April 12, 2007 High Wind 0 0
RAWS observations across the mountains measured very strong and gusty winds. At Whitaker Peak RAWS a peak northwest wind gust of 86 mph was reported. Other sensors, including Sandberg and Warm Springs, indicated sustained winds and gust that met warning criteria.
January 13-15, 2007 Frost/Freeze 0 0
Widespread freezing conditions were reported across agricultural areas of Ventura County. Total crop damage in Ventura County was estimated to be around $280 million.
July 22-26, 2006 Heat 0 0
The combination of high pressure aloft and above-normal relative humidity resulted in an extended period of excessive heat across San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angeles counties. At times, heat index values ranged from 100 to 119 ºF.
July 15, 2006 Heat 0 0
The combination of strong high pressure aloft and high relative humidity produced excessive heat conditions across the mountains of Ventura County. Heat index values ranged from 100 to 105 ºF in the mountains.
January 10, 2005 Tornado 0 0
A California Highway Patrol officer reported a weak tornado in the community of El Rio.
October 27, 2004 Funnel Cloud 0 0
An early-season storm brought rain, snow, and funnel clouds to Central and Southern California. Across Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, two funnel clouds were reported.
February 24, 2003 Funnel Cloud 0 0
A weather observer at the Point Mugu Naval Base reported a funnel cloud offshore of the base.
February 9, 2002 High Wind 1 Strong winds knocked down power lines and overturned a wooden bus stop structure in Moorpark.
Strong and gusty Santa Ana winds developed across the interior valleys of Ventura County. Reports from spotters indicated northeast winds gusting between 50 and 70 mph. In Simi Valley, a man was killed when a 45-foot tree was knocked down and pinned him.
Sources: NOAA 2021
a. This list represents only high wind events recorded at 70 knots or greater, or that had a death, injury, or reported property damage.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 15-6
The NCEI Storm Events Database lists 19 wildfire events in Ventura County from 2000 through 2021, and all but two of those events are directly attributed to wind events or occurred within one or two days of high wind events recorded in the database (National Centers for Environmental Information 2022).
15.2.2 Location
The entire county is susceptible to damage from wind. Wind events are most damaging to areas that are heavily wooded. The State of California has a low risk for serious tornados compared to other parts of the country (Croswell 1995). Tornadoes are usually localized and have historically formed in the southwest portion of Ventura County during the winter.
All of Ventura County is subject to extreme temperatures. The mountains are more likely to experience extreme cold. Extreme heat impacts may be exacerbated in inland areas more prone to urban heat island effects, such as Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley, than coastal regions (Oakley, et al. 2019).
15.2.3 Frequency
Based on reports since 2000, Ventura County experiences an average of two damaging wind events each year and an extreme temperature event every two years (Table 15-3). The planning area can expect to experience exposure to and adverse impacts from severe weather events at least annually, including damaging wind events every year and extreme temperature events biennially.
15.2.4 Severity
Damaging Winds
Windstorms can be a frequent problem in the planning area and have been known to cause damage to utilities. The predicted wind speed given in wind warnings issued by the National Weather Service is for a one-minute average; gusts may be 25 to 30 percent higher. Lower wind speeds typical in the lower valleys are still high enough to knock down trees and power lines and cause other property damage.
Higher elevations in the County can experience much higher winds under more varied conditions.
According to the FEMA Winds Zones of the United States map (Figure 15-2), Ventura County is in Wind Zone I, where wind speeds can reach up to 130 mph. The map indicates the strength of windstorms in the United States, and the general location of the most wind activity (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2021).
Tornadoes are potentially highly dangerous. If a major tornado were to strike within the populated areas of the County, damage could be widespread. Because the County has never experienced a tornado more severe than an F0, however, such severity is unlikely.
Extreme Temperatures
The record high temperature in the county (120 ºF) was set in Fillmore and Oak View in September 2020. The record low (25 ºF) was set in December 1998.
Item No.7D
Severe Weather
15-7
Figure 15-2. Wind Zones in the United States
Source: FEMA 2021
15.2.5 Warning Time
Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a severe weather event. This can give several days of warning time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of the storm.
Some weather events may come on more quickly and have only a few hours of warning time. The Los Angeles/Oxnard Weather Forecast Office of the NWS monitors weather stations and issues watches and warnings when appropriate to alert government agencies and the public of possible or impending weather events. The watches and warnings are broadcast over NOAA weather radio, posted on the NWS website, and are forwarded to the local media for retransmission using the Emergency Alert System.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 15-8
15.3 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY
15.3.1 Population
All people in the planning area are exposed to some degree to the severe weather hazard. The most common problems associated with severe weather events are immobility and loss of utilities.
Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life- threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Populations living at higher elevations with large stands of trees or power lines may be more susceptible to wind damage and black out. The most common impacts of specific weather event types on people are as follows:
• Windstorms—Damaging winds can cause injuries and fatalities in a number of ways. Downed trees may fall on homes or cars, killing or injuring those inside. Objects that are not secured can be picked up in wind events and become projectiles.
• Tornado—Structures that collapse or blow over during tornadoes may kill or injure those inside. • Excessive heat—Heat exhaustion or heat stroke can cause illness or death. Toddlers are especially vulnerable if left or trapped in a parked vehicle. Seniors in residences without air conditioning are at more risk of heat illness and death during excessive heat waves. • Extreme cold— Extreme cold can cause hypothermia and frostbite, especially among the population that does not have adequate shelter.
15.3.2 Property
All property in the planning area is exposed to some degree to the severe weather hazard. Properties in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. The most common impacts of specific weather event types on property are as follows:
• Windstorm—Mobile homes can be seriously damaged by wind gusts over 80 mph, even if they are anchored (National Severe Storms Laboratory 2018). Properties at higher elevations or on ridges may be more prone to wind damage. Falling trees can result in significant damage to structures.
• Tornado—A major tornado could cause widespread damage to property in the planning area, but such an event is unlikely.
• Excessive heat—Periods of high heat do not typically pose risks to structures, but when power fails during high heat events, air conditioning systems also fail and result in secondary shutdowns of heat-sensitive electronic or networking systems housed in those structures. • Extreme cold—Infrastructure and building systems can be damaged by extreme cold when pipes freeze. Roofs can be damaged by ice buildup.
No modeling is available for quantitative loss estimations for the severe weather hazard. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 1 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent of the replacement value of exposed structures:
• Loss of 10 percent of planning area replacement value—$18,075,696,763 • Loss of 30 percent of planning area replacement value—$54,227,090,289 Item No.7D
Severe Weather
15-9
• Loss of 50 percent of planning area replacement value—$90,378,483,815
15.3.3 Critical Facilities
All critical facilities are exposed to some degree to the severe weather hazard. Those that lack backup power generation capabilities are especially vulnerable. When facilities supplying power to planning area land line telephone systems are disrupted, significant issues arise with communication. Some facilities are particularly vulnerable to specific types of severe weather events:
• Windstorms—Facilities located near trees or power lines that are likely to fall are vulnerable.
Roads and other transportation infrastructure could be blocked by downed trees or other debris. • Tornado—Critical facilities in the direct path of a tornado are particularly vulnerable. • Excessive heat—Transportation systems can be impacted if extreme heat causes roads or railways to buckle.
• Extreme cold—Facilities that lack backup power are more likely to be impacted during extreme cold events. Pipes freeze more quickly in unheated buildings.
15.3.4 Environment
The entire environment of the planning area is exposed to some degree to the severe weather hazard.
High winds can cause extensive damage to forested areas. Storm surges increased by high winds can erode beachfront bluffs and redistribute sediment loads. Periods of prolonged heat can increase pest and disease pressure on crops and increase the effects of drought.
15.4 SCENARIO
A worst-case severe weather event would involve prolonged high winds accompanied by thunderstorms. Initially, schools and roads would be closed due to power outages caused by high winds and downed tree obstructions. In more rural areas, some subdivisions could experience limited ingress and egress. If these events coincided with extreme heat or cold, the impacts on the population would be even greater.
15.5 ISSUES
Severe weather cannot be prevented, but measures can be taken to mitigate the effects. Critical infrastructure and utilities can be hardened to prevent damage during an event. Important issues associated with severe weather in the Ventura County planning area include the following:
• Redundancy of power supply throughout the planning area must be evaluated to better understand what areas may be vulnerable.
• Public education on dealing with the impacts of severe weather needs to continue to be provided so that residents can be better informed and prepared for severe weather events. • Debris management (downed trees, etc.) must be addressed, because debris can impact the severity of severe weather events, requires coordination efforts, and may require additional funding.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 15-10
• Climate change may result in more intense weather events and will likely lead to increased temperatures.
• Older building stock in the planning area is built to low code standards or none at all. These structures could be highly vulnerable to severe wind.
• Urban forest management programs should be evaluated to help reduce impacts from forest- related wind damages.
Item No.7D
16-1
16. TSUNAMI
16.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
A tsunami is a series of high-energy waves that radiate outward like pond ripples from an area where a generating event occurs, arriving at shorelines over an extended period. Tsunamis can be induced by earthquakes, landslides, and submarine volcanic explosions (see Figure 16-1). Tsunamis are typically classified as local or distant, depending on the location of their source in comparison to where waves occur:
• T he waves nearest to the generating source represent a local tsunami. Such events have minimal warning time, leaving few options except to run to high ground after a strong, prolonged local earthquake. Damage from the tsunami adds to damage from the triggering earthquake due to ground shaking, surface faulting, liquefaction, and landslides. • The waves far from the generating source represent a distant tsunami. Distant tsunamis may travel for hours before striking a coastline, giving a community a chance to implement evacuation plans if a warning is received.
Figure 16-1. Common Sources of Tsunamis
In the open ocean, a tsunami may be only a few inches or feet high, but it can travel with speeds approaching 600 miles per hour. As a tsunami enters the shoaling waters near a coastline, its speed diminishes, its wavelength decreases, and its height increases greatly. At the shoreline, tsunamis may take the form of a fast-rising tide, a cresting wave, or a bore (a large, turbulent wall-like wave). The bore phenomenon resembles a step-like change in the water level that advances rapidly (from 10 to 60 miles per hour). The first wave is usually followed by several larger and more destructive waves.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-2
16.1.1 Factors Affecting Tsunami Impact
The configuration of the coastline, the shape of the ocean floor, and the characteristics of advancing waves play important roles in the destructiveness of the waves. Bays, sounds, inlets, rivers, streams, offshore canyons, islands, and flood control channels may alter the level of damage. Offshore canyons can focus tsunami wave energy, and islands can filter the energy. A tsunami wave entering a flood control channel could reach a mile or more inland, especially if it enters at high tide. The orientation of the coastline determines whether the waves strike head-on or are refracted from other parts of the coastline. A wave may be small at one point and much larger at others. The inundation area for a tsunami event is often described as runup as illustrated in Figure 16-2.
Figure 16-2. Runup Distance and Height in Relation to the Datum and Shoreline
Source: UNESCO, Retrieved from Different Directions: Tsunami, n.d.
16.1.2 Secondary Hazards
The secondary hazards most directly associated with tsunamis are flooding and coastal erosion, which are likely results of tsunami events.
Item No.7D
Tsunami
16-3
16.2 HAZARD PROFILE
16.2.1 Past Events
More than 80 tsunamis have been recorded or observed in California, according to state records; however, many of these events were small and led to little or no damage. All tsunamis from the past century have been distant, not local. That is, they have all resulted from earthquakes far across the Pacific basin (as opposed to earthquakes near the American coastline). Ventura County has been affected by major statewide tsunamis as well as more local minor tsunamis. Table 16-1 lists known tsunami events that have struck the County or one of its jurisdictions since 1812.
Table 16-1. Tsunami Events in Ventura County
Date Description
March 11, 2011 A 7.1 magnitude earthquake in Japan caused a run-up within Ventura Harbor. A federal disaster declaration was issued (DR-1968).
February 27, 2010 An 8.8 magnitude earthquake in Chile caused a 3-foot run-up in Ventura, as well as damage to 21 docks in Ventura Harbor.
September 29, 2009 An 8.2 magnitude earthquake in Samoa moved buoys within Ventura Harbor.
March 28, 1964 A 9.2 magnitude earthquake in Alaska caused the tide in Ventura to drop 8 feet and large swells were reported in Oxnard.
May 24, 1960 A 9.5 magnitude earthquake in Chile created a 4.4-foot run-up in Port Hueneme causing damage to docks and ships.
March 9, 1957 An 8.3 magnitude earthquake along the Aleutian Islands caused an approximate 2-foot run-up 6 hours after the first wave hit in Port Hueneme.
November 4, 1952 An 8.2 magnitude earthquake in Kamchatka caused a 2.3-foot run-up in Port Hueneme.
April 1, 1946 An 8.8 magnitude earthquake along the Aleutian Islands caused sand to sweep over the railroad tracks near Ormond Beach and minor ship berthing problems in Port Hueneme.
December 21, 1812 A 7.1 magnitude earthquake centered in the Santa Barbara or Ventura area caused a 6.5-foot run-up and damage to San Miguelito Chapel.
Source: Ventura County 2021
16.2.2 Location
The California Department of Conservation maintains detailed tsunami inundation maps for Ventura County and other parts of the state. These maps are generated through computer modeling of the areas most likely to be affected by a tsunami event and serve as an important preparedness tool. The tsunami hazard areas identified in the mapping are based on a suite of tsunami sources, both local and distant, and do not, therefore, represent risk from a single-source event. Tsunami risk areas are shown in Figure 16-3.
16.2.3 Frequency
Generally, four or five tsunamis occur every year in the Pacific Basin, and those that are most damaging are generated in the Pacific waters off South America rather than in the northern Pacific.
Based on risk factors for the County and past occurrences, it is highly likely that tsunamis will continue to strike the coastline in Ventura County. Tsunami probabilities are tied to earthquake and other geologic events; however, not all earthquakes or submarine landslides will trigger a tsunami.
Item No.7D
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
Lake Piru
Lake
Casitas
¬«118¬«
33 ¬«
34 ¬«
118¬«
126
¬«
150
¬«
1 ¬«
1 ¬«
23 ¬«
126
¬«
23 ¬«
33 ¬«
33 ¬«
34 ¬«
1 ¬«
150
¬«
232
¬«
33 ¬«
23 £¤101
Figure 16-3. Tsunami Risk Areas for Ventura County
Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
CGS, Esri
T sunami Inundation Zones
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
Item No.7D
Tsunami
16-5
16.2.4 Severity
A tsunami’s size and speed, as well as the coastal area’s form and depth, affect the impact of the tsunami. At some locations, the advancing turbulent wave front will be the most destructive part of the tsunami wave. In other situations, the greatest damage will be caused by the outflow of water back to the sea between crests, sweeping away items on the surface and undermining roads, buildings, bulkheads, and other structures. This outflow action can carry enormous amounts of highly damaging debris, resulting in further destruction. Ships and boats, unless moved away from shore, may be forced against breakwaters, wharves, and other craft, or be washed ashore and left grounded after the withdrawal of the seawater (National Tsunami Warning Center 2021).
16.2.5 Warning Time
Visible Indications
Tsunamis are difficult to detect in the open ocean; with waves generally less than 3 feet high. The first visible indication of an approaching tsunami may be either a rise or drop in water surface levels (National Tsunami Warning Center 2021):
• A drop in water level (draw down) can be caused by the trough preceding the advancing, large inbound wave crest. Rapid draw down can create strong currents in harbor inlets and channels that can severely damage coastal structures due to erosive scour around piers and pilings. As the water’s surface drops, piers can be damaged by boats or ships straining at or breaking their mooring lines. The vessels can overturn or sink due to strong currents, collisions with other objects, or impact with the harbor bottom.
• The advancing tsunami may initially arrive as a strong surge increasing the sea level. This can be similar to the rising tide, but the tsunami surge rises faster and does not stop at the shoreline. Even if the wave height appears to be small, 3 to 6 feet for example, the strength of the accompanying surge can be deadly. Waist-high surges can cause strong currents that float cars, small structures, other debris, and hazardous materials. Boats and debris are often carried inland by the surge and left stranded when the water recedes.
Warning System
The tsunami warning system for the Pacific Ocean evolved from a program initiated in 1946. It is a cooperative effort involving 26 countries along with numerous seismic stations, water level stations and information distribution centers. The National Weather Service operates two regional information distribution centers: The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Ewa Beach, Hawaii; and the National Tsunami Warning Center covering the California coast in Palmer, Alaska. The warning centers issue tsunami watches, warnings, and advisories. A watch is issued when a large earthquake has occurred far away from the region and the threat is still being determined.
A warning is issued when damaging tsunami waves inundating dry land are expected. An advisory is issued when tsunami waves less than 1 meter high and dangerous strong currents will occur in harbors. The warning system is activated when a Pacific basin earthquake of magnitude 6.5 occurs or an earthquake is widely felt along the North American coast. When this occurs, the following sequence of actions occurs:
• Data is interpolated to determine epicenter and magnitude of the event.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-6
• If the earthquake is of the right type, depth, magnitude, and is far away from California coast, a TSUNAMI WATCH is typically issued for the California coastline. • A TSUNAMI WATCH is upgraded to a TSUNAMI WARNING if tsunami wave heights are forecast to be 1 meter or larger. A TSUNAMI ADVISORY is issued if tsunami wave heights are forecast to be 0.3 meters to less than 1 meter.
• Tsunami travel times are calculated, and the warning is transmitted to disseminating agencies who relay it to the public.
• The National Tsunami Warning Center will cancel/expire watches, warnings, or advisories if tide gauges and buoys indicate no significant tsunami was generated or if tsunami waves no longer meet the criteria for at least 3 hours.
This system is not considered to be effective for communities close to the tsunami source, because the first wave would arrive before the data can be processed and analyzed, and communications systems may be impacted by the precipitating event. In this case, strong ground shaking would provide the first warning of a potential tsunami and evacuations should begin immediately.
Estimated Travel Times
The NOAA National Center for Environmental Information website provides maps that show estimated travel times to coastal locations for various tsunami-generating events. Figure 16-4 shows one example of the travel time for a tsunami generated in Aburatsu, Japan to reach the planning area— approximately 13 hours.
16.3 EXPOSURE
Exposure and vulnerability estimates are based on tsunami inundation maps. The value of exposed buildings in the tsunami inundation zone was generated by overlaying the inundation areas on the general building stock. The population living in tsunami hazard zones was estimated using the percent of buildings within the tsunami inundation areas and applying this percent to the estimated planning area population. Detailed results by jurisdiction are included in Appendix D; results for the total planning area are presented below.
16.3.1 Population
The estimated total population living in the evaluated tsunami inundation zone is 27,626 (3.3 percent of the total planning area population). People recreating along beaches, low-lying coastal areas, tidal flats, and stream deltas that empty into ocean-going waters also would be exposed.
16.3.2 Property
Table 16-2 summarizes the estimated property exposure in the evaluated tsunami inundation areas.
Figure 16-5 shows the Hazus-defined occupancy class of all buildings in the tsunami inundation areas.
These occupancy classes provide an indication of land use within the mapped hazard area. Some land uses are more vulnerable to inundation, such as single-family homes, while others are less vulnerable, such as agricultural land or parks.
Item No.7D
Tsunami
16-7
Figure 16-4. Potential Tsunami Travel Times in the Pacific Ocean, in Hours
Source: National Centers for Environmental Information, 2021
Table 16-2. Exposed Property in the Tsunami Inundation Zone Acres of Inundation Area 4,690
Number of Buildings Exposed 7,300
Value of Exposed Structures $2,703,527,102
Value of Exposed Contents $1,659,832,511
Total Exposed Property Value $4,363,359,613
Total Exposed Value as % of Planning Area Total 2.4%
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-8
Figure 16-5. Structures in the Tsunami Inundation Zone, by Building Occupancy Class
16.3.3 Critical Facilities
Figure 16-6 shows critical facilities located in the tsunami inundation zone by facility type. The total count of critical facilities in the tsunami inundation zone (22) represents 1.4 percent of the planning area total of 1,588.
Figure 16-6. Critical Facilities in Tsunami Inundation Area
Residential
6,725
92%
Commercial
274
4%
Industrial
4 0%
Agriculture
18 0%
Religion
0 0%Government
263
4%
Education
16 0%
4 1
13 0 0
3 7
0 4
8 12
16 20Number of Facilties in Hazard Area
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
1.6% 0.9%
6.2%
0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Facilties in Hazard Area as % of Planning Area Total Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
Item No.7D
Tsunami
16-9
16.3.4 Environment
All waterways and beaches would be exposed to the effects of a tsunami; inundation of water and introduction of foreign debris could be hazardous to the environment. All wildlife inhabiting the area also is exposed.
16.4 VULNERABILITY
The vulnerability of people, property, and critical facilities was evaluated for the mapped tsunami inundation areas. Appendix D shows results by jurisdiction; countywide summaries are provided below.
16.4.1 Population
The populations most vulnerable to the tsunami hazard are the elderly, disabled, and very young who reside or recreate near beaches, low-lying coastal areas, tidal flats, and stream or river deltas that empty into ocean-going waters. Visitors recreating in or around inundation areas also would be vulnerable, as they may not be as familiar as residents with appropriate responses to a tsunami or ways to reach higher ground.
Impacts on persons and households in the mapped tsunami inundation area were estimated through the Level 2 Hazus analysis. Countywide results are as follows:
• Number of Displaced Population = 21,957
• Number of Residents Requiring Short-Term Shelter= 1,584
16.4.2 Property
Property Impacted
The impact of tsunami waves and the scouring associated with debris that may be carried in the water could be damaging to all structures along beaches, low-lying coastal areas, tidal flats, and river deltas.
The most vulnerable are those in the front line of tsunami impact and those that are structurally unsound. The Hazus analysis indicated that 17.8 percent of the exposed structures (1,297 structures) would be impacted by the modeled scenario event.
Damage Estimates
Table 16-3 summarizes Hazus estimates of tsunami damage in the planning area. The estimated damage value is associated with the tsunami wave only; it does not include additional damage that may occur as a result of debris battering structures as the tsunami wave rushes in and out of the inundation area or fires caused by an earthquake and tsunami event. The debris estimate includes only structural debris and building finishes; it does not include additional debris that may result from a tsunami event, such as from boats, trees, sediment, building contents, bridges, or utility lines. Structures that were built to current floodplain regulations in the tsunami inundation area may have some level of protection, particularly if they were built to withstand wave action.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-10
Table 16-3. Estimated Impact of a Tsunami Event in the Planning Area Structure Debris (tons) 1,755,480
Buildings Impacted 1,297
Structure Value Damaged $125,195,566
Content Value Damaged $198,643,647
Total Value Damaged 4323,839,203
Damage as % of Total Value 0.2%
16.4.3 Critical Facilities
Significant facilities predicted by Hazus to be affected by the modeled tsunami event include one fire station, one school, and five road bridges
Damage Estimates
Hazus was used to estimate the number of critical facilities affected by tsunami and the resulting percent of damage to the building and contents. Figure 16-7 compares the predicted number of affected facilities to the number of exposed facilities. Figure 16-8 shows the estimated damage to critical facilities from a tsunami event. Depending on critical facility category, the average amount of damage to structures, measured as a percentage of total value, ranges from 1.3 to 13.0 percent of total value, and average damage to contents ranges from 0 to 47.4 percent.
Figure 16-7. Critical Facilities Exposed to and Affected by Mapped Tsunami Inundation Area
4 1
7 0 0
3 7
2 1 1
0 0
2 5
0 2
4 6
8 10
Communications Energy Food, Water &
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation
Number of Faciliities Exposed or Affected
Exposed Facilities
Affected Facilities
Item No.7D
Tsunami
16-11
Figure 16-8. Average % of Damage to Critical Facilities Caused by Modeled Tsunami
Vulnerable Infrastructure
In addition to the vulnerable critical facilities identified by the Hazus analysis, the following infrastructure is also generally vulnerable to damage:
• Water Proximate Infrastructure—Breakwaters and piers collapse, sometimes because of scouring actions that sweep away their foundation material and sometimes because of the sheer impact of the tsunami waves.
• Flood Control Systems—Floodwaters can back up drainage systems, causing localized flooding. Culverts can be blocked by debris from tsunami events, also causing localized urban flooding.
• Utility Systems—Floodwaters can get into drinking water supplies, causing contamination.
Sewer systems can be backed up, causing waste to spill into homes, neighborhoods, rivers, and streams. Tsunami waves can knock down power lines and radio/cellular communication towers.
Power generation facilities can be severely impacted by wave action and by inundation from floodwater.
16.4.4 Environment
Environmental impacts on local waterways and wildlife would be most significant in areas closest to the point of impact. Areas near gas stations, industrial areas and facilities storing hazardous materials are vulnerable. The vulnerability of aquatic habit and associated ecosystems in low-lying areas close to the coastline is high. Tsunami waves can carry destructive debris and pollutants that can have devastating impacts on all facets of the environment. A tsunami event has the potential to alter the shoreline, depending on the force of the run-up.
10.2 6.2
13.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3
47.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8.8 0.0
0 20
40 60
80 100
Communications Energy Food, Water &
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation
Average Damage as % of Total Value
Damage to Structure
Damage to Contents
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16-12
Most environmental and ecological impacts from tsunamis derive from direct damage from the waves, which can physically remove vegetation and wildlife, increase sediment load, and smother vegetation that is not physically carried away. Other environmental impacts from tsunamis include chemical changes from saltwater intruding into freshwater sources; eutrophication (enrichment) of water from increased runoff; and decomposition of vegetation, wildlife, rotting property (boats or buildings) and unrecovered remains. Non-biodegradable waste, such as plastics, can lead to a buildup in marine debris, and toxic wastes, if inadequately stored, may be released into the environment. Lastly, exotic wildlife may be introduced or may escape into the local ecosystem.
16.5 SCENARIO
The presentation Tsunami Hazards and Preparedness in Ventura County shows that local tsunamis may cause serious impact. A worst-case-scenario for the Ventura coastline would be a nearshore tsunami caused by a significant off-shore seismic event. While history has shown that these type events are not likely, should one occur, damage for this type of event would exceed what is estimated in the risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan.
16.6 ISSUES
The planning team has identified the following issues related to the tsunami hazard for the planning area:
• Hazard Identification—To truly measure and evaluate the probable impacts of tsunamis on planning, hazard mapping based on probabilistic scenarios must continue to be updated regularly. The science and technology in this field are emerging. Accurate probabilistic tsunami mapping will need to be a key component for tsunami hazard mitigation programs to be effective.
• Building Code Revisions—Present building codes and guidelines may not adequately address the impacts of tsunamis on structures. Planning partners, in the cities of Ventura, Oxnard, and Port Hueneme, should review their building code for requirements for tsunami-resistant construction standards in vulnerable areas.
• Enhancement of Current Capabilities—As tsunami warning technologies evolve, the tsunami warning capability within the planning area will need to be enhanced to provide the highest degree of warning.
• Vulnerable Populations Planning—Special attention will need to be focused on the vulnerable communities in the tsunami zone and on hazard mitigation through public education, outreach, and warning capabilities. This issue may be especially important for visitors to Ventura County.
Item No.7D
17-1
17. WILDFIRE
17.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Although wildfires can occur naturally and are important to many ecosystem processes, most are started by human activity.
17.1.1 CAL FIRE Wildfire Mapping
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CAL FIRE has modeled and mapped wildfire hazard zones
using a computer model that designates moderate, high or very high fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ). FHSZ ratings are derived from a combination of fire frequency (how often an area burns) and expected fire behavior under severe weather conditions. CAL FIRE’s model derives fire frequency from 50 years of fire history data. Fire behavior is based on factors such as the following (CAL FIRE 2021):
• Fuel—Fuel may include living and dead vegetation on
the ground, along the surface as brush and small trees, and above the ground in tree canopies. Lighter fuels
such as Arundo donax and other grasses, leaves, and
needles quickly expel moisture and burn rapidly, while
heavier fuels such as tree branches, logs and trunks
take longer to warm and ignite. Trees killed or
defoliated by forest insects and diseases are more
susceptible to wildfire.
• Weather—Relevant weather conditions include temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation amount and duration, and the stability of the atmosphere.
When the temperature is high, relative humidity is low, wind speed is increasing and coming from the east (offshore flow), and there has been little or no precipitation, so vegetation is dry, conditions are very favorable for extensive and severe wildfires. These conditions occur more frequently inland where temperatures are higher and fog is less prevalent. • Terrain—Topography includes slope and elevation. The topography of a region influences the amount and moisture of fuel; the impact of weather conditions such as temperature and wind;
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY AS
DETERMINED BY CAL FIRE
CAL FIRE classifies areas of the state as
having a moderate, high, or very high fire
hazard, based on how a fire would behave
in a given area and the probability of
flames and embers threatening buildings.
For wildland areas, the FHSZ model uses
burn probability and expected fire behavior
based on weather, fuel (the vegetation in
the area), and terrain. For urban areas,
hazard levels are based on vegetation
density, distance from wildlands, and the
levels assigned to surrounding zones.
Each area gets a score for flame length,
embers, and the likelihood of the area
burning. Scores of smaller areas are then
averaged over larger zones that
encompass them.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-2
potential barriers to fire spread, such as highways and lakes; and elevation and slope of landforms (fire spreads more easily uphill than downhill).
The model also is based on frequency of fire weather, ignition patterns, and expected rate-of spread. It accounts for flying ember production, which is the principal driver of the wildfire hazard in densely developed areas. A related concern in built-out areas is the relative density of vegetative fuels that can serve as sites for new spot fires within the urban core and spread to adjacent structures. The model refines the zones to characterize fire exposure mechanisms that cause ignitions to structures.
Significant land-use changes need to be accounted for through periodic model updates.
Wildfire Protection Responsibility Areas
Hundreds of agencies have fire protection responsibility for wildland and wildland/urban interface fires in California. Local, state, tribal, and federal organizations have primary legal (and financial) responsibility for wildfire protection. In many instances, two fire organizations have dual primary responsibility on the same parcel of land — one for wildfire protection, and the other for structural or “ improvement” fire protection. According to the 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, this layering of responsibility and resulting dual policies, ru les, practices, a nd legal ordinances can cause conflict or confusion. To address wildfire jurisdictional responsibilities, the California state legislature in 1981 adopted Public Resource Code Section 4291.5 and Health and Safety Code Section 13108.5 establishing the following responsibility areas:
• Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs)—FRAs are fire-prone wildland areas that are owned or managed by a federal agency such as the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Department of Defense.
Primary financial and rule-making jurisdictional authority rests with the federal land agency. In many instances, FRAs are interspersed with private land ownership or leases. Fire protection for developed private property is usually not the responsibility of the federal land management agency; structural protection responsibility is that of a local government agency. • Sta te Responsibility Areas (SRAs)—SRAs are lands in California where CAL FIRE has legal and financial responsibility for wildfire protection and where CAL FIRE administers fire hazard classifications and building standard regulations. SRAs are defined as lands that meet the following criteria:
Are county unincorporated areas
Are not federally owned
Have wildland vegetation cover rather than agricultural or ornamental plants Have watershed or range/forage value
Have housing densities not exceeding three units per acre. Where SRAs contain built environment or development, the responsibility for fire protection of those improvements (non-wildland) is that of a local government agency. • Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs)—LRAs include land in cities, cultivated agriculture lands, and non-flammable areas in unincorporated areas, and lands that do not meet the criteria for SRA or FRA. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, and counties, or by CAL FIRE under contract to local governments. LRAs may include flammable vegetation and wildland/urban interface areas where the financial and jurisdictional responsibility for improvement and wildfire protection is that of a local government agency.
Item No.7D
Wildfire
17-3
17.1.2 State Codes and Policies for Mitigating the Fire Hazard Urbanization tends to alter the natural fire regime and can lead to expansion of urbanized areas into wildland areas. State and local policies and regulations require landowners to carry out activities such as maintaining defensible space and reducing vulnerability to damage or loss from wildfire. The most important policies and regulations related to residential wildfire safety in California are as follows:
• General Plan Safety Element Review: Government Code 65302.5—The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (BOF) must provide recommendations to a local jurisdiction’s general plan safety element at the time that the general plan is being amended. BOF recommendations include goals and policies that provide for contemporary fire-prevention standards for the jurisdiction. This is not a direct and binding fire-prevention requirement for individuals. • Sprinkler Systems: California Residential Code, Chapter 3, Section R313—All new dwellings, dwelling units, and one- and two-family townhomes must be equipped with an automatic fire-sprinkler system that can protect the entirety of the dwelling. Dwellings and homes constructed prior to January 1, 2011, that do not have a sprinkler system may be retrofitted, but it is not required.
• Fire Safety Standards: California Public Resources Code 4290 and 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 1270—These regulations govern roads, driveway width, clearance, turnarounds, signing, and water related to fire safety throughout California. Public Resources Code 4290 is typically enacted through regulation at the county level, as described below. • Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards: California Government Code 51189—The Office of the State Fire Marshal is required to create building standards for wildfire resistance.
Construction of buildings in the wildland-urban interface must use fire-resistant materials to save life and property. As of 2011, the standards relevant to fire-safe construction for all new structures in the SRA are the California Building Code, Chapter 7A (for commercial construction) and the California Residential Code, Chapter 3, Section R327 (for residential construction).
• State Responsibility Area: Public Resources Code 4102, 4125-4229 and 14 CCR 1220— These statutes and regulations establish the locations where CAL FIRE has the financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires. These designations define financial arrangements for fire protection services and establish the locations where fire safe and defensible space laws or regulations apply.
• Hazardous Fire Areas: Public Resources Code 4251-4255 and 14 CCR 1200—These laws and regulations allow petitioners to the BOF or CAL FIRE to establish hazardous fire areas, providing for area closures and other restrictions for fire prevention. • Defensible Vegetation Clearing Around Structures: Public Resources Code 4291/14 CCR 1299— Public Resources Code 4291 regulates fuel management around a property. It states that a person who owns or controls a building or structure in or adjoining to forest, brush, or grass covered lands shall follow certain guidelines outlined in the code. At least 100 feet of defensible space is required. The owner of the property is liable for making these changes to protect habitable structures. The 100 feet is separated into two zones, with the closer zone, 30 feet out from the structure, being managed more intensively.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-4
17.1.3 Secondary Hazards
Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. Wildfires strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soils and cause failures on slopes. Major landslides can occur several years after a wildfire. Most wildfires burn hot and for long durations that can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the ground. This increases the runoff generated by storm events, thus increasing the chance of flooding.
17.2 HAZARD PROFILE
17.2.1 Past Events
Ventura County has a prolific fire history, including 11 events since 2000 that have triggered federal disaster declarations, as listed in Table 17-1. Most of these fires coincided with strong Santa Ana wind events.
Table 17-1. Federally Declared Wildfire Events in Ventura County Date Started FEMA Declaration # Description
October 31, 2019 FM-5302 Maria Fire 9,999 acres burned, 4 structures destroyed October 30, 2019 FM-5298 Easy Fire 2,375 acres burned, 1 structure damaged, 1 structure destroyed November 8, 2018 DR-4407 Woolsey Fire 96,949 acres, 1,643 structures destroyed, 3 fatalities December 4, 2017 FM-5224
DR-4353
Thomas Firea 281,893 acres burned, 280 structures damaged, 1,063 structures destroyed, 2 fatalities
May 2, 2013 FM-5024 Springs Fire 24,251 acres burned, 12 structures damaged, 10 structures destroyed September 22, 2009 FM-2839 Guiberson Fire 17,500 acres burned December 3, 2006 FM-2681 Shekell Fire 13,600 acres burned, 7 structures burned September 4, 2006 FM-2677 Day Fire 162,702 acres burned November 17, 2005 FM-2586 School Fire 3,891 acres burned September 28, 2005 FM-2583 Topanga Fire 24, 175 acres burned, 6 structures burned October 25, 2003 DR-1498 Simi Fire 107,560 acres burned, 48 structures lost Source: FEMA 2021, CAL FIRE 2021
a. Statistics include Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
CAL FIRE maintains statistics on historical wildfire activity through its annual reporting (Redbooks).
Wildfire statistics include state and county information, cause and size, acres burned, and dollar damage, among other details. Figure 17-1 shows the wildfire activity for Ventura County between 2011 and 2019, the most recent annual report available. CAL FIRE has Redbooks available for every year back through 1942.
Item No.7D
Wildfire
17-5
Figure 17-1. CAL FIRE Wildfire Activity Statistics for Ventura County 2011-2019
17.2.2 Location
Figure 17-2 shows the moderate, high, and very high FHSZs for Ventura County. These maps are the basis for the wildfire risk assessment.
17.2.3 Frequency
The wildfire season in coastal Southern California displays a distinct seasonality. Unlike the rest of western North America, which is mainly susceptible to wildfires during the summer, Southern California’s fire season historically peaks in the fall. This is the result of two factors: the long dry summer defining the local Mediterranean climate regime; and the dry, gusty downslope Santa Ana winds, whose season starts in the fall when vegetation is at its driest.
Based on its history of past events, Ventura County has a high chance of a wildfire in any given year.
The most common causes of wildfires, based on recent past events, will be “undetermined,” miscellaneous, equipment use, playing with fire, and arson.
17.2.4 Severity
The Thomas Fire in 2017 had greater impact on Ventura County than any other wildfire to date. This fire started near Santa Paula and spread quickly, aided by strong Santa Ana winds. It burned for 38 days, covering 282,000 acres in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and destroying or damaging more than 1,300 structures. Two people lost their lives. The agriculture industry in Ventura County suffered losses of at least $171 million.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80Number of Fires
Reported Cause
2011-13
2014-16
2017-19
Item No.7D
Fillmore
Moorpark
Simi Valley
Santa Paula
Oxnard
Ojai
Port
Hueneme
Camarillo
San
Buenaventura
Thousand Oaks
Lake Piru
Lake
Casitas
¬«118¬«
33 ¬«34
¬«118¬«
126
¬«
150
¬«
1 ¬«
1 ¬«
23 ¬«
126
¬«23
¬«33
¬«
33 ¬«
34 ¬«
1 ¬«
150
¬«
232
¬«
33 ¬«
23 £¤101
Figure 17-2. Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones in Ventura County Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
CAL FIRE, Esri
Moderate
High
Very High
County Boundary
Cities
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
Item No.7D
Wildfire
17-7
In CAL FIRE’s July 2021 list of the deadliest, largest, and most destructive wildfires that have occurred in the state, the Thomas Fire ranks as the 8th largest and 15th most destructive. The 2018 Woolsey Fire ranks as the 8th most destructive. Both these fires were exacerbated by strong Santa Ana wind conditions. Although no Ventura County fires are listed among the top 20 deadliest events, four of the deadliest fires recorded were in neighboring Los Angeles County.
17.2.5 Warning Time
Whether intentionally or accidentally, most wildfires are caused by humans. There is no way to predict when one might break out. Dry seasons, prolonged droughts, and Santa Ana wind events are factors that greatly increase fire likelihood. Severe weather can be predicted, so special attention can be paid during weather events that may increase wildfire risk. Since fireworks often cause brush fires, extra diligence also is warranted around holidays, such as Fourth of July, when the use of fireworks is highest.
If a fire does break out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within days or hours.
According to the U.S. Forest Service, a fire’s peak burning period generally is between 10 a.m. and sundown. Once a fire has started, fire alerting is reasonably rapid in most cases. The rapid spread of cellular and two-way radio communications in recent years has further contributed to significant improvements in warning time.
17.3 EXPOSURE
A quantitative assessment of exposure to the wildfire hazard was conducted using the hazard mapping shown in Figure 17-2 and the asset inventory developed for this plan. Detailed results by municipality are provided in Appendix D; results for the total planning area are presented below.
17.3.1 Population
Population exposure was estimated by calculating the number of buildings in each hazard area as a percent of total planning area buildings and applying this percentage to the planning area population.
Table 17-2 summarizes the estimated countywide population living in the mapped risk areas. In addition to populations who reside in risk areas where fires may occur, visitors, hikers and campers may be exposed to wildfires. The entire population of the planning area has the potential to be exposed to smoke from nearby wildfires.
Table 17-2. Exposed Population in Mapped Relative Fire Hazard Zones Moderate FHSZ High FHSZ Very High FHSZ
Population Exposed 6,101 4,188 175,759
% of Total Planning Area Population 0.7% 0.5% 20.8%
17.3.2 Property
Table 17-3 summarizes the estimated countywide property exposure in the mapped wildfire risk areas.
Figure 17-3 shows the occupancy class for all buildings in the mapped fire hazard areas. These Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-8
occupancy classes provide an indication of land use within the mapped hazard area. Some land uses are more vulnerable to fire, such as single-family homes, while others are less vulnerable, such as agricultural land or parks.
Table 17-3. Exposed Property in Mapped Relative Fire Hazard Zones Moderate FHSZ High FHSZ Very High FHSZ
Number of Buildings Exposed 4,648 2,872 58,678
Value of Exposed Structures $1,444,900,462 $955,204,682 $24,250,894,229 Value of Exposed Contents $1,099,162,715 $725,563,443 $15,324,915,299 Total Exposed Property Value $2,544,063,177 $1,680,768,126 $39,575,809,528 Total Exposed Value as % of Planning Area Total 1.4% 0.9% 21.9% Figure 17-3. Structures in the Moderate, High or Very High FHSZs, by Occupancy Class
Residential
2,089
45%
Commercial
281
6%
Industrial
12 0%
Agriculture
2,133
46%
Religion
59 1%
Government
64 2%
Education
10 0%
MODERATE FHSZ
Residential
1,451
50%
Commercial
178
6% Industrial
0 0%
Agriculture
1,141
40%Religion
28 1%
Government
56 2%
Education
18 1%
HIGH FHSZ
Residential
51,856
88%
Commercial
2,274
4%
Industrial
491
1%
Agriculture
2,922
5%
Religion
421
1%
Government
243
0%
Education
471
1%
VERY HIGH FHSZ
Item No.7D
Wildfire
17-9
17.3.3 Critical Facilities
Figure 17-4 shows critical facilities located in the high or very high fire hazard severity zones, by facility type. The total count of critical facilities in these risk areas (386) represents 25 percent of the planning area total of 1,588. A breakdown by municipality is provided in Appendix D.
Figure 17-4. Critical Facilities in High or Very High Severity Zones
17.3.4 Environment
All natural resources and habitats in mapped fire hazard severity zones are exposed to the risk of wildfire.
17.4 VULNERABILITY
17.4.1 Population
All people exposed to the wildfire hazard are potentially vulnerable to wildfire impacts. Persons with access and functional needs, the elderly and very young may be especially vulnerable to a wildfire if there is not adequate warning time for them to evacuate if needed. In addition, people outside the mapped risk areas are susceptible to health hazards associated with smoke and air pollution from wildfires, especially sensitive populations including children, the elderly, and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. In addition, wildfires threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires.
17.4.2 Property
All property exposed to the wildfire hazard is vulnerable. Structures that were not constructed to standards designed to protect a building from a wildfire may be especially vulnerable. As of 2008, 72 36
79 14
2 69
131
0 30
60 90
120
150Number of Facilties in Hazard Area
Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
28.8%
32.4%
37.6%
15.1%
20.0% 17.6%
25.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Facilties in Hazard Area as % of Planning Area Total Communication
Energy
Food, Water, Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Medical and Health
Safety and Security
Transportation
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-10
California State Building code requires minimum standards be met for new buildings in fire hazard severity zones. According the 2019 American Community Survey estimates, most of the housing in the planning area—96.8 percent—was built prior to this code requirement. It is unknown how many of these structures are located in fire hazard zones.
Estimates were developed to indicate the loss that would occur if wildfire damage were equal to 1, 10, 30 or 50 percent of the exposed property value, as summarized in Table 17-4. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure.
Table 17-4. Loss Estimates for Fire Hazard Severity Zones Exposed Value Loss Value Loss as % of Total Planning Area Replacement Value Moderate FHSZ
Loss = 1% of Exposed Value
$2,544,063,177
$25,440,632 0.01%
Loss = 10% of Exposed Value $254,406,318 0.14%
Loss = 30% of Exposed Value $763,218,953 0.42%
Loss = 50% of Exposed Value $1,272,031,589 0.70%
High FHSZ
Loss = 1% of Exposed Value
$1,680,768,126
$16,807,681 0.01%
Loss = 10% of Exposed Value $168,076,813 0.09%
Loss = 30% of Exposed Value $504,230,438 0.27%
Loss = 50% of Exposed Value $840,384,063 0.45%
Very FHSZ
Loss = 1% of Exposed Value
$39,575,809,528
$395,758,095 0.22%
Loss = 10% of Exposed Value $3,957,580,953 2.19%
Loss = 30% of Exposed Value $11,872,742,858 6.57%
Loss = 50% of Exposed Value $19,787,904,764 10.95%
17.4.3 Critical Facilities
Currently there are 14 hazardous material containment sites identified in wildfire risk zones. During a wildfire event, containers with these materials could rupture because of the excessive heat and act as fuel for the fire, causing rapid spreading and escalating the fire to unmanageable levels. In addition, they could leak into surrounding areas, saturating soils and seeping into surface waters, and have a disastrous effect on the environment.
In the event of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to most infrastructure. Most roads would not be damaged except in the worst scenarios, although roads and bridges can be blocked by debris or fire-related conditions and become impassable. Power poles are the most at risk to wildfire because
most are made of wood and susceptible to burning. In the event of a wildfire, pipelines could provide a source of fuel and lead to a catastrophic explosion.
