 9 SAO-1 SAO-5, 9 SAO-1, 2, 4 Dam Failure SAO-7 SAO-1 SAO-7 SAO-1 SAO-1, 2, 4
Tsunami SAO-7, 9 SAO-1 SAO-7, 9 SAO-1 SAO-9 SAO-1, 2, 4 a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 14-16

14.8 INFORMATION SOURCES USED FOR THIS ANNEX
The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed for this annex. • FY 2019-2020 Schedule of Interests in Land for valuation of assets held by Ag + Open Space • Ag + Open Space Expenditure Plan—2006. https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp- content/uploads/Measure-F_Expenditure-Plan-2006_Exhibit-A.pdf • Ag + Open Space Vital Lands Initiative—2021. https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp- content/uploads/FINAL-VLI-FULL-REPORT-01.26.2021_-ADA.pdf • Ag + Open Space Fee Lands Strategy—2021. https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp- content/uploads/Fee-Lands-Strategy_FINAL_20210301-REMEDIATED.pdf • Abt Associates (2015). The Economic Value of Natural Capital on the Sonoma Coast Prepared for:

Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp-content/uploads/HLHE-Case-Study-Ag-Open-Space-Technical- Report-Sonoma-Coast.pdf
• Sonoma County Ag + Open Space. (2018). Healthy Lands & Healthy Economies: The Multiple Benefits of Sonoma County Working and Natural Lands. Santa Rosa, CA https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/projects/healthy-lands-healthy-economies/

• Sonoma County Ag + Open Space and The Nature Conservancy. (2016). The Climate Action Through Conservation Project. https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/wp-content/uploads/CATC_Final_lowres.pdf The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the development of the mitigation action plan.
• Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority. 2016. Climate Action 2020 and Beyond • Climate Ready North Bay: Key Vulnerability Assessment Findings for the North Bay Region

14.9 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY Sonoma County acquired LiDAR data in 2013, which has been applied in support of public safety, climate change action, open space conservation, wildfire risk mitigation, flood planning, and wetland protection, among others.

Since 2013, Sonoma County has experienced numerous fire and flood events and so updated LiDAR data are needed that reflect current conditions. These data may be used to update land use/land cover maps for the evaluation of ecosystems services, hazard exposure and risk mapping, and to identify areas where green infrastructure/nature-based solutions (including open space conservation) could have the most impact for the least amount of money. This information may also support the design and implementation of built infrastructure.

In relation, Ag + Open Space could benefit from additional studies about the value of ecosystem services provided by working and natural lands and the value of ecosystem services lost due to fire, flood, drought, and other impacts from climate change. Green infrastructure provides important benefits to human communities, including the reduction of risks and exposure to hazards like fires and floods. Having a better understanding of the ecosystem services provided by these landscapes may support the prioritization and implementation of this type of hazard mitigation solution.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 Appendix A. Planning Partner Expectations

A-1
A. PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS

ACHIEVING DMA COMPLIANCE FOR ALL PLANNING PARTNERS
The federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), commonly known as the 2000 Stafford Act amendments, was approved by Congress on October 10, 2000. This act required state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal grant assistance. Among other things, this legislation reinforces the importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide.

DMA 2000 is aimed primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disaster relief and programs to promote mitigation activities. Prior to 2000, federal legislation provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard mitigation planning. The DMA improves upon the planning process by emphasizing the importance of communities planning for disasters before they occur.

The Disaster Mitigation Act defines a “local government” as:

Any county, municipality, city, town, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity Any local government wishing to pursue funding afforded under FEMA Haz ard Mitigation Grant Programs must have an approved hazard mitigation plan in order to be eligible to apply for these funds.

One of the goals of the multi -jurisdictional approach to hazard mitigation planning is to achieve compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) for all participating members in the planning effort. DMA compliance must be certified for each member in order to maintain eligibility for the benefits under the DMA. Whether our planning process generates ten individual plans or one large plan that has a chapter for each partner jurisdiction, the following items must be addressed by each planning partner to achieve DMA compliance:
• Participate in the process. It must be documented in the plan that each planning partner “participated” in the process that generated the plan. There is flexibility in defining “participation.” Participation can vary based on the type of planning partner (i.e.: City vs. a Special Purpose District). However, the level of participation must be defined and the extent for which this level of participation has been met for each partner must be contained in the plan context.
• Consistency Review. Review of existing documents pertinent to each jurisdiction to identify policies or recommendations that are not consistent with those documents reviewed in producing the “parent” plan or have policies and recommendations that complement the hazard mitigation initiatives selected (i.e.: comp plans, basin plans or hazard specific plans).

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes A-2
• Action Review. For plan updates, a review of the strategies from your prior action plan to determine those that have been accomplished and how they were accomplished; and why those that have not been accomplished were not completed.
• Update Localized Risk Assessment. Personalize the Risk Assessment for each jurisdiction by removing hazards not associated with the defined jurisdictional area or redefining vulnerability based on a hazard’s impact to a jurisdiction. This phase will include:
 A ranking of the risk
 A description of the number and type of structures at risk  An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures  A general description of land uses and development trends within the community, so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. • Capability assessment. Each planning partner must identify and review their individual regulatory, technical, and financial capabilities with regards to the implementation of hazard mitigation actions. • Personalize mitigation recommendations. Identify and prioritize mitigation recommendations specific to each jurisdiction’s defined area.
• Create an Action Plan.
• Incorporate Public Participation. Each jurisdiction must present the Plan to the public for comment at least once, within two weeks prior to adoption.
• Plan must be adopted by each jurisdiction.

One of the benefits to multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources. This means more than monetary resources. Resources such as staff time, meeting locations, media resources, technical expertise will all need to be utilized to generate a successful plan. In addition, these resources can be pooled such that decisions can be made by a peer group applying to the whole and thus reducing the individual level of effort of each planning partner. This will be accomplished by the formation of a steering committee made up of planning partners and other “stakeholders” within the planning area. The size and makeup of this steering committee will be determined by the planning partnership. This body will assume the decision-making responsibilities on behalf of the entire partnership.

This will streamline the planning process by reducing the number of meetings that will need to be attended by each planning partner. The assembled Steering Committee for this effort will meet monthly on an as needed basis as determined by the planning team, and will provide guidance and decisi on making during all phases of the plan’ s development.

With the above participation requirements in mind, each partner is expected to aid this process by being prepared to develop its section of the plan. To be an eligible planning partner in this effort, each planning partner shall provide the following:

A. A “Letter of Commitment” or resolution to participate to the Planning Team (see exhibit A).

B. Designate a lead point of contact for this effort. This designee will be listed as the hazard mitigation point of contact for your jurisdiction in the plan.

C. Support and participate in the selection and function of the Steering Committee selected to oversee the development of this plan.

D. Provide support in the form of mailing list, possible meeting space, and public information materials, such as newsletters, newspapers or direct mailed brochures, required to implement the public involvement strategy developed by the Steering Committee.

Appendix A. 0BPlanning Partner Expectations
A-3
E. Participate in the process. There will be many opportunities as this plan evolves to participate.

Opportunities such as:
i) Steering Committee meetings
ii) Public meetings or open houses
iii) Workshops/ planning partner specific training sessions iv) Public review and comment periods prior to adoption At each and every one of these opportunities, attendance will be recorded. Attendance records will be used to document participation for each planning partner. No thresholds will be established as minimum levels of participation. However, each planning partner should attempt to attend all possible meetings and events.

F. There will be one mandatory workshop that all planning partners will be required to attend. This workshop will cover the proper completion of the jurisdictional annex template which is the basis for each partner’s jurisdictional chapter in the plan. Failure to have a representative at this workshop will disqualify the planning partner from participation in this effort. The schedule for this workshop will be such that all committed planning partners will be able to attend.

G. After participation in the mandatory template workshop, each partner will be required to complete their template and provide it to the planning team in the time frame established by the Steering Committee.

Failure to complete your template in the required time frame may lead to disqualification from the partnership.

H. Each partner will be expected to perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies, plans, ordinances specific to hazards to determine the existence of any not consistent with the same such documents reviewed in the preparation of the parent plan.

I. Each partner will be expected to review the Risk Assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific to its jurisdiction. Contract resources will provide the jurisdiction specific mapping and technical consultation to aid in this task, but the determination of risk and vulnerability will be up to each partner.

J. Each partner will be expected to review and determine if the mitigation recommendations chosen in the parent plan will meet the needs of its jurisdiction. Projects within each jurisdiction consistent with the parent plan recommendations will need to be identified and prioritized, and reviewed to determine their benefits vs. costs.

K. Each partner will be required to create its own action plan that identifies each project, who will oversee the task, how it will be financed and when it is estimated to occur.

L. Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan.

Templates and instructions to aid in the compilation of this information will be provided to all committed planning partners. Each partner will be expected to complete their templates in a timely manner and according to the timeline specified by the Steering Committee.

NOTE: Once this plan is completed, and DMA compliance has been determined for each partner, maintaining that eligibility will be dependent upon each partner implementing the plan implementation-maintenance protocol identified in the plan. At a minimum, this means completing the ongoing plan maintenance protocol identified in the plan. Partners that do not participate in this plan maintenance strategy may be deemed ineligible by the partnership, and thus lose their DMA eligibility.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes A-4
Eligible entities that do not wish to participate in the multi-jurisdictional planning proces s or fail to meet the requirements contained in this document may choose to link to the plan in pursuit of future adoption after the completion of the current effort.

Appendix A. 0BPlanning Partner Expectations
A-5
Exhibit A
Example Letter of Commitment

Lisa Hulette
Permit Sonoma | County of Sonoma
2550 Ventura Ave
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Re: Letter of Commitment as a Participating Jurisdiction in the Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Plan 2021
Dear Permit Sonoma | Sonoma County,
As the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) local hazard mitigation plan requirements under 44 CFR §201.6 identify criteria for multi-jurisdictional mitigation plans including the participation and collaboration of regional planning and mitigation partners, this letter of commitment is submitted to confirm the participation of <insert agency name> as a Planning Partner in the Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Plan 2021.

As a condition of participation, <insert agency name> agrees to meet the requirements for mitigation plans identified in 44 CFR §201.6, and to provide timely cooperation and participation to produce a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan with the County of Sonoma.
<insert agency name> understands that it must engage in the following planning processes, as detailed in FEMA’s Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance dated March 1, 2013. Planning processes include, but are not limited to the following:
• Review of existing 2016 Sonoma County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan • Identification of local hazards, risk assessment, and vulnerability analysis • Participation in the formulation of mitigation goals and actions • Participation in community engagement and public outreach in the development of the plan • Timely response to requests for information by the coordinating agency and consultants, and adherence to established deadlines
• Formal adoption of the hazard mitigation plan by the planning partner jurisdiction’s governing body • Tracking and monthly submission of personnel hours spent on the hazard mitigation planning effort

Sincerely,

Name ___________________________________
Title ____________________________________
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes A-6
Exhibit B
Planning Team Contact information

Name Representing Address e-mail
Lisa Hulette Permit Sonoma | Sonoma
County
2550 Ventura Ave
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Lisa.hewletter@sonoma-
county.org
Rob Flaner Tetra Tech, Inc. 90 S. Blackwood Ave
Eagle, ID 83616
[email protected]
Bart Spencer Tetra Tech, Inc. 1999 Harrison St., Ste 500 Oakland, CA 946122
[email protected]
Appendix A. 0BPlanning Partner Expectations
A-7
Exhibit C.

Overview of HAZUS

Overview of HAZUS-MH (Multi-Hazard)
http://www.fema.gov/hazus/dl_mhpres.shtmHAZUS-MH, is a nationally applicable standardized methodology and software program that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, and hurricane winds. HAZUS-MH was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under contract with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). NIBS maintains committees of wind, flood, earthquake and software experts to provide technical oversight and guidance to HAZUS-MH development. Loss estimates produced by HAZUS-MH are based on current scientific and engineering knowledge of the effects of hurricane winds, floods, and earthquakes. Estimating losses is essential to decision-making at all levels of government, providing a basis for developing mitigation plans and policies, emergency preparedness, and response and recovery planning.

HAZUS-MH uses state-of-
the-art geographic
information system (GIS)
software to map and display
hazard data and the results of
damage and economic loss
estimates for buildings and
infrastructure. It also allows
users to estimate the impacts
of hurricane winds, floods,
tsunamis, and earthquakes on
populations. The latest
release, HAZUS-MH 4.0, is
an updated version of
HAZUS-MH that
incorporates many new
features which improve both
the speed and functionality of
the models. For information
on software and hardware
requirements to run HAZUS-
MH 4.0, see HAZUS-MH Hardware and Software Requirements.

HAZUS-MH Analysis Levels
HAZUS-MH provides for three levels of analysis:

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes A-8
 A Level 1 analysis yields a rough estimate based on the nationwide database and is a great way to begin the risk assessment process and prioritize high-risk communities.  A Level 2 analysis requires the input of additional or refined data and hazard maps that will produce more accurate risk and loss estimates. Assistance from local emergency management personnel, city planners, GIS professionals, and others may be necessary for this level of analysis.  A Level 3 analysis yields the most accurate estimate of loss and typically requires the involvement of technical experts such as structural and geotechnical engineers who can modify loss parameters based on to the specific conditions of a community. This level analysis will allow users to supply their own techniques to study special conditions such as dam breaks and tsunamis. Engineering and other expertise is needed at this level.

Three data input tools have been developed to support data collection. The Comprehensive Data Management System helps users collect and manage local building data for more refined analyses than are possible with the national level data sets that come with HAZUS. The system has expanded capabilities for multi-hazard data collection. HAZUS-MH includes an enhanced Building Inventory Tool allows users to import building data and is most useful when handling large datasets, such as tax assessor records. The Flood Information Tool helps users manipulate flood data into the format required by the HAZUS flood model. All Three tools are included in the HAZUS-MH MR1 Application DVD.

HAZUS-MH Models
The HAZUS-MH Hurricane Wind Model gives users in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions and Hawaii the ability to estimate potential damage and loss to residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. It also allows users to estimate direct economic loss, post-storm shelter needs and building debris. In the future, the model will include the capability to estimate wind effects in island territories, storm surge, indirect economic losses, casualties, and impacts to utility and transportation lifelines and agriculture. Loss models for other severe wind hazards will be included in the future. Details about the Hurricane Wind Model.

The HAZUS-MH Flood Model is capable of assessing riverine and coastal flooding. It estimates potential damage to all classes of buildings, essential facilities, transportation and utility lifelines, vehicles, and agricultural crops. The model addresses building debris generation and shelter requirements. Direct losses are estimated based on physical damage to structures, contents, and building interiors. The effects of flood warning are taken into account, as are flow velocity effects. Details about the Flood Model.

The HAZUS-MH Earthquake Model, The HAZUS earthquake model provides loss estimates of damage and loss to buildings, essential facilities, transportation and utility lifelines, and population based on scenario or probabilistic earthquakes. The model addresses debris generation, fire-following, casualties, and shelter requirements. Direct losses are estimated based on physical damage to structures, contents,

Appendix A. 0BPlanning Partner Expectations
A-9
inventory, and building interiors. The earthquake model also includes the Advanced Engineering Building Module for single- and group-building mitigation analysis. Details about the Earthquake Model.

The HAZUS-MH Tsunami Model represents the first new disaster module for the Hazus software in almost 15 years and is the culmination of work completed on the Hazus Tsunami Methodology Development (FEMA, 2013) by a team of tsunami experts, engineers, modelers, emergency planners, economists, social scientists, geographic information system (GIS) analysts, and software developers. A Tsunami Oversight Committee provided technical direction and review of the methodology development. New features with the model include:
• Territory Analysis: This release represents the first time that analysis will be available for U.S. territories (Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands). • New Point Format: The Hazus General Building Stock for the Tsunami release will use a new National Structure Inventory point format (details in User Release Notes available with download). • Case Studies: The Tsunami Module will require user-provided data, so the Hazus Team has provided five case study datasets for users, which will be available on the MSC download site. • Two Types of Damage Analysis: Users will be able to run both near-source (Earthquake + Tsunami) and distant-source (Tsunami only) damage analysis.

Additionally, HAZUS-MH can perform multi-hazard analysis by providing access to the average annualized loss and probabilistic results from the hurricane wind, flood, and earthquake models and combining them to provide integrated multi-hazard reports and graphs. HAZUS-MH also contains a third-party model integration capability that provides access and operational capability to a wide range of natural, man-made, and technological hazard models (nuclear and conventional blast, radiological, chemical, and biological) that will supplement the natural hazard loss estimation capability (hurricane wind, flood, tsunami and earthquake) in HAZUS-MH.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to Hazard
Mitigation Plan

B-1
B. PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN
Not all eligible local governments are included in the Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021. Some or all of these non-participating local governments may choose to “link” to the Plan at some point to gain eligibility for programs under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA). The following “linkage” procedures define the requirements established by the planning team for dealing with an increase in the number of planning partners linked to this plan. No currently non-participating jurisdiction within the defined planning area is obligated to link to this plan. These jurisdictions can choose to do their own “complete” plan that addresses all required elements of Section 201.6 or Section 201.7 of Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR).

INCREASING THE PARTNERSHIP THROUGH LINKAGE
Eligibility
Eligible jurisdictions located in the planning area may link to this plan at any point during the plan’s performance period (5 years after final approval). Eligibility will be determined by the following factors:
• The linking jurisdiction is a local or tribal government as defined by the Disaster Mitigation Act. • The boundaries or service area of the linking jurisdiction is completely contained within the boundaries of the planning area established during the 2020-2021 hazard mitigation planning process. • The linking jurisdiction’s critical facilities were included in the critical facility and infrastructure risk assessment completed during the 2020 – 2021 plan development process..

Requirements
It is expected that linking jurisdictions will complete the requirements outlined below and submit their completed template to the lead agency Permit Sonoma | Sonoma County for review within six months of beginning the linkage process:
• The eligible jurisdiction requests a “Linkage Package” by contacting the Point of Contact (POC) for the plan:

Lisa Hulette
Permit Sonoma
2550 Ventura Ave
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
• The POC will provide a linkage procedure package that includes linkage information and a linkage tool- kit:

Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to Hazard Mitigation Plan B-2
 Linkage Information
o Procedures for linking to the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan o Planning partner’s expectations for linking jurisdictions o A sample “letter of intent” to link to the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan o A copy of Section 201.6 and Section 201.7 of 44 CFR, which defines the federal requirements for a local and tribal hazard mitigation plans.
 Linkage Tool-Kit
o Copy of Volume 1 and 2 of the plan
o A special purpose district or tribe template and instructions o A catalog of hazard mitigation alternatives
o A sample resolution for plan adoption
• The new jurisdiction will be required to review both volumes of the Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021, which include the following key components for the planning area:
 Goals and objectives
 The planning area risk assessment
 Comprehensive review of alternatives
 Countywide actions
 Plan implementation and maintenance procedures.

Once this review is complete, the jurisdiction will complete its specific annex using the template and instructions provided by the POC.
• The development of the new jurisdiction’s annex must not be completed by one individual in isolation.

The jurisdiction must develop, implement and describe a public involvement strategy and a methodology to identify and vet jurisdiction-specific actions. The original partnership was covered under a uniform public involvement strategy and a process to identify actions that covered the planning area described in Volume 1 and Volume 2 of this plan. Since new partners were not addressed by these strategies, they will have to initiate new strategies and describe them in their annex. For consistency, new partners are encouraged to develop and implement strategies similar to those described in this plan. • The public involvement strategy must ensure the public’s ability to participate in the plan development process. At a minimum, the new jurisdiction must solicit public opinion on hazard mitigation at the onset of the linkage process and hold one or more public meetings to present the draft jurisdiction-specific annex for comment at least two weeks prior to adoption by the governing body. The POC will have resources available to aid in the public involvement strategy, including:
 The questionnaire utilized in the plan development
 Presentations from public meeting workshops and the public comment period  Press releases used throughout the planning process
 The plan website.
• The methodology to identify actions should include a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard and a description of the process by which chosen actions were identified. As part of this process, linking jurisdictions should coordinate the selection of actions amongst the jurisdiction’s various departments. • Once their public involvement strategy and template are completed, the new jurisdiction will submit the completed package to the POC for a pre-adoption review to ensure conformance with the multi- jurisdictional plan format and linkage procedure requirements. • The POC will review for the following:

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes B-3
 Documentation of public involvement and action plan development strategies  Conformance of template entries with guidelines outlined in instructions  Chosen actions are consistent with goals, objectives, and mitigation catalog of the Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021
 A designated point of contact
 A completed FEMA plan review crosswalk.
• Plans will be reviewed by the POC and submitted to California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for review and approval.
• Cal OES will review plans for state compliance. Non-compliant plans are returned to the lead agency for correction. Compliant plans are forwarded to FEMA for review with annotation as to the adoption status. • FEMA reviews the linking jurisdiction’s plan in association with the approved plan to ensure DMA compliance. FEMA notifies the new jurisdiction of the results of review with copies to Cal OES and the approved plan lead agency.
• Linking jurisdiction corrects plan shortfalls (if necessary) and resubmits to Cal OES through the approved plan lead agency.
• For plans with no shortfalls from the FEMA review that have not been adopted, the new jurisdiction governing authority adopts the plan and forwards adoption resolution to FEMA with copies to lead agency and Cal OES.
• FEMA regional director notifies the new jurisdiction’s governing authority of the plan’s approval.

The new jurisdiction plan is then included with the multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan and the linking jurisdiction is committed to participate in the ongoing plan maintenance strategy identified in Chapter 21, Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan.

DECREASING THE PARTNERSHIP
The eligibility afforded under this process to the planning partnership can be rescinded in two ways. First, a participating planning partner can ask to be removed from the partnership. This may be done because the partner has decided to develop its own plan or has identified a different planning process for which it can gain eligibility.

A partner that wishes to voluntarily leave the partnership shall inform the POC of this desire in writing. This notification can occur any time during the calendar year. A jurisdiction wishing to pursue this avenue is advised to make sure that it is eligible under the new planning effort, to avoid any period of being out of compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act.

After receiving this notification, the POC shall immediately notify both Cal OES and FEMA in writing that the partner in question is no longer covered by the Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021, and that the eligibility afforded that partner under this plan should be rescinded based on this notification.

The second way a partner can be removed from the partnership is by failure to meet the participation requirements specified in the “Planning Partner Expectations” package provided to each partner at the beginning of the process, or the plan maintenance and implementation procedures specified in Volume 1 of the plan. Each partner agreed to these terms by adopting the plan.

Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to Hazard Mitigation Plan B-4
Eligibility status of the planning partnership will be monitored by the POC. The determination of whether a partner is meeting its participation requirements will be based on the following parameters:
• Are partners notifying the POC of changes in designated points of contact? • Are the partners supporting the Steering Committee by attending designated meetings or responding to needs identified by the body?
• Are the partners continuing to be supportive as specified in the planning partners expectations package provided to them at the beginning of the process?
Participation in the plan does not end with plan approval. This partnership was formed on the premise that a group of planning partners would pool resources and work together to strive to reduce risk within the planning area.

Failure to support this premise lessens the effectiveness of this effort. The following procedures will be followed to remove a partner due to the lack of participation:
• The POC will advise the Steering Committee of this pending action and provide evidence or justification for the action. Justification may include: failure to attend meetings determined to be mandatory by the Steering Committee, failure to act on the partner’s action plan, or inability to reach designated point of contact after a minimum of five attempts.
• The Steering Committee will review information provided by POC, and determine action by a vote. The Steering Committee will invoke the voting process established in the ground rules established during the formation of this body.
• Once the Steering Committee has approved an action, the POC will notify the planning partner of the pending action in writing via certified mail. This notification will outline the grounds for the action, and ask the partner if it is their desire to remain as a partner. This notification shall also clearly identify the ramifications of removal from the partnership. The partner will be given 30 days to respond to the notification.
• Confirmation by the partner that they no longer wish to participate or failure to respond to the notification shall trigger the procedures for voluntary removal discussed above. • Should the partner respond that they would like to continue participation in the partnership, they must clearly articulate an action plan to address the deficiencies identified by the POC. This action plan shall be reviewed by the Steering Committee to determine whether the actions are appropriate to rescind the action. Those partners that satisfy the Steering Committee’s review will remain in the partnership, and no further action is required.
• Automatic removal from the partnership will be implemented for partners where these actions have to be initiated more than once in a 5-year planning cycle.

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 Appendix C. Annex Instructions and Templates

Annex Templates and
Instructions
for Municipalities

1-1

1. JURISDICTION NAME

1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: [email protected]
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: [email protected]

Development of this annex was carried out by the members of the local mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Local Mitigation Planning Team Members
Name Title

1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE

1.2.1 Location
___[jurisdiction name]___ is in ___[general location description]___ The current boundaries generally extend from ___[describe]___, encompassing an area of ___[area in square miles]___.

1.2.2 History
___[jurisdiction name]___ was incorporated in ___[date]___. ___[brief historical summary]___

1.2.3 Climate
The climate of ___[jurisdiction name]___ is ___[general description]___.

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-2

1.2.4 Governing Body Format
___[general description]___.

The __[name of adopting body]___ assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; __[name of oversight agency]__ will oversee its implementation.

1.3 CURRENT TRENDS

1.3.1 Population
According to ___[identify data source]___, the population of ___[jurisdiction name]___ as of ___[month year]___ was ___[population]___ Since ___[year]___, the population has grown at an average annual rate of ___[number]___ percent.

1.3.2 Development
_DESCRIBE TRENDS IN GENERAL__.

Table 1-2 summarizes development trends in the performance period since the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation plan, as well as expected future development trends.

Table 1-2. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land
since the preparation of the previous hazard
mitigation plan?
Yes/No
• If yes, give the estimated area annexed
and estimated number of parcels or
structures.
____________
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any
areas during the performance period of this
plan?
Yes/No
• If yes, describe land areas and dominant
uses.
____________
• If yes, who currently has permitting
authority over these areas?
____________
Are any areas targeted for development or
major redevelopment in the next five years?
Yes/No
• If yes, briefly describe, including whether
any of the areas are in known hazard risk
areas
____________
How many permits for new construction
were issued in your jurisdiction since the
preparation of the previous hazard
mitigation plan?
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Single Family __ __ __ __ __
Multi-Family __ __ __ __ __
Other (commercial, mixed use,
etc.)
__ __ __ __ __
Total __ __ __ __ __
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-3
Criterion Response
Provide the number of new-construction
permits for each hazard area or provide a
qualitative description of where development
has occurred.
• Special Flood Hazard Areas: #
• Landslide: #
• High Liquefaction Areas: #
• Tsunami Inundation Area: #
• Wildfire Risk Areas: #
Describe the level of buildout in the
jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s
buildable lands inventory. If no such
inventory exists, provide a qualitative
description.
____________

1.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 1-3. • Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 1-4. • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1-5. • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1-6. • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 1-7. • Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 1-8. • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1-9. • The community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 1-10.

Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation actions.

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-4
Table 1-3. Legal and Regulatory Capability
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, & Requirements
Building Code Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Zoning Code Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Subdivisions Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Stormwater Management Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Post-Disaster Recovery Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Real Estate Disclosure Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Growth Management Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Site Plan Review Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Environmental Protection Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Flood Damage Prevention Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Emergency Management Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Climate Change Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Other Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Planning Documents
General Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Is the plan compliant with Assembly Bill
2140?
Yes/No
Comment:

Capital Improvement Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
How often is the plan
updated?
____________
Comment:

Disaster Debris Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Comment:

Floodplain or Watershed Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Comment:

Stormwater Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Urban Water Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Comment:

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-5
Local Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority State Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Habitat Conservation Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Economic Development Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Shoreline Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Comment:

Forest Management Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Climate Action Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Comprehensive Emergency Management
Plan
Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk
Assessment (THIRA)
Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Post-Disaster Recovery Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Comment:

Continuity of Operations Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Comment:

Public Health Plan Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Other Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Comment:

Table 1-4. Development and Permitting Capability
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes/No • If no, who does? If yes, which department? ____________ Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard area?
Yes/No
Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? Yes/No

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-6
Table 1-5. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes/No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes/No
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes/No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes/No (If yes, specify) Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes/No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes/No State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes/No
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes/No Other Yes/No (if yes, specify)

Table 1-6. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices
Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices
Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes/No Insert appropriate information Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes/No Insert appropriate information Surveyors Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes/No Insert appropriate information Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes/No Insert appropriate information Emergency manager Yes/No Insert appropriate information Grant writers Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Other Yes/No Insert appropriate information

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-7
Table 1-7. Education and Outreach Capability
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes/No Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes/No Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes/No • If yes, briefly describe. Insert appropriate information Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes/No • If yes, briefly describe. Insert appropriate information Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation?
Yes/No
• If yes, briefly describe. Insert appropriate information Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information?
Yes/No
• If yes, briefly describe. Insert appropriate information Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes/No • If yes, briefly describe. Insert appropriate information

Table 1-8. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Insert appropriate information Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) Insert appropriate information Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? Yes/No What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last amended? Insert appropriate information Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum requirements?
Meets/Exceeds
• If exceeds, in what ways? Insert appropriate information When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact?
Insert appropriate information
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed?
Yes/No
• If so, state what they are. Insert appropriate information Are any RiskMAP projects currently underway in your jurisdiction? Yes/No • If so, state what they are. Insert appropriate information Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction?
Yes/No
• If no, state why. Insert appropriate information
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program?
Yes/No
• If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? Insert appropriate information Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? Yes/No • If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving its CRS Classification? Yes/No • If no, is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? Yes/No How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a Insert appropriate information • What is the insurance in force? $_______
• What is the premium in force? $_______
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-8
Criterion Response
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a Insert appropriate information • How many claims are still open or were closed without payment? Insert appropriate information • What were the total payments for losses? $_______
a. According to FEMA statistics as of MONTH XX, 20XX

Table 1-9. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
Community Rating System Yes/No _______ Date
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes/No _______ Date Public Protection Yes/No _______ Date
Storm Ready Yes/No _______ Date
Firewise Yes/No _______ Date

Table 1-10. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities High/Medium/Low Comment:

Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High/Medium/Low Comment:

Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks High/Medium/Low Comment:

Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes
High/Medium/Low
Comment:

Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Champions for climate action in local government departments High/Medium/Low Comment:

Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High/Medium/Low Comment:

Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation High/Medium/Low Comment:

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-9
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted High/Medium/Low Comment:

Public Capacity
Local residents knowledge of and understanding of climate risk High/Medium/Low Comment:

Local residents support of adaptation efforts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.