Item No.7D
Wildfire
17-11
17.4.4 Environment
Fire is a natural and critical ecosystem process in most terrestrial ecosystems, affecting the types, structure, and spatial extent of native vegetation. However, in some circumstances it can also cause severe environmental impacts, such as the following:
• Soil Erosion—The protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter is removed, leaving the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion occurs, causing landslides and threatening aquatic habitats.
• Reduced Agricultural Resources—Wildfire can have disastrous consequences on agricultural resources, removing them from production and necessitating lengthy restoration programs. • Spread of Invasive Plant Species—Non-native plant species, such as Arundo donax, frequently invade burned areas. When weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad landscapes, and become difficult and costly to control. • Disease and Insect Infestations—Unless diseased or insect-infested trees are swiftly removed, infestations and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active management actions are needed to remove diseased or infested trees. • Destroyed Endangered Species Habitat—Wildfire can have negative consequences for endangered species by degrading their habitat.
• Soil Sterilization—Some wildfires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil. Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil nutrients may be lost. • Damaged Fisheries—Fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation, and changes in water quality.
• Damaged Cultural and Historical Resources—The destruction of cultural and historic resources may occur, scenic vistas can be damaged, and access to recreational areas can be reduced.
17.5 SCENARIO
With Ventura County’s Mediterranean climate, high moisture levels during the winter rainy season can significantly increase the growth of plants, followed by that vegetation becoming dried during the long, hot summers, decreasing plant moisture content and increasing the ratio of dead fuel to living fuel. As a result, fire susceptibility increases dramatically, particularly in late summer and early autumn.
The worst conditions for local wildfires also depend on how long it has been since the last fire. For several years after a fire has occurred, easily flammable herbaceous species predominate and increase the likelihood of new fires. When woody species become re-established, they contribute to a lower overall level of fire susceptibility for approximately 10 years. However, after this period, the slow aging plant community becomes ever more likely to burn because of increased levels of dead plant material and lowered plant moisture levels.
Santa Ana winds contribute to the likeliness of wildfires in Ventura County, bringing extremely dry air and high wind speeds that further desiccate plant communities during the period of the year when the constituent species have very low moisture content. The effect of these winds on existing fires is particularly dangerous; the winds can greatly increase the rate at which fires spread.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17-12
A worst-case scenario would include an active fire season throughout the American west, spreading resources thin. Firefighting teams would be exhausted or unavailable. Many federal assets would be responding to other fires that started earlier in the season.
To further complicate the problem, heavy rains could follow, causing flooding and landslides in areas where vegetation has been removed by the fire.
17.6 ISSUES
The major issues for wildfire are the following:
• Public education and outreach to people living in or near the fire hazard zones should include information about and assistance with mitigation actions such as defensible space and advance identification of evacuation routes and safe zones. • Wildfires could cause landslides as a secondary natural hazard. • Wildfire preparedness and response planning should emphasize being alert to any predictions of Santa Ana winds, which are significant contributors to wildfire in Ventura County. • Climate change could exacerbate the wildfire hazard.
• Future growth into interface areas should continue to be managed. • Area fire districts need to continue to train on wildland-urban interface events. • Vegetation management activities—This issue would include enhancement through expansion of the target areas as well as additional resources.
• Regional consistency of higher building code standards such as residential sprinkler requirements and prohibitive combustible roof standards. • Firefighters in remote and rural areas are faced with limited water supply and lack of hydrant taps.
• Expand certifications and qualifications for fire department personnel. • Ensure that all firefighters are trained in basic wildfire behavior, basic fire weather, and that all company officers and chief level officers are trained to the wildland command and strike team leader level.
Item No.7D
18-1
18. CLIMATE CHANGE
18.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
18.1.1 What is Climate Change?
“Climate change” refers to alterations in the long-term patterns of temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind and seasons that play a fundamental role in shaping natural ecosystems and the human economies and cultures that depend on them. These shifts may result from natural processes (e.g., cyclical ocean patterns like El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, volcanic activity, changes in the sun’s energy output, variations in Earth’s orbit), but they can also be driven by human activity. Many of the changes observed in Earth’s climate since the early 20th century have been attributed to human activity.
The well-established worldwide warming trend of recent decades and its related impacts are caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a warming effect. Carbon dioxide is the most commonly known greenhouse gas; however, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases also contribute to warming. Emissions of these gases come from a variety of sources, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, agricultural production, and changes in land use. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), carbon dioxide concentrations measured about 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial era began in the late 1700s and have risen dramatically since then, surpassing 400 ppm in 2013 for the first time in recorded history (see Figure 18-1).
18.1.2 How Climate Change Affects Hazard Mitigation
Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems of the planning area in a variety of ways. Consequences of climate change include increased periods of prolonged drought, potential for heat-related illnesses, detrimental impacts on agricultural productivity, and increased flood vulnerability. The most important effect for the development of this hazard mitigation plan is that climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of many natural hazards.
An essential aspect of hazard mitigation is predicting the likelihood of future hazard events. Typically, predictions are based on statistical projections from records of past events. This approach assumes that the likelihood of hazard events remains essentially unchanged over time. Thus, averages based on the past frequencies of, for example, floods are used to estimate future frequencies: if a river has flooded an average of once every 5 years for the past 100 years, then it can be expected to continue to flood an average of once every 5 years.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-2
Figure 18-1. Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over Time
Source: NASA 2021
For hazards that are affected by climate conditions though, the assumption that future behavior will be equivalent to past behavior is not valid. For example, flooding is generally associated with precipitation frequency and quantity. However, the frequency of flooding will not remain constant if broad precipitation patterns change over time. Specifically, as hydrology changes, storms currently considered to be the 100-year flood might strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk.
The risks of landslide, severe storms, severe weather, and wildfire are all affected by climate patterns as well. For this reason, an understanding of climate change is pertinent to efforts to mitigate natural hazards. Information about how climate patterns are changing provides insight on the reliability of future hazard projections used in mitigation analysis.
18.1.3 Current Indicators of Climate Change
Global Indicators
The major scientific agencies of the United States—including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—have presented evidence that climate change is occurring. NASA summarizes key evidence as follows (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2021):
• Global Temperature Rise—The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.12 ºF since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide emissions into Item No.7D
Climate Change
18-3
the atmosphere and other human activities. Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the seven most recent years being the warmest. The years 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year on record. The ocean has absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 100 meters (about 328 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.6 ºF since 1969. Earth stores 90 percent of its extra energy in the ocean.
• Shrinking Ice Sheets—The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 279 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2019, while Antarctica lost about 148 billion tons of ice per year.
• Glacial Retreat—Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world—including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
• Decreased Snow Cover—Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier
• Sea-Level Rise—Global sea levels rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year. • Declining Arctic Sea Ice—Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades
• Extreme Events—The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed an increasing number of intense rainfall events. • Ocean Acidification—Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing to about 7 to 10 billion metric tons per year.
California Indicators
Monitoring and research efforts across California have generated data that describe changes already underway in the state. Notable examples across the state include the following (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2018):
• D issolved oxygen in coastal waters is declining throughout the south coast survey region • Since 1950, the northern Sierra Nevada showed an overall snowpack decline of 7.4 inches. • Unusually warm waters occurred in the Pacific Ocean in 2014-2015, leading to widespread impacts on marine life. This marine heat wave first appeared as a large area of exceptionally high sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska in November 2013 and later extended along the entire west coast of North America.
• The surface area of seven Sierra Nevada glaciers has decreased dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century. In 2014, the size of these glaciers ranged from 14 to 52 percent of their 1903 area.
• Sea level has risen by about 7 inches since 1900 at San Francisco and by about 6 inches since 1924 at La Jolla.
• Since 1906, the fraction of annual snowmelt runoff that flows into the Sacramento River between April and July has decreased by about 9 percent.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-4
• Compared to the 1930s, forests across much of California today have lower densities of large trees, and higher densities of small trees. Water stress, which increases in a warming climate, poses a greater risk to large trees than to small trees. • Annual tree mortality in California forests increased in 2014, and steep increases in mortality followed in subsequent years; the highest number, 62 million tree deaths, was recorded in 2016. • Future droughts may be hotter, as warm temperatures coincide with periodic dry years; 2016 and 2020 were the warmest years on record.
• Heat-related deaths and illnesses in California increased dramatically in 2006 following a record-breaking heat wave. At least 140 deaths occurred between July 15 and August 1. Deaths related to this heat wave were largely attributed to elevated nighttime temperatures. • The number of acres burned by wildfires statewide has been increasing since 1950. Large fires affecting 1,000 acres or more account for most of the area burned each year.
18.1.4 Projected Future Impacts
Climate change projections contain inherent uncertainty, largely derived from the fact that they depend on future greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Generally, the uncertainty in greenhouse gas emissions is addressed by the presentation of differing scenarios: low-emissions or high-emissions scenarios. In low-emissions scenarios, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced substantially from current levels. In high-emissions scenarios, greenhouse gas emissions generally increase or continue at current levels.
Uncertainty in outcomes is generally addressed by averaging a variety of model outcomes. Despite this uncertainty, climate change projections present valuable information to help guide decision-making for possible future conditions.
Global and National Projections
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, project that Earth’s average temperatures will raise 2.5 to 10 ºF over the next century (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2021). The Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports indicate the following:
• Change Will Continue Through This Century and Beyond—Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally, and how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to those emissions. • Temperatures Will Continue to Rise—Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country or over time.
• Frost-Free Season and Growing Season will Lengthen—The length of the frost-free season and the corresponding growing season has been increasing nationally since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture.
Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen.
In a future in which heat-trapping gas emissions continue to grow, increases of a month or more in the lengths of the frost-free and growing seasons are projected across most of the United States by the end of the century, with slightly smaller increases in the northern Great Plains.
The largest increases in the frost-free season (more than eight weeks) are projected for the Item No.7D
Climate Change
18-5
western United States, particularly in high elevation and coastal areas. The increases will be smaller if heat-trapping gas emissions are reduced.
• Changes in Precipitation Patterns—Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have had increases greater than the national average, and some areas have had decreases. More winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.
Projections of future climate over the United States suggest that the recent trend toward increased heavy precipitation events will continue. This trend is projected to occur even in regions where total precipitation is expected to decrease, such as the Southwest. • More Droughts and Heat Waves—Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves everywhere are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense everywhere. Summer temperatures are projected to continue rising, and a reduction of soil moisture, which exacerbates heat waves, is projected for much of the western and central United States in summer. By the end of this century, what have been once-in-20-year extreme heat days (one- day events) are projected to occur every two or three years over most of the nation. • Hurricanes Will Become Stronger and More Intense—The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm. • Arctic Likely to Become Ice-Free in Summer—The Arctic Ocean is currently expected to become essentially ice free in summer before 2050.
• Sea Level Will Rise 1 to 8 feet by 2100—Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 8 feet by 2100. This is the result of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.
In the next several decades, storm surges and high tides could combine with sea-level rise and land subsidence, resulting in increased flooding in many regions. Sea-level rise will continue past 2100 because the oceans take a very long time to respond to warmer conditions at the Earth’s surface. Ocean waters will therefore continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for many centuries at rates equal to or higher than those of the current century. Figure 18-2 shows the projected rate of global sea-level rise under different greenhouse gas scenarios (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2021).
Projections for California
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, the state can expect the following climate change impacts (State of California 2021):
• By 2100, the average annual maximum daily temperature is projected to increase by 5.6 to 8.8 ºF
• By 2100, the water supply from snowpack is projected to decline by two-thirds • By 2050, a study estimates California’s agricultural production could face climate-related water shortages of up to 16 percent in certain regions
• By 2100, the frequency of extreme wildfires will increase, and the average area burned statewide would increase by 77 percent
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-6
Figure 18-2. Possible Future Sea Levels for Different Greenhouse Gas Pathways
Source: NOAA, 2021
• By 2100, 13 to 67 percent of Southern California beaches may completely erode due to sea- level rise
• By 2100, the miles of highways susceptible to coastal flooding in a 100-year storm event will triple
• By 2050, heat waves in cities could cause 2 to 3 times more heat-related deaths Projections for Ventura County
The 2019 report, Projected Changes in Ventura County Climate, lists the following local projections (Oakley, et al. 2019):
• Changes in temperature—Both annual average temperatures and the frequency of extreme temperatures will increase across Ventura County. Inland areas are likely to see an increase of at least 3 to 5 ºF. Coastal areas are likely to see an increase of at least 2 to 3 ºF. Figure 18-3 shows the projected maximum temperature changes from the average temperature for 1950 – 2005, to the average temperature for 2021 – 2040. Increases in maximum temperatures and overnight minimum temperatures as well as frequency of extreme temperatures will likely have negative impacts on human health and ecosystems, disproportionately affecting disadvantaged communities and impacting species extent and abundance. • Changes in Precipitation—Precipitation is likely to intensify, meaning that the same amount of precipitation will fall in fewer days. Projections suggest a 7 percent decrease in winter precipitation days, an 11 percent decrease in spring precipitation days, and a 20 percent decrease in fall precipitation days with little overall projected change in seasonal precipitation totals. Changes in precipitation characteristics (intensification and concentration into winter season) may have implications for groundwater recharge and how surface water is conveyed, captured, and stored. There may be increased potential for post-fire flash flooding and/or debris flows due to more frequent short-duration, high intensity rainfall.
Item No.7D
Climate Change
18-7
Figure 18-3. Changes in Projected Maximum Temperatures in Ventura County
• Changes in evaporative demand—The greatest changes are likely in inland terrain, particularly in the headwaters of the Santa Clara River (Los Angeles County). Seasonally, the greatest total evaporation changes in demand will be in the spring, followed by summer and fall, with modest changes during the winter. The fall season demonstrates the largest percentage increases in evaporative demand over the largest area while the greatest percentage increases during spring and summer occur in the Topatopa Mountains. Increased evaporative demand may affect what crops can be grown economically, alter ecosystem function, and increase drought susceptibility.
18.1.5 Responses to Climate Change
Communities and governments worldwide are working to address, evaluate and prepare for climate changes that are likely to impact communities in coming decades. Generally, climate change discussions encompass two separate but inter-related considerations: mitigation and adaptation.
The term “mitigation” has multiple meanings across disciplines. Mitigation in emergency management, as generally addressed in this hazard mitigation plan, is typically defined as the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. Mitigation in climate change discussions is defined as a human intervention to reduce impacts on the climate system. It includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas sources and emissions and enhance greenhouse gas sinks. In this chapter, mitigation is used as defined by the climate change community. In the other chapters of this plan, mitigation is primarily used in an emergency management context.
Adaptation refers to adjustments in natural or human systems in response to the actual or anticipated effects of climate change and associated impacts. These adjustments may moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. Mitigation and adaptation are related, as the world’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will affect the degree of adaptation that will be necessary. Some initiatives Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-8
and actions can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support adaptation to likely future conditions.
Societies across the world are facing the need to adapt to changing conditions associated with natural disasters and climate change. Farmers are altering crops and agricultural methods to deal with changing rainfall and rising temperature; architects and engineers are redesigning buildings; planners are looking at managing water supplies to deal with droughts or flooding.
Adaptive capacity goes beyond human systems, as some ecosystems are able to adapt to change and to buffer surrounding areas from the impacts of change. Forests can bind soils and hold large volumes of water during times of plenty, releasing it through the year; floodplains can absorb vast volumes of water during peak flows; coastal ecosystems can hold out against storms, attenuating waves and reducing erosion. Other ecosystem services—such as food provision, timber, materials, medicines, and recreation—can provide a buffer to societies in the face of changing conditions. Ecosystem-based adaptation is the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. This includes the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of specific ecosystems that provide key services.
Assessment of the current efforts and adaptive capacity of the planning partners participating in this hazard mitigation plan are included in the jurisdiction-specific annexes in Volume 2.
18.2 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON HAZARDS OF CONCERN
18.2.1 Dam Failure
On average, changes in California’s annual precipitation levels are not expected to be dramatic; however, small changes may have significant impacts for water resource systems, including dams.
Dams are designed partly based on assumptions about a river’s flow behavior, expressed as hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. If the hygrograph changes, it is conceivable that the dam can lose some or all of its designed margin of safety, also known as freeboard.
If freeboard is reduced, dam operators may be forced to release increased volumes earlier in a storm cycle in order to maintain the required margins of safety. Such early releases of increased volumes can increase flood potential downstream. According to the California Department of Water Resources, flood flows on many California rivers have been record-setting since the 1950s. This means that water infrastructure, such as dams, have been forced to manage flows for which they were not designed. The California Division of Dam Safety has indicated that climate change may result in the need for increased safety precautions to address higher winter runoff, frequent fluctuations of water levels, and increased potential for sedimentation and debris accumulation from changing erosion patterns and increases in wildfires. According to the Division, climate change also will impact the ability of dam operators to estimate extreme flood events (California Department of Water Resources 2021b).
A strategy called Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) is being developed and tested in California as a way to inform decisions to retain or release water by allowing flexibility in operation policies and rules with enhanced monitoring and improved weather and water forecasts (Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes 2021).
Item No.7D
Climate Change
18-9
Dams are constructed with safety features known as “spillways.” Spillways are put in place on dams as a safety measure in the event of the reservoir filling too quickly. Spillway overflow events, often referred to as “design failures,” result in increased discharges downstream and increased flooding potential.
Although climate change will not increase the probability of catastrophic dam failure, it may increase the probability of design failures.
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population—Population exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard are unlikely to change as a result of climate change.
• Property—Property exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard are unlikely to change as a result of climate change.
• Critical facilities—The exposure and vulnerability of critical facilities are unlikely to change as result of climate change. Dam owners and operators are sensitive to the risk and may need to alter maintenance and operations to account for changes in the hydrograph and increased sedimentation.
• Environment—The exposure and vulnerability of the environment to dam and levee failure are unlikely to change as a result of climate change. Ecosystem services may be used to mitigate some factors that could increase the risk of design failures, such as increasing the natural water storage capacity in watersheds above dams.
18.2.2 Drought
The long-term effects of climate change on regional water resources are unknown, but global water resources are already experiencing the following stresses without climate change:
• Growing populations
• Increased competition for available water
• Poor water quality
• Environmental claims
• Uncertain reserved water rights
• Groundwater overdraft
• Aging urban water infrastructure.
With a warmer climate, droughts could become more frequent, more severe, and longer-lasting.
According to the National Climate Assessment, “higher surface temperatures brought about by global warming increase the potential for drought. Evaporation and the higher rate at which plants lose moisture through their leaves both increase with temperature. Unless higher evapotranspiration rates are matched by increases in precipitation, environments will tend to dry, promoting drought conditions” (U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit 2021).
Because changes in precipitation patterns are still uncertain, the potential impacts and likelihood of drought are uncertain. DWR has noted impacts of climate change on statewide water resources by charting changes in snowpack, sea level, and river flow. As temperatures rise and more precipitation Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-10
comes in the form of rain instead of snow, these changes will likely continue or grow even more significant. DWR estimates that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which provides a large amount of the water supply for other parts of the state, will experience a 48- to 65-percent loss by the end of the century compared to the historical April 1 average (California Department of Water Resources 2021a).
Projections for the planning area show a significant decline in projected snow water equivalent in April snowpack. Increasing temperatures may also increase net evaporation from reservoirs, which would reduce water availability for ecosystems and human use (Mount, Escriva-Bou and Sencan 2021).
By addressing current stresses on water supplies and by building a flexible, robust program, the County will be able to more adeptly respond to changing conditions and to survive dry years.
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the drought hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population—Population exposure and vulnerability to drought are unlikely to increase as a result of climate change. While greater numbers of people may need to engage in behavior change, such as water saving efforts, significant life or health impacts are unlikely. • Property—Property exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of increased drought resulting from climate change, although this would most likely occur in non-structural property such as crops and landscaping. It is unlikely that structure exposure and vulnerability would increase as a direct result of drought, although secondary impacts of drought, such as wildfire, may increase and threaten structures.
• Critical facilities—Critical facility exposure and vulnerability are unlikely to increase as a result of increased drought resulting from climate change; however, critical facility operators may be sensitive to changes and need to alter standard management practices and actively manage resources, particularly in water-related service sectors • Environment—The vulnerability of the environment may increase as a result of increased drought resulting from climate change. Prolonged or more frequent drought resulting from climate change may stress ecosystems in the region, which include many special-status species.
18.2.3 Earthquake
The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown, although scientists have identified tiny earthquakes triggered by the change of fault stress loads from rain and snow. Similarly, long-term drought can result in a significant change in the stress load on earth’s crust.
Pumping of groundwater from underground aquifers by humans, which is exacerbated during times of drought, has also been shown to impact patterns of stress loads by “unweighting” Earth’s crust. A 2014 study looked at the effects of groundwater extraction in California’s Central Valley on seismicity on the adjacent San Andreas Fault. The researchers found that such extractions can promote lateral changes in stress to the two sides of the San Andreas, which move horizontally against each other along the boundary of two major tectonic plates. This could potentially cause them to unclamp and slip, resulting in an earthquake (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2019).
Because impacts on the earthquake hazard are not well understood, increases in exposure and vulnerability of local resources are not able to be determined.
Item No.7D
Climate Change
18-11
18.2.4 Flood
Use of historical hydrologic data has long been the standard of practice for designing and operating water supply and flood protection projects. For example, historical data are used for flood forecasting models and to forecast snowmelt runoff for water supply. This method of forecasting assumes that the climate of the future will be similar to that of the period of historical record. However, the hydrologic record cannot be used to predict changes in frequency and severity of extreme climate events such as floods. Scientists project greater storm intensity with climate change, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding. High frequency flood events in particular will likely increase with a changing climate. What is currently considered a 1-percent-annual-chance also may strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. Going forward, model calibration must happen more frequently, new forecast-based tools must be developed, and a standard of practice that explicitly considers climate change must be adopted.
Climate change is already impacting water resources, and resource managers have observed the following:
• Historical hydrologic patterns can no longer be solely relied upon to forecast the water future. • Precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, increasing the uncertainty for water supply and quality, flood management and ecosystem functions.
• Extreme climatic events will become more frequent, necessitating improvement in flood protection, drought preparedness and emergency response.
The amount of snow is critical for water supply and environmental needs, but so is the timing of snowmelt runoff into rivers and streams. Rising snowlines caused by climate change will allow more mountain areas to contribute to peak storm runoff. Changes in watershed vegetation and soil moisture conditions will likewise change runoff and recharge patterns. As stream flows and velocities change, erosion patterns will also change, altering channel shapes and depths, possibly increasing sedimentation behind dams, and affecting habitat and water quality. With potential increases in the frequency and intensity of wildfires due to climate change, there is potential for more floods following fire, which increase sediment loads and water quality impacts.
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the flood hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population and Property—Population and property exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the flood hazard. Runoff patterns may change, resulting in flooding in areas where it has not previously occurred. • Critical facilities—Critical facility exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the flood hazard. Runoff patterns may change, resulting in risk to facilities that have not historically been at risk from flooding. Changes in the management and design of flood protection critical facilities may be needed as additional stress is placed on these systems.
Planners will need to factor a new level of safety into the design, operation, and regulation of flood protection facilities such as dams, bypass channels and levees, as well as the design of local sewers and storm drains.
• Environment—The exposure and vulnerability of the environment may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the flood hazard. Changes in the timing and frequency of flood Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-12
events may have broader ecosystem impacts that alter the ability of already stressed species to survive.
18.2.5 Landslide
Climate change may impact storm patterns, increasing the probability of more frequent, intense storms with varying duration. Increase in global temperature is likely to affect the snowpack and its ability to hold and store water. Warming temperatures also could increase the occurrence and duration of droughts, which would increase the probability of wildfire, reducing the vegetation that helps to support steep slopes. Each these factors would increase the probability of landslides.
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the landslide hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population and Property—Population and property exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase because of climate change impacts on the landslide hazard. These events may occur more frequently, but the extent and location should be contained within mapped hazard areas or recently burned areas.
• Critical facilities—Critical facility exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase due to climate change impacts on the landslide hazard; however, critical facility owners and operators may experience more frequent disruption to service provision resulting from landslide hazards. For example, transportation systems may experience more frequent delays if movements blocking these systems occur more frequently. • Environment—Exposure and vulnerability of the environment would be unlikely to increase because of climate change, but more frequent movements in river systems may impact water quality and have negative impacts on stressed species.
18.2.6 Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Erosion
Coastal areas are sensitive to sea-level rise, changes in precipitation and the frequency and intensity of storms, and warmer ocean temperatures. According to NASA, warmer temperatures may lead to an increase in the intensity of storms, leading to weather events that can have increase impacts on coastal erosion. A study on increased storm wave heights from climate change indicated that coastal erosion and flooding may occur twice as fast from sea-level rise alone and up to four times as fast as a doubling of the frequency of major El Niño events. Should all these potential events from climate change occur simultaneously, there could be up to an order of magnitude increase in coastal erosion compared to current rates (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2010).
Climate change-related sea-level rise could exacerbate sea water intrusion issues under the agricultural lands of the Oxnard coastal plain, which were first observed in the 1930s and became a serious problem in the 1950s. This could result in diminishing returns or even render existing, valuable crop lands completely unusable.
18.2.7 Severe Storms
Climate change presents a challenge for risk management associated with severe storms. The science for linking the severity of specific severe storm events to climate change is still evolving; however, a Item No.7D
Climate Change
18-13
number or trends provide some indication of how climate change may be impacting these events.
According to the Fourth National Climate Change Assessment, heavy rainfall events are becoming more severe (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2018). Climate change impacts on other severe storm events such as thunderstorms are still not well understood. The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the severe weather hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population and Property—Population and property exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase as a direct result of climate change impacts on the severe storm hazard.
Severe winter storms and thunderstorms may occur more frequently, but exposure and vulnerability will remain the same. Secondary impacts, such as the extent of localized flooding, may increase, impacting greater numbers of people and structures. • Critical facilities—Critical facility exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase as a result of climate change impacts on the severe storm hazard; however, critical facility owners and operators may experience more frequent disruption to service provision. For example, more frequent and intense storms may cause more frequent disruptions in power service. • Environment—Exposure and vulnerability of the environment would be unlikely to increase; however, more frequent storms and more intense rainfall may place additional stress on already stressed systems.
18.2.8 Severe Weather
According to the Fourth National Climate Change Assessment, over the past two decades, the number of high temperature records in the United States far exceed the number of low temperature records (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2018). The increase in average surface temperatures can lead to more intense heat waves. Evidence suggests that heat waves are already increasing, especially in western states.
Climate change impacts on winds are still not well understood. Until recently, scientists had predicted rapid inland warming would weaken one of the primary drivers for Santa Ana winds and reduce their frequency. But a 2021 study found that bouts of hot Santa Ana winds are not declining and could even be increasing (Science 2021).
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the severe weather hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population and Property—Population and property exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase as a direct result of climate change impacts on the severe weather hazard.
Severe weather events may occur more frequently, but exposure and vulnerability will remain the same.
• Critical facilities—Critical facility exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase as a result of climate change impacts on the severe weather hazard; however, critical facility owners and operators may experience more frequent disruption to service provision. For example, more frequent and intense windstorms may cause more frequent disruptions in power service. • Environment—Exposure and vulnerability of the environment would be unlikely to increase; however, more frequent wind and heat events may place additional stress on already stressed systems.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18-14
18.2.9 Tsunami
The impacts of global climate change on tsunami probability are unknown. However, even if climate change does not increase the frequency with which tsunamis occur, it may result in more destructive waves. As sea levels continue to rise, tsunami inundation areas would likely extend further inland.
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the tsunami hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population, Property, and Critical Facility—Population, property, and critical facility exposure and vulnerability to the tsunami hazard may increase as a result of climate change-related sea- level rise. As sea levels rise, tsunami impact areas may reach into parts of the community that were previously outside the tsunami risk area. The extent of this change will depend on the size of the tsunami, the local topography, and the extent of sea-level rise in the area. • Environment—Exposure and vulnerability of the environment to tsunamis may be impacted by the effects of climate change. In particular, sea-level rise could alter the shape of the existing shoreline, placing different structures and ecosystems at risk from potential tsunami impacts.
Additionally, ice crust melt could lead to a rise of the earth’s crust, especially at higher latitudes, causing more submarine landslides and a greater vulnerability to tsunamis.
18.2.10 Wildfire
Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. Increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation.
Climate change may increase winds or change the timing/seasonality of winds that spread fires. Most of California’s worst wildfires occur in the fall, when vegetation is driest and the Santa Ana winds start to pick up. Some research indicates a shift in the annual pattern of Santa Ana winds that would move the wildfire season later in the year (AGU 2019).
Changes in climate patterns may impact the distribution and perseverance of insect outbreaks that create dead trees (increase fuel). When climate alters fuel loads and fuel moisture, forest susceptibility to wildfires changes.
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the wildfire hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population, Property and Critical facilities—According to Projected Changes in Ventura County Climate, wildfire risk in Ventura County is expected to increase, with wildfire season starting earlier and extending later in the year due to drought, increased temperatures, and greater evaporative demand. While the future frequency, size and intensity of wildfires is uncertain, it is likely that exposure and vulnerability to the wildfire hazard would increase. • Environment—It is likely that the exposure and vulnerability of the environment will be impacted by changes in wildfire risk due to climate change. Natural fire regimes may change, resulting in more frequent or higher intensity burns. These impacts may alter the composition of the ecosystems in areas in and surrounding planning area. Whether areas burn more frequently, or more acreage is burned in each fire, wildlife has the potential to become more stressed as suitable habitat is lost.
Item No.7D
Climate Change
18-15
18.2.11 Other Hazards of Interest
Agricultural and Biological Hazards
The impacts of global climate change on agricultural and biological hazards are still being studied, however climate change is known to be influencing the spread of many invasive species. Increased temperatures, and both intense rainfall and drought can facilitate the spread and establishment of non- native species, creating new opportunities for them to become invasive (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2021b). Prolonged drought stresses trees and can result in higher susceptibility to detrimental pests.
Pandemic
Climate change will likely have significant indirect impacts on disease outbreaks. In California, injuries and premature deaths related to extreme weather events, changes in the prevalence and geographical distribution of food- and water-borne illnesses and other infectious diseases should be anticipated. The fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that climate change has altered the distribution of some infectious disease vectors.
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
19-1
19. OTHER HAZARDS OF INTEREST
After reviewing the previous plan and considering options for other hazards of interest to address, the Steering Committee selected a limited number of hazards of interest to include in this update of the Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The sections below provide short profiles of each hazard of interest, including a qualitative discussion of their potential impact in Ventura County.
No formal risk assessment was performed, no mitigation actions have been developed to address them, and the hazards are not included in the risk ranking. However, all planning partners for this plan should be aware of these hazards and take steps to reduce the risks they present whenever it is practical to do so.
19.1 AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL
19.1.1 Overview
Agricultural infestation generally involves the artificial introduction of an insect, disease, vertebrate, or weed pest. These pests are particularly destructive to local agricultural crops because they have no natural enemies to keep them under control. The type and severity of an agricultural infestation will vary based on many factors, including weather, crop diversity, and proximity to urban areas.
The onset for an agricultural infestation can be rapid. Controlling its spread is critical to limiting the impacts of the infestation. Methods for detecting, limiting, and eradicating exotic pests include delimitation trapping, quarantining the area and preventing the shipment of products from the designated area, aerial and ground application of pesticides, and in extreme cases, premature harvest and/or crop destruction. Duration is largely affected by the degree to which the infestation is aggressively controlled but is commonly more than a week. The warning time needed to control infestation is typically more than 24 hours. Maximizing warning time is also critical for reducing damage from this hazard.
Ventura County’s agriculture industry provides a significant base to the County’s economy. The agricultural output of Ventura County in 2020 reached almost $2 billion and encompassed more than 96,500 acres of irrigated cropland (Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner 2020). Ventura County is one of the top 10 agricultural counties in California. The impact of infestation by a pest or disease can include economic losses due to crop losses from pest damage, limitations on the ability to export products from the area, and increased costs for pest control.
Many pests not only damage the agricultural economy but also affect residential areas and open space.
Damage to landscape plants and vegetable gardens can be significant.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 19-2
19.1.2 Identified Agricultural and Biological Hazards
The Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner and the USDA have identified agricultural and biological hazards that currently affect the County or have the potential to do so in the future. Many of these are listed in Table 19-1.
Table 19-1. Agricultural and Biological Hazards That Threaten Ventura County Type Description
Invertebrates
Quagga Mussels A mollusk that covers hard surfaces in waterways. It clogs water infrastructure, covers boats, disrupts the food chain for native species, and releases toxins that affect other species.
Insects
Asian Citrus Psyllid An insect that causes damage to citrus plants and is a carrier of Huanglongbing disease.
Glassy Winged Sharpshooter An insect that transmits a bacterial disease (Pierce’s Disease) that can seriously damage grapevines Light Brown Apple Moth A tortricid leafroller that affects over 2,000 types of plants.
Mediterranean Fruit Fly An insect that infests more than 300 varieties of fruits, vegetables, and nuts by laying eggs in the produce. The larvae feed on the produce, ruining it for human consumption.
Shot Hole Borer An invasive beetle that attacks over 110 kinds of trees. These tiny beetles tunnel into host trees and spread Fusarium Dieback.
Invasive Weeds
Artichoke Thistle An invasive weed with an aggressive root system.
Arundo Grass Tall perennial grass that forms dense growth, choking out other plants.
Dalmation Todflax Displaces native plants and may increase soil erosion and surface runoff.
Distaff Thistle Crowds out grasses and native species.
Geraldton Carnation Spurge Produces a toxic sap and has allelopathic properties that reduce germination of native plants.
Russian Knapweed Aggressive plant with allelopathic effects (releases a substance that does not allow other plants to grow).
Scotch Thistle Dense growths of the spiny plants interrupt grazing lands for livestock and wildlife.
Silverleaf Nightshade Noxious weed competes with crops, interferes with livestock, acts as a host for insects and plant diseases, and spreads by forming dense colonies from its extensive root system as well as by propagation of seeds.
Skeletonweed Deep rooted noxious weed with minimal feed value that crowds out native grasses and forage for livestock and wildlife.
Spotted Knapweed A highly invasive weed that can reduce the availability of desirable forage for livestock operations, degrade wildlife habitats, and hinder reforestation and landscape restoration efforts.
Stinkweed Rapidly spreading invasive weed.
Tree Spurge Small invasive shrub that has an economic impact on crop production in the County.
Diseases
Charcoal Rot A fungal disease that affects strawberries.
Fusarium Dieback A fungal disease that disrupts the transport of water and nutrients inside the tree, leading to branch dieback and overall decline
Huanglongbing A disease spread by the Asian citrus psyllid that kills citrus trees. It has no known cure.
Pierce’s Disease A bacteria-caused disease spread by the Glassy Winged Sharpshooter. Pierce’s Disease blocks the water-conducting system in grapevines.
Sudden Oak Death A tree disease caused by the fungus-like plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. It kills oaks, rhododendrons, camellias, and other common horticulture plants.
Item No.7D
Other Hazards of Interest
19-3
19.1.3 Location, Extent and Magnitude
Ventura County’s agricultural areas are most susceptible to insect pests, agriculture biological diseases, and invasive weeds. Range land, open spaces, and areas affected by wildfire are also susceptible to many of the invasive weeds. Quagga mussels are found in Lake Piru and the Santa Clara River.
Injurious pests commonly enter Ventura County in a number of ways. They may, for example, be inadvertently shipped by a private individual in an infested plant, fruit, or vegetable. When the package is received and the article is found to contain pests, the recipient throws it out and the pests multiply and infest nearby agricultural crops, waterways, or urban properties. Pests can also travel easily on plants and plant parts shipped from uncertified and unlicensed nurseries; on plants offered for sale at swap meets and other open air markets; or in vehicles or luggage. Inspectors from the Agricultural Commissioner’s office inspect incoming plants at nurseries, farmer’s markets, and swap meets to check for the presence of pests not occurring in this area.
Future agricultural and waterway infestations in Ventura County are likely based on past occurrences.
Based on previous history, infestations causing widespread damage have occurred about once every 10 to 20 years. Another factor increasing the likelihood of future infestations is the mild climate in Ventura County, which increases the ability of pests to proliferate.
The extent of a devastating event would depend on many factors, including the specific pest introduced, climatic conditions at the time of introduction, fluctuations in funding for pest detection and eradication, and public pressure regarding aerial and ground applications of pesticides proximate to urban areas.
19.2 PANDEMIC
19.2.1 Overview
According to the World Health Organization, a pandemic involves the international spread of a new disease. While an epidemic remains limited to one city, region, or country, a pandemic spreads beyond national borders and possibly worldwide. Authorities consider a disease to be an epidemic when the number of people with the infection is higher than the forecast number within a specific region. A pandemic is an epidemic that becomes widespread in several countries at the same time. A pandemic affects a higher number of people and can be more deadly than an epidemic.
A new virus strain or subtype that easily transmits between humans can cause a pandemic. Bacteria that become resistant to antibiotic treatment may also be behind the rapid spread. Sometimes, pandemics occur when new diseases develop the ability to spread rapidly, such as COVID-19. Humans may have little or no immunity against a new virus. Often, a new virus cannot spread between animals and people. However, if the disease changes or mutates, it may start to spread easily, and a pandemic may result. Seasonal flu epidemics generally occur because of a viral subtype that is already circulating among people. Novel subtypes, such as COVID-19, generally cause pandemics. These subtypes will not previously have circulated among humans. A pandemic can lead to social disruption, economic loss, and general hardship on a wide scale (Felman 2020).
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 19-4
19.2.2 Identified Health Hazards
The California Department of Public Health has identified the conditions described in Table 19-2 as reportable human communicable diseases that could contribute to a serious epidemic in the state.
Table 19-2. Naturally Spread Diseases Seen in California Description Examples
Animal Transmitted
These are diseases that are transmitted to humans by domestic or non- domestic animals.
• Brucellosis (undulant fever)
• Campylobacteriosis
• Escherichia coli (E. coli)
• Giardiasis
• Middle Eastern Respiratory
Syndrome (MERS)
• Plague
• Psittacosis (ornithosis,
parrot fever)
• Q Fever
• Rabies
• Salmonellosis
• Tularemia
Bloodborne
Viruses, bacteria and parasites that can be carried in blood and cause disease are known as bloodborne pathogens. Transmission of these diseases may be from direct blood contact, needle sticks, intravenous drug use, sexual behavior, insects or other vectors.
• Hepatitis C
• Malaria
Community-Acquired Infections
Community-acquired infections are infections that are contracted outside of a hospital (or are diagnosed within 48 hours of admission) without any previous health care encounter.
• Campylobacteriosis
• Influenza due to novel strains
• Legionellosis
• Meningitis (viral, bacterial,
fungal, parasitic)
• Respiratory syncytial
virus
• Smallpox
• Tularemia
Foodborne
Foodborne diseases can be spread when food becomes contaminated with fecal matter containing bacteria, viruses, or parasites. This contamination can happen at a farm, manufacturing plant, restaurant, or home. Foodborne diseases usually result in gastrointestinal illness, which can include symptoms such as diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, stomachache, and fever. People who are ill with a foodborne disease can give the infection to others, so proper hygiene and hand washing practices are essential to limit the spread of disease.
• Brucellosis
• Campylobacteriosis
• Cholera
• Ciguatera fish poisoning
• Cryptosporidiosis
• Cyclosporiasis
• Escherichia coli (E. coli)
• Giardiasis
• Listeriosis
• Salmonellosis
• Scombroid fish
poisoning
• Shigellosis
• Tularemia
• Typhoid Fever
• Vibriosis
• Yersinia enterocolitica
Mosquito-Transmitted
In addition to causing severe annoyance and allergic reaction, mosquitoes found in California are capable of spreading many diseases to humans. • Chikungunya
• Dengue
• Malaria
• West Nile
• Yellow Fever
• Zika
Respiratory Viruses
Respiratory viruses are responsible for influenza-like illness. They can also cause the common cold. The virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic is a respiratory virus. People at high risk (those with certain underlying conditions, the elderly, the very young, and pregnant women) can develop severe illness that results in hospitalization or death. • Coronaviruses (including
SARS and MERS CoV)
• Influenza
• Respiratory Syncytial Virus
• Measles
• Pertussis (whooping
cough)
Waterborne Diseases
Diseases caused by micro-organisms transmitted in water can be spread while bathing, washing, drinking water, or eating food exposed to contaminated water.
• Cholera
• Giardiasis
• Legionellosis
• Leptospirosis
• Typhoid Fever
• Vibriosis
Item No.7D
Other Hazards of Interest
19-5
Description Examples
Sexually Transmitted Disease
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses community engagement methods in their Community Approaches to Reducing Sexually Transmitted Diseases (CARS). California has state-mandated HIV/AIDS prevention education in middle and high schools. In 2019, 154 of every 100,000 people in Ventura County were living with HIV. • Hepatitis A, B, and C
• Human Immunodeficiency
Virus/Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome
(HIV/AIDS)
• Syphilis
• Zika
As this plan is being prepared, Ventura County, the State of California, and the rest of the world are still dealing with impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, Ventura County was included in the FEMA Major Disaster Declaration for the COVID-19 pandemic. As of December 2021, about 107,000 people, or 7.86 percent of the Ventura County population, have had the disease. More than 1,200 people, or 0.14 percent of the population, have died from the disease. Over 572,000 residents are fully vaccinated. Figure 19-1 shows the COVID-19 case rates among the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated populations for the last half of 2021.
Figure 19-1. Ventura County COVID-19 Case Rate June – December 20, 2021
Throughout the cycle of the COVID-19 pandemic, safety precautions have changed or been adapted to current infection rates and circumstances. Ventura County has provided public service outreach through numerous channels, including the Ventura County Recovers website, which provides regular updates regarding:
• Vaccine information
• Business information
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 19-6
• Booster shots
• COVID-19 testing
• School/childcare and sports information
• Quarantine guidance
• Monoclonal antibody treatment
• Outreach activities.
19.2.3 Location, Extent and Magnitude
Health hazards that affect the residents of Ventura County may arise in a variety of situations, such as during a communicable disease outbreak or after a natural disaster. All populations in Ventura County are susceptible to pandemic events. Populations who are young or elderly or have compromised immune systems are likely to be more vulnerable. The relative ease of world-wide travel ensures that all countries are vulnerable to pandemic events at any time.
Item No.7D
20-1
20. PLANNING AREA RISK RANKING
A risk ranking was performed for the hazards of concern described in this plan. This risk ranking assesses the probability of each hazard’s occurrence as well as its likely impact on the people, property, and economy of the planning area. The risk ranking was conducted via facilitated brainstorming sessions with the Steering Committee. Estimates of risk were generated with data from Hazus using methodologies promoted by FEMA. The results are used in establishing mitigation priorities. This chapter presents results for all of Ventura County. Results for individual municipalities are provided in Appendix D and in the Volume 2 annexes for individual planning partners.
20.1 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
The probability of occurrence of a hazard is indicated by a probability factor based on likelihood of annual occurrence:
• High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =2) • Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =1) • No exposure—There is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) The assessment of hazard frequency is generally based on past hazard events in the area. Figure 20-1 summarizes the probability assessment for each hazard of concern for this plan.
Figure 20-1. Probability Factors for Hazards of Concern
2 3
1 3
3 2
2 3
2 2
0 1 2 3
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Flooding
Landslide
Sea Level Rise/Erosion
Severe Storms
Severe Weather
Tsunami
Wildfire
Probability Factor
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 20-2
20.2 IMPACT
Hazard impacts were assessed in three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property and impacts on the local economy. Numerical impact factors were assigned as follows:
• People—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. It should be noted that planners can use an element of subjectivity when assigning values for impacts on people. Impact factors were assigned as follows:
High—50 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) Medium—25 percent to 49 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
Low—25 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Property—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event:
High—30 percent or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
Medium—15 percent to 29 percent of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
Low—14 percent or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
No impact—None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0)
• Economy—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to the total assessed value of the property exposed to the hazard.
For some hazards, such as wildfire, landslide and severe weather, vulnerability was considered to be the same as exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards.
Loss estimates separate from the exposure estimates were generated for the earthquake and flood hazards using Hazus.
High—Estimated loss from the hazard is 20 percent or more of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 3)
Medium—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent to 19 percent of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 2)
Low—Estimated loss from the hazard is 9 percent or less of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 1)
No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) The impacts of each hazard category were assigned a weighting factor to reflect the significance of the impact. These weighting factors are consistent with those typically used for measuring the benefits of hazard mitigation actions: impact on people was given a weighting factor of 3; impact on property was given a weighting factor of 2; and impact on the operations was given a weighting factor of 1.
Figure 20-2 and Figure 20-3 summarize the unweighted and weighted impact factors, respectively, for each hazard.
Item No.7D
Planning Area Risk Ranking
20-3
Figure 20-2. Impact Factors for Hazards of Concern
Figure 20-3. Weighted Impact Factors for Hazards of Concern
20.3 RISK RATING AND RANKING
The risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property, and operations, as summarized in Figure 20-4.
Based on these ratings, a priority of high, medium, or low was assigned to each hazard. The hazards ranked as being of highest concern are dam failure, landslide, and earthquake. Hazards ranked as being of medium concern are flood, severe storms, severe weather, and wildfire. The hazards ranked as being of lowest concern are drought, sea-level rise/coastal erosion, and tsunami. Figure 20-5 shows the hazard risk ranking.