1.5 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future. Resources listed at the end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.

1.5.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and the following other local plans and programs:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description

1.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex identified the following plans and programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do so in the future:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-10
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description

1.6 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 1-11 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in ___[jurisdiction name]___. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including ___[jurisdiction name]___, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.

Table 1-11. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______

1.7 HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 1-12 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.

Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-11
Table 1-12. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category 1 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
2 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
3 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
4 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
5 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
6 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
7 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
8 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
9 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low

1.8 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.

This section provides information on a few key vulnerabilities for the jurisdiction. Available jurisdiction-specific risk maps of the hazards are provided at the end of this annex.

1.8.1 Repetitive Loss Properties
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: XX • Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: XX • Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been mitigated: XX

1.8.2 Other Noted Vulnerabilities
The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.

Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan presented in this annex.

1.9 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Table 1-13 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-12
Table 1-13. Status of Previous Plan Actions
Removed;
Carried Over to Plan
Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Action #
in Update
Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

1.10 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Table 1-14 lists the identified actions, which make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction.

Table 1-15 identifies the priority for each action. Table 1-16 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.

Table 1-14. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency Support Agency Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action xxx-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in hazard areas, prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard areas.

Hazards Mitigated: Earthquake, flooding, landslide, tsunami, wildfire Existing 3, 4, 10 TBD TBD High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-term Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-13
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency Support Agency Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action xxx-2— Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions in the community, including ______________
Hazards Mitigated: Dam failure, drought, earthquake, flooding, landslide, tsunami, wildfire New & Existing 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General Funds
Ongoing
Action xxx-3—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.

Hazards Mitigated: All hazards
New & Existing 1, 5, 8 TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
Action xxx-4—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
• Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates. • Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.

Hazards Mitigated: Dam failure, flooding, severe weather, tsunami, sea level rise New & Existing 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General Funds
Ongoing
Action xxx-5—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change including but not limited to the following:
• _______.

Hazards Mitigated: TBD
New & Existing 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General Funds Short-term Action xxx-6— Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate backup power, including ________.

Hazards Mitigated: Dam failure, earthquake, flooding, landslide, severe weather, tsunami, wildfire Existing 2, 6, 9
Action xxx-7—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

Action xxx-8—Description
Hazards Mitigated:

Action xxx-9—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

Action xxx-10—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

Action xxx-11—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

a. Short-term = Completion within 5 years; Long-term = Completion within 10 years; Ongoing= Continuing new or existing program with no completion date
See the introduction to this volume for list of acronyms used here.

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-14

Table 1-15. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
TBD 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
TBD 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
TBD 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
TBD 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
TBD 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Medium
TBD 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium High

a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.

Table 1-16. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
____________
____________
____________
____________
Medium-Risk Hazards
____________
____________
____________
____________
Low-Risk Hazards
____________
____________
____________
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.

Report Title Jurisdiction Name
1-15

1.11 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF INFORMATION FOR THIS ANNEX The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide information for this annex.
• ___[jurisdiction name]___ Municipal Code—The municipal code was reviewed for the full capability assessment and for identifying opportunities for action plan integration. • ___[jurisdiction name]___ Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The flood damage prevention ordinance was reviewed for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. • <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED> • <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED> • <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED> • <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED> The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the development of the mitigation action plan.
• <INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>

1.12 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section

1.13 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section

1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CITY/COUNTY ANNEX

TEMPLATE
The jurisdictional annex templates for the 2020 Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan update will be completed in three phases.

This document provides instructions for completing all three phases of the template for municipalities.

The target timeline for phase completion is as follows:
• Phase 1—Profile, Trends and Previous Plan Status
 Deployed: Month xx, xxxx
 Due: Month xx, xxxx
• Phase 2—Capability Assessment and Information Sources  Deployed: Month xx, xxxx
 Due: Month xx, xxxx
• Phase 3—Risk Ranking, Action Plan, and Information
Sources
 Deployed: Month xx, xxxx
 Due: Month xx, xxxx
Please direct any questions and return your completed Phase 3 template by April __, 2021 to:

Bart Spencer
Tetra Tech, Inc.
(650) 324-1810
E-mail:[email protected]
A Note About Formatting:

The template for the annex is a
Microsoft Word document in a
format that will be used in the final
plan. Partners are asked to use
this template so that a uniform
product will be completed for each
partner.

Content should be entered within
the yellow, highlighted text that is
currently in the template, rather
than creating text in another
document and pasting it into the
template. Pasting text from another
source may alter the style and
formatting of the document.

The numbering of sections and
tables in the document will be
updated when completed annexes
are combined into the final
document. Please do not adjust
any of this numbering.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 2 IMPORTANT! READ THIS FIRST
Phase 1 and Phase 2 templates were previously provided to your jurisdiction for completion.

If your jurisdiction returned the completed Phase 1 & 2 templates:
• The Phase 1 & 2 content you provided is already incorporated into your Phase 3 template. • Please review the template to see if we have inserted any comments requesting further work to be done on Phase 1 or 2
o If any comments are included, please address them. Then, begin your work on Phase 3 following the Phase 3 instructions beginning on page 12. o If no comments are included, then you DO NOT need to do any further work on the Phase 1 or Phase 2 content. Go directly to the instructions for Phase 3, beginning on page 12.

If your jurisdiction has NOT yet done any work on the Phase 1 or Phase 2 template:
• Follow the instructions below for providing the Phase 1 and Phase 2 information. • Then proceed with the Phase 3 instructions.

If your jurisdiction started work on the Phase 1 or 2 template but never completed and submitted it, please copy the work you had completed so far into the new template. Then complete Phases 1, 2, and 3 following the instructions provided here.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 3 PHASE 1 INSTRUCTIONS

CHAPTER TITLE
You jurisdiction’s name has already been entered as the title of the chapter. Please review and correct if needed.

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the primary point of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan.

In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction.

Note: Both of these contacts should match the contacts that were designated in your jurisdiction’s letter of intent to participate in this planning process. If you have changed the primary or secondary contact, please let the planning team know by inserting a comment into the document.

Complete the table providing the names and titles of members of the local mitigation planning team responsible for completing this annex. Team membership should consist of agencies with authority to regulate development and enforce local ordinances or regulatory standards, such as building/fire code enforcement, emergency management, emergency services, floodplain management, parks and recreation, planning/community development, public information, public works/engineering, stormwater management, transportation, or infrastructure.

JURISDICTION PROFILE
Provide information specific to your jurisdiction as indicated, in a style similar to the examples provided below.

This should be information that will not be provided in the overall mitigation plan document.

Location
Describe the community’s location, size and prominent features, similarly to the example below The City of Jones is in the northwest portion of Smith County, along the Pacific Coast in northern California. It is almost 300 miles of San Francisco. The city’s total area is 4.2 square miles, with boundaries generally extending north-south from State Highway 111 to the Johnson River and east-west from Coast Road to East Frank Avenue. The City of Allen is to the north, unincorporated county is to the west, the City of Bethany is to the south, and the Pacific Ocean is to the west.

Jones is home to the University of Arbor, Bickerson Manufacturing, and the western portion of Soosoo National Park.

History
Describe the community’s history, focusing on economy and development, and note its year of incorporation, similarly to the example below
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 4 The City of Jones was incorporated in 1858. The area was settled during the gold rush in the 1850s as a supply center for miners. As the gold rush died down, timber and fishing became the area's major economic resources. By 1913, the Jones Teachers College, a predecessor to today's University of Arbor, was founded. Recently, the presence of the college has come to shape Jones’ population into a young and educated demographic. In 1981 the City developed the Jones Marsh and Wildlife sanctuary, an environmentally friendly sewage treatment enhancement system.

With numerous annexations since its original incorporation, the city’s area has almost doubled. Today it features a commercial core in the center of the city, with mostly residential areas to the north and south, the university to the west and the national park on the east.

Climate
Describe the community’s key climate characteristics, similarly to the example below Jones’ weather is typical of the Northern California coast, with mild summers and cool, wet winters. It rarely freezes in the winter and it is rarely hot in the summer. Annual average rainfall is over 40 inches, with 80 percent of that falling from November through April. The average year-round temperature is 59ºF. Humidity averages 72 to 87 percent. Prevailing winds are from the north, and average 5 mph.

Governing Body Format
Describe the community’s key governance elements, similarly to the example below The City of Jones is governed by a five-member city council. The City consists of six departments:

Finance, Environmental Services, Community Development, Public Works, Police and the City Manager's Office. The City has 13 commissions and task forces, which report to the City Council.

The City Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the City Manager will oversee its implementation.

CURRENT TRENDS
Population
For population data, use the most current population figure for your jurisdiction based on an official means of tracking (e.g., the U.S. Census or state office of financial management).

According to California Department of Finance, the population of Jones as of July 2018 was 17,280.

Since 2010, the population has grown at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent, though that rate is declining, with an annual average of only 0.8 percent since 2015.

Development
In the yellow-highlighted text that says “Describe trends in general,” provide a brief description of your jurisdiction’s recent development trends similar to the following example:

Anticipated development levels for Jones are low to moderate, consisting primarily of residential development. The majority of recent development has been infill. Residentially, there has been a focus on affordable housing and a push for more secondary mother-in-law units on properties.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 5 The City of Jones adopted its general plan in July 2000. The plan focuses on issues of the greatest concern to the community. City actions, such as those relating to land use allocations, annexations, zoning, subdivision and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent with the plan. Future growth and development in the city will be managed as identified in the general plan.

Complete the table titled “Recent and Expected Future Development Trends.” Please note:
• The portion of the table requesting the number of permits by year is specifically looking for development permits for new construction. If your jurisdiction does not have the ability to differentiate between permit types, please list the total number of permits and indicate “N/A” (not applicable) for the permit sub-types. • If your jurisdiction does not have the ability to track permits for each hazard area, please delete the bullet list of hazard areas and insert a qualitative description of where development has occurred.

STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Please note that this section only applies to jurisdictions that are conducting updates to previously approved hazard mitigation plans. If your jurisdiction has not previously participated in an approved plan, please enter a note stating this, and we will remove this section in your final annex.

Also note that this section is further back in the annex than the rest of the Phase 1 content. Some Phase 2 sections are included before it.

All action items identified in prior mitigation plans must be reconciled in this update. Action items must all be marked as ONE of the following; check the appropriate box (place an X) and provide the following information:
• Completed—If an action has been completed since the prior plan was prepared, please check the appropriate box and provide a date of completion in the comment section. If an action has been initiated and is an ongoing program (e.g. annual outreach event), you may mark it as completed and note that it is ongoing in the comments. If an action addresses an ongoing program you would like to continue to include in your action plan, please see the Carried Over to Plan Update bullet below. • Removed—If action items are to be removed because they are no longer feasible, a reason must be given. Lack of funding does not mean that it is no longer feasible, unless the sole source of funding for an action is no longer available. Place a comment in the comment section explaining why the action is no longer feasible or barriers that prevented the action from being implemented (e.g., “Action no longer considered feasible due to lack of political support.”). If the wording and/or intent of a previously identified action is unclear, this can be a reason for removal. A change in community priorities may also be a reason for removal and should be discussed in the comments. • Carried Over to Plan Update—If an action is in progress, is ongoing, or has not been initiated and you would like to carry it over to the plan update, please check the “Check if Yes” column under “Carried Over to Plan Update.” Selecting this option indicates that the action will be included in the mitigation action plan for this update. If you are carrying over an action to the update, please include a comment describing any action that has been taken or why the action was not taken (specifically, any barriers or obstacles that prevented the action from moving forward or slowed progress). Leave the last column, “Action # in Update,” blank at this point. This will be filled in after completing the updated action plan in Phase 3.

Please ensure that you have provided a status and a comment for each action.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 6 THIS COMPLETES PHASE 1
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 7 PHASE 2 INSTRUCTIONS

CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Please note that it is unlikely that you will be able to complete all sections of the capability assessment on your own. You will likely need to reach out to other departments within your local government, such as planning, finance, public works, etc. It may be beneficial to provide these individuals with background information about this planning process, as you will want input from them again during Phase 3 of your annex development.

Legal and Regulatory Capability
In the table titled “Legal and Regulatory Capability,” indicate “Yes” or “No” for each listed code, ordinance, requirement or planning document in each of the following columns:
• Local Authority—Enter “Yes” if your jurisdiction has prepared or adopted the identified item; otherwise, enter “No.” If yes, then enter the code, ordinance number, or plan name and its date of adoption in the comments column. Note: If you are entering yes, please be sure that you are providing a comment with the appropriate code, ordinance or plan.
• Other Jurisdiction Authority—Enter “Yes” if there are any regulations that may impact your jurisdiction that are enforced or administered by another agency (e.g., a state agency or special purpose district) or if you know that there are any state or federal regulations or laws that would prohibit local implementation of the identified item; otherwise, enter “No.” Note: If you answer yes, please indicate the other agency in the comments.
• State Mandated—Enter “Yes” if state laws or other requirements enable or require the listed item to be implemented at the local level; otherwise, enter “No.” Note: If you are entering yes, please be sure that you are providing a comment.
• Integration Opportunity—Enter “Yes” if your jurisdiction has opportunities for integrating the code, ordinance or plan with the hazard mitigation plan. Consider entering “Yes” in the Integration Opportunity column based on your responses to the following:
 If you answered “Yes” in the Local Authority column for this code, ordinance or plan:
 Does the code, ordinance or plan already address hazards and their potential impacts? o If so, should it be updated or revised to reflect new information about risk? o If not, will (or should) the code, ordinance or plan be updated over the performance period of the hazard mitigation plan (5 years)?
 Does the code, ordinance or plan include specific projects that should be reviewed to incorporate hazard mitigation goals?
 Does the code, ordinance or plan include specific projects that should be included as action items in the hazard mitigation action plan?
 If you answered “No” in the Local Authority column for this code, ordinance or plan:
 Will your jurisdiction develop the code, ordinance or plan during the performance period of the hazard mitigation plan?

Note: Each capability with a “Yes” answer to Integration Opportunity will be discussed in more detail later in the annex. You may wish to keep notes when assessing the Integration Opportunity or review the “Integration with Other Planning Initiatives” section below.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 8 • Comments—Enter the code number and adoption date for any local code indicated as being in place; provide other comments as appropriate to describe capabilities for each entry. PLEASE DO NOT

OVERLOOK THIS STEP
For the categories “General Plan” and “Capital Improvement Plan,” answer the specific questions shown, in addition to completing the four columns indicating level of capability.

Development and Permit Capabilities
Complete the table titled “Development and Permitting Capabilities.” Fiscal Capability
Complete the table titled “Fiscal Capability” by indicating whether each of the listed financial resources is accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter “Yes” if the resource is fully accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter “No” if there are limitations or prerequisites that may hinder your use of this resource.

Administrative and Technical Capability
Complete the table titled “Administrative and Technical Capability” by indicating whether your jurisdiction has access to each of the listed personnel resources. Enter “Yes” or “No” in the column labeled “Available?”. If yes, then enter the department and position title in the right-hand column. If you have contract support staff with these capabilities, you can still answer “Yes.” Indicate in the department column that this resource is provided through contract support.

Education and Outreach Capabilities
Complete the table titled “Education and Outreach” to indicate your jurisdiction’s capabilities and existing efforts regarding hazard mitigation education and outreach.

National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
Complete the table titled “National Flood Insurance Program Compliance” by indicating your jurisdiction’s capabilities related to each question in the table.

Classification in Hazard Mitigation Programs
Complete the table titled “Community Classifications” to indicate your jurisdiction’s participation in various national programs related to natural hazard mitigation. For each program enter “Yes” or “No” in the second column to indicate whether your jurisdiction participates. If yes, then enter the classification that your jurisdiction has earned under the program in the third column and the date on which that classification was issued in the fourth column; enter “N/A” in the third and fourth columns if your jurisdiction is not participating. If you do not know your current classification, information is available at the following websites:
• Community Rating System— https://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/community-rating-system

• Storm Ready— https://www.weather.gov/stormready/communities • Firewise— http://www.firewise.org/usa-recognition-program/map-of-active-participants.aspx Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 9 • Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS)— https://www.isomitigation.com/bcegs/iso- s-building-code-effectiveness-grading-schedule-bcegs.html • Public Protection Classification— https://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/ Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Consider the climate change impact concerns identified for the planning area:
• Reduced snowpack
• Increased wildfires
• Sea level rise and inland flooding
• Threats to sensitive species (e.g. coho salmon)
• Loss in agricultural productivity (e.g. forestry, wine grapes, nursery products, dairy) • Public health and safety.

With those impacts in mind, complete the table titled “Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change” by indicating your jurisdiction’s capacity for each listed criterion as follows:
• High—The capacity exists and is in use.
• Medium—The capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement. • Low—The capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement. • Unsure—Not enough information is known to assign a rating.

This is a subjective assessment, but providing a few words of explanation is useful. It is highly recommended that you complete this table with an internal planning team after reviewing the results of the other capability assessment tables.

INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. The goal of integration is to ensure that the potential impact of hazards is considered in planning for future development. FEMA recommends integration as follows:
• Integrate hazard mitigation plan goals with community objectives (e.g. incorporate the goals for risk reduction and safety into the policies of other plans). • Use the risk assessment to inform plans and policies (e.g. incorporate risk assessment findings into land use plans, site plan review, emergency operations plans). • Implement mitigation actions through existing mechanisms (e.g. include mitigation projects in the capital improvement plan).
• Think about mitigation before and after a disaster (e.g. build recovery planning on existing mitigation plans and goals).

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 10 After reviewing the plans, programs and ordinances identified in the capability assessment tables, identify all plans and programs that have already been integrated with the hazard mitigation plan, and those that offer opportunities for future integration. The simplest way to do this is to review the Legal and Regulatory Capabilities table to see which items were marked as “Yes” under the Integration Opportunity column.

Existing Integration
In the highlighted bullet list, list items for which you entered “Yes” under the Integration Opportunity column of the “Legal and Regulatory Capability” table because the plan or ordinance already addresses potential impacts or includes specific projects that should be included as action items in the mitigation action plan. Consider listing items marked as Completed in the “Status of Previous Plan Actions” table if they were indicated as being ongoing actions. Provide a brief description of how the plan or ordinance is integrated. Examples are as follows:
• Capital Improvement Plan—The capital improvement plan includes projects can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will act to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plans. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment.
• Building Code and Fire Code—The City’s adoption of the 2016 California building and fire codes incorporated local modifications to account for the climatic, topographic and geographic conditions that exist in the City.
• General Plan—The general plan includes a “Safety, Services, and Infrastructure” element to protect the community from unreasonable risk by establishing policies and actions to avoid or minimize the following hazards:
 Geologic and seismic hazards
 Fire hazards
 Hazardous materials
 Flood control
 Impacts from climate change.
• Climate Action Plan—The City’s Climate Action Plan includes projects for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to likely impacts of climate change. These projects were reviewed to identify cross-planning initiates that serve both adaptation and mitigation objectives.

Note: Any plans that fall into this category should be reviewed during the development of the mitigation strategy in Phase 3 and included as appropriate.

Opportunities for Future Integration
List any remaining items that say “Yes” in the Integration Opportunity column in the Legal and Regulatory Capabilities and explain the process by which integration will occur. Examples follow:
• Zoning Code—The City is conducting a comprehensive update to its zoning code. The opportunity to incorporate additional mitigation and abatement measures will be considered for inclusion into the code. • Capital Improvement Projects—Capital improvement project proposals may take into consideration hazard mitigation potential as a means of evaluating project prioritization.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 11 • Post-Disaster Recovery Plan—The City does not have a recovery plan and intends to develop one as a mitigation planning action during the next five years. The plan will build on the goals and objectives identified in the hazard mitigation plan.

After you have accounted for all items marked as “Yes” under the Integration Opportunity column, consider other programs you may have in place in your jurisdiction that include routine consideration and management of hazard risk. Examples of such programs may include: tree pruning programs, right-of-way mowing programs, erosion control or stream maintenance programs, etc. Please add any such programs to the integration discussion and provide a brief description of how these programs manage (or could be adapted to manage) risk from hazards.

REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF INFORMATION FOR THIS ANNEX
Please note that this section will ultimately describe all information sources used to develop this annex, but that only the sources used for Phases 1 and 2 will be listed at this point. Additional sources will be added with the preparation of the Phase 3 annex.

This section should describe what resources you used to complete the annex and how you used them. Several items are started for you, but please be sure to update and enhance any descriptions. This may seem trivial or unimportant, but it is a requirement to pass the state and FEMA review process.

THIS COMPLETES PHASE 2
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 12 PHASE 3 INSTRUCTIONS

JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
In the table titled “Past Natural Hazard Events,” list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of damage it caused. You are welcome to include any events, but special attention should be made to include major storms and federally declared disasters. Please refer to the table below that lists hazard events in Sonoma County as recognized by the County, the state, and the federal government.

Presidential Disaster Declarations for Sonoma County
Year Dates Event Name
County
EOC
Activated
Gubernatorial
Declaration
Presidential
Declaration
2020 Sept. 4 – Nov. 17 Wildfires X
2020 Aug. 14 – Sept. 26 Wildfires X
2020 Jan. 20 – present COVID-19 Pandemic X X X
2019 October PG&E Power Shutoff X
2019 Oct. 23 – Nov. 7 Kincade Fire X X
2019 Feb. 24 – Mar. 1 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides
X X
2018 October PG&E Power Shutoff X
2017 October LNU Complex Fires X
2017 Oct. 8-31 Wildfires X
2017 Feb. 1-23 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides X X 2017 Jan. 3-12 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides X X 2014-2016 Feb. 25 Drought X
2015 Sep. 12-25 Valley Fire X X X
2014 Dec. 11-12 December Winter Storm X
2014 Aug. 24 South Napa Earthquake X X X
2013 Oct. 29 and Nov. 5 Lopez Protests X
2012 Dec. 2 Holiday Decoration Flood X
2011 Mar. 11 Great Tohoku Tsunami X X X
2009 Apr.-May H1N1 Influenza Pandemic
2007 Nov. 7 SF Oil Spill X
2006 Mar. 29-Apr. 16 Late Spring Storms X X
2005-2006 Dec. 31, 05–Jan. 3, 06 New Year’s Floods X X X 2004 Sept. 3-8 Geysers Fire X
2002-2003 Dec. 17, 02–Apr. 8, 03 December Winter Storms 1998-2000 Feb. 2, 1998–Jan. 4, 2000 Flood of '98/ Rio Nido Debris Flow X X X 1999 Feb. 8-10 February Winter Storm X
1997 Jan. 25 Superbowl Flood X
1996-1997 Dec. 30, 96–Jan. 4, 97 New Year's Flood X X X 1996 Oct. 27-28 Porter Creek Fire X
1996 Jul. 31–Aug. 20 Cavedale Fire X
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 13 Year Dates Event Name
County
EOC
Activated
Gubernatorial
Declaration
Presidential
Declaration
1996 Jul. 31–Aug. 20 Jenner Sandbarrier
1996 Feb. 4-5 February Winter Storm X
1995 Dec. 11-12 December Winter Storm X
1995 Mar. 7-15 Flood of '95, Part II X X X
1995 Jan. 8-31 Flood of '95, Part 1 X X X
1994 May–Sep. Fishing Emergency X X
1993 Jan. 20-25 Flood of ’93 X X X
1990-1991 Dec. 90–Feb. 91 Freeze of ’91 X X
1986 Feb. 12 – Mar. 10 Severe Storms, Flooding X
1983 Jan. 21 – Mar. 30 Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides, Tornadoes X 1981-1982 Dec. 19 – Jan. 8 Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides, High Tide X 1969 Jan. 26 Severe Storms, Flooding X
1964 Dec. 24 Heavy Rains and Flooding X

We recommend including most large-scale disasters, unless you know that there were no impacts on your jurisdiction. Specifically, we recommend that you include these events if you have damage estimate information or can provide a brief description of impacts that occurred within your community. In addition to these events, please refer to the NOAA storm events database included in the tool kit. We recommend conducting a search for the name of your jurisdiction in order to identify events with known impacts. Other potential sources of damage information include:
• Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state • Insurance claims data
• Newspaper archives
• Other plans/documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan, emergency response plan, etc.)
• Resident input.

If you do not have estimates for dollars of damage caused, please list “Not Available” in the appropriate column or simply list a brief description of the damages (e.g. Main Street closed as a result of flooding, downed trees and residential damages). Please note that tracking such damages is a valid and useful mitigation action if your jurisdiction does not currently track such information.

HAZARD RISK RANKING
The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area.

The risk-ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and the economy.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 14 The risk ranking for each jurisdiction is included in the Risk Ranking Summary tab in the Loss Matrix included in the toolkit. Tetra Tech has filled in the results for each jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in your template and include what you believe the rank should be and why. For example, drought was ranked as low; however, the jurisdiction’s economy is heavily reliant on water using industries, such as agriculture or manufacturing, so you believe it should be ranked as medium.

Also keep in mind that one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of actions in your plan. You will need to have at least one true mitigation action for each hazard ranked as “high” or “medium.” This is discussed in more detail in the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan section of these instructions.

The instructions below describe the methodology for how these rankings were derived. Please review before providing any comments.

The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area.

The risk-ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and the economy.

The risk ranking for each jurisdiction is included in the Risk Ranking Summary tab in the Loss Matrix included in the toolkit. Tetra Tech has filled in the results for each jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in your template and include what you believe the rank should be and why. For example, drought was ranked as low; however, the jurisdiction’s economy is heavily reliant on water using industries, such as agriculture or manufacturing, so you believe it should be ranked as medium.

Also keep in mind that one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of actions in your plan. You will need to have at least one true mitigation action for each hazard ranked as “high” or “medium.” This is discussed in more detail in the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan section of these instructions.

The instructions below describe the methodology for how these rankings were derived. Please review before providing any comments.

Risk Ranking Methodology
Review Risk Ranking in Template
Review the hazard risk ranking information that Tetra Tech has provided. The hazard with the highest risk rating is listed at the top of table titled “Hazard Risk Ranking” in your template and was given a rank of 1; the hazard with the second highest rating is listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings were given the same rank. “High,” Medium,” and “Low” assignments were given for each hazard of concern based on the total score (probability x impact). It is important to note, that this is determined by the scores rather than assigning a certain number of hazards to each category.

When reviewing the risk ranking results, it is important to remember that this exercise is about categorizing hazards into broad levels of risk (e.g. high, medium, low). It is not an exercise in precision.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 15 Review Risk Ranking in Loss Matrix
The following sections discuss the methodology used to develop the results included in your template. Please refer to the Loss Matrix provided in your tool kit in order to follow along.

Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard
A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area, although weight can be given to expected future probability of occurrence based on established return intervals and changing climate conditions. For example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. Each hazard was assigned a probability factor as follows:
• High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2) • Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1) • None—If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) Potential Impacts of Each Hazard
The impact of each hazard is divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on the economy. These categories are also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on the economy was assigned a weighting factor of 1.

Impact factors for each category (people, property, economy) are described below:
• People—Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event.

The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. Impact factors were assigned as follows:
 High—25 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)  Medium—10 percent to 24 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)  Low—9 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)  No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Property—Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event:
 High—25 percent or more of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)  Medium—10 percent to 24 percent of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
 Low—9 percent or less of the total replacement value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)  No impact—None of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Economy—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to the total replacement value of the property exposed to the hazard. For some hazards, such as wildland fire Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 16 and landslide, vulnerability may be considered to be the same or a portion of exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards.
 High—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent or more of the total replacement value (Impact Factor = 3)
 Medium—Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent to 9 percent of the total replacement value (Impact Factor = 2)
 Low—Estimated loss from the hazard is 4 percent or less of the total replacement value (Impact Factor = 1)
 No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0).

Impacts on People
The percent of the total population exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g. floodplain) can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the green highlighted column. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent and location the entire population or a portion of the population is considered to be exposed, depending on the hazard. For the drought hazard, it is common for jurisdictions to list “low” or “none,” because all people in the planning area would be exposed to drought, but impacts to the health and safety of individuals are expected to be minimal.

Impacts on Property
The percent of the total value exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g. floodplain) can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the blue highlighted column. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent and location (e.g. severe weather) the entire building stock is generally considered to be exposed. For the drought hazard, it is common for jurisdictions to list “low” or “none,” because all structures in the planning area would be exposed to drought, but impacts to structures are expected to be minimal.

Impacts on the Economy
The loss estimates for each hazard of concern that was modeled (i.e. dam failure, flood, earthquake) can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the purple highlighted column. For those hazards that have a defined extent and location, but do not have modelled loss results, loss estimates can be the same as exposure or a portion thereof.

For example, a large percentage of the building stock may be exposed to landslide or wildland fire risk, but it would not be expected that one event that resulted in loss to all exposed structures would occur. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent and location, exposure is based on the hazard type.

Risk Rating for Each Hazard
A risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and the economy:

Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + economy} This is the number that is shown in the risk ranking table in your template. Generally, score of 30 or greater receive a “high” rating, score between 15 and 30 receive a “medium” rating, and score of less than 15 receives a “low” rating.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 17 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Repetitive Loss Properties
A repetitive loss property is any property for which FEMA has paid two or more flood insurance claims in excess of $1,000 in any rolling 10-year period since 1978. In the space provided, Tetra Tech has inserted the following information based on data provided by FEMA:
• The number of any FEMA-identified repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction. • The number of any FEMA-identified severe-repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction. • The number (if any) of repetitive-loss or severe-repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction that have been mitigated. Mitigated for this exercise means that flood protection has been provided to the structure.

Please note that if your jurisdiction has any repetitive loss properties, we would strongly encourage you to include a mitigation action that addresses mitigating these properties.