3 0
3 1
2 1
2 2
1 1
3 0
3 1
2 1 1 1 1 1
2 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Flooding Landslide Sea Level Rise /
Erosion
Severe
Storms
Severe
Weather
Tsunami Wildfire
Impact Factor
Impact Factor (People) Impact Factor (Property) Impact Factor (Economy) 9 0
3 9
6 3
6 6
3 66
0 2
6 4
2 1 1
2 4
2 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
Dam Failure Drought Flooding Earthquake Landslide Sea Level Rise /
Erosion
Severe
Storms
Severe
Weather
Tsunami Wildfire
Weighted Impact Factor
Weighted Impact Factor (People, x3) Weighted Impact Factor (Property, x2) Weighted Impact Factor (Economy, x1) Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 20-4
Figure 20-4. Total Risk Rating for Hazards of Concern
Figure 20-5. Hazard Risk Ranking
34 9
32 18
33 12
24 24
12 24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Flooding
Landslide
Sea Level Rise / Erosion
Severe Storms
Severe Weather
Tsunami
Wildfire
Hazard Risk Rating
Dam Failure
34 Landslide
33 Flooding
18 Earthquake
32 Severe Storms
24 Severe Weather
24 Wildfire
24 Drought
9 Sea Level Rise / Erosion
12 Tsunami
12 0
2 4
6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Values shown are risk ratings. Larger circles indicate higher rating.
High
Priority
Medium
Priority
Low
Priority
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Part 3—MITIGATION PLAN
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
21-1
21. VISION STATEMENT, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). The Steering Committee reviewed the previous plan and noted that neither a vision statement nor a list of objectives was part of the plan. The goals in the previous plan needed to be expanded to better reflect the purpose of this plan update.
The vision statement, goals, objectives, and actions in this plan all support each other. Goals were selected to support the vision statement. Objectives were selected that meet multiple goals. Actions (presented in Chapter 23) were prioritized based on their ability to meet multiple objectives.
21.1 VISION STATEMENT
A vision statement focuses the range of objectives and actions to be considered. A vision statement is not a goal because it does not describe a hazard mitigation outcome and it is broader than a hazard- specific objective. The vision statement for this hazard mitigation plan is as follows:
The Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will establish and promote a comprehensive mitigation strategy and efforts to equitably reduce risk and increase the resiliency of the community and environment from natural hazards.
21.2 GOALS
The following are the mitigation goals for this plan:
1. Protect life, property, and the environment, and minimize displacement due to natural hazards events.
2. Effectively communicate natural hazard risks and mitigation strategies to the whole community.
3. Pursue development and implementation of feasible, cost-effective, and environmentally sound hazard mitigation measures.
4. Prio ritize multi-objective hazard mitigation actions and those that reduce risk to vulnerable communities.
5. Coordinate with other plans and programs that can support or enhance hazard mitigation.
6. Enhance the County’s capability and capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the impacts of natural hazards.
7. Proactively anticipate the risks of future impacts from hazards.
8. Increase the County’s adaptive capacity to reduce risk from hazard impacts.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 21-2
9. Promote proactive, self-sufficient mitigation and response abilities.
10. Reduce risk to and increase the resilience of critical infrastructure and community lifelines.
21.3 OBJECTIVES
Each selected objective meets multiple goals, serving as a stand-alone measurement of the effectiveness of a mitigation action, rather than as a subset of a goal. The objectives also are used to help establish priorities. The objectives are as follows:
1. Utilize the best available data, science, and technology to identify and communicate the risk exposure to hazards to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as the private sector and non-profit groups.
2. Support efforts to improve the resilience of community lifelines in socially vulnerable communities.
3. Enhance supply chain diversity and improved resilience by supporting local food and energy production and increased multi-modal transportation.
4. Research, develop, promote, adopt, and enforce codes and standards to preserve life and property that are affordable and feasible to implement.
5. Promote and implement measures to mitigate the risk of wildfires, such as greenbelts and fire breaks around communities and along roadways.
6. Support the protection of vital records, and strengthen or replace buildings, infrastructure, and lifelines to minimize post-disaster disruption and facilitate short-term and long-term recovery.
7. Improve and expand systems that provide warning and emergency communications to the whole community.
8. Continue developing and strengthening inter-jurisdictional coordination and cooperation in the area of emergency services.
9. Promote and implement the retrofit or replacement of at-risk structures and lifelines to increase community resilience.
10. Incentivize mitigation measures for high-risk and repetitive loss areas to address repairs, major alterations, development plans, and practices to increase community resilience.
11. Reduce repetitive property losses due to hazard impacts through acquisition, retrofitting, design, and updated construction and land use regulations.
12. Encourage and support leadership within the private sector, non-profit agencies, and community-based organizations to promote and implement local hazard mitigation activities.
13. Proactively manage and care for natural resources, including grasslands, forests, oak woodlands, riparian forests, stream channels, coastal wetlands, and beaches, to enhance their ability to withstand and recover from natural disasters and minimize public safety risks.
14. Support hazard mitigation measures that promote and enhance natural processes.
15. Support hazard mitigation measures, where feasible, that utilize nature-based practices and solutions (e.g., holistic watershed management and green belts) and support and enhance natural processes.
Item No.7D
Vision Statement, Goals and Objectives
21-3
16. Encourage the creation of financial and regulatory incentives to motivate stakeholders such as homeowners, private sector businesses, and non-profit community organizations to mitigate hazards and risks.
17. Conduct public outreach activities that increase community awareness and understanding of hazard risk, mitigation options, and preparedness strategies.
18. Minimize impacts of hazard events on the economic drivers for the County.
19. Align the hazard mitigation plan with state mitigation plans; city and county general, community, capital improvement plans; special-purpose district plans; and climate action, resilience, and adaptation plans.
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
22-1
22. MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES
22.1 MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES
Catalogs of hazard mitigation best practices were developed that present a broad range of alternatives to be considered for use by the planning partners, in compliance with 44 CFR (Section 201.6(c)(3)(ii)).
One catalog was developed for each hazard of concern evaluated in this plan. The catalogs present alternatives that are categorized in two ways:
• By who would have responsibility for implementation:
Individuals (personal scale)
Businesses (corporate scale)
Government (government scale).
• By what the alternative would do:
Manipulate the hazard
Reduce exposure to the hazard
Reduce vulnerability to the hazard
Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard.
Hazard mitigation actions recommended in this plan were selected from an analysis of the alternatives presented in the catalogs. The catalogs provide a baseline of mitigation alternatives that are backed by a planning process, are consistent with the established goals and objectives, and are generally within the capabilities of the planning partners to implement. They provide a list of what could be considered to reduce risk from natural hazards. Not all actions listed are feasible for this plan. Planning partners selected actions based their ability to implement the action. Actions in the catalog that are not included in partners’ action plans were not selected for one or more of the following reasons:
• The action is not feasible.
• The action is already being implemented.
• The planning partner does not have the capability to implement the action. • There is an apparently more cost-effective alternative. • The action does not have public or political support.
The catalogs for each hazard are presented in Table 22-1 through Table 22-9.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-2
Table 22-1. Alternatives to Mitigate the Dam Failure Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
Relocate out of dam
failure inundation
areas
• Reduce vulnerability:
Elevate home to
appropriate levels
• Build local capacity:
Learn about risk
reduction for the dam
failure hazard
Learn the evacuation
routes for a dam
failure event
Educate yourself on
early warning
systems
and the dissemination
of warnings
• Manipulate the
hazard:
Remove dams
Harden dams
• Reduce exposure:
Replace earthen
dams with hardened
structures
• Reduce vulnerability:
Flood-proof facilities
within dam failure
inundation areas
• Build local capacity:
Educate employees
on the probable
impacts of a dam
failure
Develop a continuity
of operations plan
• Manipulate the hazard:
Remove dams
Harden dams
• Reduce exposure:
Replace earthen dams with hardened structures
Relocate critical facilities out of dam failure inundation areas Consider open space land use in designated dam failure inundation areas
• Reduce vulnerability:
Adopt higher floodplain standards in mapped dam failure inundation areas
Retrofit critical facilities within dam failure inundation areas • Build local capacity:
Map dam failure inundation areas
Enhance emergency operations plan to include a dam failure component Institute monthly communications checks with dam operators Inform the public on risk reduction techniques
Adopt real-estate disclosure requirements for the re-sale of property located within dam failure inundation areas
Consider the probable impacts of climate change in assessing the risk associated with the dam failure hazard
Establish early warning capability downstream of listed high hazard dams Consider the residual risk associated with protection provided by dams in future land use decisions
Item No.7D
Mitigation Best Practices
22-3
Table 22-2. Alternatives to Mitigate the Drought Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
None
• Reduce vulnerability:
Drought-resistant
landscapes
Reduce water system
losses
Modify plumbing
systems (through
water saving kits)
For homes with on-
site water systems:
increase storage,
utilize rainwater
catchment
• Build local capacity:
Practice active water
conservation
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
None
• Reduce vulnerability:
Drought-resistant
landscapes
Reduce private water
system losses
Support alternative
irrigation techniques to
reduce water use and
encourage use of
climate-sensitive water
supplies
For businesses with on-
site water systems:
increase storage, utilize
rainwater catchment
• Build local capacity:
Practice active water
conservation
Participate in the County
Integrated Regional
Water Management
(IRWM) program
• Manipulate the hazard:
Groundwater recharge through stormwater management
Develop a water recycling program
Increase “above-the-dam” regional natural water storage systems • Reduce exposure:
Identify and create groundwater backup sources
• Reduce vulnerability:
Water use conflict regulations
Reduce water system losses
Distribute water saving kits
increase conventional storage that is filled during high-flow periods • Build local capacity:
Public education on drought resistance
Identify alternative water supplies for times of drought; mutual aid agreements with alternative suppliers
Develop drought contingency plan
Develop criteria “triggers” for drought-related actions Improve accuracy of water supply forecasts
Modify rate structure to influence active water conservation techniques
Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the drought hazard
Support, participate in and advocate for funding for the County Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) program
Support, encourage, and implement multi-benefit nature-based recharge projects such as off-channel wetlands that provide habitat and groundwater filtration and infiltration
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-4
Table 22-3. Alternatives to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
Locate outside of hazard area (off
soft soils)
• Reduce vulnerability:
Retrofit structure (anchor house
structure to foundation)
Secure household items that can
cause injury or damage (such as
water heaters, bookcases, and
other appliances)
Build to higher design
• Build local capacity:
Practice “drop, cover, and hold”
Develop household mitigation
plan, such as creating a retrofit
savings account, communication
capability with outside, 72-hour
self-sufficiency during an event
Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
Become informed on the hazard
and risk reduction alternatives
available.
Develop a post-disaster action
plan for your household
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
Locate or relocate mission-
critical functions outside
hazard area where possible
• Reduce vulnerability:
Build redundancy for critical
functions and facilities
Retrofit critical buildings and
areas housing mission-critical
functions
• Build local capacity:
Adopt higher standard for
new construction; consider
“performance-based design”
when building new structures
Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
Inform your employees on the
possible impacts of
earthquake and how to deal
with them at your work facility.
Develop a continuity of
operations plan
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
Locate critical facilities or functions outside hazard area where possible
• Reduce vulnerability:
Harden infrastructure
Provide redundancy for critical functions
Adopt higher regulatory standards
Encourage and invest in renewable energy and
back-up and storage, such as microgrids, for vital
systems redundancy during power outages and
interruptions
• Build local capacity:
Provide better hazard maps
Provide technical information and guidance
Enact tools to help manage development in hazard
areas (e.g., tax incentives, information)
Include retrofitting and replacement of critical
system elements in capital improvement plan
Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster
opportunities
Warehouse critical infrastructure components such
as pipe, power line, and road repair materials
Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan
Initiate triggers guiding improvements (such as
<50% substantial damage or improvements)
Further enhance seismic risk assessment to target
high hazard buildings for mitigation opportunities.
Develop a post-disaster action plan that includes
grant funding and debris removal components.
Item No.7D
Mitigation Best Practices
22-5
Table 22-4. Alternatives to Mitigate the Flood Hazard
Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the
hazard:
Clear storm
drains and
culverts
Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
exposure:
Locate outside
of hazard area
Elevate utilities
above base
flood elevation
Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
vulnerability:
Raise
structures
above base
flood elevation
Elevate items
within house
above base
flood elevation
Build new
homes above
base flood
elevation
Flood-proof
structures
• Build local
capacity:
Buy flood
insurance
Develop
household
plan, such as
retrofit savings,
communication
with outside,
72-hour self-
sufficiency
during and
after an event
• Manipulate the
hazard:
Clear storm
drains and
culverts
Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce exposure:
Locate critical
facilities or
functions
outside hazard
area
Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
vulnerability:
Build
redundancy for
critical functions
or retrofit critical
buildings
Provide flood-
proofing when
new critical
infrastructure
must be located
in floodplains
• Build local
capacity:
Keep cash
reserves for
reconstruction
Support and
implement
hazard
disclosure for
sale of property
in risk zones.
Solicit cost-
sharing through
partnerships
with others on
projects with
multiple
benefits.
• Manipulate the hazard:
Maintain drainage system
Institute low-impact development techniques on
property
Dredging, levee construction, and providing
regional retention areas
Structural flood control, levees, channelization,
or revetments, only when no nature-based
alternative is feasible
Stormwater management regulations and master
planning
Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses
in developing watersheds to control increases in
runoff
• Reduce exposure:
Locate or relocate critical facilities outside of
hazard area
Acquire or relocate identified repetitive loss
properties
Promote open space uses in identified high
hazard areas via techniques such as: planned
unit developments, easements, setbacks,
greenways, sensitive area tracks.
Adopt land development criteria such as planned
unit developments, density transfers, clustering
Institute low impact development techniques on
property
Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses
in developing watersheds to control increases in
runoff
Preserve undeveloped and vulnerable shoreline
Restore existing flood control and riparian
corridors, including the removal of invasive
species in the floodplain to reduce bulk flows and
infrastructure impacts (e.g., Arundo donax
removal)
• Reduce vulnerability:
Harden infrastructure, bridge replacement
program
Provide redundancy for critical functions and
infrastructure
Adopt regulatory standards such as freeboard
standards, cumulative substantial improvement
or damage, lower substantial damage threshold;
compensatory storage, non-conversion deed
restrictions.
Stormwater management regulations and master
planning.
Adopt “no-adverse impact” floodplain
management policies that strive to not increase
the flood risk on downstream communities
Facilitate managed retreat from, or
upgrade of, the most at-risk areas
Require accounting of sea-level rise
in all applications for new
development in shoreline areas
Implement Assembly Bill 162 (2007)
requiring flood hazard information in
local general plans
• Build local capacity:
Produce better hazard maps
Provide technical information and
guidance
Enact tools to help manage
development in hazard areas
(stronger controls, tax incentives, and
information)
Incorporate retrofitting or
replacement of critical system
elements in capital improvement plan
Develop strategy to take advantage
of post-disaster opportunities
Warehouse critical infrastructure
components
Develop and adopt a continuity of
operations plan
Consider participation in the
Community Rating System
Maintain and collect data to define
risks and vulnerability
Train emergency responders
Create an elevation inventory of
structures in the floodplain
Develop and implement a public
information strategy
Charge a hazard mitigation fee
Integrate floodplain management
policies into other planning
mechanisms within the planning
area.
Consider the probable impacts of
climate change on the risk associated
with the flood hazard
Consider the residual risk associated
with structural flood control in future
land use decisions
Enforce National Flood Insurance
Program requirements
Adopt a Stormwater Management
Master Plan
Develop an adaptive management
plan to address the long-term
impacts of sea-level rise
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-6
Table 22-5. Alternatives to Mitigate the Landslide Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
Stabilize slope (dewater,
armor toe)
Reduce weight on top of slope
Minimize vegetation removal
and the addition of impervious
surfaces.
• Reduce exposure:
Locate structures outside of
hazard area (off unstable land
and away from slide-run out
area)
• Reduce vulnerability:
Retrofit home
• Build local capacity:
Institute warning system, and
develop evacuation plan
Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
Educate yourself on risk
reduction techniques for
landslide hazards
• Manipulate the hazard:
Stabilize slope (dewater,
armor toe)
Reduce weight on top of slope
• Reduce exposure:
Locate structures outside of
hazard area (off unstable land
and away from slide-run out
area)
• Reduce vulnerability:
Retrofit at-risk facilities
• Build local capacity:
Institute warning system, and
develop evacuation plan
Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
Develop a continuity of
operations plan
Educate employees on the
potential exposure to landslide
hazards and emergency
response protocol.
• Manipulate the hazard:
Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe)
Reduce weight on top of slope
• Reduce exposure:
Acquire properties in high-risk landslide areas.
Adopt land use policies that prohibit the placement of habitable structures in high-risk landslide areas.
• Reduce vulnerability:
Adopt higher regulatory standards for new development within unstable slope areas.
Armor/retrofit critical infrastructure against the impact of landslides.
• Build local capacity:
Produce better hazard maps
Provide technical information and guidance
Enact tools to help manage development in hazard
areas: better land controls, tax incentives, information Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster
opportunities
Warehouse critical infrastructure components
Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan
Educate the public on the landslide hazard and
appropriate risk reduction alternatives.
Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the landslide hazard
Item No.7D
Mitigation Best Practices
22-7
Table 22-6. Alternatives to Mitigate Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Erosion Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
Manipulate the hazard:
Barriers (sea wall),
only when no
nature-based
alternative is
feasible
Pump Stations
Protect, preserve,
and restore
beaches and dunes
Reduce exposure to the
hazard:
Voluntary retreat
Elevate on fill
above sea-level rise
elevation
Elevate utilities
above base flood
elevation
Use low-impact
development
techniques
Reduce vulnerability to
the hazard:
Elevate
Floodproof
Build local capacity to
respond to or prepare
for the hazard:
Buy flood insurance
Develop household
plan, such as
retrofit savings,
communication with
outside, 72-hour
self-sufficiency
during and after an
event
Manipulate the hazard:
Barriers (sea wall), only
when no nature-based
alternative is feasible
Pump Stations
Protect, preserve, and
restore wetlands
Protect, preserve, and
restore beaches and dunes
Reduce exposure to the
hazard:
Relocate out hazard zone
Elevate on fill above sea-
level rise elevation
Locate critical facilities or
functions outside hazard
area
Use low-impact
development techniques
Reduce vulnerability to the
hazard:
Build redundancy for
critical functions or retrofit
critical buildings
Maintain drainage facilities
that service your property.
Provide flood-proofing
when new critical
infrastructure must be
located in floodplains
Build local capacity to respond
to or prepare for the hazard:
Be informed and
understand future impacts
of sea-level rise on your
business
Develop a Continuity of
Operations Plan
Manipulate the hazard:
Barriers (sea wall), only when no nature-based alternative is feasible Pump Stations
Protect, preserve, and restore wetlands
Protect, preserve, and restore beaches and dunes
Reduce exposure to the hazard:
Buyout/Relocation Program
Promote open space uses in identified high hazard areas via techniques such as: planned unit developments, easements, setbacks, greenways, sensitive area tracks.
Adopt land development criteria such as planned unit developments, density transfers, clustering
Institute low impact development techniques on property Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses in developing watersheds to control increases in runoff
Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
Harden infrastructure
Provide redundancy for critical functions and infrastructure Adopt higher regulatory standards in sea-level rise zones Facilitate managed retreat from, or upgrade of, the most at-risk areas Implement tree management programs.
Elevate roads that are vital/critical to evacuation and local community operations.
Include nature-based elements in infrastructure adaptation projects (e.g., roads) such as living shorelines, ecotone levees, and habitat restoration to increase resilience
Design or enhance existing drainage systems for higher design storms to provide increased capacity of the drainage system. Maintain the drainage infrastructure to levels that equal or exceed their design specifications.
Require accounting of sea-level rise in all applications for new development in shoreline areas
Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard:
Provide technical information and guidance
Promote the purchase of flood insurance
Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas (stronger controls, tax incentives, and information)
Incorporate retrofitting or replacement of critical system elements in capital improvement plan
Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster opportunities Provide incentives to guide development away from hazard areas or to retrofit in place
Provide residents with sea-level rise inundation maps
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-8
Table 22-7. Alternatives to Mitigate the Severe Storm and Severe Weather Hazards Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
None
• Reduce vulnerability:
Insulate house
Provide redundant heat and
power
Insulate structure
Plant appropriate trees near
home and power lines (“Right
tree, right place” National
Arbor Day Foundation
Program)
• Build local capacity:
Trim or remove trees that
could affect power lines
Promote 72-hour self-
sufficiency
Obtain a NOAA weather
radio.
Obtain an emergency
generator.
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
None
• Reduce vulnerability:
Relocate critical
infrastructure (such as
power lines)
underground
Reinforce or relocate
critical infrastructure
such as power lines to
meet performance
expectations
Install tree wire
• Build local capacity:
Trim or remove trees
that could affect power
lines
Create redundancy
Equip facilities with a
NOAA weather radio
Equip vital facilities with
emergency power
sources.
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
Develop an urban heat island reduction program that includes an urban forest program or plan
• Reduce vulnerability:
Harden infrastructure such as locating utilities underground Trim trees back from power lines
Designate snow routes and strengthen critical road sections and bridges
• Build local capacity:
Support programs such as “Tree Watch” that proactively manage problem areas through use of selective removal of hazardous trees, tree replacement, etc.
Establish and enforce building codes that require all roofs to withstand snow loads
Increase communication alternatives
Modify land use and environmental regulations to support vegetation management activities that improve reliability in utility corridors.
Modify landscape and other ordinances to encourage
appropriate planting near overhead power, cable, and phone lines
Provide NOAA weather radios to the public
Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the severe weather hazard
Review and update heat response plan in light of climate change (heat events) projections
Item No.7D
Mitigation Best Practices
22-9
Table 22-8. Alternatives to Mitigate the Tsunami Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
Locate outside of hazard
area
• Reduce vulnerability:
Apply personal property
mitigation techniques to
your home such as
anchoring your foundation
and foundation openings
to allow flow though.
• Build local capacity:
Develop and practice a
household evacuation plan
Educate yourself on the
risk exposure from the
tsunami hazard and ways
to minimize that risk
Understand tsunami
warning signs and signals
• Manipulate the hazard:
None
• Reduce exposure:
Locate structure or
mission critical functions
outside of hazard area
whenever possible
• Reduce vulnerability:
Mitigate personal
property for the impacts
of tsunami
• Build local capacity:
Develop and practice a
corporate evacuation
plan
Educate employees on
the risk exposure from
the tsunami hazard and
ways to minimize that risk
• Manipulate the hazard:
Build wave abatement structures (e.g. the “Jacks” looking structure designed by the Japanese)
• Reduce exposure:
Locate structure or functions outside of hazard area whenever possible
Harden infrastructure for tsunami impacts
Relocate identified critical facilities located in tsunami high hazard areas
• Reduce vulnerability:
Adopt higher regulatory standards that will provide higher levels of protection to structures built in a tsunami inundation area Utilize tsunami mapping to guide development away from high risk areas through land use planning
• Build local capacity:
Use probabilistic tsunami mapping and land use guidance from the state when published
Provide incentives to guide development away from hazard areas
Improve the tsunami warning and response system
Provide residents with tsunami inundation maps
Join NOAA’s Tsunami Ready program
Develop and communicate evacuation routes
Enhance the public information program to include risk reduction options for the tsunami hazard
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-10
Table 22-9. Alternatives to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard Personal-Scale Corporate-Scale Government-Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
Clear potential fuels on
property such as dry
overgrown underbrush
and diseased trees
• Reduce exposure:
Create and maintain
defensible space around
structures
Locate outside of hazard
area
Mow regularly
• Reduce vulnerability:
Create and maintain
defensible space around
structures and provide
water on site
Use fire-resistant building
materials
Create defensible spaces
around home
• Build local capacity:
Employ techniques from
the National Fire
Protection Association’s
Firewise USA program to
safeguard home
Identify alternative water
supplies for fire fighting
Install/replace roofing
material with non-
combustible roofing
materials and implement
other strategies to harden
homes from embers and
flame impingement
• Manipulate the
hazard:
Clear potential fuels
on property such as
dry underbrush and
diseased trees
• Reduce exposure:
Create and maintain
defensible space
around structures
and infrastructure
Locate outside of
hazard area
• Reduce vulnerability:
Create and maintain
defensible space
around structures
and infrastructure
and provide water on
site
Use fire-resistant
building materials
Use fire-resistant
plantings in buffer
areas of high wildfire
threat.
• Build local capacity:
Support Firewise
USA community
initiatives.
Create /establish
stored water supplies
to be utilized for
firefighting.
• Manipulate the hazard:
Clear potential fuels on property such as dry underbrush and diseased trees
Remove invasive non-native hazardous fuels in riparian areas (e.g., Arundo donax) and restore native habitat
Implement best management practices on public lands
• Reduce exposure:
Create and maintain defensible space around structures and infrastructure
Locate outside of hazard area
Enhance building code to include use of fire resistant materials in high hazard area.
• Reduce vulnerability:
Create and maintain defensible space around structures and infrastructure
Use fire-resistant building materials
Use fire-resistant plantings in buffer areas of high wildfire threat. Consider higher regulatory standards (such as Class A roofing) Establish biomass reclamation initiatives
Reintroduce fire (controlled or prescribed burns) to fire-prone ecosystems while also protecting critical native habitat resilience, such as chaparral and sage scrub
Manage fuel load through thinning and brush removal
Establish integrated performance standards for new development to harden homes.
Investigate opportunity to create and manage multi-benefit greenbelts for resilience (also known as wildfire risk reduction buffers zones), such as SOAR (Save Open Space & Agricultural
Resources)-designated and wildlife corridors
• Build local capacity:
More public outreach and education efforts, including an active Firewise USA program
Possible weapons of mass destruction funds available to enhance fire capability in high-risk areas
Identify fire response and alternative evacuation routes and establish where needed
Seek alternative water supplies
Become a Firewise USA community
Use academia to study impacts/solutions to wildfire risk Establish/maintain mutual aid agreements between fire service agencies
Develop, adopt, and implement integrated plans for mitigating wildfire impacts in wildland areas bordering on development Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the wildfire hazard in future land use decisions Establish a management program to track forest and rangeland health
Provide incentives to for existing structures to be hardened against wildfire.
Item No.7D
Mitigation Best Practices
22-11
22.2 ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
Adaptive capacity is defined as “the ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021). In addition to hazard-specific capacity building, the following list provides general alternatives that planning partners considered to build capacity for adapting to both current and future risks (Cal OES 2020). • Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects. • Establish a climate change adaptation and hazard mitigation public outreach and education program.
• Build collaborative relationships between regional entities, neighboring communities, and private and non-profit partners to promote complementary adaptation and mitigation strategy development and regional approaches.
• Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness.
• Increase participation of low-income, immigrant, non-English-speaking, racially and ethnically diverse, and special-needs residents in planning and implementation. • Ask local employers and business associations to participate in local efforts to address climate change and natural hazard risk reduction.
• Conduct a communitywide assessment and develop a program to address health, socioeconomic, and equity vulnerabilities.
• Focus planning and intervention programs on neighborhoods that currently experience social or environmental injustice or bear a disproportionate burden of potential public health impacts. • Use performance metrics and data to evaluate and monitor the impacts of climate change and natural hazard risk reduction strategies on public health and social equity. • Develop coordinated plans for mitigating future flood, landslide, and related impacts through concurrent adoption of updated general plan safety elements and local hazard mitigation plans. • Update safety elements to reflect existing hazards and projected climate change impacts on hazards.
• Implement general plan safety elements through zoning and subdivision practices that restrict development in floodplains, landslide, and other natural hazard areas. • Identify and protect locations where native species may shift or lose habitat due to climate change impacts (sea-level rise, loss of wetlands, warmer temperatures, drought). • Collaborate with agencies managing public lands to identify, develop, or maintain corridors and linkages between undeveloped areas.
• Promote economic diversity.
• Incorporate consideration of climate change impacts as part of infrastructure planning and operations.
• Conduct a climate impact assessment on community infrastructure.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22-12
• Identify gaps in legal and regulatory capabilities and develop ordinances or guidelines to address them.
• Identify and pursue new sources of funding for mitigation and adaptation activities. • Hire new staff or provide training to current staff to ensure an adequate level of administrative and technical capability to pursue mitigation and adaptation activities.
Item No.7D
23-1
23. RECOMMENDED PLANNING-AREA-WIDE ACTIONS
23.1 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ACTIONS FOR ALL PARTNERS
The Steering Committee reviewed the catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives and selected planning- area-wide actions to be included in a hazard mitigation action plan for all planning partners. The selection of area-wide actions was based on the risk assessment of identified hazards of concern and the defined hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Table-23-1 lists the recommended hazard mitigation actions that make up the action plan. The timeframe indicated in the table is defined as follows:
• Short Term = to be completed in 1 to 5 years
• Long Term = to be completed in greater than 5 years
• Ongoing = currently being funded and implemented under existing programs.
Additional jurisdiction-specific action plans for each planning partner are included in the partner annexes in Volume 2 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table-23-1. Action Plan—Countywide Mitigation Initiatives Hazards
Addressed Lead Agency Possible Funding Sources or Resources Time Line Objectives CW-1— Continue to maintain a website that will house the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan and any amendments to it adopted during the next 5-year period to provide the planning partners and the public with ongoing access to the plan and its implementation.
All Hazards Ventura County General Funds Short term, Ongoing 1, 2, 7, 17 CW-2— Continue to leverage/support/enhance ongoing, regional public education and awareness programs, such as VCAlert, CERT (Community Emergency Response Team), DART (Disaster Assistance Response Team), TsunamiReady, and StormReady, as methods to educate the public on risk, risk reduction, and community resilience.
All Hazards Planning Partners Cost sharing from the partnership General fund allocations
Cost sharing with stakeholders
Short term, Ongoing 1, 2, 7, 12, 17
CW-3— Continue to provide a virtual hub for sharing information on hazard mitigation resources on the readyventuracounty.org website that will support mitigation efforts and awareness of grant funding opportunities to the planning partnership.
All Hazards Ventura County General funds Short term, Ongoing 1, 2, 17
23.2 AREA-WIDE ACTION PLAN PRIORITIZATION
The actions recommended in the action plan were prioritized based on the following factors:
• Cost and availability of funding
• Benefit, based on likely risk reduction to be achieved Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 23-2
• Number of plan objectives achieved
• Timeframe for project implementation
• Eligibility for grand funding programs
Two priorities were assigned for each action:
• A high, medium, or low priority for implementing the action • A high, medium, or low priority for pursuing grant funding for the action.
The sections below describe the analysis of benefits and costs and the assignment of the two priority ratings.
23.2.1 Benefit and Cost
The action plan must be prioritized according to a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed actions (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(3)(iii)). For this hazard mitigation plan, a qualitative benefit-cost review was performed for each action by assigning ratings for benefit and cost as follows:
• Cost:
High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the action; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). Medium—The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re- apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years.
Low—The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.
• Benefit:
High—Action will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. Medium—Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or action will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property. Low—Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.
To assign priorities, each action with a benefit rating equal to or higher than its cost rating (such as high benefit/medium cost, medium benefit/medium cost, medium benefit/low cost, etc.) was considered to be cost-beneficial. This is not the detailed level of benefit/cost analysis required for some FEMA hazard- related grant programs. Such analysis would be performed at the time a given action is being submitted for grant funding.
23.2.2 Implementation Priority
Implementation priority ratings were assigned as follows:
• High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and has a secured source of funding. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). • Medium Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and is eligible for funding though no funding has yet been secured for it. Action can be completed in Item No.7D
Recommended Planning-Area-Wide Actions
23-3
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 may be eligible for grant funding from programs that have not yet been identified.
23.2.3 Grant Pursuit Priority
Grant pursuit priority ratings were assigned as follows:
• High Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has high benefits, and is listed as high or medium implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable or available local funds could be used instead for actions that are not eligible for grant funding. • Medium Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has medium or low benefits, and is listed as medium or low implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable.
• Low Priority—An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility requirements.
23.2.4 Prioritization Summary for Countywide Actions
Table 23-2 lists the priority of each action.
Table 23-2. Mitigation Action Priority
Action #
# of
Objectives
Met Benefit Cost
Do Benefits
Equal or Exceed
Costs?
Is Action
Grant
Eligible?
Can Action be Funded
Under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Implementation
Priority
Grant
Pursuit
Priority
CW-1 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
CW-2 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low
CW-3 3 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low
23.3 CLASSIFICATION OF AREA-WIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS
Each recommended action was classified based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Table 23-3 shows these classifications. Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows:
• Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations.
• Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 23-4
• Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform residents and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, wetland restoration and preservation, and green infrastructure.
Table 23-3. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Actions That Address the Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Prevention
Property
Protection
Public Education
and Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resiliency
Community
Capacity
Building
HIGH-PRIORITY HAZARDS
Dam Failure CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Landslide CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
MEDIUM-PRIORITY HAZARDS
Earthquake CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Flooding CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Severe Storms CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Severe Weather CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Wildfire CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
LOW-PRIORITY HAZARDS
Drought CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Sea-Level Rise CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
Tsunami CW-1, 2 CW-2, 3
• Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities.
• Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. • Climate Resiliency—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks, such as sea-level rise or urban heat island effect. • Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. Includes staff training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs.
Item No.7D
24-1
24. PLAN ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE
24.1 PLAN ADOPTION
A hazard mitigation plan must document formal adoption by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting federal approval of the plan (44 CFR, Section 201.6.c.5). For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval must document that is has been formally adopted. This plan will be submitted for a pre-adoption review to Cal OES and FEMA Region IX prior to adoption. Once pre- adoption approval has been provided, all planning partners will formally adopt the plan. DMA compliance and its benefits cannot be achieved until the plan is adopted. Copies of the FEMA approval and planning partner resolutions adopting this plan can be found in Appendix F of this volume.
24.2 PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
This section describes a formal plan maintenance process to ensure that the hazard mitigation plan remains an active and relevant document. It includes an explanation of the responsibilities of a hazard mitigation plan Project Management Team and the planning partners. It outlines steps to ensure that the plan remains an active and relevant document and that any improvements and revisions to the hazard mitigation plan occur in a well-managed, efficient, and coordinated manner. Requirements for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• 44 CFR 201.6, Local Mitigation Plans (Element A)—Inclusion of a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current (monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a 5-year cycle. (Requirement § 201.6(c)(4)(1))
• CRS 510 Floodplain Management Planning, CRS Step 10:
A. Procedures to monitor and recommend revisions.
B. Same planning committee or successor committee that qualifies under Section 511.a.2 (a) does the evaluation.
A Project Management Team, composed of Ventura County staff members, will take the lead on monitoring, evaluating, and updating the hazard mitigation plan over the 5-year performance period.
Table 24-1 summarizes the plan maintenance strategy over the 5-year performance period of the plan.
The sections below further describe each element.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 24-2
Table 24-1. Plan Maintenance Matrix
Approach Timeline Lead Responsibilitya
Plan Monitoring
Track the implementation of plan actions Continuous All planning partners will report annually to Ventura County Sheriff’s
OES on action implementation. Points
of contact are listed in Volume 2.
Plan Evaluation
Review the status of previous actions; assess
changes in risk; evaluate success of integration
Upon initiation of hazard mitigation
plan update, comprehensive General
Plan update, or major disaster
All planning partners
Grant Monitoring and Coordination
The County will consider options to pursue grants to
fund actions identified in this plan.
Continuous, as grants become
available
Ventura County Sheriff’s OES
Plan Update
Initiate the process to comprehensively update the
plan at least every 5 years.
At the end of year 3 (mid-2025),
coordinate with the planning partners,
and work to identify grant funding
opportunity for update. Obtain grant
funding by the end of year 4 (mid
2026).
Ventura County Sheriff’s OES will
lead the plan update. All planning
partners will support the effort.
Integration into Other Planning Mechanisms
Create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan
and individual jurisdictions’ general plans or similar
plans identified in the core capability assessments
Continuous All planning partners
Continuing Public Involvement
Maintain and update the
www.readyventuracounty.org website with relevant
hazard mitigation information and public participation
opportunities.
Continuous Ventura County Sheriff’s OES will
lead continuing public participation. All
planning partners will support the
effort.
a. Responsible lead party may designate an alternate. Jurisdictional points of contact identified in Volume 2 have support responsibility.
24.2.1 Plan Monitoring
Ventura County Sheriff’s OES will be the lead agency responsible for oversight and the Project Management Team will support plan monitoring, evaluation, and the plan update schedule. Each planning partner will monitor plan implementation by tracking the status of mitigation actions in its action plan. Staff or departments with primary responsibility are identified in each jurisdictional annex (see Volume 2).
24.2.2 Plan Evaluation
Plan evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partners identified as lead agencies in the area-wide and jurisdiction-specific action plans. The plan will be analyzed for which goals and objectives were achieved. Additionally, a review of any changes in risk over the performance period will be analyzed by the degree to which those changes may impact and require revision to the mitigation goals and objectives and how they are incorporated into jurisdictional plans, policies and programs.
Review of the hazard mitigation plan can include the following:
Item No.7D
Plan Adoption and Maintenance
24-3
• Discussion of hazard events that occurred during the prior year and their impact on the planning area
• Impact of potential grant opportunities on the implementation of mitigation actions • Re-evaluation of the action plans to determine if the timeline for identified actions needs to be amended (such as changing a long-term action to a short-term action because of funding availability)
• Recommendations for new actions
• Impact of any other planning programs or initiatives that involve hazard mitigation
24.2.3 Grant Monitoring and Coordination
Ventura County Sheriff’s OES, in consultation with the planning partners, will identify hazard mitigation grant funding opportunities and assume lead responsibility for planning and facilitating grant opportunity calls or meetings. The Project Management Team will communicate and coordinate with the planning partners to review the hazard mitigation plan and pursue a strategy to capture grant funding.
24.2.4 Plan Update
FEMA requires the hazard mitigation plan to be revised and resubmitted for review and approval by Cal OES and FEMA prior to the five-year anniversary date of the plan’s adoption in order to remain eligible for benefits under the DMA (44 CFR, Section 201.6(d)(3)). To meet this timeline, at the end of year 3 (2025), Ventura County Sheriff’s OES, with support from the Project Management Team, will coordinate with the planning partners to identify a grant funding opportunity for the update. Grant funding for the update will be obtained by the end of year 4 (2026). This cycle may be accelerated to less than five years based on the following triggers:
• A federal disaster declaration that impacts Ventura County • A hazard event that causes loss of life
• A comprehensive update of the Ventura County General Plan The revision process may include the following elements, as required by FEMA at the time of the next update:
• The revision process will be convened through a new steering committee • The hazard risk assessment will be reviewed and, if necessary, revised using best available information and technologies
• The action plan will be reviewed for any actions completed, ongoing, or withdrawn, and will be reconciled to account for changes in the risk assessment or new policies identified under other plans (such as the General Plan)
• The draft plan revision will be sent to appropriate agency departments and divisions for comment
• The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the revised plan prior to adoption • The Ventura County Board of Supervisors will adopt the updated plan once the reviews by Cal OES and FEMA have been conducted
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 24-4
24.2.5 Integration with Other Planning Mechanisms
The information on hazard, risk, vulnerability, and mitigation contained in this plan is based on the best science and technology available at the time this plan was prepared. The planning partners, through adoption of General Plans and zoning ordinances, have planned for the impact of natural hazards. The hazard mitigation plan development process provided them with an opportunity to review and expand on policies contained within these planning mechanisms. The planning partners used their general plans and the hazard mitigation plan as complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure to the citizens of the planning area. An update to a General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan.
All municipal planning partners have committed to creating a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and their individual General Plans within one of their identified mitigation actions. Other planning processes and programs to be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan may include:
• Climate action plans
• Emergency operations plans
• Resilience plans
• Recovery plan
• Emergency response plans
• Training and exercise of emergency response plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Debris management plans
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Community development block grant-disaster recovery action plans • Public information/education plans.
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information can be incorporated via the next hazard mitigation plan update.
For the special purpose district planning partners to this plan, identified planning capabilities include capital facility plans, emergency operations plan, continuity of operations plans, and community wildfire Item No.7D
Plan Adoption and Maintenance
24-5
protection plans. Special purpose districts do not have land use authority, so integration with land use plans is not a capability for districts. However, for the planning capabilities that the districts do possess, they will integrate where appropriate relevant sections of this plan when those plans are scheduled for updates. This has already occurred for most of the district planning partners as indicated in Volume 2 of this plan.
24.2.6 Continuing Public Involvement
The public will continue to be apprised of the plan’s progress through the www.readyventuracounty.org website. The website will house the final plan and the StoryMap and will provide information regarding the plan, plan implementation, and plan update process. The website will continue to be updated as additional information becomes available. This may include examples of local mitigation in action, planning partner updates, resources, and public participation opportunities.
Upon initiation of future update processes, a new public involvement strategy will be developed. This strategy will be based on the needs and capabilities of Ventura County and its planning partners at the time of the update and will include web, social media, and the use of other local media outlets in the planning area.
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
Reference-1
REFERENCES
AGU. 2019. Climate Change Suppresses Santa Ana Winds of Southern California and Sharpens Their Seasonality. January 31. Accessed February 15, 2022.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL080261.
Brown, William M. III, David M. Perkins, Edgar V. Leyendecker, Arthur D. Frankel, James W. II Hendley, and Peter H. Stauffer. 1998. Hazard Maps Help Save Lives and Property. USGS.
CAL FIRE. 2021. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
Cal OES. 2020. "California Adaptation Planning Guide ." March. Accessed December 20, 2021. https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/01APG_Planning_for_Adaptive_Communities. pdf.
Cal OES. 2021. Dam Safety Planning Division. Accessed November 17, 2021. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/hazard-mitigation/dam-safety-planning-division.
California Department of Conservation. 2019a. Earthquakes and Faults. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes.
California Department of Conservation. 2019b. Ground Motion Interpolator. Accessed November 20, 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/PSHA/ground-motion-interpolator.aspx.
California Department of Conservation. 2021. Pace of Urbanization Slows in Los Angeles, Ventura Counties, New Doc Maps Show. August 20. Accessed December 22, 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20141023082054/http:/www.conservation.ca.gov/index/news/2001%20Ne ws%20Releases/Pages/NR2001-55%20LA,%20Ventural%20FMMP.aspx.
California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 Update 2003.
State of California.
California Department of Water Resources. 2021a. Climate Change and Water. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Climate-Change-Program/Climate-Change-and- Water.
California Department of Water Resources. 2021b. Division of Safety of Dams. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://water.ca.gov/programs/all-programs/division-of-safety-of-dams.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Reference-2
California Division of Safety of Dams. 2021. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-Safety-of- Dams/Files/Publications/Dams-Within-Jurisdiction-of-the-State-of-California-Listed-Alphabetically-by- County.pdf.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. California Environmental Protection Agency.
California Public Utilities Commission. 2021. Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) / De-Energization.
Accessed 2021. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/psps/.
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes. 2021. Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations.
Accessed November 23, 2021. https://cw3e.ucsd.edu/firo/.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. Health Implications of Drought. January 16.
Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/drought/implications.htm.
City of Camarillo. 2007. "Memorandum." Responses to Grand Jury Report on Evacuation Planning.
Camarillo: Office of the City Manager, August 22.
Croswell, Ken. 1995. "California Tornado Risk." Earth 12.
Erdman, Jonathan. 2021. America's No. 1 Weather Killer Is Not Tornadoes, Flooding, Lightning or Hurricanes. June 3. Accessed November 22, 2021. https://weather.com/safety/heat/news/2021-06-03- heat-america-fatalities.
ESA. 2021. "Ormond Beach Restoration and Public Access Project Preferred Alternative and Preliminary Design Plan." Plan.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2016. Be Aware of Potential Risk of Dam Failure in Your Community. August. Accessed November 17, 2022. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 08/fema_dam-safety_aware-community_fact-sheet_2016.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. Flood Zones. July 8. Accessed October 1, 2021. https://www.fema.gov/glossary/flood-zones.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2021. Taking Shelter from the Storm. March 3. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_taking-shelter-from-the- storm_p-320.pdf.
Felman, Adam. 2020. "What to know about pandemics." Medical News Today, March 30.
Frederikse, T., F. Landerer, L. Caron, S. Adhikari, D. Parkes, V. Humphrey, S. Dangendorf, et al. 2020. "The causes of sea-level rise since 1900." Nature 584, 393–397.
Georgetown Climate Center. 2011. Surfer's Point Managed Shoreline Retreat Project. Accessed November 21, 2021.
https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/surfer-s-point-managed- shoreline-retreat-project.html.
Item No.7D
References
Reference-3
Heady, Walter N., Brian S. Cohen, Mary G. Gleason, Joshua N. Morris, Sarah G. Newkirk, Kirk R.
Klausmeyer, Hilary R. Walecka, Elizabeth Gagneron, and Mary Small. 2018. Conserving California's Coastal Habitats: A Legacy and a Future with Sea Level Rise. San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA: The Nature Conservancy, California State Coastal Conservancy.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . 2021. Glossary. Accessed December 20, 2021. https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/glossary/glossary_a.html.
Lee, S., H. Lopez, E Chung, P. DiNezio, S. Yeh, and A. Wittenberg. 2017. "On the Fragile Relationship Between El Niño and California Rainfall." Geophysical Research Letters.