Other Vulnerabilities
We would strongly encourage you to review the results of the risk assessment included in the tool kit, your jurisdiction’s natural events history, and any relevant public comments/input and develop a few sentences that discuss specific risks. You do not need to develop a sentence for every single parameter, but review the results and identify a few issues you would like to highlight. For example:
• Only about 2 percent of the jurisdiction’s population is estimated to reside in the 1 percent annual chance flood hazard area; however, 45 percent of the population is estimated to reside in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area where flood insurance is generally not required. • A magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Smithburg Fault may produce nearly 1 million tons of structure debris.
• Over the past 10 years, the jurisdiction has experienced more than $6 million in estimated damages from severe storm events.
• More than 50 buildings are located in areas that will be permanently inundated with 12 inches of sea level rise.
• The results of the public survey indicated that 40 percent of Smithburg residents would not be able to be self-sufficient for 5 days following a major event.

In addition, please list any noted vulnerabilities in your jurisdiction related to hazard mitigation that may not be apparent from the risk assessment and other information provided. This may include things such as the following:
• An urban drainage issue that results in localized flooding every time it rains. • An area of the community that frequently loses power due to a lack of tree maintenance. • A critical facility, such as a police station, that is not equipped with a generator. • A neighborhood that has the potential to have ingress and egress cut off as the result of a hazard event, such as a flood or earthquake (e.g. bridge only access). • Substantial number of buildings in one area of the community are unreinforced masonry or soft-story construction.
• An area along the river is eroding and threatening public and/or private property. • A large visitor population that may not be aware of tsunami risk.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 18 Spending some time thinking about the results of the risk assessment and other noted vulnerabilities will be a big help in the development of your mitigation strategy. Tetra Tech has inserted a few items in this section to get you started. In addition, two examples are shown in the table below.

Noted Vulnerability Example Mitigation Action
Only about 2 percent of the jurisdiction’s population is estimated to reside in the 1 percent annual chance flood hazard area; however, 45 percent of the population is estimated to reside in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area where flood insurance is generally not required.

Develop and implement an annual public information initiative that targets residents in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area. Provide information on the availability of relatively low cost flood insurance policies.

An urban drainage issue that results in localized flooding every time it rains.

Replace undersized culverts that are contributing to localized flooding. Priority areas include:
• The corner of Main Street and 1st Street
• Old Oak subdivision.

HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
This section is the heart of your jurisdictional annex. This is where you will identify the actions your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. All of the work that you have done thus far should provide you with a plethora of ideas for actions. With this in mind, we recommend that you review the following and develop a list of potential actions:
• Capability Assessment Section of Annex—Review the Legal and Regulatory Capability table, the Fiscal Capability table, the Administrative and Technical Capability table, the Education and Outreach table, and the Community Classification table.
 For any capability that you indicated that you did not have, ask yourself – should we have this capability? If yes, consider including an action to develop/acquire the capability.  Example: Ensure a staff person from public works and planning are trained in the use of FEMA’s benefit-cost analysis software.
 Review the Legal and Regulatory capabilities. If any have not been reviewed and updated in more than 10 years, consider an action to review and update the capability and, as appropriate, incorporate hazard mitigation principles or information obtained in the risk assessment (Note: actions such as this should also be identified in the opportunities for future integration section). Also, consider including projects or actions that have been identified in other plans and programs such as Capital Improvement Plans, Strategic Plans, etc. as actions in this plan.
 For any capability that you indicated you do have, consider how this capability can be leveraged to increase or improve hazard mitigation in the jurisdiction. • National Flood Insurance Program Compliance Table of this Annex—Review the table and consider the following:
 If you have no certified floodplain managers and you have flood risk, consider adding an action to provide key staff members with training appropriate to obtain certification.  If your flood damage prevention was last updated in or before 2004, you should identify an action to update your ordinance to ensure it is compliant with NFIP requirements.  If you have any outstanding NFIP compliance issues, be sure to add an action to address them.  If flood hazard maps do not adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction, consider actions to request new mapping or conduct studies.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 19  If you don’t participate in CRS or you would like to improve your classification, consider this as an action.
 If the number of flood insurance polices in your jurisdiction is low relative to the number of structures in the floodplain, consider an action that will promote flood insurance in your jurisdiction. • Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change Section of this Annex—Consider your responses to this section. For those criterion that you listed as medium or low, think of ways you could improve this rating (see adaptive capacity portion of the mitigation best practices catalog). For those criterion you listed as high, think about how you can leverage this capacity to improve or enhance mitigation or continue to improve this capacity. For those criterion that you were unable to provide responses for, consider ways you could improve your understanding of this capacity (see mitigation best practices and adaptive capacity catalog).
• Opportunities for Future Integration Section in this Annex—Review the items you identified in this section. For those items that address land use include them in the prepopulated Action in your template that reads as follows: Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions in the community, including ______________. For other items listed in this section, consider an action that specifically says what the plan, code, ordinance etc. is and how it will be integrated.
• Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities Section in this Annex—Review the items that you have identified in this section and consider actions that will help reduce these vulnerabilities (see mitigation best practices catalog).
• Mitigation Best Practices Catalog—A catalog that includes FEMA and other agency identified best practices, steering committee and other stakeholder recommendations was developed as part of the plan development process and included in your tool kit. Review the catalog and identify those actions that your jurisdiction should consider including in its action plan. • Public Input—Review input received during the process, specifically the public survey results included in your toolkit.
• Prior Mitigation Planning Efforts—If your jurisdiction participated in a previous hazard mitigation plan, please be sure to remember to include any actions that were identified as “carry over” actions. Once you have carried them over, return to the Status of Previous Actions table and record the new action number (see discussion below).

Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of actions:
• Select actions that are consistent with the overall purpose, goals, and objectives of the hazard mitigation plan.
• Identify actions where benefits exceed costs.
• Include any action that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant eligibility. • Know what is and is not grant-eligible under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grants (see fact sheet provided in toolkit). If you have actions that are not HMGP, PDM or FMA grant eligible, but do mitigate part or all of the hazard and may be eligible for other grant programs sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section. • You must identify at least one true mitigation action (i.e. not a preparedness or response action) that is clearly defined and actionable for hazards ranked as “high” or “medium.” Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 20 Recommended Actions
We recommend that every planning partner strongly consider the following actions. The specifics of these actions should be adjusted as needed for the particulars of each community. You will note that six of these actions have been prepopulated in your annex template. These six actions should be included in every annex and should not be removed.
• Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas, prioritizing those structures that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high or medium ranked hazard.
• Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions within the community.
• Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan. • Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:
 Enforce the flood damage prevention ordinance.
 Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates.  Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts. • Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change. • Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high water marks, preliminary damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including the implementation and maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan. • Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan. • Develop a post-disaster recovery plan and a debris management plan. • Develop and/or update plans that support or enhance continuity of operations following disasters. • Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate back-up power.

Complete the Table
Complete the table titled “Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix” for all the actions you have identified and would like to include in the plan:
• Enter the action number and description. If the
action is carried over from your previous hazard
mitigation plan, return to the “Status of Previous
Plan Actions” table you completed in Phase 1 and
enter the new action number in the column labeled
Action # in Update.
• Indicate whether the action mitigates hazards for
new and/or existing assets.
• Identify the specific hazards the action will
mitigate (note: you must list the hazards, simply
indicating all hazards is not deemed acceptable).
• Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives
that the action addresses (see toolkit).

Action Item Numbering:

Please use the following action item numbering
conventions:
• Sonoma County—SCO-1
• Cotati City—COT-1
• Santa Rosa City—SRO-1
• Sonoma City—SCI-1
• Windsor Town—WIN-1
• Cloverdale Fire—CLO-1
• Gold Ridge RCD—GOL-1
• N. Sonoma Coast FPD—NSC-1
• N. Sonoma County Fire—NFR-1
• Rancho Adobe Fire—RAF-1
• Sonoma Co. Ag. & Open Space—SAO-1
• Sonoma RCD—SCR-1
• Sonoma Valley Fire—SVF-1
• Timber Cover Fire—TIM-1
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 21 • Indicate who will be the lead in administering the action. This will most likely be a department within your jurisdiction (e.g. planning or public works). If you wish to indicate more than one department, please ensure that it is clear who the lead agency will be and list supporting agencies in the appropriate column. • Enter an estimated cost in dollars if known; otherwise, enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as determined for the prioritization process described in the following section. • Identify funding sources for the action. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share.

Refer to your fiscal capability assessment to identify possible sources of funding and refer to the table below for project eligibility for FEMA’s hazard mitigation assistance grant program. • Indicate the time line as “short-term” (1 to 5 years) or “long-term” (5 years or greater) or “ongoing” (a continual program)

Eligible Activities HMGP PDM FMA
Mitigation Projects
Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition √ √ √
Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation √ √ √
Structure Elevation √ √ √
Mitigation Reconstruction √ √ √
Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures √ √ √ Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures √ √ √
Generators √ √
Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects √ √ √
Non-Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects √ √
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings √ √ √
Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities √ √ √ Safe Room Construction √ √
Wind Retrofit for One- and Two-Family Residences √ √
Infrastructure Retrofit √ √ √
Soil Stabilization √ √ √
Wildland fire Mitigation √ √
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement √
Advance Assistance √
5 Percent Initiative Projects* √
Aquifer and Storage Recovery** √ √ √
Flood Diversion and Storage** √ √ √
Floodplain and Stream Restoration** √ √ √
Green Infrastructure** √ √ √
Miscellaneous/Other** √ √ √
Hazard Mitigation Planning √ √ √
Technical Assistance √
Management Costs √ √ √
Notes: HMGP = Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; PDM = Pre-Disaster Mitigation; FMA = Flood Mitigation Assistance * FEMA allows increasing the 5% Initiative amount up to 10% for a Presidential major disaster declaration under HMGP. The additional 5% Initiative funding can be used for activities that promote disaster-resistant codes for all hazards. As a condition of the award, either a disaster-resistant building code must be adopted or an improved Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule is required.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 22 **Indicates that any proposed action will be evaluated on its own merit against program requirements. Eligible projects will be approved provided funding is available.

Source: https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance-mitigation-activity-chart

Please see the table below for examples of some of the recommended actions above:

Example Action Plan Matrix
Applies to
new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
EX-1—Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas, prioritizing those structures that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high or medium ranked hazard areas.

Existing Dam failure,
Earthquake,
Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
3, 4, 10 Planning High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-term
EX-2—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions within the community including __________.

New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
1, 3, 4, 5, 7,
8, 10
Planning Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
EX-3—Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high water marks, preliminary damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including the implementation and maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan.

Existing Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
4, 8 Emergency
Management
Medium Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-4—Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.

New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Lead Contact
Department for
Plan
Any
Supporting
Department
s
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-5—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 23 Applies to
new or
existing
assets Hazards Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
1, 5, 8 Lead Contact
Department for
Plan
Any
Supporting
Department
s
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-6—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:

Enforcement of the flood damage prevention ordinance
Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.

New and
Existing
Flood, Dam Failure 1, 3, 5, 7, 8,
10 Floodplain
Administration
Department
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
EX-7—Work with building officials to identify ways to improve the jurisdictions’ BCEGS classification.

New Earthquake,
Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather,
Wildland fire
1, 4, 7 Building and
Development
Services
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-8—Develop a post-disaster recovery plan and a debris management plan.

Existing Dam failure,
Earthquake,
Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
9 Emergency
Management
Medium EMPG Long-term
EX-9—Participate in programs such as Firewise, StormReady and the Community Rating System.

New and
Existing
Dam Failure,
Flooding, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
3, 4 Emergency
Management
Public
Works
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-10—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change including __________.

New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought, Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8
Planning Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-11—Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate back-up power including ________.

New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
2, 6, 9 Planning Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 24 Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
Complete the information in the table titled “Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule” as follows:
• Action #—Indicate the action number from the previous annex table (Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix).
• # of Objectives Met—Enter the number of objectives the action will meet. • Benefits—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
 High: Action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property.  Medium: Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property, or action will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.  Low: Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term. • Costs—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
 High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed action.
 Medium: Could budget for under existing work-plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years.  Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Action is or can be part of an existing ongoing program.  If you know the estimated cost of an action because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the amount.
• Do Benefits Exceed the Cost?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” This is a qualitative assessment. Enter “Yes” if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter “No” if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.) • Is the Action Grant-Eligible?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP, PDM and FMA and the table above.
• Can Action Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” In other words, is this action currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as grants?
• Implementation Priority— Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
 High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed 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 the short term (1 to 5 years), once funding is secured. Medium-priority actions become high-priority actions once funding is secured.
 Low Priority—An action that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, has benefits that do not exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, has no 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 are generally “wish-list” actions. They may be eligible for grant funding from programs that have not yet been identified.
• Grant Pursuit Priority— Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 25  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.

This prioritization is a simple way to determine that your identified actions meet one of the primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP/PDM /FMA action grants. The prioritization will identify any actions whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs.

Those actions identified as high-priority grant funding actions should be closely reviewed for consideration when grant funding opportunities arise.

Note: If a jurisdiction wishes to identify an action as high priority that is outside of the prioritization scheme for high priorities. A note indicating so should be inserted and a rationale should be provided.

Please see the example below based off the recommended actions:

Table 0-9. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed
Costs?
Is Action
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Action Be
Funded Under
Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
EX-1 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
EX-2 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-3 2 Low Medium No No Maybe Low Low
EX-4 10 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-5 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-6 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-7 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-8 1 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
EX-9 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-10 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Medium
EX-11 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Complete the table titled “Analysis of Mitigation Actions” summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following eight mitigation types. Please note that an action can be more than one mitigation type:
• Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 26 • Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform residents and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education.
• Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, wetland restoration and preservation, and green infrastructure.
• Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard.

Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. • Climate Resilient—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks, such as sea level rise or urban heat island effect.
• Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. Includes staff training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs.

This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions.

Please see the example below based off the recommended actions, but please note that these recommendations are heavy on generalized actions on the prevention spectrum and light in other areas and specificity. Planning partners should aim to identify at least one action in each category (although this is not required) and should make sure there is at least one action to address “high” and “medium” ranked hazards:

Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
Dam Failure EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 6 EX-1, 6 EX-4, 6 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Drought EX-2 EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10
Earthquake EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9 Flooding EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 EX-1, 6, 7 EX-4, 6 EX-9 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Landslide EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Severe
weather
EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4 EX-8, 9, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Wildland fire EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4, 9 EX-9 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10

REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF INFORMATION FOR THIS ANNEX
This section should describe what resources you used to complete the annex and how you used them. This may seem trivial or unimportant, but it is a requirement to pass the state and FEMA review process.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing City/County Annex Template 27 This section will ultimately describe all information sources used to develop this annex. The sources used for Phases 1 and 2 should have been entered previously. Additional sources are be added with the preparation of the Phase 3 annex. At this point, review to ensure that all relevant materials are identified.

FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY
In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates. Please note that this section is optional.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this template. Please note that this section is optional.

THIS COMPLETES PHASE 3

Annex Templates and
Instructions
for Special-Purpose
Districts

1-1

1. DISTRICT NAME

1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: [email protected]
Name, Title
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
e-mail Address: [email protected]
Development of this annex was carried out by the members of the local mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Local Mitigation Planning Team Members
Name Title

1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE

1.2.1 Overview
Insert Narrative Profile Information, per Instructions.

The __[name of adopting body]___ assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; __[name of oversight agency]__ will oversee its implementation.

All fire districts should include the following sentence (non-fire special purpose districts may delete the sentence):

The District participates/does not participate in the Public Protection Class Rating System and currently has a rating of #.

1.2.2 Service Area and Trends
The district service area covers ___[area in square miles]___, serving a population of _ population_.

Report Title District Name
1-2
Insert summary description of service trends.

1.2.3 Assets
Table 1-2 summarizes the critical assets of the district and their value.

Table 1-2. Special Purpose District Assets
Asset Value
Property
_number_ acres of land $_value_
Equipment
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
_description_ $_value_
Total: $_value_
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
_description – Include Address_ $_value_
Total: $_value_

1.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
An assessment of the district’s current capabilities was conducted to identify opportunities to expand, initiate or integrate capabilities in order to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan. The “Analysis of Mitigation Actions” table in this annex identifies these as community capacity building mitigation actions.

1.3.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
Jurisdictions develop plans and programs and implement rules and regulations to protect and serve residents.

When effectively prepared and administered, these plans, programs and regulations can support the implementation of mitigation actions. Table 1-3 summarizes existing codes, ordinances, policies, programs or plans that are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan.

Table 1-3. Planning and Regulatory Capability
Plan, Study or Program
Date of Most
Recent Update Comment
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____ Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____ Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____ Report Title District Name
1-3
Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____ Name of code, ordinance, policy, program or plan _____ _____

1.3.2 Fiscal, Administrative and Technical Capabilities Fiscal capability is an indicator of a jurisdiction’s ability to fulfill the financial needs associated with hazard mitigation projects. An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1-4. Administrative and technical capabilities represent a jurisdiction’s staffing resources for carrying out the mitigation strategy. An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1-5.

Table 1-4. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes/No
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes/No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes/No Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes/No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes/No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes/No
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes/No Federal Grant Programs Yes/No
Other Yes/No (if yes, please specify)

Table 1-5. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available? Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices
Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices
Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes/No Insert appropriate information Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes/No Insert appropriate information Surveyors Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes/No Insert appropriate information Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes/No Insert appropriate information Emergency manager Yes/No Insert appropriate information Grant writers Yes/No Insert appropriate information
Other Yes/No Insert appropriate information

1.3.3 Education and Outreach Capabilities
Outreach and education capability identifies the connection between government and community members, which opens a dialogue needed for a more resilient community. An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 1-6.

Report Title District Name
1-4
Table 1-6. Education and Outreach
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes/No Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes/No Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes/No • If yes, please briefly describe Insert appropriate information Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach?
Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe Insert appropriate information Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation?
Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly specify Insert appropriate information Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information?
Yes/No
• If yes, please briefly describe Insert appropriate information Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes/No • If yes, please briefly describe Insert appropriate information

1.3.4 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Given the uncertainties associated with how hazard risk may change with a changing climate, a jurisdiction’s ability to track such changes and adapt as needed is an important component of the mitigation strategy. Table 1-7 summarizes the jurisdiction’s adaptive capacity for climate change.

Table 1-7. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities High/Medium/Low Comment:

Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High/Medium/Low Comment:

Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks High/Medium/Low Comment:

Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes
High/Medium/Low
Comment:

Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Report Title District Name
1-5
Criterion Jurisdiction Ratinga
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Champions for climate action in local government departments High/Medium/Low Comment:

Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High/Medium/Low Comment:

Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation High/Medium/Low Comment:

Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted High/Medium/Low Comment:

Public Capacity
Local residents knowledge of and understanding of climate risk High/Medium/Low Comment:

Local residents support of adaptation efforts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:

Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts High/Medium/Low Comment:
a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.

1.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future. Resources listed at the end of this annex were used to provide information on integration. The progress reporting process described in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan will document the progress of hazard mitigation actions related to integration and identify new opportunities for integration.

1.4.1 Existing Integration
Some level of integration has already been established between local hazard mitigation planning and the following other local plans and programs:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
Report Title District Name
1-6
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description

1.4.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment presented in this annex identified the following plans and programs that do not currently integrate hazard mitigation information but provide opportunities to do so in the future:
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description
• Plan or Program Name—Description

1.5 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Table 1-8 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in ___[jurisdiction name]___. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including ___[jurisdiction name]___, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.

Table 1-8. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______
Insert event type _______ Date $______

1.6 HAZARD RISK RANKING
Table 1-9 presents a local ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments. As described in detail in Volume 1, the ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.

Mitigation actions target hazards with high and medium rankings.

Report Title District Name
1-7
Table 1-9. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category 1 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
2 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
3 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
4 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
5 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
6 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
7 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
8 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low
9 _______ _______ High/Medium/Low

1.7 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified hazard of concern.

The following jurisdiction-specific issues have been identified based on a review of the results of the risk assessment, public involvement strategy, and other available resources:
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.
• Insert as appropriate.

Mitigation actions addressing these issues were prioritized for consideration in the action plan presented in this annex.

1.8 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Table 1-10 summarizes the actions that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.

Table 1-10. Status of Previous Plan Actions
Removed;
Carried Over to Plan
Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Action #
in Update
Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Report Title District Name
1-8
Removed;
Carried Over to Plan
Update
Action Item from Previous Plan Completed
No Longer
Feasible
Check if
Yes
Action #
in Update
Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

Insert Action Number & Text
Comment:

1.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Table 1-11 lists the actions that make up the hazard mitigation action plan for this jurisdiction. Table 1-12 identifies the priority for each action. Table 1-13 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and mitigation type.

Table 1-11. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency Support Agency Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action xxx-1—Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in hazard areas, prioritizing those that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are located in high- or medium-risk hazard areas.

Hazards Mitigated: Earthquake, flooding, landslide, tsunami, wildfire Existing 3, 4, 10 TBD TBD High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-term Action xxx-2—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.

Hazards Mitigated: All hazards
New & Existing 1, 5, 8 TBD TBD Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
Action xxx-3—Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate backup power, including ________.

Hazards Mitigated: Dam failure, earthquake, flooding, landslide, severe weather, tsunami, wildfire Existing 2, 6, 9
Action xxx-4—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

Action xxx-5—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

Report Title District Name
1-9
Benefits New or
Existing Assets Objectives Met Lead Agency Support Agency Estimated
Cost Sources of Funding Timelinea
Action xxx-6—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

Action xxx-7—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

Action xxx-8—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

Action xxx-9—Description
Hazards Mitigated: TBD

a. Short-term = Completion within 5 years; Long-term = Completion within 10 years; Ongoing= Continuing new or existing program with no completion date
See the introduction to this volume for list of acronyms used here.

Table 1-12. Mitigation Action Priority
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Cost?
Is Project
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Project Be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
TBD 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
TBD 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
TBD 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium High

a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities.

Report Title District Name
1-10
Table 1-13. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilient
Community
Capacity
Building
High-Risk Hazards
____________
____________
____________
____________
Medium-Risk Hazards
____________
____________
____________
____________
Low-Risk Hazards
____________
____________
____________
a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types.

1.10 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF RESOURCES FOR THIS ANNEX The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide information for this annex.
• <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED> • <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED> • <INSERT PLAN/PROGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED> The following outside resources and references were reviewed:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Development Toolkit—The toolkit was used to support the identification of past hazard events and noted vulnerabilities, the risk ranking, and the development of the mitigation action plan.
• <INSERT DOCUMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WAS USED>

1.11 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section

1.12 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Insert text, if any; otherwise, delete section
1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL PURPOSE

DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE
• The jurisdictional annex templates for the 2020 Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan update will be completed in three phases. This document provides instructions for
completing all three phases of the template for special purpose districts.

The target timeline for phase completion is as follows:
• Phase 1—Profile, Trends and Previous Plan Status
 Deployed: Month xx, xxxx
 Due: Month xx, xxxx
• Phase 2—Capability Assessment and Information Sources  Deployed: Month xx, xxxx
 Due: Month xx, xxxx
• Phase 3—Risk Ranking, Action Plan, and Information
Sources
 Deployed: Month xx, xxxx
 Due: Month xx, xxxx
Please direct any questions and return your completed Phase 3 template by April __, 2021 to:

Bart Spencer
Tetra Tech, Inc.
(650) 324-1810
E-mail:[email protected]

A Note About Formatting:

The template for the annex is a
Microsoft Word document in a
format that will be used in the final
plan. Partners are asked to use
this template so that a uniform
product will be completed for each
partner.

Content should be entered within
the yellow, highlighted text that is
currently in the template, rather
than creating text in another
document and pasting it into the
template. Text from another source
will alter the style and formatting of
the document.

The numbering of sections and
tables in the document will be
updated when completed annexes
are combined into the final
document. Please do not adjust
any of this numbering.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 2 IMPORTANT! READ THIS FIRST
Phase 1 and Phase 2 templates were previously provided to your jurisdiction for completion.

If your jurisdiction returned the completed Phase 1 & 2 templates:
• The Phase 1 & 2 content you provided is already incorporated into your Phase 3 template. • Please review the template to see if we have inserted any comments requesting further work to be done on Phase 1 or 2
o If any comments are included, please address them. Then, begin your work on Phase 3 following the Phase 3 instructions beginning on page 12. o If no comments are included, then you DO NOT need to do any further work on the Phase 1 or Phase 2 content. Go directly to the instructions for Phase 3, beginning on page 12.

If your jurisdiction has NOT yet done any work on the Phase 1 or Phase 2 template:
• Follow the instructions below for providing the Phase 1 and Phase 2 information. • Then proceed with the Phase 3 instructions.

If your jurisdiction started work on the Phase 1 or 2 template but never completed and submitted it, please copy the work you had completed so far into the new template. Then complete Phases 1, 2, and 3 following the instructions provided here.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 3 PHASE 1 INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 CHAPTER TITLE
You jurisdiction’s name has already been entered as the title of the chapter. Please review and correct if needed.

1.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the primary point of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan.

In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction.

Note: Both of these contacts should match the contacts that were designated in your jurisdiction’s letter of intent to participate in this planning process. If you have changed the primary or secondary contact, please let the planning team know by inserting a comment into the document.

1.3 JURISDICTION PROFILE

1.3.1 Overview
Please provide a brief summary description of the following:
• The purpose of the jurisdiction
• The date of inception
• The type of organization
• The number of employees
• The mode of operation (i.e., how operations are funded) • The type of governing body, and who has adoptive authority.

This should be information that is specific to your jurisdiction and will not be provided in the overall, planning area-wide mitigation plan document. Provide information similar to the following example:

The Johnsonville Community Services District is a special district created in 1952 to provide water and sewer service. A five-member elected Board of Directors governs the District. The Board assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the General Manager will oversee its implementation. The District currently employs a staff of 21. Funding comes primarily through rates and revenue bonds.

Complete the table providing the names and titles of members of the local mitigation planning team responsible for completion of this annex. Team membership should consist of agencies with authority to regulate development and enforce local ordinances or regulatory standards, such as building/fire code enforcement, emergency management, emergency services, floodplain management, parks and recreation, planning/community Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 4 development, public information, public works/engineering, stormwater management, transportation, or infrastructure.

Service Area and Trends
Please provide a brief summary description of the following:
• A description of who the district’s customers are
• An approximation of area served in square miles
• A geographical decription of the service area
• An overview of current service area trends, including an approximation of current users/subscribers, • A summary description of previous growth trends in the service area and anticipated future increase/decrease in services (if applicable)
This should be information that is specific to your jurisdiction and will not be provided in the overall, planning area-wide mitigation plan document. Provide information similar to the following example:

The Johnsonville Community Services District originally was formed to serve the unincorporated area east of the City of Smithburg known as Johnsonville. The District’s designated service area expanded throughout the years to include other unincorporated areas of Jones County: Creeks Corner, Jones Hill, Fields Landing, King Salmon, and Freshwater. As of April 30, 2016, the District serves 7,305 water connections and 6,108 sewer connections, with a total service area of 3.3 square miles.

1.4 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS
Please note that this section only applies to jurisdictions that are conducting updates to previously approved hazard mitigation plans. If your jurisdiction has not previously participated in an approved plan, please enter a note stating this, and we will remove this section in your final annex.

Also note that this section is further back in the annex than the rest of the Phase 1 content. Some Phase 2 sections are included before it.

All action items identified in prior mitigation planning efforts must be reconciled in this plan update. Action items must all be marked as ONE of the following; check the appropriate box (place an X) and provide the following information:
• Completed—If an action has been completed since the prior plan was prepared, please check the appropriate box and provide a date of completion in the comment section. If an action has been initiated and is an ongoing program (e.g. annual outreach event), you may mark it as completed and note that it is ongoing in the comments. If an action addresses an ongoing program you would like to continue to include in your action plan, please see the Carried Over to Plan Update bullet below. • Removed—If action items are to be removed because they are no longer feasible, a reason must be given. Lack of funding does not mean that it is no longer feasible, unless the sole source of funding for an action is no longer available. Place a comment in the comment section explaining why the action is no longer feasible or barriers that prevented the action from being implemented (e.g., “Action no longer considered feasible due to lack of political support.”). If the wording and/or Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 5 intent of a previously identified action is unclear, this can be a reason for removal. A change in community priorities may also be a reason for removal and should be discussed in the comments. • Carried Over to Plan Update—If an action is in progress, is ongoing, or has not been initiated and you would like to carry it over to the plan update, please check the “Check if Yes” column under “Carried Over to Plan Update.” Selecting this option indicates that the action will be included in the mitigation action plan for this update. If you are carrying over an action to the update, please include a comment describing any action that has been taken or why the action was not taken (specifically, any barriers or obstacles that prevented the action from moving forward or slowed progress). Leave the last column, “Action # in Update,” blank at this point. This will be filled in after completing the updated action plan in Phase 3.

Please ensure that you have provided a status and a comment for each action.

THIS COMPLETES PHASE 1!
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 6 PHASE 2 INSTRUCTIONS

DISTRICT CRITICAL ASSETS
Please provide an approximate value for the noted areas within the table. Include the sum total value for identified assets for each section in the “Total” line for the section.

Property
Provide an approximate value for the land owned by the District.

Equipment
List categories of equipment owned by the District that are used in times of emergency or that, if incapacitated, have the potential to severely impact the service area. Provide an approximate aggregate replacement value for each. For water and sewer, include mileage of pipeline under this category.

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
List District facilities and infrastructure vital to maintain services to the designated service area. Include the address of each facility. Provide an approximate aggregate replacement value for each line. The Steering Committee has decided upon the following definition of critical facilities for this planning process:
• A local (not state or federal) facility in either the public or private sector that is critical to the health and welfare of the population and that is especially important following hazard events, including but not limited to the following:
 Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive materials
 Hospitals, nursing homes, and housing facilities likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury during a natural hazard event  Mass gathering facilities that may be utilized as evacuation shelters  Infrastructure such as roads, bridges and airports that provide sources for evacuation before, during and after natural hazard events
 Police stations, fire stations, government facilities, vehicle equipment and storage facilities, hardware stores and emergency operation centers that are needed for response activities before, during and after a natural hazard event
 Public and private utility facilities that are vital to maintaining and restoring normal services to damaged areas before, during and after natural hazard events.