Mount, Jeffrey, Alvar Escriva-Bou, and Gokce Sencan. 2021. Droughts in California. April. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.ppic.org/publication/droughts-in-california/.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2019. Can Climate Affect Earthquakes, Or Are the Connections Shaky? October 29. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2926/can-climate-affect-earthquakes-or-are-the-connections-shaky/.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2021. Climate Change: How Do We Know? November
18. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2010. How Will Global Warming Change Earth? June
3. Accessed November 23, 2021.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page6.php.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2021. The Effects of Climate Change. November 18.
Accessed November 23, 2021. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/.
National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021. Climate at a Glance. Accessed December 22, 2021. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/county/time-series/CA-111/tavg/3/11/2000-2020.
National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021. DROUGHT: Monitoring Economic, Environmental, and Social Impacts. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/drought-monitoring-economic-environmental-and-social-impacts.
National Centers for Environmental Information. 2022. Storm Events Database; Search Results for Ventura County, California. February 15. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp?eventType=%28Z%29+High+Wind&eventType= %28Z%29+Marine+Strong+Wind&eventType=%28Z%29+Marine+Thunderstorm+Wind&eventType=% 28Z%29+Strong+Wind&eventType=%28C%29+Thunderstorm+Wind&eventType=%28Z%29+Wildfire& b.
National Drought Mitigation Center. 2021. Drought Impact Reporter. October 31. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://droughtreporter.unl.edu/map/.
National Integrated Drought Information System. 2021. Current Conditions for Ventura County.
November 16. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.drought.gov/states/california/county/Ventura.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Reference-4
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Climate Change: Global Sea Level. October
7. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding- climate/climate-change-global-sea-level.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Is sea level rising? February 26. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Sea Level Trends. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Tides & Currents. October 31. Accessed November 21, 2021.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/waterlevels.html?id=9410660&units=standard&bdate=19500101&ed ate=20211031&timezone=GMT&datum=MLLW&interval=m&action=.
National Severe Storms Laboratory. 2018. Severe Weather 101. Accessed 2018. https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/wind/types/.
National Tsunami Warning Center. 2021. Tsunami Frequently Asked Questions. November 19.
Accessed November 22, 2021. https://www.tsunami.gov/?page=tsunamiFAQ.
National Weather Service. 2009a. Flood Categories. June 25. Accessed October 1, 2021. https://w1.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?word=flood+categories.
National Weather Service. 2009b. National Weather Service Glossary. Accessed November 22, 2021. https://w1.weather.gov/glossary/.
Oakley, N.S., B.J. Hatchett, D. McEvoy, and L. Rodriguez. 2019. Projected Changes in Ventura County Climate. Reno, Nevada: Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute.
Pacific Gas & Electric. n.d. Learn about Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events. Accessed 2021. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/outages/public-safety-power-shuttoff/learn-about-psps.page.
Santa Clara River Estuary Scientific Review Panel. 2018. "Technical Memorandum SRP Recommendations - FINAL." City of Ventura. June 25. Accessed November 20, 2021. https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13035/2018-June-Scientific-Review-Panel- SRP-Final-Recommendations-.
Sarkar, Subharthi, and Rajib Maity. 2020. "Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipitation in the context of climate change." Methods X.
Science. 2021. California's fire-fanning Santa Ana winds may not get any better with climate change.
June 18. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.science.org/content/article/california-s-fire-fanning- santa-ana-winds-may-not-get-any-better-climate-change.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2021a. 6th Cycle RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment. July 1. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/rhna.
Item No.7D
References
Reference-5
Southern California Association of Governments. 2021b. Allocation By County. July 1. Accessed August 25, 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-final-allocation- plan.pdf?1625161899.
Southern California Earthquake Center. 2018. A Site Conditions Map for California Based on Geology and Shear Wave Velocity. Accessed 2018. http://scecinfo.usc.edu/phase3/wills.html.
State of California. 2021. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/overview/.
The Nature Conservancy. 2021a. Coastal Resilience Ventura County. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://coastalresilience.org/project/ventura-county/.
The Nature Conservancy. 2021b. PLACES WE PROTECT L.A.-Ventura Project California. Accessed November 20, 2021. https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/places-we-protect/la- ventura/.
Tuser, Christina. 2019. "VENTURA APPROVES $200 MILLION WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT." Water & Waste Digest, October 16.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2021. Corps to begin dredging project at Port of Hueneme. January 5.
Accessed November 21, 2021. https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release- Article-View/Article/2462330/corps-to-begin-dredging-project-at-port-of-hueneme/.
U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2021. Coastal Erosion. April 1. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal-flood-risk/coastal-erosion.
U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2021. Drought. September 28. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/water/drought.
U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2021. Restoring Surfers' Point: Partnership's Persistence Pays Off.
August 6. Accessed November 21, 2021. https://toolkit.climate.gov/case-studies/restoring-surfers-point- partnerships-persistence-pays.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2021a. Disaster Designation Information. September 24. Accessed September 24, 2021. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/disaster-assistance- program/disaster-designation-information/index.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2021b. National Invasive Species Information Center - Climate Change. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/subject/climate-change.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. "Soil Survey Ventura Area, California." Accessed December 22, 2021.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/venturaCA1970/venturaCA1970.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Climate Adaptation and Stormwater Runoff. May 26.
Accessed November 22, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/climate-adaptation-and-stormwater-runoff.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Reference-6
U.S. Geolgoical Survey. 2021a. U.S. Quaternary Faults. USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center.
Accessed 2021.
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf U.S. Geological Survey. 2021c. Earthquake Magnitude, Energy Release, and Shaking Intensity.
Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake- hazards/science/earthquake-magnitude-energy-release-and-shaking-intensity?qt- science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. How many deaths result from landslides each year? Accessed 2020. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-deaths-result-landslides-each-year?qt- news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2021e. ShakeMap. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/shakemap/.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. ShakeMap Scientific Background. March 9. Accessed November 19, 2021.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110623092131/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/back ground.php#intmaps.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2021b. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/modified-mercalli-intensity-scale?qt- science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2021d. What is "El Niño" and what are its effects? Accessed November 21, 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-el-ni-o-and-what-are-its-effects?qt- news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2018. "Fourth National Climate Assessment; Chapter 2, Our Changing Climate." Accessed 2021. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/.
Ventura County. 2015. "2015 Ventura County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan." Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner. 2020. "County of Ventura 2020 Crop & Livestock Report." Ventura County. 2018. "Final Report Ventura County Dam Safety." Final Report.
Ventura County Public Works Agency. 2020a. Flood Warning System. Accessed December 17, 20221. https://www.vcwatershed.net/fws/.
Ventura County Public Works Agency. 2020. Groundwater Resources. Accessed November 19, 2021. https://www.vcpublicworks.org/wp/waterresourcesdivision/groundwaterresources/.
Ventura County Public Works Agency. 2020b. Watershed Protection. Accessed November 20, 2021. https://www.vcpublicworks.org/wp/.
Item No.7D
References
Reference-7
Ventura County. 2020. Ventura County 2040 General Plan. September. Accessed November 21, 2021. file:///C:/Users/Megan.Brotherton/Documents/HMP%20-
%20Ventura%20County/General%20Plan/Ventura_County_2040_General_Plan.pdf.
Ventura County. 2020. "Ventura County 2040 General Plan Housing Element." September. Accessed August 25, 2021.
https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/plans/Final_2040_General_Plan_docs/VCGPU_03_Housin g_Element_2020_09_15_web.pdf.
Ventura County Watershed Protection District. 2015. 2015 Annual Report of Groundwater Conditions.
Ventura County.
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A. Public Involvement Materials
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
A-1
A. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MATERIALS
Steering Committee meeting agendas and notes are available online at https://www.readyventuracounty.org/calendar-of-events/
Survey results are provided on the following pages.
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 1 / 35
Q1 Where in Ventura County do you live?
Answered: 831 Skipped: 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
San
Buenaventura...
Camarillo
Moorpark
Unincorporated
Ventura County
Ojai
Oxnard
I don't live
in Ventura...
Fillmore
Santa Paula
Port Hueneme
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 2 / 35
24.55% 204
20.22% 168
14.20% 118
9.27% 77
7.82% 65
7.46% 62
4.93% 41
3.49% 29
3.49% 29
2.29% 19
1.81% 15
0.48% 4
TOTAL 831
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
San Buenaventura (Ventura)
Camarillo
Moorpark
Unincorporated Ventura County
Ojai
Oxnard
I don't live in Ventura County
Fillmore
Santa Paula
Port Hueneme
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 3 / 35
62.58% 520
8.42% 70
6.86% 57
22.14% 184
Q2 Do you work in Ventura County?
Answered: 831 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 831
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes (includes
people worki...
No, I work
outside the...
No, I am not
currently...
No, I am
retired
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes (includes people working remotely from home)
No, I work outside the County
No, I am not currently employed
No, I am retired
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 4 / 35
Q3 Which of the following natural hazard events have you experienced orbeen affected by within Ventura County? (Check all that apply) Answered: 831 Skipped: 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Wildfire
Earthquake
Drought
Severe Weather
(i.e. wind,...
Agricultural
Biological...
Severe Storms
Flood
Landslide
Sea Level Rise
+ Coastal...
Dam Failure
Tsunami
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 5 / 35
84.60% 703
64.50% 536
62.94% 523
49.10% 408
15.64% 130
15.40% 128
12.03% 100
9.51% 79
4.93% 41
1.20% 10
0.96% 8
Total Respondents: 831
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Wildfire
Earthquake
Drought
Severe Weather (i.e. wind, cold, heat)
Agricultural Biological (e.g. west nile, epidemic diseases) Severe Storms
Flood
Landslide
Sea Level Rise + Coastal Erosion
Dam Failure
Tsunami
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 6 / 35
Q4 How prepared is your household to deal with a hazard event? Answered: 792 Skipped: 40
5.30%
42 43.69%
346
29.17%
231
17.55%
139
4.29%
34 792
2.72 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not at all p… Somewhat … Adequately… Well prepar…
Very well pr…
Check one:
NOT AT ALLPREPARED SOMEWHATPREPARED ADEQUATELYPREPARED WELLPREPARED VERY WELLPREPARED TOTAL WEIGHTEDAVERAGE Check
one:
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 7 / 35
Q5 What steps has your household taken to prepare for a disaster?(Check all that apply) Answered: 791 Skipped: 41
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Received First
Aid/CPR...
Made a fire
escape plan
Designated an
evacuation...
Identified
utility shut...
Maintain a
emergency...
Installed
smoke and...
Written and
practiced an...
Participated
in neighborh...
Maintain a
working fire...
Maintain extra
medical...
None
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 8 / 35
57.90% 458
43.49% 344
31.98% 253
69.53% 550
71.30% 564
90.52% 716
11.00% 87
9.86% 78
69.79% 552
73.07% 578
2.53% 20
Total Respondents: 791
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Received First Aid/CPR training
Made a fire escape plan
Designated an evacuation meeting place
Identified utility shutoff locations
Maintain a emergency supply kit (e.g. batteries, flashlights, battery-powered radio, food/water) Installed smoke and carbon monoxide detectors
Written and practiced an individual or family disaster plan Participated in neighborhood preparedness and planning
Maintain a working fire extinguisher at home
Maintain extra medical supplies (e.g. first aid kit, medications) None
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 9 / 35
75.76% 600
59.22% 469
40.28% 319
46.21% 366
26.89% 213
26.39% 209
21.97% 174
3.91% 31
Q6 What resources/experiences have helped you to become moreprepared? (Check all that apply) Answered: 792 Skipped: 40
Total Respondents: 792
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Lived
experience f...
Information
from governm...
Information
from TV news...
Information
from interne...
Education from
schools and...
Attending
meetings wit...
Participating
in Community...
None
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Lived experience from one or more hazards or disasters
Information from government sources (e.g. federal, state, or local) Information from TV news, radio news
Information from internet or social media
Education from schools and other academic institutions
Attending meetings with information on disaster preparedness Participating in Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) or other disaster training program (e.g. DART) None
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 10 / 35
36.76% 290
30.80% 243
29.02% 229
14.58% 115
10.77% 85
9.76% 77
4.18% 33
Q7 What are the hurdles preventing you from being more prepared? Answered: 789 Skipped: 43
Total Respondents: 789
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1.2k 1.4k 1.6k 1.8k 2k
Time const… Not applica… Financial co… Other (plea…
Renting vs. … Lack of edu… Limited acc…
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Time constraints
Not applicable, I feel adequately prepared already
Financial constraints
Other (please specify below)
Renting vs. owning home or business
Lack of education about disasters
Limited access to information resources
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 11 / 35
Q8 Which information sources on emergency preparedness do you usemost? (Check all that apply) Answered: 792 Skipped: 40
Internet
Social Media
(e.g. Twitter)
Radio
TV
Public Meetings
Workshops
Schools
f
TV Ads
h
Radio Ads
Government
Sources
Billboards
Fire Department
Church and
other...
CERT/DART
Classes
Public
Awareness...
Books
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 12 / 35
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Chamber of
Commerce
Academic
Institutions
Public Library
American Red
Cross...
Community
Safety Fairs
Newspaper
Informational
Brochures
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 13 / 35
78.54% 622
36.74% 291
24.75% 196
35.73% 283
13.26% 105
10.10% 80
6.57% 52
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
41.92% 332
1.14% 9
33.46% 265
5.68% 45
13.13% 104
12.37% 98
0.00% 0
1.01% 8
4.04% 32
4.80% 38
18.18% 144
9.47% 75
18.56% 147
12.88% 102
Total Respondents: 792
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Internet
Social Media (e.g. Twitter)
Radio
TV
Public Meetings
Workshops
Schools
f
TV Ads
h
Radio Ads
Government Sources
Billboards
Fire Department
Church and other faith-based groups
CERT/DART Classes
Public Awareness Campaign (e.g. Flood Awareness Week)
Books
Chamber of Commerce
Academic Institutions
Public Library
American Red Cross Information
Community Safety Fairs
Newspaper
Informational Brochures
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 14 / 35
Q9 How concerned are you about the following hazards? (Check oneresponse for each hazard) Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 15 / 35
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not Concer… Somewhat … Concerned Very Conce…
Extremely …
Wildfire
Drought
Earthquake
Severe Weather
(i.e. wind,...
Agricultural
Biological...
Severe Storms
Sea Level Rise
+ Coastal...
Other Hazard
Flood
Landslide
Tsunami
Dam Failure
n/a
Radiological
Incident
Space Weather
Terrorism
Transportation
Incident
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 16 / 35
1.95%
13 5.55%
37 12.44%
83 26.39%
176
53.67%
358
667
4.24 4.17%
28 14.29%
96 18.30%
123
31.85%
214
31.40%
211
672
3.72 2.84%
19 13.88%
93 30.60%
205
29.25%
196
23.43%
157
670
3.57 10.96%
73 20.57%
137
27.48%
183
22.37%
149
18.62%
124
666
3.17 25.37%
170
29.85%
200
22.39%
150
14.03%
94 8.36%
56 670
2.50 25.46%
167
27.59%
181
28.05%
184
11.89%
78 7.01%
46 656
2.47 40.03%
265
21.60%
143
19.94%
132
10.57%
70 7.85%
52 662
2.25 50.65%
157
12.58%
39 15.48%
48 8.06%
25 13.23%
41 310
2.21 44.29%
287
27.62%
179
18.21%
118
6.64%
43 3.24%
21 648
1.97 45.14%
297
27.20%
179
18.54%
122
6.23%
41 2.89%
19 658
1.95 61.31%
404
20.49%
135
11.53%
76 4.10%
27 2.58%
17 659
1.66 66.62%
439
20.49%
135
9.26%
61 3.19%
21 0.46%
3 659
1.50 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0
0.00 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0
0.00 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0
0.00 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0
0.00 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0
0.00 NOTCONCERNED SOMEWHATCONCERNED CONCERNED VERYCONCERNED EXTREMELYCONCERNED TOTAL WEIGHTEDAVERAGE Wildfire
Drought
Earthquake
Severe Weather (i.e.
wind, cold, heat)
Agricultural Biological
(e.g. west nile,
epidemic diseases)
Severe Storms
Sea Level Rise +
Coastal Erosion
Other Hazard
Flood
Landslide
Tsunami
Dam Failure
n/a
Radiological Incident
Space Weather
Terrorism
Transportation
Incident
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 17 / 35
Q10 Is your current residence located within a known earthquake faultzone, liquefaction zone, or landslide zone? (Check all that apply) Needhelp answering? Add your address to this tool:https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
29.72%
200
44.87%
302
25.41%
171
673
18.55%
123
50.68%
336
30.77%
204
663
8.47%
56 70.35%
465
21.18%
140
661
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No Not Sure
Earthquake
fault zone
Liquefaction
zone
Landslide zone
YES NO NOT SURE TOTAL
Earthquake fault zone
Liquefaction zone
Landslide zone
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 18 / 35
8.69% 59
71.87% 488
19.44% 132
Q11 Is your current residence located in a FEMA designated floodplain?Need help answering? Add your address to this tool:https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
TOTAL 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Not Sure
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not Sure
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 19 / 35
47.57% 323
42.27% 287
10.16% 69
Q12 Is your current residence in a high-risk area for wildfire? Need helpanswering? Add your address to this tool:https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=5e96315793d445419b6c96f89ce5d153 Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
TOTAL 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Not Sure
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not Sure
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 20 / 35
69.07% 469
30.93% 210
Q13 Are you aware that California law requires the disclosure of a naturalhazard risk zone (e.g. earthquake fault zone, dam failure zone, or high firerisk area) before you purchase or move into a home? Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
TOTAL 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 21 / 35
83.80% 569
16.20% 110
Q14 Would the disclosure of natural hazard information influence yourdecision to purchase or move into a home today? Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
TOTAL 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 22 / 35
14.60% 99
38.64% 262
17.55% 119
9.29% 63
29.50% 200
Q15 To the best of your knowledge, does the home in which you live have:
Answered: 678 Skipped: 154
Total Respondents: 678
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Flood
insurance...
Earthquake
insurance...
Not sure
Decline to
state
Neither
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Flood insurance policy
Earthquake insurance policy
Not sure
Decline to state
Neither
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 23 / 35
18.14% 123
68.73% 466
8.85% 60
4.28% 29
Q16 Have you ever had difficulty obtaining homeowners or rentersinsurance due to risks from natural hazards? Answered: 678 Skipped: 154
TOTAL 678
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Not sure
Decline to
state
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not sure
Decline to state
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 24 / 35
41.97% 285
63.33% 430
39.91% 271
67.30% 457
22.39% 152
40.35% 274
43.15% 293
5.30% 36
13.99% 95
Q17 Which incentives would encourage you to retrofit your home to protectagainst natural disasters? (Check all that apply) Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
Total Respondents: 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Building
permit fee...
Insurance
premium...
Mortgage
discount
Property tax
break or...
Low interest
loan
Free local
government...
Grant funding
None of the
above
Not applicable
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building permit fee waiver
Insurance premium discount
Mortgage discount
Property tax break or incentive
Low interest loan
Free local government technical assistance
Grant funding
None of the above
Not applicable
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 25 / 35
Q18 Please indicate how you feel about the following statement:"I think itis important to provide education and programs that promote communitymembers to take action to reduce their exposure and risks to naturalhazards." Answered: 678 Skipped: 154
6.05%
41 2.80%
19 6.19%
42 24.93%
169
60.03%
407
678
4.30 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly Di… Somewhat … Neither Agr… Somewhat …
Strongly Ag…
Choose one:
STRONGLYDISAGREE SOMEWHATDISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NORDISAGREE SOMEWHATAGREE STRONGLYAGREE TOTAL WEIGHTEDAVERAGE Choose
one:
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 26 / 35
68.34% 464
8.69% 59
60.24% 409
26.07% 177
21.35% 145
Q19 If a natural disaster such as a large earthquake were to striketomorrow... (Check all that apply) Answered: 679 Skipped: 153
Total Respondents: 679
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I feel
confident th...
I am unsure
how to prote...
I keep an
emergency ki...
I have
practiced an...
I am unsure
where I woul...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I feel confident that I know how to protect myself during an earthquake I am unsure how to protect myself during an earthquake
I keep an emergency kit with spare food and water for myself and my family I have practiced an evacuation plan and/or know where I and my family would go if we needed to evacuate our home I am unsure where I would go if I needed to evacuate my home Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 27 / 35
11.50% 78
88.50% 600
Q20 Does your street (or another street that you know of) typically floodduring rain events? Answered: 678 Skipped: 154
TOTAL 678
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes (Please
specify below)
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes (Please specify below)
No
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 28 / 35
0.45% 3
6.77% 45
16.69% 111
17.59% 117
25.41% 169
33.08% 220
Q21 Please indicate your age range:
Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
TOTAL 665
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
under 18
18 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
61 or older
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
under 18
18 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
61 or older
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 29 / 35
99.25% 660
0.75% 5
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q22 Please indicate the primary language spoken in your household.
Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
TOTAL 665
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
English
Spanish
Mixteco
Chinese
Vietnamese
Tagalog
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
English
Spanish
Mixteco
Chinese
Vietnamese
Tagalog
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 30 / 35
2.11% 14
5.11% 34
1.05% 7
9.47% 63
1.65% 11
0.45% 3
73.68% 490
1.95% 13
13.53% 90
Q23 Which category best describes you? (Check all that apply) Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
Total Respondents: 665
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
American
Indian or...
Asian (ie.
Chinese,...
Black or
African...
Hispanic,
Latino or...
Middle Eastern
or North...
Native
Hawaiian or...
White (ie.
German, Iris...
A
race/ethnici...
Decline to
state
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
American Indian or Alaska Native (ie. Navajo nation, Blackfeet tribe, Mayan, Aztec, Nome Eskimo Community, etc) Asian (ie. Chinese, Filipino, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, etc) Black or African American (ie. African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somalian, etc) Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin (ie. Spanish, Mexican or Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, Colombian, etc.)
Middle Eastern or North African (ie. Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan, Algerian, etc) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (ie. Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Tongan, Fijian, etc) White (ie. German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, French, etc) A race/ethnicity not listed here
Decline to state
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 31 / 35
18.67% 124
77.41% 514
3.77% 25
0.15% 1
Q24 Do you, or anyone in your household, identify as a person with adisability (e.g. mobility, hard of hearing/deaf, low vision/blind, intellectual)? Answered: 664 Skipped: 168
TOTAL 664
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Decline to
state
Other (please
specify below)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Decline to state
Other (please specify below)
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 32 / 35
Q25 What is your annual (gross) household income?
Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
<$10,000
$10,000 -
$30,000
$30,001 -
$50,000
$50,001 -
$70,000
$70,001 -
$90,000
$90,001 -
$110,000
$110,001 -
$130,000
$130,001 -
$150,000
$150,001 -
$170,000
$170,001 -
$190,000
$190,001 -
$210,000
$210,001 -
$230,000
>$230,001
Decline to
state
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 33 / 35
0.60% 4
2.11% 14
4.96% 33
5.26% 35
7.97% 53
7.82% 52
8.72% 58
7.67% 51
3.46% 23
2.86% 19
4.21% 28
4.06% 27
7.97% 53
32.33% 215
TOTAL 665
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
<$10,000
$10,000 - $30,000
$30,001 - $50,000
$50,001 - $70,000
$70,001 - $90,000
$90,001 - $110,000
$110,001 - $130,000
$130,001 - $150,000
$150,001 - $170,000
$170,001 - $190,000
$190,001 - $210,000
$210,001 - $230,000
>$230,001
Decline to state
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 34 / 35
Q26 What is your zipcode?
Answered: 612 Skipped: 220
Item No.7D
2021 Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Community Survey 35 / 35
79.25% 527
85.71% 570
1.95% 13
0.30% 2
Q27 How do you typically access the internet? (Check all that apply) Answered: 665 Skipped: 167
Total Respondents: 665
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Cellphone
Personal
computer
Shared or
public resou...
I do not
access the...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Cellphone
Personal computer
Shared or public resource computer (e.g. library)
I do not access the internet
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B. Federal and State Agencies,
Programs and Regulations
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
B-1
B. FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES, PROGRAMS AND
REGULATIONS
Existing laws, ordinances, plans and programs at the federal and state level can support or impact hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required to include a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning process (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). The following federal and state programs have been identified as programs that may interface with the actions identified in this plan. Each program enhances capabilities to implement mitigation actions or has a nexus with a mitigation action in this plan. Information presented in this section can be used to review local capabilities to implement the actions found in the jurisdictional annexes of Volume 2. Each planning partner has individually reviewed existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical information in its jurisdictional annex, presented in Volume 2.
FEDERAL
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeks to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and government activities. Title II of the ADA deals with compliance with the Act in emergency management and disaster-related programs, services, and activities. It applies to state and local governments as well as third parties, including religious entities and private nonprofit organizations.
The ADA has implications for sheltering requirements and public notifications. During an emergency alert, officials must use a combination of warning methods to ensure that all residents have all necessary information. Those with hearing impairments may not hear radio, television, sirens, or other audible alerts, while those with visual impairments may not see flashing lights or other visual alerts.
Two technical documents for shelter operators address physical accessibility needs of people with disabilities, as well as medical needs and service animals.
The ADA intersects with disaster preparedness programs in regards to transportation, social services, temporary housing, and rebuilding. Persons with disabilities may require additional assistance in evacuation and transit (e.g., vehicles with wheelchair lifts or paratransit buses). Evacuation and other response plans should address the unique needs of residents. Local governments may be interested in implementing a special-needs registry to identify the home addresses, contact information, and needs for residents who may require more assistance.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-2
FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts.
Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.
Bureau of Land Management
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funds and coordinates wildfire management programs and structural fire management and prevention on BLM lands. BLM works closely with the Forest Service and state and local governments to coordinate fire safety activities. The Interagency Fire Coordination Center in Boise, Idaho serves as the center for this effort.
Civil Rights Act
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or nation origin and requires equal access to public places and employment. The Act is relevant to emergency management and hazard mitigation in that it prohibits local governments from favoring the needs of one population group over another. Local government and emergency response must ensure the continued safety and well-being of all residents equally, to the extent possible. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s surface waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has included a shift from a program-by-program, source-by-source, and pollutant-by-pollutant approach to more holistic watershed-based strategies.
Under the watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. Numerous issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority.
Involvement of stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining water quality and other environmental goals is a hallmark of this approach.
The CWA is important to hazard mitigation in several ways. There are often permitting requirements for any construction within 200 feet of water of the United States, which may have implications for mitigation projects identified by a local jurisdiction. Additionally, CWA requirements apply to wetlands, which serve important functions related to preserving and protecting the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains and are linked with a community’s floodplain management program. Finally, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is part of the CWA and addresses local stormwater management programs. Stormwater management plays a critical role in hazard mitigation by addressing urban drainage or localized flooding issues within jurisdictions.
FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts.
Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-3
Community Development Block Grant Disaster Resilience Program In response to disasters, Congress may appropriate additional funding for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant programs to be distributed as Disaster Recovery grants (CDBG-DR). These grants can be used to rebuild affected areas and provide seed money to start the recovery process. CDBG-DR assistance may fund a broad range of recovery activities, helping communities and neighborhoods that otherwise might not recover due to limited resources. CDBG-DR grants often supplement disaster programs of FEMA, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Housing and Urban Development generally awards noncompetitive, nonrecurring CDBG-DR grants by a formula that considers disaster recovery needs unmet by other federal disaster assistance programs. To be eligible for CDBG-DR funds, projects must meet the following criteria:
• Address a disaster-related impact (direct or indirect) in a presidentially declared county for the covered disaster
• Be a CDBG-eligible activity (according to regulations and waivers) • Meet a national objective.
Incorporating preparedness and mitigation into these actions is encouraged, as the goal is to rebuild in ways that are safer and stronger. CDBG-DR funding is a potential alternative source of funding for actions identified in this plan.
Community Rating System
The CRS is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions meeting the following three goals of the CRS:
• Reduce flood losses.
• Facilitate accurate insurance rating.
• Promote awareness of flood insurance.
For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5 percent. For example, a Class 1 community would receive a 45 percent premium discount, and a Class 9 community would receive a 5 percent discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they receive no discount.) The discount partially depends on location of the property. Properties outside the special flood hazard area receive smaller discounts: a 10-percent discount if the community is at Class 1 to 6 and a 5-percent discount if the community is at Class 7 to 9.
The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories:
• Public information
• Mapping and regulations
• Flood damage reduction
• Flood preparedness.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-4
CRS activities can help to save lives and reduce property damage. Communities participating in the CRS represent a significant portion of the nation’s flood risk; over 66 percent of the NFIP’s policy base is located in these communities. Communities receiving premium discounts through the CRS range from small to large and represent a broad mixture of flood risks, including both coastal and riverine flood risks.
Disaster Mitigation Act
The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be in place before Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant funds are available to communities. This plan is designed to meet the requirements of DMA, improving eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds.
Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program
The U.S. Forest Service’s Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program was established to assist federal agencies with repair or reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities, federal lands transportation facilities, and other federally owned roads that are open to public travel and have suffered serious damage by a natural disaster over a wide area or by a catastrophic failure. The program funds both emergency and permanent repairs. Eligible activities under this program meet some of the goals and objectives for this plan and the program is a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan.
Emergency Watershed Program
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program, which responds to emergencies created by natural disasters. Eligibility for assistance is not dependent on a national emergency declaration. The program is designed to help people and conserve natural resources by relieving imminent hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural occurrences. EWP is an emergency recovery program.
Financial and technical assistance are available for the following activities:
• Remove debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges • Reshape and protect eroded banks
• Correct damaged drainage facilities
• Establish cover on critically eroding lands
• Repair levees and structures
• Repair conservation practices.
This federal program could be a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-5
Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to conserve species facing depletion or extinction and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species are threatened and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species live. The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species and contains exceptions and exemptions. It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA and the Convention.
Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and use their authorities in furtherance of the ESA’s purposes. The ESA defines three fundamental terms:
• Endangered means that a species of fish, animal or plant is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” (For salmon and other vertebrate species, this may include subspecies and distinct population segments.)
• Threatened means that a species “is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” Regulations may be less restrictive for threatened species than for endangered species. • Critical habitat means “specific geographical areas that are…essential for the conservation and management of a listed species, whether occupied by the species or not.” Five sections of the ESA are of critical importance to understanding it:
• Section 4: Listing of a Species—The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for listing marine species; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for listing terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The agencies may initiate reviews for listings, or residents may petition for them. A listing must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” After a listing has been proposed, agencies receive comment and conduct further scientific reviews for 12 to 18 months, after which they must decide if the listing is warranted. Economic impacts cannot be considered in this decision, but it may include an evaluation of the adequacy of local and state protections. Critical habitat for the species may be designated at the time of listing. • Section 7: Consultation—Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or proposed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. This includes private and public actions that require a federal permit. Once a final listing is made, non-federal actions are subject to the same review, termed a “consultation.” If the listing agency finds that an action will “take” a species, it must propose mitigations or “reasonable and prudent” alternatives to the action; if the proponent rejects these, the action cannot proceed.
• Section 9: Prohibition of Take—It is unlawful to “take” an endangered species, including killing or injuring it or modifying its habitat in a way that interferes with essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
• Section 10: Permitted Take—Through voluntary agreements with the federal government that provide protections to an endangered species, a non-federal applicant may commit a take that Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-6
would otherwise be prohibited as long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity (such as developing land or building a road). These agreements often take the form of a “Habitat Conservation Plan.”
• Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits—Civil actions initiated by any citizen can require the listing agency to enforce the ESA’s prohibition of taking or to meet the requirements of the consultation process.
FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts.
Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. More than 3,000 dams are part of regulated hydroelectric projects in the FERC program. Two-thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety and integrity grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important.
FERC inspects hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following:
• Potential dam safety problems
• Complaints about constructing and operating a project • Safety concerns related to natural disasters
• Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license.
Every five years, an independent engineer approved by the FERC must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet (10 meters), or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre- feet.
FERC monitors seismic research and applies it in performing structural analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams.
During and following floods, FERC visits dams and licensed projects, determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects guides the FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety. The publication is frequently revised to reflect current information and methodologies.
FERC requires licensees to prepare emergency action plans and conducts training sessions on how to develop and test these plans. The plans outline an early warning system if there is an actual or potential sudden release of water from a dam due to failure. The plans include operational procedures that may be used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream flows, as well as procedures for notifying affected residents and agencies responsible for emergency management.
These plans are frequently updated and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-7
Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003). These documents call for a single comprehensive federal fire policy for the Interior and Agriculture Departments (the agencies using federal fire management resources). They mandate community-based collaboration to reduce risks from wildfire.
National Dam Safety Act
Potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Inspection Act in 1972, creation of the National Dam Safety Program in 1996, and reauthorization of the program through the Dam Safety Act in 2006. National Dam Safety Program, administered by FEMA requires a periodic engineering analysis of the majority of dams in the country; exceptions include the following:
• Dams under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley Authority, or International Boundary and Water Commission
• Dams constructed pursuant to licenses issued under the Federal Power Act • Dams that the Secretary of the Army determines do not pose any threat to human life or property.
The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of dam failure so as to protect lives and property of the public. The National Dam Safety Program is a partnership among the states, federal agencies, and other stakeholders that encourages individual and community responsibility for dam safety. Under FEMA’s leadership, state assistance funds have allowed all participating states to improve their programs through increased inspections, emergency action planning, and purchases of needed equipment. FEMA has also expanded existing and initiated new training programs. Grant assistance from FEMA provides support for improvement of dam safety programs that regulate most of the dams in the United States.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions, alongside technical and economic considerations. The National Environmental Policy Act established the Council on Environmental Quality, whose regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) set standards for compliance. Consideration and decision-making regarding environmental impacts must be documented in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Environmental impact assessment requires the evaluation of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, solicitation of input from organizations and individuals that could be affected, and an unbiased presentation of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.
National Fire Plan
The 2001 National Fire Plan was developed based on the National Fire Policy. A major aspect of the National Fire Plan is joint risk reduction planning and implementation carried out by federal, state and Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-8
local agencies and communities. The National Fire Plan presented a comprehensive strategy in five key initiatives:
• Firefighting—Be adequately prepared to fight fires each fire season. • Rehabilitation and Restoration—Restore landscapes and rebuild communities damaged by wildfires.
• Hazardous Fuel Reduction—Invest in projects to reduce fire risk. • Community Assistance—Work directly with communities to ensure adequate protection. • Accountability—Be accountable and establish adequate oversight, coordination, program development, and monitoring for performance.
National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities that enact floodplain regulations. Participation and good standing under NFIP are prerequisites to grant funding eligibility under the Robert T. Stafford Act.
For most participating communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent-annual- chance flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood. Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the flood hazard areas are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. Flood Insurance Rate Maps are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under the local floodplain management program. In recent years, Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been digitized as Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are more accessible to residents, local governments and stakeholders.
NFIP participants must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met:
• New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. • New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties.
• New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species.
NFIP participation is limited to local governments that possess permit authority and have the ability to adopt and enforce regulations that govern land use. This does not typically apply to special purpose districts. None of the special purpose district planning partners covered by this plan are eligible to participate in the NFIP, so their action plans do not address NFIP participation.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-9
National Incident Management System
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a systematic approach for government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together to manage incidents involving hazards. The NIMS provides a flexible but standardized set of incident management practices.
Incidents typically begin and end locally, and they are managed at the lowest possible geographical, organizational, and jurisdictional level. In some cases, success depends on the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, levels of government, functional agencies, and emergency responder disciplines. These cases necessitate coordination across a spectrum of organizations. Communities using NIMS follow a comprehensive national approach that improves the effectiveness of emergency management and response personnel across the full spectrum of potential hazards (including natural hazards, technological hazards, and human-caused hazards) regardless of size or complexity.
Although participation is voluntary, federal departments and agencies are required to make adoption of NIMS by local and state jurisdictions a condition to receive federal preparedness grants and awards.
The content of this plan is considered to be a viable support tool for any phase of emergency management. The NIMS program is considered as a response function, and information in this hazard mitigation plan can support the implementation and update of all NIMS-compliant plans within the planning area.
National Landslide Preparedness Act
The 2021 National Landslide Preparedness Act authorized a national landslide hazards reduction program and a 3D elevation program within the USGS. This broadened the existing Landslide Hazards Program (under the Natural Hazards Mission Area) and the 3D Elevation Program (under the National Geospatial Program). The act required coordination among federal agencies through an Interagency Coordinating Committee on Landslide Hazards representing USGS and other agencies. The act calls for development of a national strategy for landslide loss reduction and a publicly accessible national landslide database of landslide hazard and risk.
Presidential Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short- term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. It requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of floodplains. The requirements apply to the following activities:
• Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities • Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements • Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-10
Presidential Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. The requirements apply to the following activities:
• Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities • Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements • Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing.
All actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with all applicable presidential executive orders.
Rural Development Program
The mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Program is to help improve the economy and quality of life in rural America. The program provides project financing and technical assistance to help rural communities provide the infrastructure needed by rural businesses, community facilities, and households. The program addresses rural America’s need for basic services, such as clean running water, sewage and waste disposal, electricity, and modern telecommunications and broadband. Loans and competitive grants are offered for various community and economic development projects and programs, such as the development of essential community facilities including fire stations. This program is a potential source of funding for actions identified in this plan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains approximately 700 dams nationwide. It is also responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non-federal dams in the United States that meet the size and storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety Act. The Corps has inventoried dams; surveyed each state and federal agency’s capabilities, practices and regulations regarding design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety. The Corps maintains the National Inventory of Dams, which contains information about a dam’s location, size, purpose, type, last inspection and regulatory status.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Hazard Management
The following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorities and programs related to flood hazard management:
• The Floodplain Management Services program offers 100-percent federally funded technical services such as development and interpretation of site-specific data related to the extent, duration and frequency of flooding. Special studies may be conducted to help a community understand and respond to flood risk. These may include flood hazard evaluation, flood warning and preparedness, or flood modeling.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-11
• For more extensive studies, the Corps of Engineers offers a cost-shared program called Planning Assistance to States and Tribes. Studies under this program generally range from $25,000 to $100,000 with the local jurisdiction providing 50 percent of the cost. • The Corps of Engineers has several cost-shared programs (typically 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal) aimed at developing, evaluating and implementing structural and non- structural capital projects to address flood risks at specific locations or within a specific watershed:
The Continuing Authorities Program for smaller-scale projects includes Section 205 for Flood Control, with a $7 million federal limit and Section 14 for Emergency Streambank Protection with a $1.5 million federal limit. These can be implemented without specific authorization from Congress.
Larger scale studies, referred to as General Investigations, and projects for flood risk management, for ecosystem restoration or to address other water resource issues, can be pursued through a specific authorization from Congress and are cost-shared, typically at 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal.
Watershed management planning studies can be specifically authorized and are cost- shared at 50 percent federal and 50 percent non-federal. • The Corps of Engineers provides emergency response assistance during and following natural disasters. Public Law 84-99 enables the Corps to assist state and local authorities in flood fight activities and cost share in the repair of flood protective structures. Assistance is provided in the flowing categories:
Preparedness—The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act establishes an emergency fund for preparedness for emergency response to natural disasters; for flood fighting and rescue operations; for rehabilitation of flood control and hurricane protection structures.
Funding for Corps of Engineers emergency response under this authority is provided by Congress through the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act. Disaster preparedness activities include coordination, planning, training and conduct of response exercises with local, state and federal agencies.
Response Activities—Public Law 84-99 allows the Corps of Engineers to supplement state and local entities in flood fighting urban and other non-agricultural areas under certain conditions (Engineering Regulation 500-1-1 provides specific details). All flood fight efforts require a project cooperation agreement signed by the public sponsor and the sponsor must remove all flood fight material after the flood has receded. Public Law 84-99 also authorizes emergency water support and drought assistance in certain situations and allows for “advance measures” assistance to prevent or reduce flood damage conditions of imminent threat of unusual flooding.
Rehabilitation—Under Public Law 84-99, an eligible flood protection system can be rehabilitated if damaged by a flood event. The flood system would be restored to its pre- disaster status at no cost to the federal system owner, and at 20-percent cost to the eligible non-federal system owner. All systems considered eligible for Public Law 84-99 rehabilitation assistance have to be in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program prior to the flood event. Acceptable operation and maintenance by the public levee sponsor are verified by levee inspections conducted by the Corps on a regular basis. The Corps has the responsibility to coordinate levee repair issues with interested federal, state, and local agencies following natural disaster events where flood control works are damaged.
These authorities and programs are all available to the planning partners to support any related mitigation actions.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-12
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams Program The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams Program was officially implemented in 1978 with passage of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act (Public Law 95-578). This act was amended in 1984 under Public Law 98-404, in 2000 under Public Law 106-377, in 2002 under Public Law 107-117, and in 2004 under Public Law 108-439. Program development and administration of dam safety activities is the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Dam Safety Office located in Denver, Colorado.
Dams must be operated and maintained in a safe manner, ensured through inspections for safety deficiencies, analyses utilizing current technologies and designs, and corrective actions if needed based on current engineering practices. In addition, future evaluations should include assessments of benefits foregone with the loss of a dam. For example, a failed dam can no longer provide needed fish and wildlife benefits.
The primary emphasis of the Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams program is to perform site evaluations and to identify potential safety deficiencies on Bureau of Reclamation and other Interior Department dams. The basic objective is to quickly identify dams which pose an increased threat to the public, and to quickly complete the related analyses in order to expedite corrective action decisions and safeguard the public and associated resources. The selected course of action relies on assessments of risks and liabilities with environmental and public involvement input to the decision-making process.
U.S. Fire Administration
There are federal agencies that provide technical support to fire agencies/organizations. For example, the U.S. Fire Administration, which is a part of FEMA, provides leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support for fire agencies and organizations.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fire management strategy uses prescribed fire to maintain early successional fire-adapted grasslands and other ecological communities throughout the National Wildlife Refuge system.
STATE
AB 9: Fire safety: wildfires: fire adapted communities.
Establishes the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program to support regional leadership, build local and regional capacity, and develop, prioritize, and implement strategies and projects that create fire- adapted communities by improving watershed health, forest health, community wildfire preparedness, and fire resilience.
AB 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act
This bill identifies the following potential adverse impacts of global warming:
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-13
“… the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
AB 32 establishes a state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 25 percent from forecast emission levels), with further reductions to follow.
The law requires the state Air Resources Board to do the following:
• Establish a program to track and report greenhouse gas emissions. • Approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions from sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Adopt early reduction measures to begin moving forward. • Adopt, implement, and enforce regulations—including market mechanisms such as “cap and- trade” programs—to ensure that the required reductions occur.
The Air Resources Board has adopted a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit and an emissions inventory, along with requirements to measure, track, and report greenhouse gas emissions by the industries it determined to be significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
AB 38: Fire safety: Low-Cost Retrofits: Regional Capacity Review: Wildfire Mitigation
Requires the seller of any real property located in a high or very fire hazard severity zone to provide a disclosure notice, as specified, to the buyer with information relating to fire hardening improvements on the property.
Requires the California Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal and the Forest Management Task Force, to review the regional capacity of each county that contains a very high fire hazard severity zone to improve forest health, fire resilience, and safety.
Requires the California Office of Emergency Services to enter into a joint powers agreement with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to administer a comprehensive wildfire mitigation and assistance program to encourage cost-effective structure hardening and facilitate vegetation management, contingent upon appropriation by the Legislature.
AB 70: Flood Liability
This bill provides that a city or county may be required to contribute a fair and reasonable share to compensate for property damage caused by a flood to the extent that it has increased the state’s exposure to liability for property damage by unreasonably approving new development in a previously undeveloped area that is protected by a state flood control project, unless the city or county meets specified requirements.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-14
AB 162: Flood Planning
This California State Assembly Bill passed in 2007 requires cities and counties to address flood-related matters in the land use, conservation, and safety and housing elements of their general plans. The land use element must identify and annually review the areas covered by the general plan that are subject to flooding as identified in floodplain mapping by either FEMA or the state Department of Water Resources (DWR). During the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element of the general plan must identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitat, and land that may accommodate floodwater for the purpose of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. The safety element must identify information regarding flood hazards, including:
• Flood hazard zones
• Maps published by FEMA, DWR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) • Historical data on flooding
• Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones.
The general plan must establish goals, policies and objectives related to flooding risks, including:
• Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding new development • Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones • Identifying construction methods to minimize damage.
AB 162 establishes goals, policies and objectives related to flooding risks. It establishes procedures for the determination of available land suitable for urban development, which may exclude lands where FEMA or DWR has concluded that the flood management infrastructure is not adequate to avoid the risk of flooding.
AB 267: California Environmental Quality Act: Exemption: Prescribed Fire, Thinning, and Fuel Reduction Projects
Current law, until January 1, 2023, exempts from the requirements of CEQA prescribed fire, thinning, or fuel reduction projects undertaken on federal lands to reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire that have been reviewed under the federal National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Current law requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, beginning December 31, 2019, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2023, to report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature the number of times the exemption was used. This extends the exemption from CEQA and the requirement on the department to report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature to January 1, 2026.
AB 380: Forestry: Priority Fuel Reduction Projects
On March 22, 2019, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency directing the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to implement fuel reduction projects for communities at greatest risk of wildfire to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The proclamation of a state of emergency exempts the identified fuel reduction projects from various legal requirements, including, Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-15
among others, requirements regarding public contracting for those projects, requirements for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act for those projects, and licensure requirements for individuals conducting certain activities for those projects.