Please use this definition as a guideline when selecting critical facilities the District owns.

NOTE:

Placeholders in the table of assets request ADDRESSES for critical facilities. These addresses will not be included in the final published annex, but are needed in order to perform risk mapping and risk analysis for the hazard mitigation plan. Include the addresses in the table if convenient. If not, then provide a separate document listing all critical facilities and addresses for use in development of the hazard mitigation plan.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 7 Sample Completed Table – Special District Assets
Asset Value
Property

11.5 Acres $5,750,000
Equipment
Total length of pipe 40 miles ( $1.32 million per mile X 40 miles) $52,800,000 4 Emergency Generators $250,000
Total: $53,050,000
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Administrative Buildings – 357 S. Jones Street $2,750,000 Philips Pump Station – 111 Fifth Avenue N. $377,000
Total: $3,127,000

1.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

1.5.1 Planning and Regulatory Capability
List any federal, state, local or district laws, ordinances, codes and policies that govern your jurisdiction that include elements related to hazard mitigation. List any other plans, studies or other documents that address hazard mitigation issues for your jurisdiction. Please provide the date of last update and any comments as appropriate. A few examples follow:

Plan, Study or Program
Date of Most Recent
Update Comment
District Design Standards 2010
Capital Improvement Program Updated and approved annually covers 5 year timeframe Emergency Operations Plan 2000
Facility Maintenance Manual 1990
State Building Code 2016
Division of State Architects Review and approval of all building and site design features is required prior to construction
Habitat Conservation Plan All development impacting critical habitat must meet federal and state requirements pertaining to the protection of endangered species

1.5.1 Fiscal, Administrative and Technical Capabilities Fiscal Capability
Complete the table titled “Fiscal Capability” by indicating whether each of the listed financial resources is accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter “Yes” if the resource is fully accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter “No” if there are limitations or prerequisites that may hinder your use of this resource.

Administrative and Technical Capability
Complete the table titled “Administrative and Technical Capability” by indicating whether your jurisdiction has access to each of the listed personnel resources. Enter “Yes” or “No” in the column labeled “Available?”. If yes, then enter the department and position title in the right-hand column. If you have contract support staff with these Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 8 capabilities, you can still answer “Yes.” Indicate in the department column that this resource is provided through contract support.

1.5.2 Education and Outreach Capabilities
Complete the table titled “Education and Outreach” to indicate your jurisdiction’s capabilities and existing efforts regarding hazard mitigation education and outreach.

Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Consider the climate change impact concerns identified for the planning area:
• Reduced snowpack
• Increased wildfires
• Sea level rise and inland flooding
• Threats to sensitive species (e.g. coho salmon)
• Loss in agricultural productivity (e.g. forestry, wine grapes, nursery products, dairy) • Public health and safety.

With those impacts in mind, complete the table titled “Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change” by indicating that your jurisdiction’s capacity for each listed criterion as follows:
• High—The capacity exists and is in use.
• Medium—The capacity may exist, but is not used or could use some improvement. • Low—The capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement. • Unsure—Not enough information is known to assign a rating.

This is a subjective assessment, but providing a few words of explanation is useful. It is highly recommended that you complete this table with an internal planning team after reviewing the results of the other capability assessment tables.

1.6 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
For hazard mitigation planning, “integration” means that hazard mitigation information is used in other relevant planning mechanisms, such as capital facilities planning, and that relevant information from those sources is used in hazard mitigation. The goal of integration is to ensure that the potential impact of hazards is considered in planning for future development. FEMA recommends integration as follows:
• Integrate hazard mitigation plan goals with community objectives (e.g. incorporate the goals for risk reduction and safety into the policies of other plans). • Use the risk assessment to inform plans and policies (e.g. incorporate risk assessment findings into land use plans, site plan review, emergency operations plans). • Implement mitigation actions through existing mechanisms (e.g. include mitigation projects in the capital improvement plan).

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 9 • Think about mitigation before and after a disaster (e.g. build recovery planning on existing mitigation plans and goals).

After reviewing the plans, programs and ordinances identified in the capability assessment, identify all plans and programs that have already been integrated with the goals and recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan, and those that offer opportunities for future integration.

1.6.1 Existing Integration
Provide a brief description of integrated plans or ordinances and how each is integrated. Consider listing items marked as Completed in the “Status of Previous Plan Actions” table if they were indicated as being ongoing actions. Examples are as follows:
• Capital Improvement Plan—The capital improvement plan includes projects can help mitigate potential hazards. The District will act to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plans. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment.
• Emergency Operations Plan—The results of the risk assessment were used in the development of the emergency operations plan.
• Facilities Plan—The results of the risk assessment and mapped hazard areas are used in facility planning for the district. Potential sites are reviewed for hazard risks and appropriate mitigation measures are considered in building and site design.

1.6.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
List any plans or program that offer the potential for future integration and describe the process by which integration will occur. Examples follow:
• Capital Improvement Projects—Capital improvement project proposals may take into consideration hazard mitigation potential as a means of evaluating project prioritization. • Post-Disaster Recovery Plan—The District does not have a recovery plan and intends to develop one as a mitigation planning action during the next five years. The plan will build on the mitigation goals and objectives identified in the mitigation plan.

Consider other programs you may have in place in your jurisdiction that include routine consideration and management of hazard risk. Examples of such programs may include: tree pruning programs, right-of-way mowing programs, erosion control or stream maintenance programs, etc. Please add any such programs to the integration discussion and provide a brief description of how these program manage (or could be adapted to manage) risk from hazards.

REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF INFORMATION FOR THIS ANNEX
Please note that this section will ultimately describe all information sources used to develop this annex, but that only the sources used for Phases 1 and 2 will be listed at this point. Additional sources will be added with the preparation of the Phase 3 annex.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 10 This section should describe what resources you used to complete the annex and how you used them. Several items are started for you, but please be sure to update and enhance any descriptions. This may seem trivial or unimportant, but it is a requirement to pass the state and FEMA review process.

THIS COMPLETES PHASE 2!
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 11 PHASE 3 INSTRUCTIONS

JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
In the table titled “Past Natural Hazard Events,” list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of damage it caused. You are welcome to include any events, but special attention should be made to include major storms and federally declared disasters. Please refer to the table below that lists hazard events in Sonoma County as recognized by the County, the state, and the federal government.

Presidential Disaster Declarations for Sonoma County
Year Dates Event Name
County
EOC
Activated
Gubernatorial
Declaration
Presidentia
l
Declaration
2020 Sept. 4 – Nov. 17 Wildfires X
2020 Aug. 14 – Sept. 26 Wildfires X
2020 Jan. 20 – present COVID-19 Pandemic X X X
2019 October PG&E Power Shutoff X
2019 Oct. 23 – Nov. 7 Kincade Fire X X
2019 Feb. 24 – Mar. 1 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mudslides
X X
2018 October PG&E Power Shutoff X
2017 October LNU Complex Fires X
2017 Oct. 8-31 Wildfires X
2017 Feb. 1-23 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides X X 2017 Jan. 3-12 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides X X 2014-2016 Feb. 25 Drought X
2015 Sep. 12-25 Valley Fire X X X
2014 Dec. 11-12 December Winter Storm X
2014 Aug. 24 South Napa Earthquake X X X
2013 Oct. 29 and Nov. 5 Lopez Protests X
2012 Dec. 2 Holiday Decoration Flood X
2011 Mar. 11 Great Tohoku Tsunami X X X
2009 Apr.-May H1N1 Influenza Pandemic
2007 Nov. 7 SF Oil Spill X
2006 Mar. 29-Apr. 16 Late Spring Storms X X
2005-2006 Dec. 31, 05–Jan. 3, 06 New Year’s Floods X X X 2004 Sept. 3-8 Geysers Fire X
2002-2003 Dec. 17, 02–Apr. 8, 03 December Winter Storms 1998-2000 Feb. 2, 1998–Jan. 4, 2000 Flood of '98/ Rio Nido Debris Flow X X X 1999 Feb. 8-10 February Winter Storm X
1997 Jan. 25 Superbowl Flood X
1996-1997 Dec. 30, 96–Jan. 4, 97 New Year's Flood X X X 1996 Oct. 27-28 Porter Creek Fire X
1996 Jul. 31–Aug. 20 Cavedale Fire X
1996 Jul. 31–Aug. 20 Jenner Sandbarrier
1996 Feb. 4-5 February Winter Storm X
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 12 Year Dates Event Name
County
EOC
Activated
Gubernatorial
Declaration
Presidentia
l
Declaration
1995 Dec. 11-12 December Winter Storm X
1995 Mar. 7-15 Flood of '95, Part II X X X
1995 Jan. 8-31 Flood of '95, Part 1 X X X
1994 May–Sep. Fishing Emergency X X
1993 Jan. 20-25 Flood of ’93 X X X
1990-1991 Dec. 90–Feb. 91 Freeze of ’91 X X
1986 Feb. 12 – Mar. 10 Severe Storms, Flooding X
1983 Jan. 21 – Mar. 30 Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides, Tornadoes X 1981-1982 Dec. 19 – Jan. 8 Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides, High Tide X 1969 Jan. 26 Severe Storms, Flooding X
1964 Dec. 24 Heavy Rains and Flooding X

We recommend including most large-scale disasters, unless you know that there were no impacts on your jurisdiction. Specifically, we recommend that you include these events if you have damage estimate information or can provide a brief description of impacts that occurred within your community. In addition to these events, please refer to the NOAA storm events database included in the tool kit. We recommend conducting a search for the name of your jurisdiction in order to identify events with known impacts. Other potential sources of damage information include:
• Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state • Insurance claims data
• Newspaper archives
• Other plans/documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan, emergency response plan, etc.)
• Resident input.

If you do not have estimates for dollars of damage caused, please list “Not Available” in the appropriate column or simply list a brief description of the damages (e.g. Main Street closed as a result of flooding, downed trees and residential damages). Please note that tracking such damages is a valid and useful mitigation action if your jurisdiction does not currently track such information.

HAZARD RISK RANKING
The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area.

The risk-ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and the economy.

The risk ranking for each jurisdiction is included in the Risk Ranking Summary tab in the Loss Matrix included in the toolkit. Tetra Tech has filled in the results for each jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in your template and include what you believe the rank should Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 13 be and why. For example, drought was ranked as low; however, the jurisdiction’s economy is heavily reliant on water using industries, such as agriculture or manufacturing, so you believe it should be ranked as medium.

Also keep in mind that one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of actions in your plan. You will need to have at least one true mitigation action for each hazard ranked as “high” or “medium.” This is discussed in more detail in the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan section of these instructions.

The instructions below describe the methodology for how these rankings were derived. Please review before providing any comments.

The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area.

The risk-ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and the economy.

The risk ranking for each jurisdiction is included in the Risk Ranking Summary tab in the Loss Matrix included in the toolkit. Tetra Tech has filled in the results for each jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in your template and include what you believe the rank should be and why. For example, drought was ranked as low; however, the jurisdiction’s economy is heavily reliant on water using industries, such as agriculture or manufacturing, so you believe it should be ranked as medium.

Also keep in mind that one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of actions in your plan. You will need to have at least one true mitigation action for each hazard ranked as “high” or “medium.” This is discussed in more detail in the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan section of these instructions.

The instructions below describe the methodology for how these rankings were derived. Please review before providing any comments.

Risk Ranking Methodology
Review Risk Ranking in Template
Review the hazard risk ranking information that Tetra Tech has provided. The hazard with the highest risk rating is listed at the top of table titled “Hazard Risk Ranking” in your template and was given a rank of 1; the hazard with the second highest rating is listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings were given the same rank. “High,” Medium,” and “Low” assignments were given for each hazard of concern based on the total score (probability x impact). It is important to note, that this is determined by the scores rather than assigning a certain number of hazards to each category.

When reviewing the risk ranking results, it is important to remember that this exercise is about categorizing hazards into broad levels of risk (e.g. high, medium, low). It is not an exercise in precision.

Review Risk Ranking in Loss Matrix
The following sections discuss the methodology used to develop the results included in your template. Please refer to the Loss Matrix provided in your tool kit in order to follow along.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 14 Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard
A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area, although weight can be given to expected future probability of occurrence based on established return intervals and changing climate conditions. For example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. Each hazard was assigned a probability factor as follows:
• High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2) • Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1) • None—If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) Potential Impacts of Each Hazard
The impact of each hazard is divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on the economy. These categories are also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on the economy was assigned a weighting factor of 1.

Impact factors for each category (people, property, economy) are described below:
• People—Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event.

The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. Impact factors were assigned as follows:
 High—25 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)  Medium—10 percent to 24 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)  Low—9 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)  No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Property—Values are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event:
 High—25 percent or more of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)  Medium—10 percent to 24 percent of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
 Low—9 percent or less of the total replacement value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)  No impact—None of the total replacement value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Economy—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to the total replacement value of the property exposed to the hazard. For some hazards, such as wildland fire and landslide, vulnerability may be considered to be the same or a portion of exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards.
 High—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent or more of the total replacement value (Impact Factor = 3)
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 15  Medium—Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent to 9 percent of the total replacement value (Impact Factor = 2)
 Low—Estimated loss from the hazard is 4 percent or less of the total replacement value (Impact Factor = 1)
 No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0).

Impacts on People
The percent of the total population exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g. floodplain) can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the green highlighted column. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent and location the entire population or a portion of the population is considered to be exposed, depending on the hazard. For the drought hazard, it is common for jurisdictions to list “low” or “none,” because all people in the planning area would be exposed to drought, but impacts to the health and safety of individuals are expected to be minimal.

Impacts on Property
The percent of the total value exposed to each hazard of concern with a defined extent and location (e.g. floodplain) can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the blue highlighted column. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent and location (e.g. severe weather) the entire building stock is generally considered to be exposed. For the drought hazard, it is common for jurisdictions to list “low” or “none,” because all structures in the planning area would be exposed to drought, but impacts to structures are expected to be minimal.

Impacts on the Economy
The loss estimates for each hazard of concern that was modeled (i.e. dam failure, flood, earthquake) can be found in the loss estimate matrix in the purple highlighted column. For those hazards that have a defined extent and location, but do not have modelled loss results, loss estimates can be the same as exposure or a portion thereof.

For example, a large percentage of the building stock may be exposed to landslide or wildland fire risk, but it would not be expected that one event that resulted in loss to all exposed structures would occur. For those hazards that do not have a defined extent and location, exposure is based on the hazard type.

Risk Rating for Each Hazard
A risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and the economy:

Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + economy} This is the number that is shown in the risk ranking table in your template. Generally, score of 30 or greater receive a “high” rating, score between 15 and 30 receive a “medium” rating, and score of less than 15 receives a “low” rating.

JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES
Repetitive Loss Properties
A repetitive loss property is any property for which FEMA has paid two or more flood insurance claims in excess of $1,000 in any rolling 10-year period since 1978. In the space provided, Tetra Tech has inserted the following information based on data provided by FEMA:
• The number of any FEMA-identified repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 16 • The number of any FEMA-identified severe-repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction. • The number (if any) of repetitive-loss or severe-repetitive-loss properties in your jurisdiction that have been mitigated. Mitigated for this exercise means that flood protection has been provided to the structure.