This bill requires the department, before December 31, 2022, and before December 31 of each year thereafter, to identify priority fuel reduction projects, as provided. The bill exempts the identified priority fuel reduction projects from legal requirements in a similar manner as provided in the proclamation of a state of emergency described above.
AB 431: Forestry: Timber Harvesting Plans: Defensible Space: Exemptions The Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 prohibits a person from conducting timber operations, as defined, unless a timber harvesting plan prepared by a registered professional forester has been submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The act authorizes the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to exempt from some or all of those provisions of the act a person engaging in specified forest management activities, as prescribed, including, only until January 1, 2022, the cutting or removal of trees on the person’s property in compliance with specified defensible space requirements. This bill extends to January 1, 2026, the board’s authorization to exempt a person engaging in the cutting or removal of trees on the person’s property in compliance with the specified defensible space requirements.
AB 497: Forestry and Fire Protection: Local Assistance Grant Program: Fire Prevention Activities: Street and Road Vegetation Management Under existing law, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is required to develop, implement, and administer forest improvement and fire prevention programs in the state. Existing law requires the department to establish a local assistance grant program for fire prevention activities in California.
Existing law requires the department to prioritize, to the extent feasible, projects that are multiyear efforts and to prioritize grant applications from specified local agencies.
This bill appropriated $25,000,000 to provide the local assistance grants. It requires the department to prioritize projects that manage vegetation along streets and roads to prevent the ignition of wildfire and that require the funds for purposes of purchasing equipment necessary for the project.
AB 575: Civil Liability: Prescribed Burning Activities: Gross Negligence This bill provides that a private entity engaging in a prescribed burning activity that is supervised by a person certified as burn boss is liable for damages to a third party only if the prescribed burning activity was carried out in a grossly negligent manner.
AB 642: Wildfires
This omnibus fire prevention bill makes changes to support cultural and prescribed fire, including the creation of a Cultural Burning Liaison at the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and requires a proposal for creating a prescribed fire training center in California. The Act requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas in the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones and to classify areas into fire hazard severity zones based on additional factors including Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-16
possible lightning caused ignition. The bill requires a local agency, within 30 days of receiving a transmittal from the director that identifies fire hazard severity zones, to make the information available for public comment.
AB 747: Required Information for General Plan Safety Elements This bill requires California communities with general plans to address evacuation routes in the safety element of the general plan. Information on the evacuation routes and their capacity, safety and viability under a range of emergency scenarios must be provided. For communities that have not adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, the safety element must be updated with this information by January 1, 2022. For those with a local hazard mitigation plan, the requirement applies upon the next revision of the hazard mitigation plan on or after January 1, 2022. Communities that have adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, emergency operations plan, or other document that fulfills the goals and objectives of this law may comply with this requirement by summarizing and incorporating by reference the other plan or document in the safety element.
In subsequent revisions to the safety element, communities also will be required to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. These subsequent updates must occur upon each revision of the general plan housing element or local hazard mitigation plan and not less than once every eight years.
AB 800: Wildfires: Local General Plans: Safety Elements: Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Existing law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas of the state as very high fire hazard severity zones, and requires each planning agency to prepare, and the legislative body of each county and city to adopt, a comprehensive, long-term general plan, including a safety element, for the physical development of the county or city. Existing law requires each city or county that contains a very high fire hazard severity zone to submit the draft element of, or draft amendment to the safety element its general plan to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the city or county at least 90 days before adoption or amendment.
This requires the director to also identify areas of the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. It requires the draft element of, or draft amendment to, the safety element of a county or city’s general plan to be submitted to the state board and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the city or county at least 90 days before the adoption or amendment to the safety element of its general plan for each city or county that contains a moderate or high fire hazard severity zone.
Existing law requires the state board and authorizes a local agency to review the draft or an existing safety element and recommend changes to the planning agency regarding uses of land and policies in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones and regarding methods and strategies for wildland fire risk reduction and prevention within state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-17
This bill also requires the state board and authorizes a local agency to review the draft or an existing safety element and recommend changes to the planning agency regarding uses of land and policies in moderate and high fire hazard severity zones and regarding methods and strategies for wildland fire risk reduction and prevention within moderate and high fire hazard severity zones.
The existing Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency, and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, and requires the local agency to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. Before approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for an area located in a state responsibility area or a very high fire hazard severity zone, existing law requires a legislative body of a county to make specified findings. Existing law requires a legislative body of a county to transmit these findings to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.
This requires a legislative body of a county to make specified findings before approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for areas located in moderate and high fire hazard severity zones, and requires these findings to be transmitted to the state board.
By requiring new duties on a county, the bill imposes a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to statutory provisions.
AB 1255: Fire Prevention: Fire Risk Reduction Guidance: Local Assistance Grants
This bill requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, in coordination with the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, to facilitate regional, habitat-specific, and area-specific approaches to fire risk reduction, prevention, and restoration of projects that improve community safety, protect sites and structures, restore burned habitat, reduce catastrophic wildfires, and protect natural resources. It requires the department to develop policies, funding programs for which the funding shall be contingent upon subsequent appropriation in the annual Budget Act or a similar statute for this purpose, and relevant program guidelines that promote specified objectives. The bill requires various state entities to establish grant programs, for which funding shall be contingent upon subsequent appropriation, to fulfill the specified objectives.
AB 1295: Residential Development Agreements: Very High Fire Risk Areas Current law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas in the state as very high fire hazard severity zones based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas and requires each local agency to designate, by ordinance, the very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction. Current law additionally requires the director to classify lands within state responsibility areas into fire hazard severity zones. This bill, prohibits the legislative body of a city or county from entering into a residential development agreement for property in a very high fire risk area.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-18
The bill defines “very high fire risk area” for these purposes to mean a very high fire hazard severity zone designated by a local agency or a fire hazard severity zone classified by the director.
AB 1439: Property Insurance Discounts
This bill requires a residential property insurance policy to include a discount if a local government of the jurisdiction where the insured property is located funds a local wildfire protection or mitigation program. Because the bill mandates discounts for specified residential property insurance policies, thus affecting the Insurance Commissioner’s consideration of a rate, the bill would amend Proposition 103.
AB 1500: Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2022
If approved by the voters, this bill would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $6,700,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, drought preparation, flood protection, extreme heat mitigation, and workforce development programs.
AB 2140: General Plans—Safety Element
This bill provides that the state may allow for more than 75 percent of public assistance funding under the California Disaster Assistance Act only if the local agency is in a jurisdiction that has adopted a local hazard mitigation plan as part of the safety element of its general plan. The local hazard mitigation plan needs to include elements specified in this legislation. In addition, this bill requires Cal OES to give preference for federal mitigation funding to cities and counties that have adopted local hazard mitigation plans. The intent of the bill is to encourage cities and counties to create and adopt hazard mitigation plans.
AB 2800: Climate Change—Infrastructure Planning
This California State Assembly bill passed in 2016 and until July 1, 2020, requires state agencies to take into account the current and future impacts of climate change when planning, designing, building, operating, maintaining, and investing in state infrastructure. The bill, by July 1, 2017, and until July 1, 2020, requires an agency to establish a Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group to examine how to integrate scientific data concerning projected climate change impacts into state infrastructure engineering.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was enacted in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act’s main purpose is to prevent construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. Before a new project is permitted, cities and counties require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed on active faults. The act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-19
liquefaction or seismically induced landslides. The law requires the State of California Geologist to establish regulatory zones around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps.
The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. All seismic hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Safe Regulations California’s Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is authorized to adopt regulations to implement specified programs. To become effective, the Office of Administrative Law must approve these regulations. Once adopted, Board regulations are placed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection then implements the regulations.
Since 1991, the Board’s Fire Safe Regulations have set the floor for fire safety standards for perimeters and access to all residential, commercial, and industrial building construction in state responsibility areas. They address road standards for fire equipment access, standards for road and building signs, minimum private water supplies for emergency fire use, and fuel breaks and greenbelts. Starting on July 1, 2021, these requirements will also apply in the local responsibility areas and will address construction on ridgelines.
California Coastal Management Program
The California Coastal Management Program under the California Coastal Act requires each city or county lying wholly or partly within the coastal zone to prepare a local coastal plan. The specific contents of such plans are not specified by state law, but they must be certified by the Coastal Commission as consistent with policies of the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code, Division 20). The Coastal Act has provisions relating to geologic hazards, but does not mention tsunamis specifically.
Section 30253(1) of the Coastal Act states that new development shall minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. Development should be prevented or limited in high hazard areas whenever possible. However, where development cannot be prevented or limited, land use density, building value, and occupancy should be kept at a minimum. Any mitigation project identified in this plan that intersects the mapped coastal zone will be consistent with the recommendations of the local coastal plan.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL FIRE has responsibility for wildfires in areas of the county that are not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service or a local fire organization, including lands designated as State Responsibility Areas.
CAL FIRE also has fire protection responsibilities by contract and mutual aid agreements. For example, CAL FIRE provides year-round fire protection under Amador Plan agreements with certain local government agencies (Public Resources Code §4144). Through these agreements, CAL FIRE provides local structural and wildfire protection or dispatch services to a community and maintains a staffing level that otherwise would be available only during the fire season. The local entity pays the additional cost of the service.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-20
California Department of Parks and Recreation
State Parks manages portions of the California coastline including coastal wetlands, estuaries, beaches, and dune systems. The State Parks Resources Management Division has limited wildfire protection resources available to suppress fires on State Park lands.
California Department of Water Resources
In California, the DWR is the coordinating agency for floodplain management. The DWR works with FEMA and local governments by providing grants and technical assistance, evaluating community floodplain management programs, reviewing local floodplain ordinances, participating in statewide flood hazard mitigation planning, and facilitating annual statewide workshops. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and by the DWR.
California Division of Safety of Dams
California’s Division of Safety of Dams (a division of the DWR) monitors the dam safety program at the state level and maintains a working list of dams in the state. When a new dam is proposed, Division engineers and geologists inspect the site and the subsurface. Upon submittal of an application, the Division reviews the plans and specifications prepared by the owner to ensure that the dam is designed to meet minimum requirements and that the design is appropriate for the known geologic conditions.
After approval of the application, the Division inspects all aspects of the construction to ensure that the work is done in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. After construction, the Division inspects each dam to ensure that it is performing as intended and is not developing problems. The Division periodically reviews the stability of dams and their major appurtenances in light of improved design approaches and requirements, as well as new findings regarding earthquake hazards and hydrologic estimates in California. Over 1,200 dams are inspected by Division engineers on a yearly schedule to ensure performance and maintenance of dams.
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970, shortly after the federal government enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA requires state and local agencies in California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of development projects. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local agency’s decision- making process.
CEQA establishes a statewide environmental policy and mandates actions all state and local agencies must take to advance the policy. Jurisdictions conduct analysis of the project to determine if there are potentially significant environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures, and possible project alternatives by preparing environmental reports for projects that requires CEQA review. This environmental review is required before an agency takes action on any policy, program, or project. Any project action identified in this plan will seek full CEQA compliance upon implementation.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-21
California Fire Alliance
The California Fire Alliance (CFA) was established in response to directives from the 2001 National Fire Plan. The CFA pursues four strategies to deal with the National Fire Plan’s community assistance initiative:
• Work with communities at risk from wildfires to develop community-based planning leadership and facilitate the development of community fire loss mitigation plans, which transcend jurisdiction and ownership boundaries.
• Assist communities in development of fire loss mitigation planning, education and projects to reduce the threat of wildfire losses on public and private lands. • Develop an information and education outreach plan to increase awareness of wildfire protection program opportunities available to communities at risk. • Work collaboratively to develop, modify and maintain a comprehensive list of communities at risk.
California Fire Plan
The State Board of Forestry and CAL FIRE have prepared a comprehensive update of the California Fire Plan for wildfire protection. The planning process included defining a level of service measurement; considering assets at risk; incorporating the cooperative interdependent relationships of wildfire protection providers; providing for public stakeholder involvement; and creating a fiscal framework for policy analysis. The California Fire Plan’s overall goal is to reduce costs and losses from wildfire in the state by protecting assets at risk through pre-fire management and by reducing the spread of fire through more successful initial response.
California Fire Safe Council
In 1993, the statewide Fire Safe Council, consisting of private and public membership, was formed to educate and encourage Californians to plan and prepare for wildfires by reducing the risk of fire to property, communities, and natural/structural resources. In 2002, this group created a nonprofit organization and board of directors, called the California Fire Safe Council. The Council works with the California Fire Alliance to facilitate the distribution of National Fire Plan grants for wildfire risk reduction and education (www.grants.firesafecouncil.org). The Council also provides assistance to local Fire Safe Councils through its website (www.firesafecouncil.org), the distribution of educational materials, and technical assistance, primarily through regional representatives. More than 130 local Fire Safe Councils have formed in California to plan, coordinate, and implement fire prevention activities.
California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Fire and Rescue Branch administers the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan. The agency provides guidance and procedures for agencies developing emergency operations plans, as well as training and technical support, primarily to overall emergency service organizations and urban search and rescue teams.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-22
California General Planning Law
California state law requires that every county and city prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range plan to serve as a guide for community development. The general plan expresses the community’s goals, visions, and policies relative to future land uses, both public and private. The general plan is mandated and prescribed by state law (Cal. Gov. Code §65300 et seq.), and forms the basis for most local government land use decision-making.
The plan must consist of an integrated, internally consistent set of goals, policies, and implementation measures. In addition, the plan must focus on issues of the greatest concern to the community and be written in a clear and concise manner. City and county actions, such as those relating to land use allocations, annexations, zoning, subdivision and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent with the plan.
California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Under the DMA, California must adopt a federally approved state multi-hazard mitigation plan to be eligible for certain disaster assistance and mitigation funding. The intent of the State of California Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce or prevent injury and damage from hazards in the state through the following:
• Documenting statewide hazard mitigation planning in California • Describing strategies and priorities for future mitigation activities • Facilitating the integration of local and tribal hazard mitigation planning activities into statewide efforts
• Meeting state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements.
The plan is an annex to the State Emergency Plan, and it identifies past and present mitigation activities, current policies and programs, and mitigation strategies for the future. It also establishes hazard mitigation goals and objectives. The plan will be reviewed and updated annually to reflect changing conditions and new information, especially information on local planning activities.
Under 44 CFR Section 201.6, local hazard mitigation plans must be consistent with their state’s hazard mitigation plan. In updating this plan, the Steering Committee reviewed the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan to identify key relevant state plan elements (see Section 3.7).
California Residential Mitigation Program
The California Residential Mitigation Program was established in 2011 to help Californians strengthen their homes against damage from earthquakes. The program is a joint powers authority created by Cal OES and the California Earthquake Authority, which is a not-for-profit, publicly managed, privately funded provider of home earthquake insurance to California homeowners and renters.
Earthquake Brace + Bolt was developed to help homeowners lessen the potential for damage to their houses during an earthquake. A residential seismic retrofit strengthens an existing older house, making it more resistant to earthquake activity such as ground shaking and soil failure. The seismic retrofitting involves bolting the house to its foundation and adding bracing around the perimeter of the crawl space.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-23
Most homeowners hire a contractor to do the retrofit work, and owners of houses in ZIP Codes with house characteristics suitable for this type of retrofit are eligible for up to $3,000 toward the cost. A typical retrofit by a contractor may cost between $3,000 and $7,000, depending on the location and size of the house, contractor fees, and the amount of materials and work involved. If the homeowner is an experienced do-it-yourselfer, a retrofit can cost less than $3,000.
California State Building Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24 (CCR Title 24), also known as the California Building Standards Code, is a compilation of building standards from three sources:
• Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes
• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions
• Building standards authorized by the California legislature that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes adopted to address particular California concerns.
The state Building Standards Commission is authorized by California Building Standards Law (Health and Safety Code Sections 18901 through 18949.6) to administer the processes related to the adoption, approval, publication, and implementation of California’s building codes. These building codes serve as the basis for the design and construction of buildings in California. The national model code standards adopted into Title 24 apply to all occupancies in California, except for modifications adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies. Since 1989, the Building Standards Commission has published new editions of Title 24 every three years.
On January 1, 2014, California Building Code Accessibility Standards found in Chapter 11B incorporated the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards as the model accessibility code for California. The purpose was to ensure consistency with federal guidelines. As a result of this incorporation, the California standards will fully implement and include 2010 ADA Standards within the California Building Code while maintaining enhanced levels of accessibility already provided by existing California accessibility regulations.
Disadvantaged and Low-income Communities Investments
Senate Bill (SB) 535 directs state and local agencies to make investments that benefit California’s disadvantaged communities. It also directs the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify disadvantaged communities for the purposes of these investments based on geographic, socio- economic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria. Assembly Bill (AB) 1550 increased the percent of funds for projects located in disadvantaged communities from 10 to 25 percent and added a focus on investments in low-income communities and households. This program is a potential alternative source of funding for actions identified in this plan.
Division of the State Architect’s AB 300 List of Seismically At-Risk Schools In 2002, California’s Division of the State Architect completed an inventory of public school buildings built before 1978 that identifies buildings with characteristics that might make them unsafe in future Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-24
earthquakes. This inventory provides a list of potentially at‐risk schools known as the AB 300 list (the inventory was authorized by Assembly Bill 300 in 1999). Using available information on school buildings’ dates of construction, seismic retrofits, and structural systems (wood‐frame, concrete shear wall, or steel moment frame, etc.), the inventory categorized California public school buildings into one of two categories: those expected to perform well in future earthquakes; and those that are not expected to perform well and require more detailed seismic evaluation.
The Division of the State Architect recommends that public schools on this list undergo detailed seismic evaluations to determine if they pose life safety risks, but the state has neither required nor funded school districts to do this.
Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08
Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08 enhances the state’s management of climate impacts from sea- level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme weather events. There are four key actions in the executive order:
• Initiate California’s first statewide climate change adaptation strategy to assess expected climate change impacts, identify where California is most vulnerable, and recommend adaptation policies. This effort will improve coordination within state government so that better planning can more effectively address climate impacts on human health, the environment, the state’s water supply and the economy.
• Request that the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea-level rise impacts in California, to inform state planning and development efforts. • Issue interim guidance to state agencies for how to plan for sea-level rise in designated coastal and floodplain areas for new projects.
• Initiate a report on critical infrastructure projects vulnerable to sea-level rise.
Office of the State Fire Marshal
The Office of the State Fire Marshal is a division of CAL FIRE that has a wide variety of fire safety and training responsibilities and provides technical support to fire agencies/organizations.
Senate Bill 12: Local Government: Planning and Zoning: Wildfires This bill imposes new planning requirements on local governments, as follows:
• Defines “very high fire risk areas” to be the VHFHSZ in both the SRA and the Local Responsibility Area.
• Requires each city or county, upon the next revision of the housing element or local hazard mitigation plan on or after July 1, 2024, whichever occurs first, to review and update its safety element to include a comprehensive retrofit strategy that includes specified contents. • Requires a city or county with VHFHSZ within its jurisdiction to amend the land use element of its general plan upon the next revision of the housing element on or after July 1, 2024. This amendment of the land use element must include the locations of all VHFHSZ within the city or county, the data and analysis described in the Office of Planning and Research’s publication Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-25
Fire Hazard Planning–General Plan Technical Advice Series, and other specified goals, objectives, and implementation measures.
• Requires, after the initial amendment to the land use element, that a city or county review upon each revision of the housing element the implementation of the wildfire risk reduction standards within the jurisdiction and the designation of VHFHSZ.
• Provides for review and comment on draft findings by the Board and local fire agencies on whether the city or county has implemented the standards or made adequate progress, as defined.
• Requires, on or before January 1, 2023, to develop and post on its web site a clearinghouse of local ordinances, policies, and best practices relating to land use planning in VHFHSZ, wildfire risk reduction, and wildfire preparedness. The Office of Planning and Research must also regularly update the clearinghouse.
Senate Bill 92: Public Resources Portion of Biennial Budget Bill The State of California updated its requirements regarding emergency action plans (EAPs) via Senate Bill 92, which became effective in June 2017 as part of the state Legislature’s biennial budget process.
The bill required dam owners to submit EAPs to Cal OES and the Department of Water Resources for approval by January 1, 2018 (for extremely high hazard dams), January 1, 2019 (for high-hazard dams), and January 1, 2021 (for significant hazard dams). The EAPs were to include the following (California Government Code Section 8589.5):
• Emergency notification flow charts
• Information on a four-step response process
• Description of agencies’ roles and actions in response to an emergency incident • Description of actions to be taken in advance of an emergency • Inundation maps
• Additional information such as revision records and distribution lists.
After the EAPs are approved by the state, the law requires dam owners to send the approved EAPs to relevant stakeholders. Local public agencies can then adopt emergency procedures that incorporate the information in the EAP in a manner that conforms to local needs and includes methods and procedures for alerting and warning the public and other response and preparedness related items.
SB 92 also requires dams other than low-risk dams to have current inundation mapping, which must be updated every 10 years, or sooner if specific circumstances change. EAPs also must be updated every 10 years. It provides DWR with enforcement tools, including fines and operational restrictions for failure to comply. Cal OES is required by the law to work with state and federal agencies, dam owners, planners, and the public to make dam failure inundation maps available to citizens interested in learning their dam failure inundation risk.
Senate Bill 97: Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, amends CEQA to clearly establish that greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. It directs the Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-26
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop draft CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or their effects by July 1, 2009 and directs the California Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt the CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010.
Senate Bill 99: Evacuation Route Planning
Senate Bill 99, enacted in 2019, requires that cities’ and counties’ general plans address evacuation routes from any hazard area identified in the safety element. Under this law, the safety element must include information to identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. Each city or county must update its safety element with the new information upon the next revision of its housing element on or after January 1, 2020.
Senate Bill 182 Local Government: Planning and Zoning: Wildfires California Senate Bill 182 made a number of changes to state law regarding planning for and permitting development in areas designated as very high fire risk areas. The bill requires a local jurisdiction to do the following:
• Include a comprehensive retrofit strategy in its safety element to reduce the risk of property loss and damage during wildfires.
• Amend its land use element to identify all very high fire risk areas and to establish measures to protect lives and property from unreasonable risk of wildfire. • Adopt a very high fire risk overlay zone for its zoning ordinance. • Allocate a lower portion of projected future housing to very high fire hazard severity zones This bill prohibits local governments from entering into a development agreement for property in a very high fire risk area, approving a permit for a project in a very high fire risk area, or approving a tentative map for a subdivision in a very high fire risk area, unless the jurisdiction makes specified findings based on substantial evidence.
Senate Bill 379: General Plans: Safety Element—Climate Adaptation Senate Bill 379 builds upon the flood planning inclusions into the safety and housing elements and the hazard mitigation planning safety element inclusions in general plans outlined in AB 162 and AB 2140, respectively. SB 379 focuses on a new requirement that cities and counties include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety element of their general plans beginning January 1, 2017. In addition, this bill requires general plans to include a set of goals, policies and objectives, and specified implementation measures based on the conclusions drawn from climate adaptation research and recommendations.
Senate Bill 1000: General Plan Amendments—Safety and Environmental Justice Elements
In 2016, Senate Bill 1000 amended California’s Planning and Zoning Law in two ways:
• The original law established requirements for initial revisions of general plan safety elements to address flooding, fire, and climate adaptation and resilience. It also required subsequent review Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan B. Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations B-27
and revision as necessary based on new information. Senate Bill 1000 specifies that the subsequent reviews and revision based on new information are required to address only flooding and fires (not climate adaptation and resilience). • Senate Bill 1000 adds a requirement that, upon adoption or revision of any two other general plan elements on or after January 1, 2018, an environmental justice element be adopted for the general plan or environmental justice goals, policies and objectives be incorporated into other elements of the plan.
Senate Bill 1035: Fire, Flood, and Adaptation Safety Element Updates Senate Bill 1035 clarifies that revisions to a community’s General Plan Safety Element—to address fire hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resilience strategies—must occur upon each revision to a Housing Element or Local Hazard Mitigation Program.
Senate Bill 1241: General Plans: Safety Element—Fire Hazard Impacts In 2012, Senate Bill 1241 passed requiring that the safety elements of all future general plans address fire risk in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones. The bill requires cities and counties to make findings regarding available fire protection and suppression services before approving a tentative map or parcel map.
Standardized Emergency Management System
CCR Title 19 establishes the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) to standardize the response to emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions. SEMS is intended to be flexible and adaptable to the needs of all emergency responders in California. It requires emergency response agencies to use basic principles and components of emergency management. Local governments must use SEMS by December 1, 1996, to be eligible for state funding of response-related personnel costs under CCR Title 19 (Sections 2920, 2925 and 2930). The roles and responsibilities of Individual agencies contained in existing laws or the state emergency plan are not superseded by these regulations. This hazard mitigation plan is considered to be a support document for all phases of emergency management, including those associated with SEMS.
Western Governors Association Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy The Western Governors Association Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy: A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildfire Risks to Communities and the Environment (August 2001) is strategy implementation plan prepared by federal and Western state agencies that outlines measures to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuels.
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
C-1
C. MAPPING METHODS & DATA SOURCES
DAM FAILURE INUNDATION MAPPING
Dam breach inundation maps, including inundation boundaries and depth grids, were downloaded from the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) website (https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/). As required by California Water Code section 6161, the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) at DWR reviews and approves inundation maps prepared by licensed civil engineers and submitted by dam owners for extremely high, high, and significant hazard dams and their critical appurtenant structures. Inundation maps are based on a hypothetical failure of a dam or critical appurtenant structure, and the information depicted on the maps is approximate. The dams and failure scenarios are as follows:
• Arundel Barranca (National Dam ID CA01412)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Spillway. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 5/13/2020.
• Bouquet Canyon (National Dam ID CA00088)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Saddle Dam 1 (Dam No. 2). Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 7/22/2019.
• Castaic (National Dam ID CA00044)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam, Low Level Outlet, and Spillway. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 4/9/2019.
• Lake Eleanor (National Dam ID CA00737)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/24/2018. • Lake Sherwood (National Dam ID CA00736)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Spillway 1. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 10/10/2019.
• Lang Creek Detention Basin (National Dam ID CA01368)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Spillway 1. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 8/12/2020.
• Las Llajas (National Dam ID CA01217)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 8/12/2020. • Matilija (National Dam ID CA00312)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/24/2019. • Pyramid (National Dam ID CA00052)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam, Low Level Outlet, and Spillway 1 (Gated Spillway). Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 4/10/2019.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-2
• Runkle (National Dam ID CA00313)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 3/27/2020. • Santa Felicia (National Dam ID CA00805)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and Spillway 1. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 9/20/2019.
• Senior Canyon (National Dam ID CA01019)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam, Dam No. 2 and Dam No. 3. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/4/2019.
• Sinaloa Lake (National Dam ID CA01018)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 10/13/2019. • Stewart Canyon Debris Basin (National Dam ID CA01159)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 5/14/2020.
• Sycamore Canyon (National Dam ID CA01266)—Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 4/8/2020. • Westlake Reservoir (National Dam ID CA00904)—Scenarios show inundation extents for sunny day failures of Main Dam and West Dam. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 11/1/2018.
• Wood Ranch (National Dam ID CA00850)—Scenarios show inundation extents for storm- induced failures of Main Dam, Dike 1, Dike 2, Dike 3, Dike 4, Dike 5 and Dike 6. Files downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/19/2019.
EARTHQUAKE MAPPING
Liquefaction Zones
Seismic Hazard Zone Maps for Liquefaction dataset downloaded from the California Geological Survey’s geologic hazards data website (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/). The seismic hazards zones datasets include areas where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake. Developers of properties falling within the zones may be required to investigate the potential hazard and mitigate its threat during the local permitting process. The data is used by cities and counties to regulate development and by property owners selling property within areas where seismic hazard zones have been identified. Local governments can withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into development plans. Sellers of property use the data to check the location of their specific site and, if applicable, disclose to the buyer that the property lies within a seismic hazard zone as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter
7.8). This data may not show all areas that have potential for liquefaction. Also, a single earthquake capable of causing liquefaction will not uniformly affect the entire zone. The identification and location of liquefaction zones are based on the best available data. However, the quality of data used is varied.
Zone boundaries have been drawn as accurately as possible at the map scale (1:24,000).
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-3
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soils NEHRP soils information is derived from a shear wave velocity (Vs30) data produced by the California Geological Survey in 2015. The Vs30 data represents simplified geologic units that have been correlated to the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 meters of the earth’s surface. The geologic units were compiled from published maps that range in scale from 1:250,000 to 1:24,000. (Wills, et al., 2015)
Probabilistic Peak Ground Acceleration Maps
Probabilistic peak ground acceleration data, by Census tract, are generated by Hazus 4.2 SP03. In Hazus’ probabilistic analysis procedure, the ground shaking demand is characterized by spectral contour maps developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as part of a 2018 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps. USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps are revised about every six years to reflect newly published or thoroughly reviewed earthquake science and to keep pace with regular updates of the building code. Hazus includes maps for eight probabilistic hazard levels: ranging from ground shaking with a 39 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (100-year return period) to the ground shaking with a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (2,500-year return period).
Shake Maps
A shake map is designed as a rapid response tool to portray the extent and variation of ground shaking throughout the affected region immediately following significant earthquakes. Ground motion and intensity maps are derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors (accelerometers), with interpolation based on estimated amplitudes where data are lacking, and site amplification corrections. Color-coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity. For this plan, shake maps were prepared by the USGS for four earthquake scenarios:
• An earthquake on the Oak Ridge (Onshore) fault with the following characteristics:
Magnitude: 7.16
Epicenter: N 34.31 W 118.96
Depth: 12.8 km
• An earthquake on the San Cayetano fault with the following characteristics:
Magnitude: 7.16
Epicenter: N 34.54 W 118.95
Depth: 10.2 km
• An earthquake on the S. San Andreas fault with the following characteristics:
Magnitude: 8.03
Epicenter: N 34.80 W 118.85
Depth: 9.1 km
• An earthquake on the Ventura-Pitas Point fault with the following characteristics:
Magnitude: 7.12
Epicenter: N 34.32 W 119.28
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-4
Depth: 10.0 km
FLOOD MAPPING
Flood hazard areas are from the countywide effective FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) dated January 29, 2021 with the latest incorporated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) dated June 18, 2021.
LANDSLIDE MAPPING
Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides data provided by the California Geological Survey. The map, and associated data, show the relative likelihood of deep-seated landsliding based on regional estimates of rock strength and steepness of slopes. On the most basic level, weak rocks and steep slopes are most likely to generate landslides. The map uses detailed information on the location of past landslides, the location and relative strength of rock units, and steepness of slope to estimate susceptibility to deep-seated landsliding (0 to X, low to high). The USGS 2009 National Elevation Dataset (NED) with 10-m grid size was used as the base map. This landslide susceptibility map is intended to provide infrastructure owners, emergency planners and the public with a general overview of where landslides are more likely to occur. (Wills, et al., 2011)
SEA-LEVEL RISE MAPPING
Projected sea level rise data are from the USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS), accessed via the Our Coast Our Future web platform (Point Blue Conservation Science and USGS). The projections were generated using the latest downscaled climate projections and calibrated hydrodynamic models by the CoSMoS project team led by Patrick Barnard, at the USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center.
TSUNAMI MAPPING
Initial tsunami modeling was performed by the University of Southern California Tsunami Research Center funded through the California Emergency Management Agency by the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. The tsunami modeling process utilized the MOST (Method of Splitting Tsunamis) computational program (Version 0), which allows for wave evolution over a variable bathymetry and topography used for the inundation mapping (Titov and Gonzalez, 1997; Titov and Synolakis, 1998).
The bathymetric/topographic data that were used in the tsunami models consist of a series of nested grids. Near-shore grids with a 3 arc-second (75- to 90-meters) resolution or higher were adjusted to “mean high water” sea-level conditions, representing a conservative sea level for the intended use of the tsunami modeling and mapping. A suite of tsunami source events was selected for modeling, representing realistic local and distant earthquakes and hypothetical extreme undersea, near-shore landslides. Local tsunami sources that were considered include offshore reverse-thrust faults, restraining bends on strike-slip fault zones and large submarine landslides capable of significant seafloor displacement and tsunami generation. Distant tsunami sources that were considered include great subduction zone events that are known to have occurred historically (1960 Chile and 1964 Alaska earthquakes) and others that can occur around the Pacific Ocean “Ring of Fire.” Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-5
In order to enhance the result from the 75- to 90-meter inundation grid data, a method was developed utilizing higher-resolution digital topographic data (3- to 10-meters resolution) that better defines the location of the maximum inundation line. The location of the enhanced inundation line was determined by using digital imagery and terrain data on a GIS platform with consideration given to historical inundation information (Lander, et al., 1993). This information was verified, where possible, by field work coordinated with local county personnel.
The accuracy of the inundation line shown on these maps is subject to limitations in the accuracy and completeness of available terrain and tsunami source information, and the current understanding of tsunami generation and propagation phenomena as expressed in the models. Thus, although an attempt has been made to identify a credible upper bound to inundation at any location along the coastline, it remains possible that actual inundation could be greater in a major tsunami event. This map does not represent inundation from a single scenario event. It was created by combining inundation results for an ensemble of source events affecting a given region. For this reason, all of the inundation region in a particular area will not likely be inundated during a single tsunami event. (State of California, 2009)
WILDFIRE MAPPING
PRC 4201 – 4204 and Govt. Code 51175-89 directed the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CALFIRE - FRAP) to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), define the application of various mitigation strategies to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. CAL FIRE remapped Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) recommendations in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) in 2005 – 2008 to provide updated map zones, based on new data, science, and technology.
Mapping of the areas referred to as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) was based on data and models of potential fuels over a 30- to 50-year time horizon and their associated expected fire behavior, and expected burn probabilities to quantify the likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure (including firebrands) to buildings. The goal of the mapping effort was to create more accurate fire hazard zone designations such that mitigation strategies would be implemented in areas where hazards warrant these investments. The fire hazard zones provide specific designation for application of defensible space and building standards consistent with known mechanisms of fire risk to people, property, and natural resources.
REFERENCES
Barnard, P.L., Erikson, L.H., Foxgrover, A.C., Finzi Hart, J.A., Limber, P., O’Neill, A.C., van Ormondt, M., Vitousek, S., Wood, N., Hayden, M.K., and Jones, J.M., 2019. Dynamic flood modeling essential to assess the coastal impacts of climate change. Scientific Reports, Volume 9, Article #4309, 13 pp., http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40742-z
.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan C. Mapping Methods & Data Sources C-6
Lander, J.F., Lockridge, P.A., and Kozuch, M.J., 1993, Tsunamis Affecting the West Coast of the United States 1806-1992: National Geophysical Data Center Key to Geophysical Record Documentation No. 29, NOAA, NESDIS, NGDC, 242 p.
State of California. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning; produced by California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California – Tsunami Research Center; dated December 9, 2009.
Titov, V.V., and Gonzalez, F.I., 1997, Implementation and Testing of the Method of Tsunami Splitting (MOST): NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL PMEL –112, 11 p.
Titov, V.V., and Synolakis, C.E., 1998, Numerical modeling of tidal wave runup: Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, 124 (4), pp 157-171.
Wills, C.J., Gutierrez, C.I., Perez, F.G., and Branum, D.B., 2015, A next-generation Vs30 map for California based on geology and topography: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.
Wills C.J., Perez, F., Gutierrez, C. 2011. Susceptibility to deep-seated landslides in California:
California Geological Survey Map Sheet 58.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
Appendix D.1
Exposure and Vulnerability of People and Property
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Dam Failure ‐ Combined
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 $180,756,967,629
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Dam Failure ‐ Combined
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
3,193 10,113 14.3% $1,825,655,234 $1,714,652,312 $3,540,307,546 20.0% 2,230 7,882 48.0% $647,367,412 $389,746,474 $1,037,113,886 42.0% 2,410 7,440 20.5% $1,342,208,186 $1,285,066,640 $2,627,274,826 32.0% 315 730 9.6% $106,146,197 $60,372,872 $166,519,069 7.1% 38,418 168,971 83.6% $14,966,842,858 $11,247,144,546 $26,213,987,404 79.7% 5,610 19,370 88.2% $2,153,487,223 $1,633,337,353 $3,786,824,576 81.3% 1,643 4,929 4.5% $856,674,472 $760,613,648 $1,617,288,120 6.8% 3,755 12,312 40.2% $1,386,519,268 $1,184,477,947 $2,570,997,214 56.2% 4,606 14,993 11.9% $1,747,376,403 $1,359,059,306 $3,106,435,709 12.8% 1,105 3,626 2.9% $481,014,948 $283,093,686 $764,108,634 2.5% 9,163 16,770 17.8% $3,308,551,348 $2,712,590,423 $6,021,141,770 20.6% 72,448 267,136 31.7% $28,821,843,548 $22,630,155,206 $51,451,998,753 28.5% % of Total Value
Exposed
Estimated Building Exposure
Buildings Exposed
(2)
Population
Exposed (3)
% of Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Dam Failure ‐ Combined
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
1,046 3,585 333 495 $15,418,010 $16,471,533 $31,889,543 0.2% 119,360 6,212 355 2,207 $384,865,558 $271,540,819 $656,406,377 26.6% 9,231 3,318 217 967 $64,152,417 $111,003,160 $175,155,577 2.1% 1,411 302 13 312 $12,264,840 $12,255,418 $24,520,258 1.0% 752,753 147,071 9,832 36,343 $3,473,281,467 $3,970,766,596 $7,444,048,063 22.6% 38,366 17,062 1,266 5,303 $346,121,830 $781,138,156 $1,127,259,987 24.2% 45,581 1,474 102 1,472 $214,837,863 $333,576,589 $548,414,452 2.3% 291,295 10,518 1,015 3,726 $805,629,910 $861,507,999 $1,667,137,909 36.5% 33,331 4,959 307 3,338 $256,466,127 $288,433,026 $544,899,154 2.2% 26,709 936 75 1,097 $126,531,174 $120,995,496 $247,526,670 0.8% 377,812 11,720 739 8,676 $1,096,303,200 $1,358,579,626 $2,454,882,825 8.4% 1,696,896 207,158 14,254 63,936 $6,795,872,395 $8,126,268,419 $14,922,140,815 8.3% Structure Debris
(Tons) (4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter (5)
Economic Impact
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Dam Failure ‐ Combined
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 5,678 2,810 97 240 0 4 4 38 3193
5,184 2,069 97 16 2 7 35 4 2230
4,784 2,003 184 126 5 9 50 33 2410
131 279 30 0 4 1 1 0 315
28,779 33,843 2,796 711 90 137 382 459 38418
4,708 4,926 275 26 0 16 312 55 5610
4,529 1,366 137 73 16 0 51 0 1643
5,017 2,896 543 168 21 35 34 58 3755
6,070 4,229 263 74 2 15 1 22 4606
797 1,038 57 0 0 0 3 7 1105
189,084 5,810 789 263 1,756 39 368 138 9163
254,761 61,269 5268 1697 1896 263 1241 814 72448
Number of Structures in Inundation Area (2)
Acres of
Inundation Area
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure NEHRP Soils D&E
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) NEHRP soils data provided by the California Geological Survey. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. `
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure NEHRP Soils D&E
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
15,491 49,350 69.76% 7,456,431,275 6,204,632,212 13,661,063,487 77.15% 4,822 16,316 99.37% 1,464,670,770 982,603,711 2,447,274,481 99.17% 4,356 13,910 38.34% 2,125,297,386 1,864,215,595 3,989,512,981 48.52% 2,917 6,501 85.13% 995,851,526 660,566,859 1,656,418,385 70.78% 45,834 201,963 99.95% 18,438,842,169 14,422,099,593 32,860,941,762 99.87% 6,367 21,785 99.23% 2,627,243,574 2,014,522,828 4,641,766,402 99.70% 32,419 100,893 91.09% 12,521,527,404 9,707,584,462 22,229,111,866 93.25% 7,994 28,489 92.93% 2,443,835,102 1,841,164,958 4,285,000,060 93.74% 27,124 89,850 71.11% 9,989,487,724 7,169,804,343 17,159,292,067 70.53% 5,270 16,176 12.74% 3,187,049,866 2,461,055,120 5,648,104,986 18.48% 25,385 43,142 45.89% 8,656,246,083 7,004,485,366 15,660,731,449 53.70% 177,979 588,376 69.73% 69,906,482,879 54,332,735,047 124,239,217,926 68.73% NEHRP D & E Soils
Estimated Exposure
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure NEHRP Soils D&E
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 13,713 481 818 11 52 257 159 15,491
4,283 325 39 6 17 67 85 4,822
3,745 289 144 47 12 57 62 4,356
2,484 278 30 8 38 23 56 2,917
40,451 3,099 961 92 150 427 654 45,834
5,540 298 26 0 18 428 57 6,367
27,959 2,827 776 64 187 226 380 32,419
6,701 819 190 53 69 44 118 7,994
25,343 1,005 275 1 93 33 374 27,124
4,631 440 43 0 20 55 81 5,270
14,947 1,844 384 6,898 311 652 349 25,385
149,797 11,705 3,686 7,180 967 2,269 2,375 177,979
Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ Oak Ridge M7.16
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100%
Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100%
Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100%
Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100%
Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100%
Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100%
San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100% Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100%
Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100%
Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100%
Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100%
TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100%
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data:
2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ Oak Ridge M7.16
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
Jurisdiction
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged
255.47 16 9 $1,254,097,388 $564,455,389 $1,818,552,777 10.3%
59.46 3 3 $323,437,723 $126,271,963 $449,709,687 18.2%
95.45 5 4 $655,376,665 $296,600,537 $951,977,202 11.6%
6.66 0 0 $33,663,983 $15,264,779 $48,928,763 2.1%
890.52 47 49 $4,073,453,482 $1,886,216,754 $5,959,670,236 18.1% 355.11 5 4 $754,540,064 $293,494,435 $1,048,034,499 22.5% 780.02 50 30 $2,576,223,556 $1,110,614,262 $3,686,837,817 15.5% 182.62 11 12 $603,461,204 $260,943,809 $864,405,014 18.9% 224.01 10 6 $1,616,097,167 $689,355,027 $2,305,452,194 9.5%
96.58 1 1 $956,864,836 $407,551,372 $1,364,416,209 4.5% 472.31 11 10 $2,062,054,977 $956,099,540 $3,018,154,517 10.3% 3,418.21 160 127 $14,909,271,045 $6,606,867,869 21,516,138,914 11.9% Economic Impact
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ San Cayetano M7.16
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100%
Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100%
Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100%
Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100%
Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100%
Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100%
San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100% Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100%
Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100%
Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100%
Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100%
TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100%
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data:
2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ San Cayetano M7.16
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
Jurisdiction
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged
24.30 0 0 $332,511,840 $161,595,849 $494,107,689 2.8%
68.22 4 3 $325,134,215 $127,875,613 $453,009,828 18.4%
23.26 0 0 $389,471,231 $180,226,732 $569,697,964 6.9%
32.98 3 1 $114,379,858 $46,864,014 $161,243,872 6.9%
55.56 0 0 $856,288,550 $393,290,347 $1,249,578,897 3.8%
12.62 0 0 $112,352,575 $50,525,161 $162,877,736 3.5%
83.85 0 0 $724,508,648 $321,387,735 $1,045,896,383 4.4%
93.74 2 2 $314,494,935 $130,588,518 $445,083,453 9.7%
50.58 0 0 $786,013,425 $362,021,100 $1,148,034,525 4.7%
21.83 0 0 $365,047,679 $161,480,442 $526,528,122 1.7%
146.29 6 5 $1,047,501,134 $491,424,407 $1,538,925,541 5.3% 613.21 14 11 $5,367,704,090 $2,427,279,918 7,794,984,008 4.3% Economic Impact
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ S San Andreas M8.03
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100%
Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100%
Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100%
Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100%
Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100%
Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100%
San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100% Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100%
Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100%
Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100%
Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100%
TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100%
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data:
2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ S San Andreas M8.03
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
Jurisdiction
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged
8.03 0 0 $72,606,865 $36,652,157 $109,259,022 0.6%
6.78 0 0 $71,641,229 $26,926,763 $98,567,992 4.0%
3.50 0 0 $111,151,410 $51,817,233 $162,968,643 2.0%
2.87 0 0 $19,176,336 $8,813,983 $27,990,319 1.2%
30.04 0 0 $114,269,681 $61,286,102 $175,555,783 0.5%
11.78 0 0 $28,011,094 $12,126,052 $40,137,146 0.9%
30.20 0 0 $164,878,846 $70,237,390 $235,116,236 1.0%
11.46 0 0 $74,173,536 $32,450,321 $106,623,857 2.3%
12.49 0 0 $278,004,931 $135,279,174 $413,284,105 1.7%
6.07 0 0 $124,654,628 $57,664,112 $182,318,740 0.6%
30.72 0 0 $308,335,672 $144,080,027 $452,415,699 1.6%
153.94 0 0 $1,366,904,227 $637,333,313 2,004,237,540 1.1% Economic Impact
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ Ventura‐Pitas Point M7.12
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100% 70.37 1 Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100% 25.92 1
Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100% 11.74 0 Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100% 19.19 0
Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100% 407.03 6 Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100% 119.50 1 San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100% 889.88 85 Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100% 184.76 11 Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100% 13.38 0 Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100% 18.60 0 Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100% 318.60 7 TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100% 2,078.98 112 (2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ Ventura‐Pitas Point M7.12
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
Jurisdiction
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged
0 $618,222,748 $291,545,429 $909,768,177 5.1%
1 $246,340,734 $94,279,012 $340,619,745 13.8%
0 $289,384,837 $136,815,405 $426,200,242 5.2%
0 $66,661,698 $28,680,957 $95,342,655 4.1%
6 $2,825,603,981 $1,243,802,712 $4,069,406,692 12.4%
0 $410,536,239 $155,884,805 $566,421,043 12.2%
54 $2,875,871,126 $1,267,121,649 $4,142,992,775 17.4%
12 $566,018,120 $243,512,464 $809,530,584 17.7%
0 $281,527,722 $141,026,273 $422,553,996 1.7%
0 $316,498,805 $142,979,353 $459,478,158 1.5%
6 $1,576,389,169 $737,714,488 $2,314,103,657 7.9%
79 $10,073,055,177 $4,483,362,547 14,556,417,724 8.1%
Economic Impact
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ 100‐yr Probabilistic
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Camarillo 70,741 100% 21,829 $17,707,287,595 100%
Fillmore 16,419 100% 4,855 $2,467,839,895 100%
Moorpark 36,284 100% 10,697 $8,222,512,567 100%
Ojai 7,637 100% 3,531 $2,340,202,613 100%
Oxnard 202,063 100% 45,874 $32,903,823,044 100%
Port Hueneme 21,954 100% 6,413 $4,655,956,714 100%
San Buenaventura 110,763 100% 35,310 $23,838,143,638 100% Santa Paula 30,657 100% 8,527 $4,571,072,937 100%
Simi Valley 126,356 100% 37,802 $24,328,139,279 100%
Thousand Oaks 126,966 100% 38,797 $30,560,756,798 100%
Unincorporated 94,003 100% 49,022 $29,161,232,550 100%
TOTAL 843,843 100% 262,657 $180,756,967,629 100%
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
Jurisdiction
Estimated Exposure
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data:
2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure EQ ‐ 100‐yr Probabilistic
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
Jurisdiction
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged
41.80 14 8 $317,154,975 $166,355,625 $483,510,601 2.7%
7.40 2 2 $96,688,052 $38,647,908 $135,335,960 5.5%
16.07 5 4 $251,966,583 $121,552,386 $373,518,968 4.5%
4.85 2 1 $20,372,924 $10,811,020 $31,183,944 1.3%
89.40 35 38 $1,671,772,446 $792,894,847 $2,464,667,293 7.5%
26.26 6 5 $238,732,202 $108,091,762 $346,823,964 7.4%
87.02 35 21 $621,218,009 $294,425,700 $915,643,709 3.8%
19.90 7 7 $95,059,205 $47,029,170 $142,088,375 3.1%
78.45 53 33 $789,228,569 $366,293,069 $1,155,521,638 4.7%
44.82 26 14 $489,697,195 $235,427,670 $725,124,865 2.4%
87.35 20 13 $814,238,984 $395,932,641 $1,210,171,626 4.1% 503.31 205 147 $5,406,129,145 $2,577,461,798 7,983,590,943 4.4% Economic Impact
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 $180,756,967,629
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
1,361 4,077 5.8% $811,577,706 $847,038,963 $1,658,616,669 9.4% 121 427 2.6% $44,066,967 $26,622,071 $70,689,039 2.9%
229 691 1.9% $171,600,334 $182,716,297 $354,316,631 4.3% 84 152 2.0% $32,023,450 $24,758,767 $56,782,217 2.4%
263 839 0.4% $153,350,315 $153,090,160 $306,440,475 0.9% 3 4 0.0% $5,817,027 $5,723,892 $11,540,919 0.2%
186 350 0.3% $189,050,175 $196,450,450 $385,500,626 1.6% 2,800 9,493 31.0% $863,746,680 $706,530,251 $1,570,276,932 34.4% 3,388 10,643 8.4% $1,550,461,207 $1,397,529,498 $2,947,990,705 12.1% 411 1,132 0.9% $270,559,337 $214,327,558 $484,886,895 1.6% 3,701 5,395 5.7% $1,173,621,479 $926,591,347 $2,100,212,825 7.2% 12,547 33,202 3.9% $5,265,874,679 $4,681,379,253 $9,947,253,933 5.5% % of Total Value
Exposed
Estimated Building Exposure
Buildings Exposed
(2)
Population Exposed
(3)
% of Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
995 874 80 924 $18,136,547 $14,704,765 $32,841,312 0.2% 445 80 6 67 $1,947,318 $1,702,111 $3,649,429 0.1%
8,372 154 12 126 $13,667,492 $21,518,311 $35,185,803 0.4% 55 24 1 17 $455,128 $328,839 $783,967 0.0%
970 134 7 142 $3,868,280 $6,765,501 $10,633,781 0.0%
0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
12,604 30 2 71 $11,004,892 $28,605,208 $39,610,101 0.2% 8,063 6,168 528 1,871 $59,011,117 $71,219,090 $130,230,207 2.8% 15,198 2,358 114 2,273 $104,290,055 $140,715,076 $245,005,131 1.0% 1,293 133 8 274 $13,907,582 $29,357,341 $43,264,924 0.1% 48,715 874 27 2,120 $81,700,290 $120,988,721 $202,689,011 0.7% 96,710 10,829 785 7,885 $307,988,701 $435,904,963 $743,893,665 0.4% Structure Debris
(Tons) (4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People
Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter (5)
Economic Impact
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 1,566 1,133 63 153 1 1 6 4 1361
545 112 1 1 1 1 3 2 121
522 186 18 18 0 0 7 0 229
285 58 11 8 0 0 7 0 84
974 168 44 45 0 0 6 0 263
132 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3
1,180 97 33 31 12 0 13 0 186
1,421 2,233 336 109 41 17 14 50 2800
2,091 3,002 231 126 0 7 0 22 3388
568 324 34 0 0 2 7 44 411
58,760 1,869 319 46 1,372 34 30 31 3701
68,046 9,183 1091 537 1427 62 94 153 12547
Number of Structures in Floodplain (2)
Acres of
Floodplain
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 $180,756,967,629
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
7,952 24,425 34.5% $4,183,612,188 $3,705,692,898 $7,889,305,086 44.6% 312 998 6.1% $81,648,513 $49,666,004 $131,314,517 5.3%
2,434 7,473 20.6% $1,316,023,676 $1,233,811,450 $2,549,835,126 31.0% 988 2,143 28.1% $318,177,110 $214,977,791 $533,154,901 22.8% 16,417 72,101 35.7% $6,271,339,016 $5,053,125,090 $11,324,464,106 34.4% 6,120 20,857 95.0% $2,570,735,967 $1,978,060,303 $4,548,796,270 97.7% 1,520 3,969 3.6% $1,089,151,905 $1,055,150,082 $2,144,301,988 9.0% 4,955 16,742 54.6% $1,549,736,567 $1,200,236,084 $2,749,972,651 60.2% 4,309 13,430 10.6% $2,227,840,029 $2,075,195,072 $4,303,035,101 17.7% 698 2,040 1.6% $418,573,237 $303,132,032 $721,705,268 2.4% 9,273 16,594 17.7% $3,205,899,184 $2,633,930,786 $5,839,829,970 20.0% 54,978 180,772 21.4% $23,232,737,392 $19,502,977,592 $42,735,714,984 23.6% % of Total Value
Exposed
Estimated Building Exposure
Buildings Exposed
(2)
Population Exposed
(3)
% of Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
35,705 14,896 1,210 4,556 $323,354,969 $610,659,310 $934,014,279 5.3% 1,300 260 19 112 $2,834,318 $3,389,276 $6,223,594 0.3%
18,723 4,812 358 1,449 $161,918,925 $282,897,898 $444,816,823 5.4% 8,058 1,140 81 709 $52,652,213 $58,900,791 $111,553,003 4.8% 40,476 54,691 3,603 5,622 $217,744,567 $368,166,618 $585,911,185 1.8% 47,197 20,268 1,573 5,396 $476,053,503 $1,091,892,221 $1,567,945,724 33.7% 24,795 1,217 98 681 $113,780,470 $247,453,885 $361,234,355 1.5% 1,804 9,745 746 769 $25,853,761 $38,739,391 $64,593,152 1.4% 83,396 3,685 198 1,313 $176,300,670 $358,500,485 $534,801,155 2.2% 1,855 319 19 368 $17,928,380 $39,947,125 $57,875,505 0.2% 133,015 6,068 317 6,687 $415,808,250 $640,849,397 $1,056,657,647 3.6% 396,325 117,102 8,221 27,662 $1,984,230,028 $3,741,396,396 $5,725,626,424 3.2% Structure Debris
(Tons) (4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People
Requiring Short-
Term Shelter (5)
Economic Impact
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 5,203 6,787 277 492 12 25 249 110 7952
613 262 22 1 1 1 23 2 312
1,519 2,012 199 126 0 9 50 38 2434
673 819 113 33 0 2 13 8 988
6,540 14,441 951 572 29 28 261 135 16417
2,812 5,304 299 26 0 17 430 44 6120
1,851 1,100 210 169 18 3 20 0 1520
2,122 3,938 646 147 46 64 36 78 4955
2,847 3,788 267 179 0 14 0 61 4309
685 584 55 0 0 2 13 44 698
77,155 5,749 698 197 2,266 55 145 163 9273
102,019 44,784 3737 1942 2372 220 1240 683 54978
Number of Structures in Floodplain (2)
Acres of
Floodplain
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
(3) Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides in California (CGS Map Sheet 58) provided by the CA Geological Survey. Susceptibility classes categorized as follows: Very High Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
319 1,098 1.6% $145,360,202 $76,937,994 $222,298,196 1.3% 17 57 0.3% $7,191,809 $4,831,118 $12,022,927 0.5%
177 591 1.6% $104,729,266 $82,711,386 $187,440,653 2.3% 6 16 0.2% $6,143,914 $3,071,957 $9,215,871 0.4%
1 0 0.0% $2,295,792 $2,295,792 $4,591,584 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
1,218 4,240 3.8% $418,645,287 $216,801,830 $635,447,117 2.7% 79 319 1.0% $27,764,158 $14,198,759 $41,962,917 0.9%
214 716 0.6% $141,777,522 $118,366,473 $260,143,994 1.1% 821 2,756 2.2% $385,793,664 $213,145,840 $598,939,504 2.0% 1,891 2,707 2.9% $562,531,836 $390,036,748 $952,568,584 3.3% 4,743 12,500 1.5% $1,802,233,448 $1,122,397,897 $2,924,631,346 1.6% Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
3,310 11,376 16.1% $1,276,555,651 $760,035,742 $2,036,591,394 11.5% 282 956 5.8% $84,242,891 $56,428,708 $140,671,600 5.7%
2,408 8,190 22.6% $1,093,504,171 $656,025,717 $1,749,529,888 21.3% 608 1,392 18.2% $246,345,265 $152,323,811 $398,669,076 17.0% 522 2,347 1.2% $211,406,543 $139,856,728 $351,263,272 1.1% 18 59 0.3% $3,256,669 $1,881,834 $5,138,503 0.1%
4,764 15,528 14.0% $1,623,676,875 $990,475,247 $2,614,152,122 11.0% 1,201 4,626 15.1% $352,153,064 $207,857,159 $560,010,223 12.3% 7,205 24,505 19.4% $3,049,935,458 $1,890,121,993 $4,940,057,452 20.3% 15,214 50,335 39.6% $6,861,797,417 $4,488,875,991 $11,350,673,408 37.1% 16,522 32,552 34.6% $5,398,296,121 $3,556,065,421 $8,954,361,542 30.7% 52,054 151,866 18.0% $20,201,170,128 $12,899,948,351 $33,101,118,479 18.3% Landslide Susceptibility Category High (3)
Estimated Exposure
Landslide Susceptibility Category Very High (3)
Estimated Exposure
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
334 1,112 1.6% $160,265,279 $85,604,299 $245,869,578 1.4% 11 38 0.2% $2,567,876 $1,334,235 $3,902,111 0.2%
1,006 3,458 9.5% $474,259,020 $288,593,875 $762,852,896 9.3% 63 131 1.7% $18,627,630 $10,296,846 $28,924,475 1.2%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
17 58 0.1% $2,799,965 $1,446,188 $4,246,153 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
2,944 10,115 8.0% $1,424,660,482 $816,256,331 $2,240,916,814 9.2% 4,759 16,148 12.7% $1,875,554,525 $1,049,243,077 $2,924,797,602 9.6% 2,716 4,898 5.2% $1,019,871,610 $672,102,212 $1,691,973,823 5.8% 11,850 35,958 4.3% $4,978,606,389 $2,924,877,062 $7,903,483,451 4.4% Landslide Susceptibility Category Moderate (3)
Estimated Exposure
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 305 7 0 1 0 6 0 319
15 0 0 1 0 1 0 17
159 4 2 2 1 2 7 177
60 0 0 0 0 0 6
00 0 0 0 1 0 1
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,175 28 0 2 3 10 0 1,218
75 1 0 2 0 1 0 79
202 10 2 0 0 0 0 214
789 16 0 0 5 10 1 821
938 153 3 744 42 8 3 1,891
3,664 219 7 752 51 39 11 4,743
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 3,161 88 17 12 7 9 16 3,310
251 17 3 0 0 4 7 282
2,205 86 10 69 0 4 34 2,408
532 28 4 13 19 10 2 608
470 28 0 0 0 24 0 522
15 1 0 0 0 2 0 18
4,303 319 15 7 23 57 40 4,764
1,088 74 4 3 1 6 25 1,201
6,912 165 46 10 8 13 51 7,205
14,410 448 130 1 75 71 79 15,214
11,278 888 64 3,874 261 85 72 16,522
44,625 2,142 293 3,989 394 285 326 52,054
Number of Structures in Category Very High (2)
Number of Structures in Category High (2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Landslide
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 309 21 0 0 2 1 1 334
10 1 0 0 0 0 0 11
931 33 1 17 0 1 23 1,006
50 6 0 6 0 1 0 63
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 1 0 0 0 0 0 17
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,853 49 8 10 2 8 14 2,944
4,623 87 10 3 13 9 14 4,759
1,697 195 7 757 31 8 21 2,716
10,489 393 26 793 48 28 73 11,850
Number of Structures in Category Moderate (2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 25cm
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) 25cm of sea level rise inundation areas downloaded from Our Coast Our Future website. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 25cm
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
6 30 0.01% 1,844,110 922,055 2,766,165 0.01%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
1 0 0.00% 13,147,511 13,147,511 26,295,022 0.11%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
3 9 0.01% 782,482 391,241 1,173,722 0.00%
10 39 0.00% 15,774,103 14,460,807 30,234,909 0.02%
Sea Level Rise 25cm (3)
Estimated Exposure
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 25cm
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 0 0 0 0 0 6
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1 0 1
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 3
90 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 100cm
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) 100cm of sea level rise inundation areas downloaded from Our Coast Our Future website (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 100cm
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
71 320 0.16% 19,837,269 11,436,689 31,273,958 0.10%
26 0 0.00% 41,938,508 41,938,508 83,877,017 1.80%
9 22 0.02% 17,805,334 16,492,114 34,297,448 0.14%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
143 222 0.24% 61,259,909 51,582,876 112,842,786 0.39%
249 563 0.07% 140,841,021 121,450,187 262,291,208 0.15% .
Sea Level Rise 100cm (3)
Estimated Exposure
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Sea Level Rise ‐ 100cm
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 0 0 0 0 7 0 71
00 0 0 0 2 6 0 2 6
62 0 0 0 1 0 9
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 5 0 0 0 61 0 143
147 7 0 0 0 95 0 249
Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Tsunami
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 $180,756,967,629
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Tsunami
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
3,680 17,365 8.6% $1,353,632,901 $772,006,907 $2,125,639,808 6.5% 179 79 0.4% $286,568,639 $285,192,330 $571,760,969 12.3% 1,324 4,338 3.9% $455,402,336 $284,490,968 $739,893,304 3.1% 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
2,117 5,845 6.2% $607,923,225 $318,142,306 $926,065,532 3.2% 7,300 27,626 3.3% $2,703,527,102 $1,659,832,511 $4,363,359,613 2.4% % of Total Value
Exposed
Estimated Building Exposure
Buildings Exposed
(2)
Population
Exposed (3)
% of Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Tsunami
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
0000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0.0%
0000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0.0%
0000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0.0%
0000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0.0%
1,681,815 13,969 991 1,136 $118,372,314 $190,275,068 $308,647,382 0.9% 2,743 13 1 6 $72,738 $351,789 $424,527 0.0%
12,848 2,772 293 22 $735,705 $1,320,813 $2,056,518 0.0% 0000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0.0%
0000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0.0%
0000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0.0%
58,074 5,202 299 133 $6,014,799 $6,695,977 $12,710,776 0.0% 1,755,480 21,957 1,584 1,297 $125,195,556 $198,643,647 $323,839,203 0.2% Structure Debris
(Tons) (4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter (5)
Economic Impact
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Tsunami
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 000 0 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,566 3,478 93 1 0 0 108 0 3680
555 20 43 0 0 0 116 0 179
782 1,202 77 3 18 0 18 6 1324
000 0 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,788 2,025 61 0 0 0 21 10 2117
4,690 6,725 274 4 18 0 263 16 7300
Number of Structures in Inundation Area (2)
Acres of
Inundation Area
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
Camarillo 70,741 21,829 19,657 $17,707,287,595
Fillmore 16,419 4,855 4,310 $2,467,839,895
Moorpark 36,284 10,697 9,769 $8,222,512,567
Ojai 7,637 3,531 2,918 $2,340,202,613
Oxnard 202,063 45,874 40,471 $32,903,823,044
Port Hueneme 21,954 6,413 5,583 $4,655,956,714
San Buenaventura 110,763 35,310 30,694 $23,838,143,638
Santa Paula 30,657 8,527 7,211 $4,571,072,937
Simi Valley 126,356 37,802 35,640 $24,328,139,279
Thousand Oaks 126,966 38,797 36,348 $30,560,756,798
Unincorporated 94,003 49,022 32,568 $29,161,232,550
Total 843,843 262,657 225,169 180,756,967,629
(2) Values based off of 2021 tax assessor data provided by Ventura County. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.
Jurisdiction Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
(1)2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance. Table C1 - Summary Population and Housing Data: 2020, California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Summary from 2020 Census, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, generated August 2021.
(3) Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) wildfire severity zones data provided by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
1,241 4,322 6.1% $412,245,811 $253,108,930 $665,354,741 3.8% 590 2,084 12.7% $135,636,784 $73,425,732 $209,062,516 8.5% 5,516 18,798 51.8% $2,426,708,694 $1,612,958,481 $4,039,667,175 49.1% 341 827 10.8% $103,962,503 $54,880,475 $158,842,977 6.8% 0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
4,482 14,629 13.2% $1,398,813,270 $814,379,281 $2,213,192,552 9.3% 530 2,181 7.1% $170,305,792 $92,229,228 $262,535,020 5.7% 10,911 37,102 29.4% $4,922,319,612 $3,113,957,340 $8,036,276,952 33.0% 17,407 58,118 45.8% $8,260,681,793 $5,081,079,764 $13,341,761,557 43.7% 17,660 37,699 40.1% $6,420,219,970 $4,228,896,068 $10,649,116,038 36.5% 58,678 175,759 20.8% $24,250,894,229 $15,324,915,299 $39,575,809,528 21.9% Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
25 0 0.0% $12,204,790 $12,204,790 $24,409,581 0.1%
2,847 4,188 4.5% $942,999,892 $713,358,653 $1,656,358,545 5.7% 2,872 4,188 0.5% $955,204,682 $725,563,443 $1,680,768,126 0.9% Very High Wildfire Severity Zone (3)
Estimated Exposure
High Wildfire Severity Zone (3)
Estimated Exposure
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
1 0 0.0% $2,956,756 $2,956,756 $5,913,513 0.0%
28 107 0.6% $11,077,799 $5,538,900 $16,616,699 0.7%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
45 140 0.5% $8,041,685 $4,930,717 $12,972,401 0.3%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
4,574 5,854 6.2% $1,422,824,222 $1,085,736,342 $2,508,560,564 8.6% 4,648 6,101 0.7% $1,444,900,462 $1,099,162,715 $2,544,063,177 1.4% Moderate Wildfire Severity Zone (3)
Estimated Exposure
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 1,201 38 2 0 0 0 0 1,241
547 38 2 1 0 2 0 590
5,061 190 67 101 2 18 77 5,516
316 16 0 9 0 0 0 341
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,054 287 38 8 22 34 39 4,482
513 11 0 0 0 6 0 530
10,465 248 75 56 6 25 36 10,911
16,638 378 125 7 76 88 95 17,407
13,061 1,068 182 2,740 315 70 224 17,660
51,856 2,274 491 2,922 421 243 471 58,678
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00 0 0 0 2 5 0 2 5
1,451 178 0 1,141 28 31 18 2,847
1,451 178 0 1,141 28 56 18 2,872
Number of Structures in Category Very High (2)
Number of Structures in Category High (2)
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Exposure Wildfire
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
Jurisdiction
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total 00 0 0 0 1 0 1
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 11 0 1 0 0 0 45
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,028 270 12 2,132 59 63 10 4,574
2,089 281 12 2,133 59 64 10 4,648
Number of Structures in Category Moderate (2)
Item No.7D
Appendix D.2
Exposure of Critical Facilities
Item No.7D
COUNT OF ALL CRITICAL FACILITIES
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 20 5 34 14 1 35 32 141
Fillmore 3 1 4 1 0 10 3 22
Moorpark 5 1 7 9 0 19 11 52
Ojai 6 1 14 0 1 13 2 37
Oxnard 24 33 11 23 2 59 36 188
Port Hueneme 7 2 1 2 0 7 8 27
San Buenaventura 34 10 6 6 3 54 63 176
Santa Paula 5 1 3 3 1 15 20 48
Simi Valley 19 4 4 13 1 51 71 163
Thousand Oaks 53 7 20 13 1 55 54 203
Unincorporated 74 46 106 9 0 73 223 531
Total 250 111 210 93 10 391 523 1,588
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 24
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 66
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12
United Water Conservation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 72
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 1 0 0 210 0 211
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Other 250 110 89 93 10 98 523 1,173
Total 250 111 210 93 10 391 523 1,588
Item No.7D
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO DAM FAILURE
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 1 1 7 9 0 3 7 28
Fillmore 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 7
Moorpark 5 1 0 8 0 6 2 22
Ojai 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3
Oxnard 23 27 11 16 2 46 28 153
Port Hueneme 7 2 1 2 0 7 7 26
San Buenaventura 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 6
Santa Paula 5 1 3 2 0 8 20 39
Simi Valley 2 1 0 7 0 4 13 27
Thousand Oaks 4 1 3 0 0 1 6 15
Unincorporated 6 5 19 4 0 12 42 88
Total 54 41 48 48 2 91 130 414
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
United Water Conservation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 19
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 1 0 0 52 0 53
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 54 41 28 48 2 19 130 322
Total 54 41 48 48 2 91 130 414
Item No.7D
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 4 1 1 3 0 0 11 20
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moorpark 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
Ojai 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 10
Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Port Hueneme 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 8
San Buenaventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10
Santa Paula 0 1 1 1 0 4 4 11
Simi Valley 9 0 0 7 0 5 31 52
Thousand Oaks 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 8
Unincorporated 5 2 10 0 0 3 91 111
Total 23 5 22 11 0 13 159 233
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 14
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 23 5 4 11 0 2 159 204
Total 23 5 22 11 0 13 159 233
Item No.7D
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 13 3 18 10 0 22 20 86
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Moorpark 4 1 1 5 0 7 3 21
Ojai 0 1 9 0 0 4 2 16
Oxnard 5 13 6 9 0 12 19 64
Port Hueneme 7 2 1 2 0 6 8 26
San Buenaventura 3 1 0 1 0 1 12 18
Santa Paula 3 1 1 1 0 9 5 20
Simi Valley 9 0 0 8 0 10 34 61
Thousand Oaks 2 1 1 0 0 1 5 10
Unincorporated 6 8 24 1 0 10 103 152
Total 52 31 61 37 0 82 213 476
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 20
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 1 0 0 46 0 47
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 52 31 26 37 0 15 213 374
Total 52 31 61 37 0 82 213 476
Item No.7D
CRITICAL FACILITIES IN HIGH OR VERY HIGH LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ZONE Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 1 1 3 1 0 2 3 11
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Moorpark 0 0 4 2 0 3 4 13
Ojai 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 5
Oxnard 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Buenaventura 4 1 1 0 0 8 6 20
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 6
Simi Valley 0 0 0 3 0 9 22 34
Thousand Oaks 5 3 10 2 0 18 20 58
Unincorporated 28 21 53 1 0 18 82 203
Total 38 27 74 9 1 64 140 353
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 14
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 40
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Other 38 26 13 9 1 17 140 244
Total 38 27 74 9 1 64 140 353
Item No.7D
CRITICAL FACILITIES ON NEHRP D OR E SOILS
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 16 3 29 13 1 29 27 118
Fillmore 3 1 4 1 0 10 3 22
Moorpark 5 1 3 9 0 10 7 35
Ojai 4 1 11 0 0 11 1 28
Oxnard 24 33 11 23 2 59 36 188
Port Hueneme 7 2 1 2 0 7 8 27
San Buenaventura 32 9 5 6 3 53 63 171
Santa Paula 5 1 3 3 0 14 20 46
Simi Valley 18 4 4 13 1 45 62 147
Thousand Oaks 28 3 6 3 0 7 34 81
Unincorporated 9 16 50 6 0 36 191 308
Total 151 74 127 79 7 281 452 1,171
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 32
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
United Water Conservation District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 53
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 1 0 0 161 0 162
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Other 151 73 74 79 7 63 452 899
Total 151 74 127 79 7 281 452 1,171
Item No.7D
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO 25-CENTIMETER SEA-LEVEL RISE Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moorpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
San Buenaventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simi Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thousand Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Item No.7D
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO 100-CENTIMETER SEA-LEVEL RISE Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moorpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oxnard 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
San Buenaventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simi Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thousand Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
Total 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 6
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 5
Total 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 6
Item No.7D
CRITICAL FACILITIES EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI
Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moorpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oxnard 2 1 2 0 0 1 3 9
Port Hueneme 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
San Buenaventura 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 4
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simi Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thousand Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 11
Total 4 1 13 0 0 3 7 28
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 4 1 5 0 0 0 7 17
Total 4 1 13 0 0 3 7 28
Item No.7D
CRITICAL FACILITIES IN HIGH OR VERY HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE Jurisdiction Where Facility Is Located Communications Energy Food, Water, Shelter Hazardous Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Camarillo 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 5
Fillmore 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Moorpark 1 1 6 4 0 9 8 29
Ojai 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 5
Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Buenaventura 2 1 1 0 0 2 4 10
Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Simi Valley 2 0 1 5 1 5 24 38
Thousand Oaks 10 2 14 2 0 17 17 62
Unincorporated 57 31 52 3 0 34 74 251
Total 72 36 79 14 2 69 131 403
Jurisdiction That Owns Facility Communications Energy
Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material
Health &
Medical
Safety &
Security Transportation Total
Calleguas Municipal Water District 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 17
Casitas Municipal Water District 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 28
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conejo Recreation & Park District 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saticoy Sanitary District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11
United Water Conservation District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCPWA-WP 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6
Ventura Co Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17
Ventura County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 28
Ventura Regional Sanitation District 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Other 72 35 19 14 2 18 131 291
Total 72 36 79 14 2 69 131 403
Item No.7D
Appendix D.3
Risk Ranking
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Dam Failure ‐ Combined
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 14.30% Medium 2 6
Fillmore Medium 2 48.00% High 3 9
Moorpark Medium 2 20.50% Medium 2 6
Ojai Medium 2 9.56% Low 1 3
Oxnard Medium 2 83.62% High 3 9
Port Hueneme Medium 2 88.23% High 3 9
San Buenaventura Medium 2 4.45% Low 1 3
Santa Paula Medium 2 40.16% High 3 9
Simi Valley Medium 2 11.87% Medium 2 6
Thousand Oaks Medium 2 2.86% Low 1 3
Unincorporated Medium 2 17.84% Medium 2 6
Total Medium 2 31.66% High 3 9
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Dam Failure ‐ Combined
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
19.99% Medium 2 4 0.18% Low 1 1 22 Medium
42.03% High 3 6 26.60% High 3 3 36 High
31.95% High 3 6 2.13% Low 1 1 26 Medium
7.12% Low 1 2 1.05% Low 1 1 12 Low
79.67% High 3 6 22.62% High 3 3 36 High
81.33% High 3 6 24.21% High 3 3 36 High
6.78% Low 1 2 2.30% Low 1 1 12 Low
56.24% High 3 6 36.47% High 3 3 36 High
12.77% Medium 2 4 2.24% Low 1 1 22 Medium
2.50% Low 1 2 0.81% Low 1 1 12 Low
20.65% Medium 2 4 8.42% Medium 2 2 24 Medium
28.46% High 3 6 8.26% Medium 2 2 34 High
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ Oak Ridge M7.16
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Moorpark Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Ojai Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Oxnard Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Port Hueneme Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
San Buenaventura Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Paula Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Simi Valley Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Thousand Oaks Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Unincorporated Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ Oak Ridge M7.16
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 10.27% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 18.22% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 11.58% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 2.09% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 18.11% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 22.51% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 15.47% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 18.91% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 9.48% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 4.46% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 10.35% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 11.90% High 3 3 18 Medium
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ San Cayetano M7.16
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Moorpark Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Ojai Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Oxnard Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Port Hueneme Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
San Buenaventura Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Paula Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Simi Valley Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Thousand Oaks Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Unincorporated Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ San Cayetano M7.16
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 2.79% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 18.36% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 6.93% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 6.89% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 3.80% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 3.50% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 4.39% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 9.74% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 4.72% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 1.72% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 5.28% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 4.31% Low 1 1 16 Medium
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ S San Andreas M8.03
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Moorpark Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Ojai Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Oxnard Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Port Hueneme Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
San Buenaventura Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Paula Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Simi Valley Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Thousand Oaks Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Unincorporated Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ S San Andreas M8.03
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 0.62% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 3.99% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 1.98% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 1.20% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 0.53% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 0.86% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 0.99% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 2.33% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 1.70% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 0.60% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 1.55% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 1.11% Low 1 1 32 Medium
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ Ventura‐Pitas Point M7.12
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Moorpark Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Ojai Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Oxnard Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Port Hueneme Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
San Buenaventura Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Paula Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Simi Valley Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Thousand Oaks Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Unincorporated Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Low 1 100.00% High 3 9
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ Ventura‐Pitas Point M7.12
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk
Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 5.14% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 13.80% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 5.18% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 4.07% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 12.37% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 12.17% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 17.38% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 17.71% High 3 3 18 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 1.74% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 1.50% Low 1 1 16 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 7.94% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 8.05% Medium 2 2 17 Medium
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ 100‐yr Probabilistic
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Fillmore Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Moorpark Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Ojai Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Oxnard Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Port Hueneme Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
San Buenaventura Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Paula Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Simi Valley Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Thousand Oaks Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Unincorporated Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking EQ ‐ 100‐yr Probabilistic
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
TOTAL
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
100.00% High 3 6 2.73% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 5.48% Medium 2 2 34 High
100.00% High 3 6 4.54% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 1.33% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 7.49% Medium 2 2 34 High
100.00% High 3 6 7.45% Medium 2 2 34 High
100.00% High 3 6 3.84% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 3.11% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 4.75% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 2.37% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 4.15% Low 1 1 32 Medium
100.00% High 3 6 4.42% Low 1 1 32 Medium
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo High 3 5.76% Low 1 3
Fillmore High 3 2.60% Low 1 3
Moorpark High 3 1.90% Low 1 3
Ojai High 3 1.99% Low 1 3
Oxnard High 3 0.42% Low 1 3
Port Hueneme High 3 0.02% Low 1 3
San Buenaventura High 3 0.32% Low 1 3
Santa Paula High 3 30.97% High 3 9
Simi Valley High 3 8.42% Low 1 3
Thousand Oaks High 3 0.89% Low 1 3
Unincorporated High 3 5.74% Low 1 3
Total High 3 3.93% Low 1 3
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Flood ‐ FEMA 100‐yr
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
% of Total
Value Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor Risk Ranking Score Hazard Risk Rating
9.37% Low 1 2 0.19% Low 1 1 18 Medium
2.86% Low 1 2 0.15% Low 1 1 18 Medium
4.31% Low 1 2 0.43% Low 1 1 18 Medium
2.43% Low 1 2 0.03% Low 1 1 18 Medium
0.93% Low 1 2 0.03% Low 1 1 18 Medium
0.25% Low 1 2 0.00% None 0 0 15 Low
1.62% Low 1 2 0.17% Low 1 1 18 Medium
34.35% High 3 6 2.85% Low 1 1 48 High
12.12% Medium 2 4 1.01% Low 1 1 24 Medium
1.59% Low 1 2 0.14% Low 1 1 18 Medium
7.20% Low 1 2 0.70% Low 1 1 18 Medium
5.50% Low 1 2 0.41% Low 1 1 18 Medium
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 34.53% High 3 9
Fillmore Medium 2 6.08% Low 1 3
Moorpark Medium 2 20.60% Medium 2 6
Ojai Medium 2 28.07% High 3 9
Oxnard Medium 2 35.68% High 3 9
Port Hueneme Medium 2 95.00% High 3 9
San Buenaventura Medium 2 3.58% Low 1 3
Santa Paula Medium 2 54.61% High 3 9
Simi Valley Medium 2 10.63% Medium 2 6
Thousand Oaks Medium 2 1.61% Low 1 3
Unincorporated Medium 2 17.65% Medium 2 6
Total Medium 2 21.42% Medium 2 6
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Flood ‐ FEMA 500‐yr
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating
44.55% High 3 6 5.27% Medium 2 2 34 High
5.32% Low 1 2 0.25% Low 1 1 12 Low
31.01% High 3 6 5.41% Medium 2 2 28 Medium
22.78% Medium 2 4 4.77% Low 1 1 28 Medium
34.42% High 3 6 1.78% Low 1 1 32 Medium
97.70% High 3 6 33.68% High 3 3 36 High
9.00% Low 1 2 1.52% Low 1 1 12 Low
60.16% High 3 6 1.41% Low 1 1 32 Medium
17.69% Medium 2 4 2.20% Low 1 1 22 Medium
2.36% Low 1 2 0.19% Low 1 1 12 Low
20.03% Medium 2 4 3.62% Low 1 1 22 Medium
23.64% Medium 2 4 3.17% Low 1 1 22 Medium
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Landslide
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Camarillo High 3 1.55% Low 1 3
Fillmore High 3 0.35% Low 1 3
Moorpark High 3 1.63% Low 1 3
Ojai High 3 0.21% Low 1 3
Oxnard High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Port Hueneme High 3 0.00% None 0 0
San Buenaventura High 3 3.83% Low 1 3
Santa Paula High 3 1.04% Low 1 3
Simi Valley High 3 0.57% Low 1 3
Thousand Oaks High 3 2.17% Low 1 3
Unincorporated High 3 2.88% Low 1 3
Total High 3 1.48% Low 1 3
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Landslide
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating
1.26% Low 1 2 0.31% Low 1 1 18 Medium
0.49% Low 1 2 0.12% Low 1 1 18 Medium
2.28% Low 1 2 0.57% Low 1 1 18 Medium
0.39% Low 1 2 0.10% Low 1 1 18 Medium
0.01% Low 1 2 0.00% None 0 0 6 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
2.67% Low 1 2 0.67% Low 1 1 18 Medium
0.92% Low 1 2 0.23% Low 1 1 18 Medium
1.07% Low 1 2 0.27% Low 1 1 18 Medium
1.96% Low 1 2 0.49% Low 1 1 18 Medium
3.27% Low 1 2 0.82% Low 1 1 18 Medium
1.62% Low 1 2 0.40% Low 1 1 18 Medium
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Sea Level Rise ‐ 25cm
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Camarillo High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Fillmore High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Moorpark High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Ojai High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Oxnard High 3 0.01% Low 1 3
Port Hueneme High 3 0.00% None 0 0
San Buenaventura High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Santa Paula High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Simi Valley High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Thousand Oaks High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Unincorporated High 3 0.01% None 0 0
Total High 3 0.00% None 0 0
`
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Sea Level Rise ‐ 25cm
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.01% Low 1 2 0.01% Low 1 1 18 Medium
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.11% Low 1 2 0.11% Low 1 1 9 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.02% Low 1 2 0.02% Low 1 1 9 Low
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Sea Level Rise ‐ 100cm
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Fillmore Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Moorpark Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Ojai Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Oxnard Medium 2 0.16% Low 1 3
Port Hueneme Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
San Buenaventura Medium 2 0.02% Low 1 3
Santa Paula Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Simi Valley Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Thousand Oaks Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Unincorporated Medium 2 0.24% Low 1 3
Total Medium 2 0.07% Low 1 3
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Sea Level Rise ‐ 100cm
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.10% Low 1 2 0.10% Low 1 1 12 Low
1.80% Low 1 2 1.80% Low 1 1 6 Low
0.14% Low 1 2 0.14% Low 1 1 12 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.39% Low 1 2 0.39% Low 1 1 12 Low
0.15% Low 1 2 0.15% Low 1 1 12 Low
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Tsunami
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Fillmore Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Moorpark Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Ojai Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Oxnard Medium 2 8.59% Low 1 3
Port Hueneme Medium 2 0.36% Low 1 3
San Buenaventura Medium 2 3.92% Low 1 3
Santa Paula Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Simi Valley Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Thousand Oaks Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Unincorporated Medium 2 6.22% Low 1 3
Total Medium 2 3.27% Low 1 3
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Tsunami
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
6.46% Low 1 2 0.14% Low 1 1 12 Low
12.28% Medium 2 4 0.00% None 0 0 14 Low
3.10% Low 1 2 0.00% None 0 0 10 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
3.18% Low 1 2 0.01% None 0 0 10 Low
2.41% Low 1 2 0.03% Low 1 1 12 Low
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Wildfire
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Camarillo Medium 2 6.11% Low 1 3
Fillmore Medium 2 12.69% Medium 2 6
Moorpark Medium 2 51.81% High 3 9
Ojai Medium 2 10.83% Medium 2 6
Oxnard Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Port Hueneme Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
San Buenaventura Medium 2 13.21% Medium 2 6
Santa Paula Medium 2 7.11% Low 1 3
Simi Valley Medium 2 29.36% High 3 9
Thousand Oaks Medium 2 45.77% High 3 9
Unincorporated Medium 2 44.56% High 3 9
Total Medium 2 21.32% Medium 2 6
Probability Impact on People
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi‐Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Update 2022 Appendix D. Detailed Risk Assessment Results / Risk Ranking Wildfire
Camarillo
Fillmore
Moorpark
Ojai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
San Buenaventura
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Unincorporated
Total
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating
3.76% Low 1 2 0.94% Low 1 1 12 Low
8.47% Low 1 2 2.12% Low 1 1 18 Medium
49.13% High 3 6 24.56% High 3 3 36 High
6.79% Low 1 2 1.70% Low 1 1 18 Medium
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
9.28% Low 1 2 2.32% Low 1 1 18 Medium
5.74% Low 1 2 1.44% Low 1 1 12 Low
33.03% High 3 6 16.52% High 3 3 36 High
43.74% High 3 6 21.87% High 3 3 36 High
42.20% High 3 6 21.10% High 3 3 36 High
22.82% Medium 2 4 5.71% Medium 2 2 24 Medium
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E. Summary of Peak Discharges for
the Planning Area
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
E-1
E. SUMMARY OF PEAK DISCHARGES FOR THE PLANNING
AREA
Table E-1. Summary of Peak Discharges in Ventura County Waterways Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Adams Canyon Creek
At Telegraph Road 8.40 1,200 3,100 4,200 7,400
Alamos Canyon Creek
At Southern Pacific Railroad 6.00 * * 3,800 *
Arroyo Las Posas
Upstream of confluence of Peach Hill Wash 117.4 8,260 17,120 22,090 36,520 Downstream of confluence of Long Canyon Creek 143.4 9,390 19,460 25,100 41,500 Arroyo Santa Rosa
Upstream of confluence with Arroyo Conejo 14.35 1,970 3,770 4,740 7,510 At confluence of Arroyo Santa Rosa Tributary 13.04 1,980 3,800 4,770 7,570 At East Las Posas Road 8.33 1,861 3,561 4,473 7,099
At Santa Rosa Road 8.61 1,770 2,610 2,830 3,650
Downstream of Duval Road 9.29 1,750 2,580 2,790 3,580
Arroyo Santa Rosa Tributary
Upstream of confluence with Arroyo Santa Rosa 3.75 950 2,590 3,700 6,720 At Vista Arroyo Drive3.75950Upstream of confluence with Arroyo Santa Rosa1.73550At Vista Arroyo Drive Upstream of confluence with Arroyo Santa Rosa
1.73 550 1,060 1,330 2,110
Arroyo Simi
Downstream of confluence with Happy Camp Canyon Creek 113.20 8,300 17,200 22,190 36,670 Downstream of Alamos Canyon 88.70 5,670 13,060 17,460 31,200 Downstream of North Simi Canyon 69.50 5,600 12,890 17,240 30,810 Upstream of Bus Canyon Drain 61.50 5,110 11,950 15,900 28,580 Upstream of Tapo Canyon Channel 32.30 4,440 10,220 13,670 24,420 Downstream of Meier Canyon 30.90 4,460 10,270 13,730 24,540 Upstream of Las Llajas Canyon Channel 10.40 2,410 5,540 7,400 13,230 Upstream of White Oak Canyon 2.70 1,000 2,300 3,080 5,500 Arundell Barranca
At U.S. Highway 101 9.24 1,360 4,420 6,200 11,500
Barlow Barranca
At U.S. Highway 101 2.13 380 1,250 1,700 3,200
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan E. Summary of Peak Discharges for the Planning Area E-2
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Beardsley Wash
At Ventura Freewaya 15.00 2,100 4,600 6,200 11,000
Upstream of Wright Road 14.00 2,300 5,000 6,800 12,000
Bell Canyon Creek
Upstream of Ventura/Los Angeles County boundary
(approximately 1,860 feet downstream of East Bell Canyon Road)
5.13 700 2,340 3,300 6,200
Upstream of elevation 1,128 feet (approximately 2,150 feet downstream of North Buckskin Road)
3.32 490 1,650 2,300 4,300
Brea Canyon Creek
At confluence with Arroyo Simi 2.10 * * 1,250 *
Brown Barranca
At confluence with Santa Clara River 3.49 600 1,930 2,660 5,000 Upstream of Telegraph Road Upstream of Telegraph Road 1.81 325 1,050 1,450 2,700 Bus Canyon Drain
At confluence with Arroyo Simi 5.10 * * 3,050 *
Above confluence of Bus Canyon Drain Tributary 3.70 * * 2,800 * Bus Canyon Drain Tributary
At First Street 1.10 * * 1,300 *
At Fitzgerald Road 0.80 * * 1,050 *
Calleguas Creek
At Highway 1b 262.00 12,230 28,140 37,630 67,240
Downstream of confluence of Conejo Creek 248.30 16,000 30,610 38,460 61,030 Upstream of Conejo Creek & Lewis Drain 168.70 10,390 21,520 27,770 45,900 At Seminary Road 164.90 10,350 21,450 27,680 45,760
Camarillo Hills Drain
Upstream of confluence with Revolon Slough 8.1 1,720 3,564 3,564 7,620 Upstream of confluence of Las Posas Estates Drain1 7.5 1,670 3,336 3,336 7,440 Downstream of confluence of Crestview Drain 5.55 1,780 3,640 4,790 7,920 At Ventura Freeway * * * 3,220 *
At Lantana Street * * * 2,226 *
At Dunnigan Street * * * 842 *
Downstream of Ponderosa Drive * * * 737 *
Cañada Larga
At confluence with Ventura Rivera 19.1 5,047 7,801 8,632 12,945 Just downstream of Ojai Freewaya * 5,047 7,975 8,940 15,394 Approximately 450 feet upstream of Ojai Freewaya * 4,917 9,087 11,586 21,266 At Canada Larga Right Overbanka * 4,917 10,145 13,748 26,639 Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Ojai Freeway 16.2 5,240 14,220 20,004 39,050 Downstream of confluence of Canada de Aliso 13.2 5,110 13,860 19,500 38,060 Downstream of confluence of Conche Creek 8.7 3,350 9,100 12,800 24,990 Downstream of confluence of Sulphur Creek 8.2 3,190 8,649 12,158 23,705 Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan E. Summary of Peak Discharges for the Planning Area E-3
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Cañada Larga Left Overbank
At confluence with Ventura Riverd * 0 1,413 2,472 5,938 Approximately 400 feet downstream of Ojai Freewayd * 0 1,562 3,200 8,684 At Norway Drive approximately 540 feet north of East
Bounds Road intersectiond
* 0 1,113 2,647 5,873
Cañada Larga Right Overbank
At confluence with Ventura Riverd * 322 4,156 6,616 13,511 At Ojai Freeway and Canada Larga Roadd * 324 5,134 8,419 17,785 Conejo Creek
At confluence with Calleguas Creek 77.60 9,300 17,800 22,300 35,500 At Highway 101 bridge 71.90 9,560 18,300 22,000 36,500
Downstream of confluence of Arroyo Conejo 60.00 9,660 18,500 23,200 36,900 Coyote Creek
Upstream of confluence with Ventura River 41.10 680 1,980 3,410 4,830 Approximately 570 feet downstream of Casitas Dam Spillway 40.10 671 1,953 3,363 4,766 At Casitas Dam Spillway 38.50 120 370 2,590 3,750
Cozy Del Canyon
Downstream of confluence with McDonald Canyon Draina 3.4 790 2,066 2,734 4,370 Upstream of confluence with McDonald Canyon Draina 2.4 720 1,886 2,476 3,870 Approximately 705 feet downstream of Maricopa Highwaya * 590 1,546 1,998 2,968 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Maricopa Highway 2.1 590 1,610 2,262 4,420 Doris Avenue Drain
At Patterson Road 0.40 50 150 250 750
Approximately 1,000 feet west of Ventura Road 0.10 10 20 50 130 Dry Canyon Drain
At Heywood Street 3.70 * * 3,350 *
At Southern Pacific Railroad 2.90 * * 2,400 *
At Highway 118/Simi Valley Freeway2.20**1,750*At Heywood Street3.70**3,350*At Highway 118/Simi Valley Freeway
2.20 * * 1,750 *
Edgemore Drain
Downstream of Getman Street * * * 451 *
Downstream of Aileen Street * * * 366 *
El Rio Drain
At confluence with Santa Clara River 1.70 90 220 300 800 At Vineyard Avenue 1.60 90 190 250 800
Downstream of Ventura Freeway 1.40 90 160 200 760
Upstream of Ventura Freeway 0.87 170 450 580 1,100
Downstream of Walnut Drive 0.26 70 170 220 400
Erringer Drain
Upstream of confluence with Arroyo Simi 1.40 * * 1,420 * At Arcane Street 1.30 * * 1,410 *
At Fitzgerald Street 1.20 * * 1,410 *
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan E. Summary of Peak Discharges for the Planning Area E-4
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Happy Valley Drain
Downstream of confluence with McDonald Canyon Drain
South
1.55 636 1,126 1,370 2,058
Upstream of confluence with McDonald Canyon Drain South 1.32 608 1,077 1,310 1,968 Downstream of confluence with Happy Valley Drain South 1.23 602 1,067 1,298 1,949 Upstream of confluence with Happy Valley Drain South 1.23 620 1,099 1,337 2,008 Downstream of confluence with Happy Valley Drain Tributary 0.91 477 846 1,029 1,545 Upstream of confluence with Happy Valley Drain Tributary 0.51 318 563 685 949 Downstream of El Roblar Drive 0.44 285 504 613 840
Upstream of El Roblar Drive 0.31 210 372 452 679
Upstream of State Route 33 0.27 183 327 394 679
Happy Valley Drain South
At confluence with Ventura River 1.1 410 730 890 1,840
Approximately 320 feet upstream of Old Baldwin Road 0.4 188 333 405 1,110 Upstream of confluence of Mira Monte Drain 0.2 166 296 359 1,046 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of confluence of Mira
Monte Drain
0.1 65 111 134 701
Happy Valley Drain Tributary
Upstream of State Route 33 0.39 27 39 58 88
Downstream of State Route 33 0.13 83 147 178 268
At confluence with Happy Valley Drain 0.04 218 386 470 706 Harmon Barranca
At confluence with Santa Clara River 5.28 700 2,320 3,270 6,100 Upstream of Telephone Road 4.59 610 2,070 2,900 5,400
Hummingbird Creek
At Alscot Avenue 1.90 * * 1,790 *
At Keuhner Drive 1.80 * * 1,570 *
At Freeway 1.60 * * 1,480 *
J Street Drain
At mouth 1.90 200 550 900 3,000
At Pleasant Valley Road 1.70 200 500 850 2,900
At Bard Road 1.50 150 450 750 2,450
At Redwood Street 0.90 100 300 450 1,500
Lang Creek
Upstream of confluence of Arroyo Conejo 6.80 1,390 2,670 3,350 5,320 Downstream of Wilbur Road 6.00 1,390 2,610 3,280 5,210
Las Llajas Canyon Channel
At Industrial Street 12.50 * * 2,800 *
Las Posas Estates Drain
Upstream of confluence with Camarillo Hills Drive 2.50 380 1,240 1,710 3,200 Northeast of Central Avenue at elevation 103 feet 1.88 310 980 1,360 2,600 Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan E. Summary of Peak Discharges for the Planning Area E-5
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Manuel Canyon
At confluence with Ventura Rivera * 520 1,331 1,614 2,925 Approximately 50 feet downstream of Crooked Palm Roada * 520 1,337 1,768 3,379 Approximately 600 feet upstream of North Ventura Avenue 1.04 520 1,400 1,970 3,850 Manuel Canyon Left Overbank
At confluence with Ventura Rivera * 0 71 359 929
McDonald Canyon Drain South
At confluence with McDonald Canyon Drain 0.2 67 119 314 993 Approximately 50 feet downstream of South La Luna Avenue 0.1 47 83 269 927 Approximately 410 feet upstream of West El Roblar Drive * 20 40 169 775 McNell Creek
Upstream of confluence with San Antonio Creek 2.2 570 1,540 2,170 4,240 Downstream of confluences of North and South Tributaries 1.1 470 1,270 1,780 3,470 Downstream of Upper McNell Creek South 0.6 220 590 833 1,630 Mills Road Drain
At U.S. Highway 101 1.30 240 790 1,100 2,000
Mira Monte Drain
At confluence with Happy Valley Drain South 0.7 180 480 680 1,330 Approximately 360 feet upstream of Loma Drive 0.4 107 280 394 773 Mirror Lake Drain
At confluence with Ventura Rivera 0.39 139 330 433 851
Just upstream of Bonmark Drivea * 139 238 394 620
Approximately 80 feet downstream of North Ventura
Avenuea
* 16 34 46 80
Approximately 250 feet upstream of North Ventura Avenuea * 16 39 54 102 Mirror Lake Drain Overland Reach
At confluence with Mirror Lake Draina,e 0.34 38 91 136 225 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of confluence with Mirror Lake Draine
* 40 124 241 622
Upstream of stormwater conduit approximately 0.4 mile
upstream of confluence with Mirror Lake Drain
* 108 286 403 784
Mission Drain
Downstream of Glenbrook Avenue * * * 570 *
Downstream of Coe Street * * * 666 *
North Simi Drain
At confluence with Arroyo Simi 2.20 * * 1,952 *
At First Street 1.80 * * 1,610 *
At Simi Valley Freeway 1.40 * * 789 *
Oak View Drain
At confluence with Ventura River 0.9 430 760 919 1,380
At Ventura Highway 0.5 223 383 460 680
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan E. Summary of Peak Discharges for the Planning Area E-6
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Oxnard Industrial Drain
At mouth 8.90 500 1,400 2,100 7,600
Above confluence of Rice Avenue Drain 3.40 250 600 950 3,400 At East Wooley Road 1.90 150 400 650 2,300
Oxnard West Drain
At Edison Company Water Canal 4.9 400 1,050 1,750 5,850 At Channel Islands Boulevard 3.5 300 800 1,300 4,400
At West Hemlock Street 3.2 300 750 1,250 4,100
At Wooley Road 2.8 250 620 1,050 3,450
At West Fifth Street 2.2 200 500 800 2,650