Please note that if your jurisdiction has any repetitive loss properties, we would strongly encourage you to include a mitigation action that addresses mitigating these properties.

Other Vulnerabilities
We would strongly encourage you to review the results of the risk assessment included in the tool kit, your jurisdiction’s natural events history, and any relevant public comments/input and develop a few sentences that discuss specific risks. You do not need to develop a sentence for every single parameter, but review the results and identify a few issues you would like to highlight. For example:
• Only about 2 percent of the jurisdiction’s population is estimated to reside in the 1 percent annual chance flood hazard area; however, 45 percent of the population is estimated to reside in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area where flood insurance is generally not required. • A magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Smithburg Fault may produce nearly 1 million tons of structure debris.
• Over the past 10 years, the jurisdiction has experienced more than $6 million in estimated damages from severe storm events.
• More than 50 buildings are located in areas that will be permanently inundated with 12 inches of sea level rise.
• The results of the public survey indicated that 40 percent of Smithburg residents would not be able to be self-sufficient for 5 days following a major event.

In addition, please list any noted vulnerabilities in your jurisdiction related to hazard mitigation that may not be apparent from the risk assessment and other information provided. This may include things such as the following:
• An urban drainage issue that results in localized flooding every time it rains. • An area of the community that frequently loses power due to a lack of tree maintenance. • A critical facility, such as a police station, that is not equipped with a generator. • A neighborhood that has the potential to have ingress and egress cut off as the result of a hazard event, such as a flood or earthquake (e.g. bridge only access). • Substantial number of buildings in one area of the community are unreinforced masonry or soft-story construction.
• An area along the river is eroding and threatening public and/or private property. • A large visitor population that may not be aware of tsunami risk.

Spending some time thinking about the results of the risk assessment and other noted vulnerabilities will be a big help in the development of your mitigation strategy. Tetra Tech has inserted a few items in this section to get you started. In addition, two examples are shown in the table below.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 17 Noted Vulnerability Example Mitigation Action
Only about 2 percent of the jurisdiction’s population is estimated to reside in the 1 percent annual chance flood hazard area; however, 45 percent of the population is estimated to reside in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area where flood insurance is generally not required.

Develop and implement an annual public information initiative that targets residents in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area. Provide information on the availability of relatively low cost flood insurance policies.

An urban drainage issue that results in localized flooding every time it rains.

Replace undersized culverts that are contributing to localized flooding. Priority areas include:
• The corner of Main Street and 1st Street
• Old Oak subdivision.

HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
This section is where you will identify the actions your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. All of the work that you have done thus far should provide you with a plethora of ideas for actions. With this in mind, we recommend that you review the following and develop a list of potential actions:
• Capability Assessment Section of Annex—Review the Legal and Regulatory Capability table, the Fiscal Capability table, the Administrative and Technical Capability table, the Education and Outreach table, and the Community Classification table.
 For any capability that you indicated that you did not have, ask yourself – should we have this capability? If yes, consider including an action to develop/acquire the capability. Example: Ensure a staff person from public works and planning are trained in the use of FEMA’s benefit-cost analysis software.
 Review the Legal and Regulatory capabilities. If any have not been reviewed and updated in more than 10 years, consider an action to review and update the capability and, as appropriate, incorporate hazard mitigation principles or information obtained in the risk assessment (Note: actions such as this should also be identified in the opportunities for future integration section). Also, consider including projects or actions that have been identified in other plans and programs such as Capital Improvement Plans, Strategic Plans, etc. as actions in this plan.
 For any capability that you indicated you do have, consider how this capability can be leveraged to increase or improve hazard mitigation in the jurisdiction. • Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change Section of this Annex—Consider your responses to this section. For those criterion that you listed as medium or low, think of ways you could improve this rating (see adaptive capacity portion of the mitigation best practices catalog). For those criterion you listed as high, think about how you can leverage this capacity to improve or enhance mitigation or continue to improve this capacity. For those criterion that you were unable to provide responses for, consider ways you could improve your understanding of this capacity (see mitigation best practices and adaptive capacity catalog).
• Opportunities for Future Integration Section in this Annex—Review the items you identified in this section. For those items that address land use include them in the prepopulated Action in your template that reads as follows: Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions in the community, including ______________. For other items listed in this section, consider an action that specifically says what the plan, code, ordinance etc. is and how it will be integrated.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 18 • Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities Section in this Annex—Review the items that you have identified in this section and consider actions that will help reduce these vulnerabilities (see mitigation best practices catalog).
• Mitigation Best Practices Catalog—A catalog that includes FEMA and other agency identified best practices, steering committee and other stakeholder recommendations was developed as part of the plan development process and included in your tool kit. Review the catalog and identify those actions that your jurisdiction should consider including in its action plan. • Public Input—Review input received during the process, specifically the public survey results included in your toolkit.
• Prior Mitigation Planning Efforts—If your jurisdiction participated in a previous hazard mitigation plan, please be sure to remember to include any actions that were identified as “carry over” actions. Once you have carried them over, return to the Status of Previous Actions table and record the new action number (see discussion below).

We strongly recommend that every planning partner include specific actions that are common to all. These have already been included in the action plan table provided with the annex template. These actions should be included in every annex and should not be removed.

Recommended Actions
Complete the table titled “Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix” for all the actions you have identified and would like to include in the plan:
• Enter the action number and description. If the
action is carried over from your previous hazard
mitigation plan, return to the “Status of Previous
Plan Actions” table you completed in Phase 1 and
enter the new action number in the column labeled
Action # in Update.
• Indicate whether the action mitigates hazards for
new and/or existing assets.
• Identify the specific hazards the action will
mitigate (note: you must list the hazards, simply
indicating all hazards is not deemed acceptable).
• Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the action addresses (see toolkit). • Indicate who will be the lead in administering the action. This will most likely be a department within your jurisdiction (e.g. planning or public works). If you wish to indicate more than one department, please ensure that it is clear who the lead agency will be and list supporting agencies in the appropriate column. • Enter an estimated cost in dollars if known; otherwise, enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as determined for the prioritization process described in the following section. • Identify funding sources for the action. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share.

Refer to your fiscal capability assessment to identify possible sources of funding and refer to the table below for project eligibility for FEMA’s hazard mitigation assistance grant program. • Indicate the time line as “short-term” (1 to 5 years) or “long-term” (5 years or greater) or “ongoing” (a continual program)
Action Item Numbering:

Please use the following action item numbering
conventions:
• Sonoma County—SCO-1
• Cotati City—COT-1
• Santa Rosa City—SRO-1
• Sonoma City—SCI-1
• Windsor Town—WIN-1
• Cloverdale Fire—CLO-1
• Gold Ridge RCD—GOL-1
• N. Sonoma Coast FPD—NSC-1
• N. Sonoma County Fire—NFR-1
• Rancho Adobe Fire—RAF-1
• Sonoma Co. Ag. & Open Space—SAO-1
• Sonoma RCD—SCR-1
• Sonoma Valley Fire—SVF-1
• Timber Cover Fire—TIM-1
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 19 Eligible Activities HMGP PDM FMA
Mitigation Projects
Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition √ √ √
Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation √ √ √
Structure Elevation √ √ √
Mitigation Reconstruction √ √ √
Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures √ √ √ Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures √ √ √
Generators √ √
Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects √ √ √
Non-Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects √ √
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings √ √ √
Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities √ √ √ Safe Room Construction √ √
Wind Retrofit for One- and Two-Family Residences √ √
Infrastructure Retrofit √ √ √
Soil Stabilization √ √ √
Wildland fire Mitigation √ √
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement √
Advance Assistance √
5 Percent Initiative Projects* √
Aquifer and Storage Recovery** √ √ √
Flood Diversion and Storage** √ √ √
Floodplain and Stream Restoration** √ √ √
Green Infrastructure** √ √ √
Miscellaneous/Other** √ √ √
Hazard Mitigation Planning √ √ √
Technical Assistance √
Management Costs √ √ √
Notes: HMGP = Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; PDM = Pre-Disaster Mitigation; FMA = Flood Mitigation Assistance * FEMA allows increasing the 5% Initiative amount up to 10% for a Presidential major disaster declaration under HMGP. The additional 5% Initiative funding can be used for activities that promote disaster-resistant codes for all hazards. As a condition of the award, either a disaster-resistant building code must be adopted or an improved Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule is required.
**Indicates that any proposed action will be evaluated on its own merit against program requirements. Eligible projects will be approved provided funding is available.

Source: https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance-mitigation-activity-chart

Please see the table below for examples of some the recommended actions.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 20 Example Action Plan Matrix
Applies to
new or
existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
EX-1—Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas, prioritizing those structures that have experienced repetitive losses and/or are l ocated in high or medium ranked hazard areas.

Existing Dam failure,
Earthquake,
Flooding, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildland fire
3, 4, 10 Planning High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-term
EX-2—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions within the community including __________.

New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flooding, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildland fire
1, 3, 4, 5, 7,
8, 10
Planning Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
EX-3—Develop and implement a program to capture perishable data after significant events (e.g. high water marks, preliminary damage estimates, damage photos) to support future mitigation efforts including the implementation and maintenance of the hazard mitigation plan.

Existing Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flooding, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildland fire
4, 8 Emergency
Management
Medium Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-4—Support the County-wide initiatives identified in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.

New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flooding, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildland fire
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Lead Contact
Department for Plan
Any
Supporting
Department
s
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-5—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume I of the hazard mitigation plan.

New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought,
Earthquake,
Flooding, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildland fire
1, 5, 8 Lead Contact
Department for Plan
Any
Supporting
Department
s
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-6—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance under the NFIP through implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, meet the NFIP requirements:

Enforcement of the flood damage prevention ordinance
Participate in floodplain identification and mapping updates Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.

New and
Existing
Flood, Dam Failure 1, 3, 5, 7, 8,
10 Floodplain
Administration
Department
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Ongoing
Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 21 Applies to
new or
existing
assets
Hazards
Mitigated
Objectives
Met Lead Agency
Support
Agency
Estimated
Cost
Sources of
Funding Timeline
EX-7—Work with building officials to identify ways to improve the jurisdictions’ BCEGS classification.

New Earthquake,
Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather,
Wildland fire
1, 4, 7 Building and
Development
Services
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-8—Develop a post-disaster recovery plan and a debris management plan.

Existing Dam failure,
Earthquake,
Flooding, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildland fire
9 Emergency
Management
Medium EMPG Long-term
EX-9—Participate in programs such as Firewise, StormReady and the Community Rating System.

New and
Existing
Dam Failure,
Flooding, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
3, 4 Emergency
Management
Public
Works
Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-10—Identify and pursue strategies to increase adaptive capacity to climate change including __________.

New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Drought, Flooding,
Landslide, Severe
weather, Wildland
fire
1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8
Planning Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
EX-11—Purchase generators for critical facilities and infrastructure that lack adequate back -up power including ________.

New and
Existing
Dam failure,
Flooding, Landslide,
Severe weather,
Wildland fire
2, 6, 9 Planning Low Staff Time, General
Funds
Short-term
Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
Complete the information in the table titled “Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule” as follows:
• Action #—Indicate the action number from the previous annex table (Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix).
• # of Objectives Met—Enter the number of objectives the action will meet. • Benefits—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
 High: Action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property.  Medium: Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property, or action will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.  Low: Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term. • Costs—Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 22  High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed action.
 Medium: Could budget for under existing work-plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years.  Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Action is or can be part of an existing ongoing program.  If you know the estimated cost of an action because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the amount.
• Do Benefits Exceed the Cost?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” This is a qualitative assessment. Enter “Yes” if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter “No” if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.) • Is the Action Grant-Eligible?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP, PDM and FMA and the table above.
• Can Action Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets?—Enter “Yes” or “No.” In other words, is this action currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as grants?
• Implementation Priority— Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” as follows:
 High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed 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 the short term (1 to 5 years), once funding is secured. Medium-priority actions become high-priority actions once funding is secured.
 Low Priority—An action that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, has benefits that do not exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, has no 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 are generally “wish-list” actions. They may be eligible for grant funding from programs that have not yet been identified.
• Grant Pursuit Priority— Enter “High,” “Medium” or “Low” 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.

This prioritization is a simple way to determine that your identified actions meet one of the primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP/PDM /FMA action grants. The prioritization will identify any actions whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs.

Those actions identified as high-priority grant funding actions should be closely reviewed for consideration when grant funding opportunities arise.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 23 Note: If a jurisdiction wishes to identify an action as high priority that is outside of the prioritization scheme for high priorities. A note indicating so should be inserted and a rationale should be provided.

Please see the example below based off the recommended actions:

Table 0-9. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule
Action
#
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do
Benefits
Equal or
Exceed
Costs?
Is Action
Grant-
Eligible?
Can Action
Be Funded
Under
Existing
Programs/
Budgets?
Implementation
Prioritya
Grant
Pursuit
Prioritya
EX-1 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium High
EX-2 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-3 2 Low Medium No No Maybe Low Low
EX-4 10 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-5 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-6 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-7 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-8 1 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
EX-9 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
EX-10 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Medium
EX-11 3 High Medium Yes Yes No Medium High
Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Complete the table titled “Analysis of Mitigation Actions” summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following eight mitigation types. Please note that an action can be more than one mitigation type:
• Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
• Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform residents and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education.
• Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, wetland restoration and preservation, and green infrastructure.
• Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard.

Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 24 • Climate Resilient—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks, such as sea level rise or urban heat island effect.
• Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. Includes staff training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs.

This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions.

Please see the example below based off the recommended actions, but please note that these recommendations are heavy on generalized actions on the prevention spectrum and light in other areas and specificity. Planning partners should aim to identify at least one action in each category (although this is not required) and should make sure there is at least one action to address “high” and “medium” ranked hazards:

Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea
Hazard Type Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education
&
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structura
l Projects
Climate
Resilien
t
Community
Capacity
Building
Dam Failure EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 6 EX-1, 6 EX-4, 6 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Drought EX-2 EX-1 EX-4 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10
Earthquake EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9 Flooding EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 EX-1, 6, 7 EX-4, 6 EX-9 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Landslide EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7 EX-4 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Severe
weather
EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4 EX-8, 9, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Wildland fire EX-2, 3, 4, 5, 7 EX-1, 7, 9 EX-4, 9 EX-9 EX-8, 11 EX-3, 4, 8, 9, 10

REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF INFORMATION FOR THIS ANNEX
This section should describe what resources you used to complete the annex and how you used them. This may seem trivial or unimportant, but it is a requirement to pass the state and FEMA review process.

This section will ultimately describe all information sources used to develop this annex. The sources used for Phases 1 and 2 should have been entered previously. Additional sources are be added with the preparation of the Phase 3 annex. At this point, review to ensure that all relevant materials are identified.

FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY
In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates. Please note that this section is optional.

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan Instructions for Completing Special Purpose District Annex Template 25 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this template. Please note that this section is optional.

THIS COMPLETES PHASE 3