Peach Hill Wash
Upstream of confluence with Calleguas Creek/Arroyo Las
Posas/Arroyo Simi
3.95 700 1,450 1,870 3,090
Upstream of Home Acres Drive 2.60 470 970 1,250 2,060
Downstream of confluence of Small Dam/Debris Basin Dike 1.13 530 1,100 1,420 2,350 Upstream of Peach Hill Road 0.43 240 500 650 1,080
Peck Road Drain
At confluence with Santa Clara River 1.2 370a 980 1,150 1,370 At Santa Paula Streeta * 410 630 730 990
Just downstream of Foothill Road * 850 1,500 1,820 2,730 Piru Creek
At confluence with Santa Clara River 441 2,500 33,000 41,000 60,000 Pole Creek
At confluence with Santa Clara River 9.10 6,178 6,827 7,484 14,686 Ponderosa Drain
Downstream of Mobil Avenue * * * 308 *
Reeves Creek
At confluence with Thacher Creek 4.90 1,530 4,150 5,840 11,400 Upstream of confluence of McAndrews Canyon Creek 4.2 1,390 3,760 5,290 10,330 Downstream of Upper Reeves Creek 1.9 880 2,380 3,350 6,540 Revolon Slough
Downstream of Camarillo Hills Drain 38.70 2,500 7,100 10,000 20,000 At Highway 101 30.00 2,200 6,200 8,700 16,500
Rice Avenue (Road) Drain
At Rose Avenue 4.40 230 600 900 3,050
At Etting Road 4.10 200 550 800 2,600
At Ventura County limits south of Wooley Road 2.20 50 110 150 1,500 At downstream crossing of Southern Pacific Railroad 1.90 30 45 50 1,500 Approximately 500 feet upstream of Southern Pacific
Railroad crossing
1.30 110 300 500 1,650
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan E. Summary of Peak Discharges for the Planning Area E-7
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Rincon Creek
At confluence with Pacific Ocean 14.60 2,990 7,530 10,320 * At U.S. Highway 101 culvert 14.60 2,990 7,530 8,500 *
Upstream of U.S. Highway 101 culvert 14.60 2,990 7,530 10,320 * Runkle Canyon Creek
At confluence with Arroyo Simi 2.80 * * 1,400 *
At Fitzgerald Road 2.40 * * 1,200 *
San Antonio Creek
At confluence with Ventura Rivera 51.1 9,960 24,715 32,679 51,450 Approximately 410 feet upstream of North Ventura Avenue 49.7 9,930 26,946 37,893 73,689 Upstream of confluence of San Antonio Creek Tributary 46.5 10,430 28,300 39,800 77,690 Upstream of confluence with Lion Canyon Creek 33.8 7,760 21,050 29,600 57,780 Downstream of Stewart Canyon Creek 31.3 8,590 23,320 32,800 64,030 Upstream of confluence of Steward Canyon Creek 26.5 7,620 20,690 29,100 56,800 Downstream of confluence of Thacher Creek 25.4 7,490 20,330 28,600 55,830 Downstream of confluence of McNell Creek 13.5 5,760 15,630 21,980 42,900 Upstream of confluence of McNell Creekc 11.3 4,220 11,450 16,100 31,430 At the confluences of Senior Canyon Creek and Gridley
Canyon Creekc
9.7 4,590 12,440 17,500 34,160
Upstream of confluence of Gridley Canyon Creekc 5.8 2,860 7,750 10,990 21,280 Santa Clara Ditch
Upstream of Nyeland Sump 9.26 920 3,120 4,430 8,200
Upstream of Central Avenue 6.65 750 2,530 3,580 6,600
Santa Clara River
At mouth 1,625 41,000 116,000 161,000 270,000
At Willard Bridge 1,534 41,000 116,000 161,000 270,000
Upstream of confluence of Santa Paula Creek 1,505 40,000 113,000 157,000 265,000 Downstream of confluence of Sespe Creek 1,500 40,000 113,000 157,000 265,000 Upstream of confluence of Sespe Creek 1,182 23,000 66,000 92,000 160,000 Downstream of confluence of Hopper Creek 1,174 40,000 113,000 157,000 265,000 Downstream of confluence of Piru Creek 1,100 40,000 113,000 157,000 265,000 At Ventura County/Los Angeles County boundary 644 15,000 43,000 60,000 104,000 Santa Clara River Breakout
At mouth at Pacific Ocean * * 28,000 73,000 182,000
Santa Paula Creek
At stream gauging station 40 6,800 18,000 26,000 48,000 Sespe Creek
Approximately 4,000 feet downstream of Highway 126 263 33,000 72,000 92,000 145,000 Approximately 5,000 feet upstream of Southern Pacific
Railroad
259 29,000 62,000 80,000 131,000
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan E. Summary of Peak Discharges for the Planning Area E-8
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Skyline Drain
At the confluence with Ventura Riverd,e 1.0 440 737 936 1,427 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of confluence with Ventura Riverd,e
* 10 137 336 827
Approximately 130 feet downstream of Willey Streetd,e * 10 45 202 629 Approximately 200 feet downstream of North Ventura
Avenued,e
* 10 29 180 594
Approximately 100 feet downstream of Valley Meadow Court * 340 598 726 1,092 Somis Drain
At Corby Avenue * * * 582 *
At Shepherd Drive * * * 952 *
South Branch Arroyo Conejo
Upstream of Ventura Freeway 10.72 1,470 4,850 6,800 12,800 Upstream of Jenny Drive Extension 7.46 1,210 4,000 5,700 10,700 Stewart Canyon Creek
Upstream of confluence with San Antonio Creek 5.0 1,382 4,059 5,941 12,830 Sycamore Canyon Creek
Below detention dam * * * 184 *
Tapo Canyon Channel
At confluence with Arroyo Simi 20.70 * * 8,500 *
At Tapo Canyon Road 17.80 * * 8,500 *
Telephone Road Drain
At confluence with Arundell Barranca 2.02 430 1,290 1,760 3,300 Upstream of U.S. Highway 101 1.68 375 1,110 1,500 2,800 Thacher Creek
At confluence with San Antonio Creek 10.60 2,860 7,750 10,900 21,280 Downstream of confluence of Reeves Creek 8.70 3,200 8,670 12,200 23,810 Upstream of confluence of Reeves Creek 3.40 1,730 4,690 6,590 12,860 Thousand Oaks North Drain
Upstream of confluence of Arroyo Conejo 1.26 780 1,490 1,870 2,970 At State Highway 23 1.13 740 1,420 1,780 2,830
At La Jolla Drive 0.90 630 1,210 1,530 2,420
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan E. Summary of Peak Discharges for the Planning Area E-9
Drainage Area Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location (square miles) 10-Percent 2-Percent 1-Percent 0.2- Percent Ventura River
At Pacific Oceanc 226 34,000 67,000 78,000 103,000
At Shell Chemical Plant 223 41,300 67,900 78,900 105,500 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of confluence of Canada Larga
191 36,583 59,999 70,055 93,593
At Casitas Vista Road 188 36,400 59,700 69,700 93,100
Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Casitas Vista Road 148 35,529 57,135 67,239 90,127 Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of confluence of San Antonio Creek
144 35,000 56,600 66,600 89,000
Approximately 300 feet upstream of confluence of San
Antonio Creek
92.8 16,449 25,493 29,104 37,856
At Baldwin Road 83.0 16,000 24,800 28,300 36,700
Approximately 1,120 feet upstream of Camino Cielo 72.4 15,000 24,000 27,100 35,200 Upstream of confluence of North Fork Matilija Creek 56.4 12,500 18,800 21,600 27,900 Walnut Canyon Drain
At Walnut Canyon Road 0.61 310 640 820 1,360
West Camarillo Hills Tributary
At Euclid Avenue * * * 820 *
West Wooley Drain
At West Hemlock Street 0.80 100 300 450 1,550
At Ventura Railway crossing 0.20 25 70 100 390
White Oak Creek
At confluence with Arroyo Simi 4.20 * * 3,470 *
At confluence with Hummingbird Creek 3.70 * * 2,670 *
At freeway 1.50 * * 960 *
Note: All locations are at mouth unless otherwise noted. Locations do not include jurisdictional boundaries. *Data not available
a. Decrease due to overbank losses upstream
b. Decrease due to Bajo Aqua timing of hydrograph attenuation (Calleguas Creek) c. Discharges are larger than those downstream due to updated hydrology (San Antonio Creek & Ventura River) d. Discharge received from adjacent overbank flow
e. Discharge decreased to due stormwater conduit
Source: Ventura County FIS 06111CV002E, FEMA January 29, 2021
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix F. FEMA Approval and Partner
Adoption Resolutions
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
F-1
F. FEMA APPROVAL AND PARTNER ADOPTION
RESOLUTIONS
To be provided with final draft of this hazard mitigation plan update.
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
Multi-JurisdictionalMulti-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation PlanHazard Mitigation Plan
June 2022
Ventura County
Update 2022
Volume 2—Jurisdictional Annexes
ATTACHMENT #2
DPW: 520-10\gw\ev\Council\2022\083022\Hazard Mitigation Plan Adoption Attachment 2.pdf Item No.7D
Item No.7D
Ventura County
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update 2022
June 2022
PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY
County of Ventura Tetra Tech
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
1999 Harrison St., Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
510-302-6300 | tetratech.com
Tetra Tech Project #103s7428
\\tts121fs1\Data\EMCR_Projects\California\VenturaCounty\HMP 2021_103s7429\Plan Development\Plan Documents\2022-06_Final\2022-06_VenturaHMP_Vol2_Final.docx
Item No.7D
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents v
CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ xv Background ....................................................................................................................................... xv The Planning Partnership ................................................................................................................ xvi Annex Development .........................................................................................................................xvii
1. Ventura County (Unincorporated Area) .......................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ....................................................................................1-1
1.2 Jurisdiction Profile ......................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Current Trends ...........................................................................................................................1-3
1.4 Capability Assessment ...............................................................................................................1-6
1.5 Integration Review ...................................................................................................................1-13
1.6 Risk Assessment .....................................................................................................................1-15
1.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...............................................................................................1-21
1.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..................................................................................................1-22
1.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex ...............................................................................1-29
2. City of Camarillo ............................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ....................................................................................2-1
2.2 Jurisdiction Profile ......................................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Current Trends ...........................................................................................................................2-2
2.4 Capability Assessment ...............................................................................................................2-4
2.5 Integration Review ...................................................................................................................2-10
2.6 Risk Assessment .....................................................................................................................2-11
2.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...............................................................................................2-14
2.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..................................................................................................2-15
2.9 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................2-19
2.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................2-19
3. City of Fillmore ................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ....................................................................................3-1
3.2 Jurisdiction Profile ......................................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Current Trends ...........................................................................................................................3-2
3.4 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................... 3-2
3.5 Integration Review .....................................................................................................................3-8
3.6 Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................................3-9
3.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...............................................................................................3-11
3.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..................................................................................................3-12
3.9 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................3-14
3.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................3-14
4. City of Moorpark ............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ....................................................................................4-1
4.2 Jurisdiction Profile ......................................................................................................................4-1 Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents vi
4.3 Current Trends ...........................................................................................................................4-3
4.4 Capability Assessment ...............................................................................................................4-5
4.5 Integration Review ...................................................................................................................4-10
4.6 Risk Assessment .....................................................................................................................4-10
4.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...............................................................................................4-12
4.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..................................................................................................4-13
4.9 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................4-16
4.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................4-16
5. City of Ojai ......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ....................................................................................5-1
5.2 Jurisdiction Profile ......................................................................................................................5-1
5.3 Current Trends ...........................................................................................................................5-2
5.4 Capability Assessment ...............................................................................................................5-2
5.5 Integration Review .....................................................................................................................5-8
5.6 Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................................5-9
5.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...............................................................................................5-10
5.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..................................................................................................5-11
5.9 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................5-13
5.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................5-14
6. City of Oxnard ................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ....................................................................................6-1
6.2 Jurisdiction Profile ......................................................................................................................6-2
6.3 Current Trends ...........................................................................................................................6-3
6.4 Capability Assessment ...............................................................................................................6-4
6.5 Integration Review ...................................................................................................................6-11
6.6 Risk Assessment .....................................................................................................................6-12
6.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...............................................................................................6-15
6.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..................................................................................................6-17
6.9 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................6-22
6.10 Infor
mation Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................6-23
6.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ..........................................................6-24
7. City of Port Hueneme ....................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ....................................................................................7-1
7.2 Jurisdiction Profile ......................................................................................................................7-1
7.3 Current Trends ...........................................................................................................................7-2
7.4 Capability Assessment ...............................................................................................................7-2
7.5 Integration Review .....................................................................................................................7-9
7.6 Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................................7-9
7.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...............................................................................................7-12
7.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..................................................................................................7-13
7.9 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................7-15
7.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................7-15
8. City of Santa Paula ........................................................................................................... 8-1 Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents vii
8.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ....................................................................................8-1
8.2 Jurisdiction Profile ......................................................................................................................8-1
8.3 Current Trends ...........................................................................................................................8-2
8.4 Capability Assessment ...............................................................................................................8-4
8.5 Integration Review ...................................................................................................................8-10
8.6 Risk Assessment .....................................................................................................................8-11
8.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...............................................................................................8-12
8.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..................................................................................................8-12
8.9 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................8-17
8.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................8-17
9. City of Simi Valley............................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ....................................................................................9-1
9.2 Jurisdiction Profile ......................................................................................................................9-1
9.3 Current Trends ...........................................................................................................................9-2
9.4 Capability Assessment ...............................................................................................................9-4
9.5 Integration Review ...................................................................................................................9-10
9.6 Risk Assessment .....................................................................................................................9-11
9.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...............................................................................................9-15
9.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..................................................................................................9-18
9.9 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................9-22
9.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................9-22
10. City of Thousand Oaks ................................................................................................. 10-1
10.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................10-1
10.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................10-1
10.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................10-2
10.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................10-3
10.5 Integration Review ...............................................................................................................10-10
10.6 Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................10-12
10.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...........................................................................................10-13
10.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ................................ ..............................................................10-13
10.9 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................10-18
10.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .........................................................................10-19
10.11 Additional Comments .........................................................................................................10-19
11. City of Ventura .............................................................................................................. 11-1
11.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................11-1
11.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................11-1
11.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................11-2
11.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................11-2
11.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................11-9
11.6 Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................11-10
11.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...........................................................................................11-13
11.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..............................................................................................11-13
11.9 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................11-18
11.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .........................................................................11-18 Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents viii
11.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................11-19
11.12 Additional Comments .........................................................................................................11-19
12. California State University, Channel Islands .............................................................. 12-1
12.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................12-1
12.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................12-1
12.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................12-4
12.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................12-4
12.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................12-7
12.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................12-9
12.7 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..............................................................................................12-11
12.8 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................12-13
12.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex ...........................................................................12-13
12.10 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................12-14
13. Calleguas Municipal Water District ............................................................................. 13-1
13.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................13-1
13.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................13-1
13.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................13-4
13.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................13-4
13.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................13-8
13.6 Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................13-10
13.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...........................................................................................13-11
13.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..............................................................................................13-12
13.9 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................13-15
13.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .........................................................................13-15
14. Casitas Municipal Water District ................................................................................. 14-1
14.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................14-1
14.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................14-1
14.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................14-3
14.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................14-3
14.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................14-7
14.6 R
isk Assessment ...................................................................................................................14-8
14.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...........................................................................................14-10
14.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..............................................................................................14-10
14.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex ...........................................................................14-12
14.10 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................14-13
15. Channel Islands Beach Community Services District ............................................... 15-1
15.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................15-1
15.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................15-1
15.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................15-2
15.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................15-3
15.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................15-6
15.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................15-7
15.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions .............................................................................................15-8 Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents ix
15.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................15-9
15.9 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................15-11
15.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .........................................................................15-12
15.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................15-12
16. Conejo Recreation & Park District .............................................................................. 16-1
16.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................16-1
16.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................16-1
16.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................16-2
16.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................16-2
16.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................16-6
16.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................16-6
16.7 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................16-8
16.8 Public Outreach .....................................................................................................................16-9
16.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................16-9
16.10 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................16-10
17. Ojai Valley Sanitary District ......................................................................................... 17-1
17.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................17-1
17.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................17-1
17.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................17-2
17.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................17-2
17.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................17-5
17.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................17-6
17.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions .............................................................................................17-7
17.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................17-7
17.9 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................17-8
18. Pleasant Valley Recreation & Park District ................................................................ 18-1
18.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................18-1
18.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................18-1
18.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................18-3
18.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................18-3
18.5 Integr
ation Review .................................................................................................................18-6
18.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................18-8
18.7 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................18-9
18.8 Information Sources Used for This Annex ...........................................................................18-12
19. Saticoy Sanitary District .............................................................................................. 19-1
19.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................19-1
19.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................19-1
19.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................19-2
19.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................19-2
19.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................19-5
19.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................19-6
19.7 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................19-8
19.8 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................19-9 Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents x
20. Triunfo Water & Sanitation District ............................................................................. 20-1
20.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................20-1
20.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................20-1
20.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................20-2
20.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................20-3
20.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................20-6
20.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................20-7
20.7 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................20-8
20.8 Information Sources Used for This Annex ...........................................................................20-10
21. United Water Conservation District ............................................................................ 21-1
21.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................21-1
21.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................21-1
21.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................21-3
21.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................21-3
21.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................21-7
21.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................21-9
21.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...........................................................................................21-10
21.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..............................................................................................21-11
21.9 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................21-14
21.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .........................................................................21-14
21.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................21-16
21.12 Additional Comments .........................................................................................................21-16
22. Ventura County Fire Protection District ..................................................................... 22-1
22.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................22-1
22.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................22-1
22.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................22-3
22.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................22-4
22.5 Integration Review ...............................................................................................................22-12
22.6 Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................22-14
22.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...........................................................................................22-18
22.8 H
azard Mitigation Action Plan ..............................................................................................22-18
22.9 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................22-21
22.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .........................................................................22-21
23. Ventura County Office of Education ........................................................................... 23-1
23.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................23-1
23.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................23-1
23.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................23-2
23.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................23-3
23.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................23-6
23.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................23-6
23.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions .............................................................................................23-8
23.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................23-8
23.9 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................23-11
23.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .........................................................................23-11 Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents xi
24. Ventura County Public Works Agency—Watershed Protection ............................... 24-1
24.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................24-1
24.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................24-2
24.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................24-3
24.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................24-3
24.5 Integration Review ...............................................................................................................24-17
24.6 Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................24-19
24.7 Status of Previous Plan Actions ...........................................................................................24-22
24.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ..............................................................................................24-28
24.9 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................24-34
24.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex .........................................................................24-35
25. Ventura Regional Sanitation District ........................................................................... 25-1
25.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................25-1
25.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................25-1
25.3 Current Trends .......................................................................................................................25-2
25.4 Capability Assessment ...........................................................................................................25-2
25.5 Integration Review .................................................................................................................25-5
25.6 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................25-6
25.7 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................25-7
25.8 Information Sources Used for This Annex .............................................................................25-9
Appendices
Appendix A. Planning Partner Expectations
Appendix B. Annex Instructions and Templates
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Acronyms xii
ACRONYMS
The following acronyms are used throughout the annexes in this volume:
• AASHTO— American Association of
State Highway and Transportation
Officials
• AB—Assembly Bill
• APCD—air pollution control district
• BEACON— Beach Erosion Authority for
Clean Oceans and Nourishment
• BOS—Board of Supervisors
• BRIC—Building Resilient Infrastructure
and Communities
• CAAP—Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan
• CAL FIRE—California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection
• Cal OES—California Office of
Emergency Services
• CalARP—California Accidental Release
Prevention Program
• CAMUTCD—California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices
• CDAA—California Disaster Assistance
Act
• CDBG—Community Development Block
Grant
• CDFW—California Department of Fish
and Wildlife
• CEQA—California Environmental
Quality Act
• CERT—Community Emergency
Response Team
• CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
• CIBCSD—Channel Islands Beach
Community Services District
• CIP—capital improvement program
• COS—Conservation and Open Space
Element
• COSCA—Conejo Open Space
Conservancy Agency
• COSP—City of Santa Paula
• CRPD—Conejo Recreation and Park
District
• CRS—Community Rating System
• CSU—California State University
• CSUCI—California State University,
Channel Islands
• CTM—Circulation, Transportation, and
Mobility Element
• DAC—disadvantaged community
• DFIRM—digital flood insurance rate
map
• DHS—Department of Homeland
Security
• DSOD—Division of Safety of Dams
• DUNS—Dun and Bradstreet Number
• DWR—Department of Water Resources
• EAP—emergency action plan
• EIR—Environmental Impact Report
• EMPG—Emergency Management
Performance Grant
• EOC—emergency operations center
• EOP—emergency operations plan
• EPA—Environmental Protection Agency
• ERP—
emergency response plan
• ESRM—Environmental Science and
Resource Management
• FB—finance and budgeting
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Acronyms xiii
• FEMA—Federal Emergency
Management Agency
• FHRP—fire hazard reduction program
• FIPS—Federal Information Processing
System
• FIRM—flood insurance rate map
• FMA—Flood Mitigation Assistance
Grant Program
• FMAP—Fire Management Assistance
Program
• FWS—flood warning system
• GHG—greenhouse gas
• GIS—geographic information system
• GSA—Ventura County General
Services Agency
• HHPD—Rehabilitation of High Hazard
Potential Dams
• HMA—Hazard Mitigation Assistance
• HMGP—Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program
• HMP—hazard mitigation plan
• HPS—City of Santa Paula Hazards and
Public Safety Element
• IDF—Inflow Design Flood
• IGC—intergovernmental coordination
• IRWM—Integrated Regional Water
Management
• IRWMP—Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan
• JP—joint partnership
• LARWQCB—Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board
• LCP—Local Coastal Program
• LLAP—Local Levee Assistance
Program
• MDERP—Matilija Dam Ecosystem
Restoration Project
• MPSP—master plans, strategies, and
programs
• MS4—municipal separate storm sewer
system
• MWD—municipal water district
• NFIP—National Flood Insurance
Program
• NFWF—National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation
• NGO—non-governmental organization
• NOAA—National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
• NRCS—Natural Resources
Conservation Service
• NWS—National Weather Service
• OBRAP— Ormond Beach Restoration
and Access Plan
• OCC—Oxnard City Code
• OES—office of emergency services
• OMC—Ojai Municipal Code
• OVLC—Ojai Valley Land Conservancy
• OVSD—Ojai Valley Sanitary District
• PDM—Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant
Program
• PFS—Public Facilities, Services, and
Infrastructure
• PMF—probable maximum flood
• POC—point of contact
• PSPS —public safety power shutoff
• PSR—planning, studies and reports
• PTP—Pumping Trough Pipeline
• PVRPD—Pleasant Valley Recreation &
Park District
• RDR—regulation and development
review
• RHNA—Regional Housing Needs
Allocation
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Acronyms xiv
• SB—Senate Bill
• SCADA—supervisory control and data
acquisition
• SCAG—Southern California Association
of Governments
• SCC—California State Coastal
Conservancy
• SCRC—Santa Clara River Conservancy
• SFD—Santa Felicia Dam
• SFHA—special flood hazard area
• SGMA—Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act
• SLR—sea-level rise
• SMP—Salinity Management Pipeline
• SO—services and operations
• SVMC—Simi Valley Municipal Code
• SVOES—Simi Valley Office of
Emergency Services
• SVPD—Simi Valley Police Department
• SWRCB—California State Water
Resources Control Board
• THIRA—Threat & Hazard Identification
& Risk Assessment
• TNC—The Nature Conservancy
• TOMC—Thousand Oaks Municipal
Code
• USACE—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• USBR—U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
• USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture
• UWCD—United Water Conservation
District
• UWMP—urban water management plan
• VCFPD—Ventura County Fire
Protection District
• VCOE—Ventura County Office of
Education
• VCPWA- RT—Ventura County Public
Works Agency—Roads and
Transportation Department
• VCPWA-WP —Ventura County Public
Works Agency—Watershed Protection
• VCSOES— Ventura County Sheriff’s
Office of Emergency Services
• VCSSFA— Ventura County Schools
Self-Funding Authority
• VCTC—Ventura County Transportation
Commission
• VMT—vehicle miles traveled
• VOAD—Voluntary Organizations Active
in Disaster
• VRSD—Ventura Regional Sanitation
District
• WCB—Wildlife Conservation Board
• WCVC—Watershed Coalition of Ventura
County
• WEA—Wireless Emergency Alerts
• WSD—Water and Sanitation District
Item No.7D
xv
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Ventura County’s hazard mitigation plan was developed and adopted in 2005 as a multi-jurisdictional process. Subsequent updates conducted in both 2010 and 2015 were also multi-jurisdictional efforts.
Multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation planning can be an effective process to build partnerships between communities that face common hazard risks, leading to shared solutions. It can also help build a foundation to shift priorities as risks and vulnerabilities change. Multi-jurisdictional planning processes are encouraged by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and offer the following advantages:
• Improves communication and coordination among jurisdictions and other regional entities • Enables comprehensive mitigation approaches to reduce risks that affect multiple jurisdictions • Maximizes economies of scale by leveraging individual capabilities and sharing costs and resources
• Avoids duplication of efforts, and
Provides an organizational structure that local jurisdictions may find supportive.
For the Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022 update, a planning partnership was formed that expanded the partnership established during the 2015 hazard mitigation plan update, leveraging resources and meeting requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act for as many eligible local governments as possible. The Disaster Mitigation Act defines a local government as follows:
“Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity.”
In addition to the County, the jurisdictions participating in the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022 update include:
• 10 incorporated municipalities
• 14 special districts
All participating jurisdictions in a multi-jurisdictional plan must meet the requirements of Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR):
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xvi
“Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan.” (Section 201.6(a)(4)).
Each participating planning partner prepared a jurisdiction-specific annex to this plan. These annexes, as well as information on the process by which they were created, are contained in this volume.
THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
Initial Solicitation and Letters of Commitment
A planning team made up of Ventura County staff solicited the participation of eligible municipalities and special districts in June 2019, at the outset of this update effort. Emails were sent to the applicable points of contact for the 18 members of the 2015 plan and to additional interested parties. Local governments wishing to join the planning effort were asked to provide the California Office of Emergency Services and County with a “letter of commitment” as a participating jurisdiction in the County’s plan update process. In all, the planning team received formal commitment from 24 planning partners in addition to the County.
Municipalities/County
• Ventura County
• City of Camarillo
• City of Fillmore
• City of Moorpark
• City of Ojai
• City of Oxnard
• City of Port Hueneme
• City of Santa Paula
• City of Simi Valley
• City of Thousand Oaks
• City of Ventura
Special-Purpose Districts
• California State University, Channel Islands
• Calleguas Municipal Water District
• Casitas Municipal Water District
• Channel Islands Beach Community Services District
• Conejo Recreation & Park District
• O jai Valley Sanitary District
• Pleasant Valley Recreation & Park District
• Saticoy Sanitary District
• Triunfo Water & Sanitation District
• United Water Conservation District
• Ventura County Fire Protection District
• Ventura County Office of Education
• Ventura County Public Works Agency—Watershed
Protection
• Ventura Regional Sanitation District
A map showing the location of participating special-purpose districts is provided at the end of this introduction. Risk assessment maps for all planning areas (countywide) are provided in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan while maps showing the risk assessment results for each of the participating municipalities are provided in the individual annexes for each city.
Item No.7D
Introduction
xvii
Planning Partner Expectations
The planning team and consultant, Tetra Tech, developed the following list of planning partner expectations, which were provided and discussed at a formal kickoff meeting held in May 2021 (see Appendix A for details):
• Re-confirm lead and primary points of contact for the update effort. • Support and participate in the Steering Committee meetings. • Provide support required to implement the public involvement strategy. • Participate in the planning process through:
Steering Committee meetings
Public meetings and outreach efforts
Workshops and planning partner-specific training sessions Public review and comment periods prior to adoption.
• Perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies, plans and ordinances specific to hazards.
• Review the risk assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific to the jurisdiction. • Attend the mandatory Phase 3 jurisdictional annex workshop. • Review and determine if the mitigation recommendations chosen in Volume 1 will meet the needs of the jurisdiction.
• Create an action plan that identifies each project, who will oversee the task, how it will be financed, and when it is estimated to occur.
• Formally adopt the hazard mitigation plan.
By adopti ng t he hazard mitigation plan, each planning partner also agrees to the plan implementation and maintenance protocol established in Volume 1. Failure to meet these criteria would result in a partner being dropped from the partnership by the Steering Committee, and thus losing eligibility under the scope of the plan. All planning partners met the planning partner expectations, including attendance at mandatory workshops.
Final Coverage
All of the above jurisdictions submitted letters of commitment to participate, completed an annex template, fully met the participation requirements for this update, and will be covered by the updated hazard mitigation plan upon FEMA’s approval of the plan and adoption of the plan by their individual governing bodies.
ANNEX DEVELOPMENT
Capability Assessment
A capability assessment creates an inventory of a jurisdiction’s mission, programs, and policies, and evaluates its capacity to carry them out. All participating jurisdictions compiled a capability assessment which helped to identify potential gaps in the jurisdictions’ capabilities. Specifically, if the capability Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xviii
assessment identified an opportunity to add a missing core capability or expand an existing one, then doing so has been selected as an action in the jurisdiction’s action plan. The sections below describe specific capabilities evaluated under the assessment.
Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
Jurisdictions can develop policies and programs and implement rules and regulations to protect and serve residents. Local policies are typically identified in planning documents, implemented via a local ordinance, and enforced by a governmental body. Because the planning and regulatory authority of counties and municipalities is generally broader than that of special-purpose districts, the assessment of these capabilities is more detailed for those partners.
Development and Permitting Capability
The County and its municipalities regulate land use through the adoption and enforcement of zoning, subdivision, and land development ordinances, building codes, building permit ordinances, floodplain, and stormwater management ordinances. When effectively prepared and administered, these regulations can mitigate hazards. As special-purpose districts typically do not have the ability to regulate land use, this capability was assessed only for the County and municipalities.
Fiscal Capability
Assessing a jurisdiction’s fiscal capability provides an understanding of the ability to fulfill the financial needs associated with hazard mitigation projects. This assessment identifies both outside resources, such as grant-funding eligibility, and local jurisdictional authority to generate internal financial capability, such as through impact fees (fees charged to a development project).
Administrative and Technical Capability
Without appropriate personnel, the mitigation strategy may not be implemented. Administrative and technical capabilities focus on the availability of personnel resources responsible for implementing all the facets of hazard mitigation. These resources include technical experts, such as engineers, scientists, and grant writers.
Education and Outreach Capability
Regular engagement with the public on hazard mitigation provides opportunities to open a two-way dialogue that can result in a more resilient community. Use of a jurisdictional website, social media outlets, and other outreach resources to communicate mitigation information are assessed for each planning partner. Assessing outreach and education capability illustrates the connection between the government and community members.
Compliance with National Flood Insurance Program Requirements Flooding is the costliest natural hazard in the United States and homeowners face increasingly high flood insurance premiums. Community participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) opens up opportunities for additional grant funding associated specifically with flooding issues.
Assessment of a jurisdiction’s current NFIP status and compliance provides a greater understanding of Item No.7D
Introduction
xix
the local flood management program, opportunities for improvement, and available grant funding opportunities. The NFIP is not available to special-purpose districts, so this set of capabilities was assessed only for municipalities and the County.
Participation in Voluntary Programs
Participation in voluntary programs, such as FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS), the National Weather Service’s StormReady and TsunamiReady programs, and the National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise USA, can enhance a jurisdiction’s ability to mitigate, prepare for, and respond to natural hazards. These programs complement each other by focusing on communication, mitigation, and community preparedness to save lives and minimize the impact of natural hazards on a community. Participation in these programs demonstrates a jurisdiction’s commitment to go beyond the minimum requirements set forth by local, state, and federal regulations in order to create a more resilient community. The programs reviewed here are only applicable to municipalities and the County, so were not included in the capability assessments for the special-purpose districts.
Adaptive Capacity
An adaptive capacity assessment evaluates a jurisdiction’s ability to anticipate impacts that may occur in the future. By looking at public support, technical adaptive capacity, and other factors, jurisdictions can identify their core capability for resilience against issues such as sea level rise and climate change.
The assessment provides jurisdictions with an opportunity to identify areas for improvement by ranking their adaptive capacity as high, medium, or low.
Mitigation Action Plan Development
Risk Ranking
The risk-ranking methodology for partner annexes was the same as that used for the countywide risk ranking described in Volume 1. Each planning partner was asked to review the ranked risk for its jurisdiction, based on the impact on its population and/or facilities. Municipalities and the County based this ranking on the probability of occurrence of each hazard, and its potential impact on people, property, and the economy. Special-purpose districts based this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on their constituency, vital facilities, and the facilities’ functionality after a hazard event.
The objectives of this exercise were to familiarize the planning partnership with how to use the risk ranking, part of the assessment results, as a tool to support other planning and hazard mitigation processes and to help prioritize types of mitigation actions that should be considered. Hazards that were ranked as “high” and “medium” for each jurisdiction were considered to be priorities for identifying mitigation actions, although jurisdictions also identified actions to mitigate hazards ranked “low”, as appropriate.
Information Reviewed to Develop the Action Plan
In September 2021, each planning partner was provided with a tool kit of relevant documents to assist in developing their jurisdiction’s action plan and was required to attend a workshop that provided Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xx
guidance to develop their action plans. The tool kits were used during the mandatory Phase 3 workshops and in follow-up work conducted by the planning partners. Planning partners reviewed the following information included in the tool kit to assist in the identification of proposed mitigation actions:
• Capability assessment—Reviewed to identify capabilities that the jurisdiction does not currently have but should consider pursuing, or capabilities that should be revisited and updated to include best available information; also reviewed to determine how existing capabilities can be leveraged to increase or improve hazard mitigation in the jurisdiction. • National Flood Insurance Program compliance table—Reviewed to identify opportunities to increase floodplain management capabilities.
• Adaptive capacity—Reviewed to identify ways to leverage or continue to improve existing capacities and to improve understanding of other capacities. • Future integration opportunities—Reviewed to identify specific integration actions to be included in the mitigation strategy.
• Jurisdiction-specific vulnerabilities—Reviewed to identify actions that could reduce known vulnerabilities.
• Mitigation best practices catalog—Reviewed to identify actions that the jurisdiction should consider including in its action plan.
• Public input—Reviewed to identify potential actions and community priorities.
Action Plan Prioritization
The mitigation actions recommended in each jurisdiction’s action plan were prioritized based on the following factors:
• Cost and availability of funding
• Benefit, based on likely risk reduction to be achieved • Number of plan objectives achieved
• Timeframe for project implementation
• Eligibility for grant funding programs
Two priorities were assigned for each action:
• A high, medium, or low priority for implementing the action • A high, medium, or low priority for pursuing grant funding for the action.
The sections below describe the benefit-cost analysis and the assignment of the two priority ratings.
Benefit/Cost Review
Pursuant to 44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(3)(iii), the action plan must be prioritized according to a benefit- cost analysis (BCA) of the proposed actions. BCA is a method that determines the future risk reduction benefits of a hazard mitigation project and compares those benefits to its costs. For this hazard mitigation plan, a qualitative review was performed for each mitigation action by assigning ratings for benefit and cost as follows:
Item No.7D
Introduction
xxi
• Cost:
High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the action; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). Medium—The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re- apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years.
Low—The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of, or can be part of, an ongoing, existing program.
• Benefit:
High—Action will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. Medium—Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or action will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property. Low—Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.
To assign priorities, each action with a benefit rating equal to or higher than its cost rating (such as high benefit/medium cost, medium benefit/medium cost, medium benefit/low cost, etc.) was considered to be cost-beneficial. It is important to note that this qualitative review is not intended to substitute for the more detailed level of benefit-cost analysis required for some FEMA hazard-related grant programs.
More specific analysis would be performed at the time a given action is submitted for grant funding approval.
Implementation Priority
Implementation priority ratings were assigned as follows:
• High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and has a secured source of funding. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). • Medium Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and is eligible for funding though no funding has yet been secured for it. Action can be completed in 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, but has benefits that do not exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, has no secured source of funding, and is not eligible for any known grant funding. Action can be completed in the long term (1 to 10 years). Low- priority actions may be eligible for grant funding from programs that have not yet been identified.
Grant Pursuit Priority
Grant pursuit priority ratings were assigned as follows:
• High Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has high benefits, and is listed as high or medium implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable or available local funds could be used instead for actions that are not eligible for grant funding. • M edium 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.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xxii
• Low Priority—An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility requirements.
Classification of Actions
Each recommended action was also classified based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Mitigation types used for this classification are as follows:
• Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations.
• Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
• 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 P rojects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. • Climate Resiliency—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks, such as sea-level rise or urban heat island effects. • Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities to build capacity, or to respond to consequences of insufficient capacity. Includes staff training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs.
Annex-Preparation Process
Templates
Templates were created for the two types of jurisdictions (municipalities and special districts) participating in this plan to help the planning partners prepare their jurisdiction-specific annexes. The templates were designed so that all criteria of Section 201.6 of 44 CFR for local governments would be met based on the partners’ capabilities and mode of operation. The templates were deployed in three phases during the course of the plan update process as follows:
Item No.7D
Introduction
xxiii
• Phase 1—Profile, Trends, Previous Plan Status
Deployed: May 10, 2021
Due: June 21, 2021
• Phase 2—Capability Assessment and Information Sources Deployed: July 6, 2021
Due: August 20, 2021
• Phase 3—Risk Ranking, Action Plan, and Information Sources Deployed: September 9, 2021
Workshops: September 22-23, 2021
Due: October 25, 2021
The templates were designed to lead all partners through the necessary steps to generate the Disaster Mitigation Act-required elements specific to their jurisdictions. The templates and their instructions are included in Appendix B of this volume.
Tool Kit
Each planning partner was provided with a tool kit to assist in completing the annex template and developing their jurisdiction’s action plan. The tool kits contained the following:
• A copy of the 2015 Ventura County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan • The vision statement, goals and objectives developed for the plan update • Information on past hazard events that have impacted the planning area • The risk assessment results developed for the plan update • A list of jurisdiction-specific issues noted during the risk assessment • Information on climate change and expected impacts in the planning area • Jurisdiction-specific annex templates, with instructions for completing them • A catalog of mitigation best practices and suggested actions to enhance adaptive capacity • Information on the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant program • FEMA guidance on plan integration
• AB 2140 compliance guidance
• The results of the public survey on community awareness of hazards conducted as part of the public involvement strategy
• The public service announcement (PSA) hazard mitigation video produced by the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services and the Ventura County Public Works Agency.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xxiv
Workshop
All partners were required to attend and participate in a virtual technical assistance workshop held the week of September 20, 2021, where key elements of the annex template were discussed. The workshops focused on how the tool kit could be used to facilitate completion of the template and develop each jurisdiction’s mitigation action plan. The templates were subsequently completed by a designated point of contact for each partner and a member of the planning team. The workshop addressed the following topics:
• The jurisdictional annex templates and the tool kit
• Natural events history
• Jurisdiction-specific issues
• Risk ranking
• Status of prior actions
• Developing the action plan
• Benefit-cost review
• Prioritization protocol
• Next steps
Following conclusion of the workshop, a copy of the presentation given at the workshop session was added to the tool kit provided to each of the planning partners.
Item No.7D
Lake Piru
Lake
Casitas
¬«118¬«
33 ¬«
34 ¬«
118¬«
126
¬«
150
¬«1
¬«1
¬«
23 ¬«
126
¬«
23 ¬«
33 ¬«
33 ¬«
34 ¬«
1 ¬«
150
¬«
232
¬«
33 ¬«
23 £¤101
Special Purpose Districts (1 of 2)
Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
Esri
Ojai Valley Sanitary District
Saticoy Sanitary District
Ventura Regional Sanitation District
Triunfo Water & Sanitation District
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Casitas Municipal Water District
County Boundary
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
Item No.7D
Lake Piru
Lake
Casitas
¬«118¬«
33 ¬«
34 ¬«
118¬«
126
¬«
150
¬«
1 ¬«
1 ¬«
23 ¬«
126
¬«
23 ¬«
33 ¬«
33 ¬«
34 ¬«
1 ¬«
150
¬«
232
¬«
33 ¬«
23 £¤101
Special Purpose Districts (2 of 2)
Data Sources: Ventura Co.,
Esri
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District
Conejo Recreation & Park District
Pleasant Valley Recreation & Parks District
United Water Conservation District
Ventura County Fire Protection District
County Boundary
Major Roads
±
06 3
Miles
Ventura County Office of Education, Ventura County
Public Works Agency - Watershed Protection, and
California State University - Channel Islands provide
services countywide.
Item No.7D
1-1
1. VENTURA COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREA)
1.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Bonnie Luke, Senior Program Administrator
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Telephone: 805-765-7007
e-mail Address: [email protected]
Kathy Gibson, Program Administrator II
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Telephone: 805-765-0326
e-mail Address:
[email protected]
This annex was developed by the local hazard mitigation planning team, whose members are listed in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Local Mitigation Planning Team Members
Name Title
Patrick Maynard Director of Emergency Services, Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services Bonnie Luke Senior Program Administrator, Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services Kathy Gibson Program Administrator II, Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services Gerard Kapuscik Manager, Strategic Resiliency Group, Ventura County Public Works Agency-Watershed Protection Glenn Shephard Director, Ventura County Public Works Agency-Watershed Protection Ashley Bautista Public Information Officer, County Executive Office Jackie Nuñez Assistant Public Information Officer, County Executive Office Aaron Engstrom Long Range Planning Manager, Ventura County Planning Division Dave Ward Director, Ventura County Planning Division
Matt Wyatt District Manager West County Office, Ventura County Building & Safety Division Clay Downing Program Administrator, Sustainability Division, County Executive Office Mark Lorenzen Fire Chief, Ventura County Fire Protection District Jeff Shea Division Chief, Ventura County Fire Protection District Debbie Conner Management Assistant, Ventura County Fire Protection District
1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE
1.2.1 Location and Features
Ventura County is located on southern California’s Pacific coast, approximately 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles. The County is bordered to the north by Kern County; to the northwest and southwest by Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-2
Santa Barbara County and the Pacific Ocean, respectively; and to the east and southeast by Los Angeles County.
Ventura County stretches across 2,208 square miles, of which 1,845 square miles is land and 363 square miles is water. The northern half of the county, comprising approximately 53 percent of the county’s total area is located within the Los Padres National Forest, and is mostly uninhabited. Two offshore islands, Anacapa and San Nicolas, are also included within the jurisdictional boundary for Ventura County. Anacapa Island is located approximately 11 miles offshore and is one of five islands that make up Channel Islands National Park. San Nicolas Island is located approximately 61 miles offshore and is operated by the United States Navy as a weapons testing and training facility. For the purposes of statistical analyses, the county is divided into 15 distinct planning areas. Within the County there are 10 cities and 18 unincorporated communities that are recognized census designated places (CDPs).
1.2.2 History
Ventura County was historically inhabited by the Chumash people, who also settled throughout much of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. The Chumash were originally hunters and gatherers, fisherman, traders, and are known for their rock paintings and basketry.
Spanish explorers began arriving in the area in the mid-1500s, although active occupation did not effectively occur until more than 200 years later. The Spanish encouraged settlement of the area with large land grants called ranchos, while the Catholic church established the Mission San Buenaventura in 1782 in what is now the City of Ventura.
On January 1, 1873, just 23 years after California’s statehood was attained in 1850, Ventura County was formally established. At this time, however, the area remained largely rural, consisting of a population of less than 5,000 individuals that engaged predominately in ranching and the cultivation of grain crops.
During the early 1900s, increased demand from new markets in the burgeoning Los Angeles area led to a significant expansion and diversification of agriculture in Ventura. Together with the discovery of vast oil reserves in the area, this resulted in an influx of immigrants, wealth, and substantial improvements to transportation infrastructure in the region.
A second, intense population boom (>5% annually) occurred beginning in the 1940s with the construction of Port Hueneme and the establishment of a military base at Point Mugu which brought numerous professionals and ancillary industries to the region. Ventura County, and the Oxnard area in particular, benefitted from the hiring of more than 10,000 civilian workers and 21,000 military personnel, thus providing jobs for local residents and reviving the economy following the Depression of the 1930s.
By 1950, the population of the county had increased to over 114,000 individuals, more than double its population in 1930.
The population continued to grow rapidly through the 1970s, assisted further by the completion of highway 101 in the mid-1964, which helped make the commute to Los Angeles easier. Although much of this growth was centered in incorporated communities, development also expanded in the unincorporated areas, particularly on the east side of the County.
Item No.7D
1. Ventura County (Unincorporated Area)
1-3
1.2.3 Governing Body Format
Ventura County is administered by five elected supervisors who each serve four-year terms. The supervisors appoint department administrators who manage county functions.
The Board of Supervisors assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; Ventura County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services will oversee its implementation.
1.3 CURRENT TRENDS
1.3.1 Population
According to the California Department of Finance, as of January 2020 the unincorporated areas of the County had a population of 95,001. This represents a negligible increase from the 2010 census data (94,937 individuals).
Table 1-2 lists unincorporated communities in Ventura County that are recognized by the United States Census Bureau as census-designated places for the 2020 census:
Table 1-2. Ventura County Unincorporated Communities
Census Designated Place Population 2020 Population 2010 Population Change
Since 2010
Bell Canyon 1,946 2,049 -103
Casa Conejo 3,267 3,249 +18
Channel Islands Beach (e.g. Hollywood Beach and Silver Strand) 2,870 3,103 -233 El Rio 7,037 7,198 -161
Lake Sherwood 1,759 1,527 +180
Meiners Oaks 3,911 3,571 +340
Mira Monte 6,618 6,854 -227
Oak Park 13,898 13,811 +87
Oak View 6,215 4,066 +2,149
Piru 2,587 2,063 +524
Santa Rosa Valley 3,312 3,334 -22
Santa Susana 1,160 1,037 +123
Saticoy 1,133 1,029 +104
Source: United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/.
The bulk of the population within the unincorporated county area is concentrated within four of these communities. Approximately 17,000 people reside in the adjoining communities of Oak View, Meiners Oaks and Mira Monte on the west end of the county. Meanwhile, nearly 14,000 people reside in the community of Oak Park on the east end of the county.
1.3.2 Development
Unincorporated Ventura County is a slow-growth, mostly rural land use jurisdiction with policies and initiatives that seek to focus growth and development in more urbanized areas. Developed areas include about 18 existing census-designated places listed in the previous section, most of which are Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-4
governed by one of nine specific area plans. For the period between 2016-2020, single-family residences made up approximately half of the development activity in the unincorporated areas, while accessory dwelling units comprised an additional 35 percent of the development activity. Agricultural worker housing projects represented approximately 1 percent of development activity, while other multi- family projects and subdivisions were uncommon, representing less than 7 percent of the development in the unincorporated areas. Permits for commercial development constituted 9 percent of the development activity. For a more detailed description of development trends, see the 2020 Annual Progress Report available here:
https://vcrma.org/docs/images/pdf/planning/plans/2020_Ventura_County_Annual_Progress_Report.pdf Table 1-3 summarizes development trends in the unincorporated County in the period since the preparation of the previous (2015) Hazard Mitigation Plan update, as well as expected future development trends.
Table 1-3. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed
any land since the preparation of
the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
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?
No
• If yes, describe land areas and
dominant uses.
• If yes, who currently has
permitting authority over
these areas?
Provide the number of new
construction permits for each
hazard area or provide a
qualitative description of where
development has occurred.
Permitting activity in 2020 was concentrated in the areas around Piru, Oak View, and Meiners Oaks.
In particular, within the Piru area, the buildout of the Piru Gateway development (Tract Map 5553, recorded in 2017) has been under construction for the past several years. This development consists of 53 single-family homes, 4 duplex units, and 10 triplex units, for a total of 91 new residential units. Conversely, in the Oak View and Meiners Oaks areas, most new development consisted of legalization of existing, unpermitted accessory units, and construction of new accessory dwelling units. Much of this development is being driven by state-level regulation changes that went into effect on January 1, 2020 which limit local agency authority to regulate accessory dwelling units.
Much of the development is located in high fire hazard severity zones, including Piru, the Oak View and Meiners Oaks areas near Ojai, the hills north of Camarillo, and southeast of Simi Valley in Bell Canyon.
A small number of single-family permits have also been issued in coastal areas that are primarily for redevelopment of existing structures. Most of these coastal structures are vulnerable to tsunami and other coastal hazards.
For a more detailed description of development trends, see the 2020 Annual Progress Report available here:
https://vcrma.org/docs/images/pdf/planning/plans/2020_Ventura_County_Annual_Progress_Report. pdf
Item No.7D
1. Ventura County (Unincorporated Area)
1-5
Criterion Response
Are any areas targeted for
development or major
redevelopment in the next five
years?
Yes
• If yes, briefly describe,
including whether any of the
areas are in known hazard
risk areas
In February 2021, the County approved a 360-unit farmworker housing project north of the city of Camarillo called “Somis Ranch”, which will be constructed in three phases over the next few years.
Five hundred, ninety-eight additional units are also planned to be constructed over the next four years as part of the continued development (Phase II) of the University Glenn area located adjacent to California State University Channel Islands. This master-planned, mixed-use residential community is proposed to be located on 32 acres south of the City of Camarillo, along the western edge of the Santa Monica Mountains, within a high-fire hazard area. Additional housing is also anticipated to be constructed south of Camarillo as part of the Rancho Sierra Senior Supportive Housing (50 units) on Lewis Road.
Finally, there are a total of 224 dwelling units anticipated to be constructed adjacent to Hwy 126 in the Piru Expansion Area as part of the development of two recorded tract maps: the Reider subdivision, comprising 49 townhomes, and the Finch subdivision, comprising 175 new dwelling units. The Piru Expansion area is partially located within FEMA’s A99 flood zone.
In addition to the new housing outlined above, there are a number of redevelopment projects related to fire rebuilds. Between 2017 and 2018, 337 residential dwelling units were destroyed by the Thomas and the Woolsey Fires, which together burned more than 377,000 acres, most of which were located within Ventura County. As of 2020, rebuilding efforts have included issuance of 122 Planning Permits, 87 Building Permits, and the rebuild of 40 residential units. Many of these units were located in high-fire hazard areas.
Efforts by the County Planning Division are ongoing to implement programs outlined for the disadvantaged communities within the El Rio/ Del Norte Area Plan and Saticoy Area Plan that would accommodate additional development in these areas through roadway, sewer, and water infrastructure improvements.
The County also continues to improve regulatory pathways that support the development of additional affordable housing and agricultural worker housing throughout the County via an update to the General Plan Housing Element, as well as zoning amendments for agricultural worker housing regulations and accessory dwelling units.
How many permits for new
construction were issued in your
jurisdiction since the preparation
of the previous hazard mitigation
plan?
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Single Family 40 46 46 65 47
Multi-Family 0 0 14 3 21
Other (mobile homes, accessory dwellings, mixed
use, etc.)
23 35 52 40 50
Commercial 11 4 14 9 7
Total 74 85 126 117 125
Describe the level of buildout in
the jurisdiction, based on your
jurisdiction’s buildable lands
inventory. If no such inventory
exists, provide a qualitative
description.
The 2040 Ventura County General Plan Background Report included an inventory of both residential holding capacity and residential development potential. The unincorporated residential development potential was estimated to be 1,361 units (Section 3.7, Table 3-19). The residential development potential accounted for parcels on vacant and underutilized land, as well as other constraints such as steep slopes and floodways. If second dwellings, farmworker housing, Channel Islands University housing, and vacant OS, AE, and RA zone parcels with single-family potential are included, the remaining residential development potential is 28,228 units (Section 3.7, Table 3-22).
The County of Ventura’s General Plan Annual Report details that Unincorporated Ventura County’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the period from 2014 to 2021 was 1,015 units. As of 2019 the County has authorized permits for 590 of the 1,015 RHNA units (Exhibit 1, page 7). The Ventura County 2040 General Plan, Chapter 3 Housing Element includes the final RHNA allocation for the period of 2021-2029 which is 1,262 units (Section 3.2, Table 3-1).
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-6
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.
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 1-4. • Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 1-5. • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1-6. • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1-7. • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 1-8. • Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 1-9. • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1-10. • The community’s adaptive capacity for responding to the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 1-11.
Table 1-4. Planning and Regulatory Capability
Local
Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, & Requirements
Building Code Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: 2019 Ventura County Building Code, Ord. #4548
Zoning Code Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance, last amended 4/13/21 Coastal Zoning Ordinance, last certification 6/11/21
Subdivisions Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Ventura County Subdivision Ordinance, last amended 6/16/20 Stormwater Management Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Ventura County Ordinance Code Relating to Stormwater Quality Management for Unincorporated Areas, Ordinance #4450, last amended 7/17/12
Item No.7D
1. V entura County (Unincorporated Area)
1 -7
Local
Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Post-Disaster Recovery Yes Yes No Yes
Comment: See https://www.venturacountyrecovers.org/ (click on “Hill and Woolsey Fires” in upper right) Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 4515, Approved 12/26/17: An Emergency Ordinance establishing local standards and procedures for cleanup of debris generated by the Thomas Fire.
Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 17-148, Approved 12/26/17: Resolution waiving certain Planning, Building and Safety, and Environmental Health Division fees related to Temporary Dwellings during rebuilding of residential structures damaged or destroyed in the Thomas Fire.
Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 4532, Approved 10/30/18: Ordinance amending Division 8, Chapter 1, Article 5, Sections 8105-1.1, 8105-4 and 8105-5, Article 6, section 8106-5.12, article 7, Sections 8107-14.2 and 8107-14.3, and Article 13, Section 8113-6.1.1 of the Ventura County Ordinance code, Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the permitted uses matrix, temporary dwelling during construction and reconstruction, and destruction of non-conforming structures and structures containing nonconforming uses.
Real Estate Disclosure No No No No
Comment: None currently
Growth Management Yes No Yes No
Comment: Measure C, Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources Extension to year 2050, 11/3/16 Site Plan Review Yes Yes Yes Yes
Comment: Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance, last amended 4/13/21 Coastal Zoning Ordinance, last certification 6/11/21
2019 Ventura County Building Code, Ord. #4548
Environmental Protection Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Initial Study Assessment Guidelines, last amended 4/26/11 Flood Damage Prevention Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Ventura County Floodplain Management Ordinance, Ordinance. #4521, Enacted 3/27/18 Emergency Management Yes No No Yes
Comment: Code of Ordinances, Div 5 (Safety), Section 3 (Public Emergency) (5300) https://library.municode.com/ca/ventura_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=DIV5SA_CH3PUEM Created the Emergency Planning Council
Climate Change Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan in Appendix B, September 15, 2020 General Services Agency, Energy Action Plan, April 2010 Climate Protection Plan for Government Operations, April 2012 Saticoy Area Plan, Mobility Element
Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Section 8178-8—Water Efficient Landscaping Requirements (2018) Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Section 8107-25 (last amended 2008) and Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Section 8178-7 Tree Protection Regulations (last amended 2018) and Tree Protection Guidelines Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Section 8106-8.2—General Landscaping and Water Conservation Requirements (last amended 2021), which requires compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
Planning Documents
General Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Is the County’s General Plan compliant with Assembly Bill 2140? a Comment: 2040 General Plan, Appendix B, S eptember 15, 2020.
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No No Yes
How often is the plan updated? Annually
Comment: Capital Improvement Plan Project Sheet Submittals are revised and updated annually in support of a rolling 5-year planning horizon.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-8
Local
Authority
Other Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Disaster Debris Management Plan Yes Yes No No
Comment: Emergency Ordinance No. 4534, Dec. 4, 2018
An emergency ordinance establishing local standards and procedures for cleanup of debris generated by the Hill and Woolsey Fires.
Floodplain or Watershed Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Flood Safety Plan for Ventura County, March 2017 Stormwater Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: County Stormwater Program Compliance Strategy in the Unincorporated Area, approved by the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 5, 2019
Urban Water Management Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for County Waterworks District #1, June 22, 2021 Habitat Conservation Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors Ordinance, Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance, 2019, Ord #’s 4537 and 4539 Economic Development Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: 2040 General Plan, Economic Vitality Element, September 15, 2020 County of Ventura Economic Vitality Strategic Plan, November 13, 2017 Shoreline Management Plan No Yes No No
Comment: Beach Erosion Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment (BEACON) Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan and Programmatic EIR, 2009 and 2011
Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: Ventura County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2010. Plan update scheduled for completion in 2022.
Forest Management Plan No Yes No Yes
Comment: Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan, 2005 Climate Action Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan in Appendix B, September 15, 2020 General Services Agency, Energy Action Plan, April 2010 Climate Protection Plan for Government Operations, April 2012 Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment (THIRA) No No No No Comment: NA
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: Ventura County Disaster Recovery Plan, Adopted by BOS in April 2019 Continuity of Operations Plan Yes N/A No Yes
Comment: Ventura County Continuity of Operations Plan was first adopted by BOS in 2008 and is maintained by the County Executive Office. The plan is included by reference within the 2021 EOP draft update (which is currently pending approval).
Public Health Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: Ventura County Public Health Strategic Plan, 2015-2020 Other Yes Yes No Yes
Comment: • Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Report, 2018 and 2019 • Farmworker Housing Ordinance, underway
• Tree Mitigation Fund and County Tree Planting Program, • Ventura County Land Conservation Act Program,
• Ventura County Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Program, • Naval Base Ventura County Joint Land Use Study, 2015
a. AB 2140 compliance tracks with each plan update. The County will re-link the two plans once this update is approved.
Item No.7D
1. Ventura County (Unincorporated Area)
1-9
Table 1-5. Development and Permitting Capability
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes
If no, who does? If yes, which department? Planning Division, Public Works Agency Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard area? Yes Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? Yes
Table 1-6. Fiscal Capability
Financial Resource
Accessible or
Eligible to
Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding
Comment: Check with Public Works and General Services Agency Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes
Comment: new taxes require 2/3rds Board of Supervisors approval Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes If yes, specify: Check with Special Districts, typically require fee study Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds
Comment: Requires Board of Supervisors Approval
Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds
Comment: Requires Board of Supervisors Approval or voter approval Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds
Comment: Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds, 2010 http://bosagenda.countyofventura.org/sirepub/cache/2/qdv0sgxbtlloepc0ihgn2r24/551690082020210412476.PDF Yes
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes
State-Sponsored Grant Programs
Comment: Requires Board of Supervisors Approval to Receive Grants Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers
Comment: Requires Board of Supervisors Approval
Yes
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-10
Table 1-7. Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes If Yes, Department /Position: Yes, various positions throughout Planning Division and Public Works Agency Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes If Yes, Department /Position: Yes, Building and Safety Department various positions, Public Works Agency—Transportation Department and Watershed Protection, all positions.
Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes If Yes, Department /Position: Building & Safety manager has CFM and Emergency response, Public Works Agency—Watershed Protection, Planning Division, Area Plans and Resources Manager, General Plan Manager Staff with training in benefit-cost analysis Yes
If Yes, Department /Position: Building & Safety management team, Public Works Agency Directors and General Services Agency Parks Department Director
Surveyors Yes
If Yes, Department /Position: Public Works Agency, Surveyor’s office.
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes
If Yes, Department /Position: Building & Safety counter staff, plan review engineers and management team, Resource Management Agency GIS Supervisor
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes If Yes, Department /Position: PWA Engineering Managers and Hydrologists. For scientists, the Planning Division and Public Works agency also contract with consultants as needed.
Emergency manager Yes
If Yes, Department /Position: Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES Director, and 6 additional full-time EMs), Building & Safety district managers
Grant writers Yes
If Yes, Department /Position: Planning Division Long Range Planning Managers, County Executive Office, Office of Sustainability Manager, various Public Works Agency departments.
Table 1-8. Education and Outreach Capability
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes If yes, briefly describe: ReadyVenturaCounty.org contains pages dedicated to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, including information on hazard mitigation and links to the existing Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes If yes, briefly describe: Twitter, Nixle
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? Yes If yes, briefly describe: Emergency Planning Council, CERT, Disaster Assistance Response Team, Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council, Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council, Ventu Park Fire Safe Council, and Bell Canyon Fire Safe Council Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information? Yes If yes, briefly describe: VCEmergency.com; ReadyVenturaCounty.org, VC Alert, Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes If yes, briefly describe: VC Alert, Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA); VCEmergency.com; Hi-Lo Sirens
Item No.7D
1. Ventura County (Unincorporated Area)
1-11
Table 1-9. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
Criterion Response
What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Ventura County Public Works Agency-Engineering Services
Department, Development Services
Section.
Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) Director, Ventura County Public Works Agency
Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? Yes What is the date that your flood damage prevention ordinance was last amended? 3/27/2018 Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum requirements? Meets When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact? 9/21/2018
Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed?
No
Are any RiskMAP projects currently underway in your jurisdiction? No Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction? Yes Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program?
Yes
If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? Additional training on benefit-cost analysis for the BRIC grant program, and green-flood plain management project solutions eligible for FEMA funding.
Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? Yes If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving its CRS Classification? No How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction?a 1,346 What is the insurance in force? $395,320,600
What is the premium in force? $1,327,849
How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction?a 724 What were the total payments for losses? $10,126,504
a. According to FEMA statistics as of March 31, 2021
Table 1-10. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Date Classified
FIPS Code Yes 06111 N/A
DUNS # Yes 066691122 N/A
Community Rating System Yes 5 5/1/2016
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule No N/A N/A Public Protection Yes 03/3X 12/21/2018
Storm Ready Yes N/A N/A
Firewise Yes N/A Unknown
Tsunami Ready Yes N/A N/A
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-12
Table 1-11. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion Jurisdiction Rating
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High Comment: High level of understanding of anticipated exacerbation of drought and wildfire risks, and sea -level rise-related impacts.
Moderate understanding of secondary impacts to agricultural/biological risks, and severe weather/severe storm impacts.
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Medium Comment: 2040 General Plan has emission reduction and climate adaptation programs adopted and monitoring programs are being implemented.
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Medium Comment: The Planning Division has access to technical resources in other County Agencies, coordination with outside agencies with resources is frequent, and the County also has the capacity to hire consultants when needed. Additional resources in adaptation pathway planning would be helpful.
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High Comment: A GHG inventory was completed for the 2040 General Plan Update with baseline data for 2015. There is also an operational emissions inventory, and monitoring is planned for the future as part of General Plan implementation.
Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High Comment: The 2040 General Plan includes policies related to climate adaptation to guide development due to climate change impacts.
The 2040 General Plan also includes implementation programs that function as climate adaptation strategies.
Participation in regional groups addressing climate change risks High Comment: Some members of the Board of Supervisors are on committees for sea level rise and beach sediment management. The County’s Office of Sustainability, the Long Range sections of the Planning Division, and the Public Works Agency regularly participate with regional groups to address climate change risks. The County Executive Office’s Ventura County Climate Emergency Council is a citizen advisory committee focused on GHG reductions. The County’s Sustainability Committee is an interagency work group focused on integrating sustainable practices into agency activities including Climate Action Plan implementation.
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes
High
Comment: Included in 2040 General Plan policies and programs, see Appendix B.
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High Comment: Included in 2040 General Plan policies and programs. The County Executive Office’s Sustainability Division manages the Ventura County Climate Emergency Council to advise the County’s Board of Supervisors on climate action planning and Climate Action Plan implementation. https://www.ventura.org/vccec/ Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts Medium
Comment: The County’s 2019 Sea level Rise Adaptation Report includes adaptation strategies that have yet to be adopted in policy form.
Champions for climate action in local government departments Medium Comment: Action ultimately requires Board authorization for policies and programs.
The County Executive Office’s Sustainability Division acts as lead for Climate Action Plan implementation including time invested by a full-time Sustainability Officer and supporting staff. The Sustainability Officer is the Chair of the County’s the Sustainability Committee, an interagency work group focused on integrating sustainable practices into agency activities including Climate Action Plan implementation.
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High Comment: In June 2020, the County’s Board of Supervisors allocated an additional full-time, fixed-term employee to focus on supporting Climate Action Plan implementation efforts as part of its budget hearing process.
Item No.7D
1. Ventura County (Unincorporated Area)
1-13
Criterion Jurisdiction Rating
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation High Comment: The County funded the 2020 Climate Action Plan, which is a component of the 2040 General Plan, and has provided matching funds for sea level rise planning grants. The County Executive Office’s Sustainability Division has staff devoted to climate action and adaptation programs, including an additional fixed-term position focused on supporting Climate Action Plan implementation that was approved in June 2020. The County also contributes membership funds to BEACON.
Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted High Comment: The County exercises land use authority in the unincorporated County.
Public Capacity
Local residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate change risk Medium Comment: Many residents have a general understanding of climate change risks, but ongoing outreach and education is needed for the broader community.
Local residents’ support of adaptation efforts Medium
Comment: While most residents support adaptation efforts, they may be resistant if new requirements impact them financially.
Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Low Comment: Applications for new development and redevelopment have rarely included voluntary climate adaptation features, but some features are required to be included according to 2040 General Plan policies. The County has allowed redevelopment in areas impacted by wildfires.
Local economy’s current capacity to adapt to climate change impacts Medium Comment: The agricultural industry is a substantial contributor to the local economy, with an estimated gross value in 2020 of over 1.9 billion dollars, and employing over 40,000 individuals. The County (~8,000 employees) and Naval Base Ventura County (>16,000 employees) are the two largest local employers and both are planning for climate change impacts. Additionally, the City of Port Hueneme is conducting a General Plan update that will include a vulnerability assessment and planning for sea level rise impacts at the Port of Hueneme.
Adaptive capacity is highly dependent on the scope and severity of climate impacts. Rebuilding levees, managed retreat, and rebuilding/relocating buildings and infrastructure in the face of extreme flooding and sea level rise are costly adaptation measures and, in many cases, would require substantial public funding and a multi-jurisdictional approach to implement.
Local ecosystems’ capacity to adapt to climate change impacts Low Comment: A 2019 report by the Western Regional Climate Center indicated that, as a result of climate change Ventura County will experience air temperature increases, a greater number of extreme heat days annually, and an increased number of annual dry days leading to fewer but more intense rainfall events. Based on these findings, it is anticipated that such changes will lead to challenges in evapotranspiration and crop cultivation, increased potential for flash flooding and/or debris flows, increased susceptibility to drought, and longer wildfire seasons. More work needs to be done to evaluate how ecosystems that often straddle jurisdictional boundaries can migrate and adapt. More community education and benefit-cost analysis is needed to demonstrate how ecosystem services can minimize or abate climate change impacts. https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/reports.php https://wrcc.dri.edu/Docs/VenturaClimate2019_bookmarked.pdf.
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 REVIEW
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.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-14
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:
• The Ventura County 2040 General Plan, Hazards and Safety Element was updated in September, 2020. The update also included a Water Resources Element and a Climate Action Plan.
• The Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance (NCZO) includes standards for hazard mitigation and abatement relative to high fire hazard areas, earthquakes, geology and floods. Recent updates to the NCZO added water efficient landscaping standards and a wildlife corridor overlay zone that includes new standards in fencing and lighting to promote the movement of wildlife. • The County’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) is comprised of the Coastal Area Plan and Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO). The CZO includes standards for hazard mitigation and abatement related to beach erosion, geology, earthquakes, and floods. • The Ventura County Subdivision Ordinance requires consideration of both geologic and flood hazards during the siting and design of proposed lots. Additionally, it requires consideration of wildfire hazards when a proposed subdivision is located in a “state responsibility area” or a “very high fire hazard severity zone”.
• Ventura County Emergency Operations Plan addresses the County’s planned response to hazard events.
• Ventura County Building Code is the local adoption of the State codes Title 24
1.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration
The capability assessment in this annex indicates opportunities to integrate this mitigation plan with other jurisdictional planning/regulatory capabilities. Capabilities were identified as integration opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or enhanced by components of this plan. The capability assessment identified the following plans and programs that offer opportunities for future integration or expanded integration with this mitigation plan:
• T he Ventura County 2040 General Plan includes policies and programs for hazard mitigation and abatement relative to high-fire hazard areas, earthquakes, geology and floods, as well as climate change adaptation related to droughts, sea level rise and coastal erosion. The County will re-link the General Plan with this HMP once this HMP update is approved. This will enable compliance with AB 2140.
• The County’s Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAGs) are in the process of being updated and this may be an integration opportunity.
• The County’s NCZO is periodically amended per Board of Supervisors directive or as required by state law. Updates per new fire codes related to brush clearance and fire prevention may be needed.
• The County’s LCP includes standards for hazard mitigation and abatement relative to beach erosion, geology, earthquakes, and floods. The policies and standards related to environmentally sensitive habitat, coastal hazards, and sea level rise are being consolidated and updated, and this effort could present an opportunity for future integration.
Item No.7D
1. Ventura County (Unincorporated Area)
1-15
• Wetland Project Permitting Guide, 2006—this document could be updated with support from the County’s Public Works Agency to include hazard integration.
The following projects are currently underway or are planned to be updated. There could be integration opportunities to include hazards in siting and design standards. • Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Report, 2019 • Farmworker Housing Ordinance, underway
• Tree Mitigation Fund and County Tree Planting Program • Land Conservation Act Program
• Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAGs)
Taking action to integrate each of these programs with the hazard mitigation plan was considered as a mitigation action to include in the action plan in this annex.
1.6 RISK ASSESSMENT
1.6.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History Table 1-12 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this jurisdiction Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area, including this jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan.
Table 1-12. Past Natural Hazard Events
Type of Event
FEMA
Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
2019
Easy Fire
FM5298 10/30/2019 to
11/2/2019
1,806 acres burned; 6,500 homes threatened; 30,000 residents evacuated. 2019
Maria Fire
FM5302 10/31/2019 to
11/4/2019
9,412 acres burned including a substantial portion of prime ag lands; 4 structures destroyed; >1,800 homes / 7,500 residents evacuated; triggered temporary shut-down of local oil and natural gas field facilities and pipelines; damage to communications and oil and gas field facilities occurred. 160 acres of avocado orchards and 25 acres of lemon orchards were moderately to severely damaged or destroyed. Damage to avocado and lemon crops was estimated at ~$5.2 million, according to Korinne Bell, Ventura County Chief Deputy Agricultural Commissioner.
2018
Hill Fire
DR4407 11/8/2018 to
11/16/2018
4,531 acres burned; 4 structures destroyed; 4 structures damaged; 5,000 structures threatened.
2018
Woolsey Fire
DR4407/F
M5280
11/8/2018 to
11/21/2018
96,949 acres burned; $6 billion in property damage; $10 million in firefighting costs; 1643 structures destroyed, 3 deaths, 295,000 residents (in Ventura and L.A. County) evacuated. 2018
Heat Event
(July)
7/4/2018 to
7/6/2018
Extreme 2-day heat event broke records across the county, and resulted in damage to crops.
For crops such as avocados and citrus, heat can damage both the current crop and also the fruit set for the coming season, packing a two-year punch. The California Avocado Board estimated a 2019 crop of 210 million pounds, down from 372 million pounds a year earlier, and the smallest crop in over a decade.
Citrus officials say it knocked down up to 15 percent of the region’s lemon crop at the tail end of the harvest. Lemons dropped by 14% in value in the County’s 2019 ag report.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-16
Type of Event
FEMA
Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
2018
Montecito
Debris Flows
DR4353 1/9/2018 –
1/22/2018
A 30-mile section of U.S. Route 101 (US 101) from Santa Barbara to Ventura was shut down for two weeks as sections filled with two feet (60 cm) of mud and debris, some of which also reached beaches 2.25 miles (3.6 km) from the mountains. Following the closure, access to Santa Barbara from the Los Angeles area was limited to a 260-mile (420 km) detour around the Los Padres National Forest or through the use of private ferries to Ventura. This closure severely impacted commerce throughout the county. Based on commuter surveys conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau (2013) and Department of Transportation estimates, in 2017 an average of 2,300 vehicles (2,400 workers) commuted daily from Santa Barbara to Ventura County, and approximately 10,000 vehicles (11,500 workers) commuted from Ventura, in addition to approximately 3,700 commercial trucks. The loss to Ventura County cities from commuter earnings for each week of the closure has been approximated at $12,235,774. 2017
Thomas Fire
FM5224 12/4/2017 to
1/12/2018
Over 280,000 acres burned. Cost of $2.2 billion; $171,296,703 in agricultural losses (crop losses and farm equipment) alone; 1,063 structures destroyed; 280 damaged; 2 deaths; and 104,607 residents evacuated; Businesses, including Ag also experienced loss of perishable goods from the nearly two-week closure of U.S. 101 that shut down commerce and prevented workers from accessing fields.
2017
Winter
Storms
NA 2/17/2017 to
2/18/2017
Rainfall amounts from 2 to 6 inches across coastal areas with up to around 10 inches in the local mountains produced numerous reports of flash flooding as well as mud and debris flows.
Strong southerly winds with gusts up to 70 mph reported in some areas. Highway 101 was closed in both directions north of Ventura due to mud and debris flows near the Solimar burn area. Flash flooding near the community of Thousand Oaks; three men rescued when Wildwood Creek flooded. Near the community of Camarillo, Conejo Creek to overflow its banks, flooding acres of agricultural land. State disaster declaration No. CA77 and CA77.1 2015
Coastal
Erosion and
Flooding
Event
NA 12/11/2015 Strong waves (up to 15 ft.) from a large westerly swell event resulted in evacuation and closure of the Ventura and Port Hueneme piers. Heavy surf caused approximately 15 pylons to break off the sides of the Ventura pier—triggering an extended (four month) closure while repairs were made. Pier repairs cost $1.4 million. Localized flooding of beachfront homes in the Pierpont neighborhood and nearby streets also occurred Harbor Boulevard between Sanjon Road and California Street in the city of Ventura had to be closed due to flooding.
Erosion from this event substantially altered the beach profile along Ventura State Beach near the pier, including impacts to Surfer’s Point as well as other exposed coastline areas.
At Naval Base Ventura County, officials temporarily closed Family Beach and a nearby campground because of high surf. Farther east along Pacific Coast Highway, State Parks relocated campers inland from the beachside Thornhill Broome State Beach Campground after the combination of high tide and the swell flooded the east and west ends of the campground.
2014
Pacific Coast
Highway
(Hwy 1)
Landslide
11/20/2014 to
3/15/2015
Rocks, boulders, and 4-6 feet of mud slumped onto Hwy 1 near the May 2013 Springs Fire burn area. The substantial slope stabilization and highway repairs required resulted in a months-long closure of 9 miles of Hwy 1 (November through mid-March) between the Mugu and Malibu areas, isolating unincorporated south coast communities, impacting commuter traffic, and limiting access to coastal recreational resources. 2014
Coastal
Erosion and
Flooding
Event
(Hurricane
Marie)
NA 8/26/2014 Large southeast swells from Hurricane Marie generated high surf conditions along local beaches and resulted in numerous rescues by local lifeguards, beach and campground closures, and flooding of some coastal roads. Local piers experienced some damage including the pier at Port Hueneme. Extensive damage also occurred to the road infrastructure of Hwy 1 near Sycamore Canyon campground in Point Mugu State Park. At postmile (PM) 4.0, the existing revetment was damaged and at PM 4.2, the vegetated slope between the road and beach was severely eroded.
2013
Springs Fire
FM5024 5/2/2013 24,251 acres burned; 15 homes destroyed; 4,000 homes threatened as well as key communications infrastructure (including $1 billion dollar Naval satellite operations station on Laguna Peak). More than $10 million in firefighting costs incurred.
Item No.7D
1. Ventura County (Unincorporated Area)
1-17
Type of Event
FEMA
Disaster # Date Damage Assessment
2009
Guiberson
Fire
FM2839 9/22/2009 to
9/29/2009
17,500 acres burned;1 structure destroyed; estimated firefighting costs of more than $6.9 million
2007
Ranch Fire
FM1731 10/21/2007 58,401 acres burned in both L.A. and eastern Ventura County near Piru; over $9 million in firefighting costs
2007
Freeze Event
DR-1689 1/11/2007 to
1/17/2007
4 nights of below freezing temperatures caused losses of over $1.3 billion statewide and $281 million in crop damage locally. Damage was mainly to citrus and avocado groves, and the winter strawberry crop that was just going to harvest.
2006
Shekell
Complex Fire
FM2681 12/3/2006 to
12/6/2006
13,600 acres burned; 5 homes, 2 comm. Buildings; 11 structures destroyed; $12.8-13 million in damage; 9.2 million in structural damage; 25 million in ag damage 2006
Day Fire
FM2677 9/4/2006 to
10/9/2006
162,702 acres burned, including substantial wilderness and national forest areas; $78 million in fire suppression costs; 11 structures burned, residences threatened in Lockwood Valley and Upper Ojai over course of several weeks.
2005
La Conchita
Landslide
DR1577 1/10/2005 The landslide resulted in the deaths of 10 people, destroyed 13 homes and resulted in red- tagging of 23 others. It occurred following a two-week period from Dec 27-Jan 10 in which 430 mm of rainfall fell (a record 15-day rainfall). Estimated costs of ~$1.75 million in county agencies’ response to the event.
2005
Winter
Storms
(January)
DR1577 1/7/2005 to
1/11/2005
Damage totaled more than $200 million. High water flows, scouring, and washouts in the Ventura River damaged several water wells and exposed water lines owned by the Ojai Valley Sanitary District. Severe erosion occurred along both embankments of the Ventura River. The Calleguas Creek topped its banks near the state hospital in Camarillo and flooded nearby ag fields. Homes in Moorpark, Casitas Springs and Ojai were flooded, major roads including Highways 101, 126, 33 and 150 were closed for more than a week, and the Santa Paula Airport was closed for several months due to flood damage to the runway. 2003
Simi Fire
DR1498/
FM2504
10/24/2003 108,204 acres burned; crop losses of nearly $8 million. 1999
Ranch Fire
NA 12/27/1999 4,372 acres burned, including a large proportion of national forest lands in Los Padres National Forest. Reported losses include thousands of dollars in outdoor equipment and numerous small structures at The Ojai Foundation. The fire also threatened numerous homes in Ojai Valley area. Fire officials estimated the cost of fighting the fire at nearly $5 million, and noted that firefighters constructed more than 20 miles of fire lines. 1998
Freeze Event
DR1267 12/20/1998 This severe freeze impacted citrus/avocado/strawberry crops across Ventura County; 1,139 services received; $71,541,000 in damages to agriculture industry. Other sources estimated losses as high as $74.3 million for Ventura County farmers. 1928
St. Francis
Dam Failure
NA 3/12/1928 >530 people died; bridges, orchards, farms, and homes were all eradicated in flood’s path down the Santa Clara river valley to the Pacific Ocean. Considered to be one of the worst engineering disasters of the 20th century.
1.6.2 Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 1-13 presents a ranking of all hazards of concern for which this hazard mitigation plan provides quantitative 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.
Item No.7D
Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-18
Table 1-13. Hazard Risk Ranking
Rank Hazard Risk Ranking Score Risk Category
1 Landslides 51 High
2 Wildfire 36 High
3 Earthquake 32 High
4 Severe Storms 24 Higha
5 Severe Weather 24 Higha
6 Dam Failure 24 Higha
7 Flooding 18 Higha
8 Sea Level Rise 12 Low
9 Tsunami 10 Low
10 Drought 9 Low
a. T he risk category was increased to High, based on jurisdiction-specific vulnerabilities.
1.6.3 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 this jurisdiction. Available jurisdiction-specific risk maps of the hazards are provided at the end of this annex.
Repetitive Loss Properties
Repetitive loss records are as follows:
• Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: 63 • Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: N/A • Number of Repetitive-Loss or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been mitigated: N/A 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:
• Prioritization of Open Space / Natural Resource Areas—In 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture named Ventura County the most desirable place to live in America. Ventura’s mild climate, varied topography, bountiful open space and natural resources, and proximity to additional natural resource areas are a large part of its draw for residents and visitors. Vast tracts of the unincorporated County lie adjacent to, or within, the Los Padres National Forest, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and the Pacific Ocean. Valuation of these resources, and of our interface with these open space areas is outside the scope of FEMA’s traditional risk analysis tools (e.g., property/structural damage estimates, loss of life, and critical infrastructure inventories, insurance claims), which can result in radical underestimation of disaster impacts to recreation, tourism, and the overall desirability of living and working here. • Santa Ana Winds and Planned/Unplanned Utility Outages—Warm, dry northeasterly winds are a local weather phenomenon in Southern California that can result in downed trees and power lines, blowing dust and air quality concerns. Although the winds themselves do not cause wildfires and rarely rise to the level of an area-wide disaster on their own, they exacerbate Item No.7D
1. Ventura County (Unincorporated Area)
1-19
critical fire weather conditions in our area and substantially complicate wildfire response and containment. These winds may occur throughout the year, but are typically most common from October to March. Nearly all of the region’s significant wildfires have occurred in conjunction with strong Santa Ana wind conditions. Local power outages have been enacted with increasing frequency by utility companies in response to high wind/low humidity conditions, both within Ventura County and adjacent counties. Supporting adaptation of local businesses and individual residents to sporadic utility outages triggered by potential wind events, as well as critical facilities (e.g., communications towers and other energy infrastructure) should be prioritized. • Localized Flooding—Many communities within the unincorporated County are located adjacent to rivers (e.g., Santa Clara River, Ventura River, Sespe Creek, Piru Creek, Lockwood Creek) that are prone to flood to varying degrees during periods of heavy rainfall. The effects of this flooding range from localized road closures to damage to property (e.g., flooded croplands), vehicles, and buildings.
• Ventura County Public Works Agency – Watershed Protection’s (VCPWA-WP’s) Critical Facilities in the Unincorporated Areas—Based on the fact that virtually all of VCPWA-WP’s critical facility assets were constructed to provide flood protection and/or are geospatially located proximate to and/or in flood plains, and as documented in Table 1.8 Past Natural Hazard Events above, during the aforementioned 56-year period, VCPWA-WP’s critical facility flood protection assets experienced $81 Million in damage from flooding, severe storms and severe weather events, VCPWA-WP has ranked Flood risks as “High” in Table 1.9 above. • Matilija Dam Seismic Risk Vulnerability—Matilija Dam in the Ventura River watershed is vulnerable to seismic failure. Many communities are at risk of inundation. Implementation of the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project (MDERP) would address this risk while also opening 17 miles of habitat for endangered steelhead trout. MDERP comprises several downstream flood protection and water supply reliability components that must precede removal of the dam, some of which have been completed or are at various stages of completion (alternatives analysis, design, or construction).
• Levee Rehabilitation and Certification Projects in Unincorporated Areas—Ventura County Watershed Protection is engaged in preliminary design and CEQA work for levee retrofit and/or flood-protection enhancement projects required to certify all its levees in compliance with federal levee certification requirements. Major levee rehabilitation and ultimate certification projects in the unincorporated areas include: the Ventura River Levee (VR-2) located in the unincorporated community of Casitas Springs, and the Live Oak Acres Levee located in the near the unincorporated community of Oak View. VCPWA-WP is working with FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as well as affected cities, residents, and property owners throughout Ventura County to marshal scarce Federal, State, and local funding resources necessary to complete five very important levee retrofit public safety and flood protection projects. Once all VCPWA-WP’s levee retrofit projects are completed, VCPWA-WP’s levees will fully comply with applicable Federal Levee Certification requirements found in 44 CFR 65.10. At best, full completion of VCPWA-WP’s five levee rehab projects will require a minimum of five to ten years, and could take longer, depending on final engineering design plan results, environmental considerations, and availability of project funding required to construct the rehab projects.
• Unincorporated Area Pump Stations Vulnerable to Sea-Level Rise—San Nicholas, Santa Monica, and Santa Paula Pump Stations lift stormwater from low elevation coastal neighborhoods and discharge directly to the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Monica and Santa Paula Pump Station outlets are frequently clogged during high tide and heavy surf events, causing the Item No.7D