The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 09/09/2015REGULAR BOARD MEETI NG September 9, 2015 - 5:30 PM 31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346 AGENDA "In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed with the District Sec retary by 12:00 p.m. on W ednesday prior to the following W ednesday meeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be c onsidered by the Board of Directors". CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS PRESENTATIONS AND CEREMONIAL ITEMS Presentation to Dan Davis for 25 years of dedicated public service PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Direc tors is asked to complete a Speaker Card and submit it to the Distric t Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Eac h speaker is limited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the Chairman of the Board. Under the State of California Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The matter will automatic ally be referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda at a future meeting. AGENDA - This agenda c ontains a brief general desc ription of eac h item to be considered. Exc ept as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes a determination that an emergenc y exists or that a need to take immediate action on the item came to the attention of the Distric t subsequent to the posting of the agenda. 1.Approval of Agenda 2.CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are c onsidered by the Board of Directors to be routine and will be enac ted in one motion. There will be no discussion of these items prior to the time the board c onsiders the motion unless members of the board, the administrative staff, or the public request specific items to be disc ussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar. a.Approve the August 12, 2015 regular board meeting minutes b.Directors fees and expenses for July and August 2015 NEW BUSINESS 3.Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 4.Board Meeting Sc hedule for November and December 2015 REPORTS 5.Board of Directors' Reports 6.General Manager/CEO Report 7.Legal Counsel Report 8.Board of Directors' Comments ADJOURN PLEASE NOTE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda pac ket are available for public inspec tion in the District's offic e loc ated at 31111 Greenspot Rd., Highland, during normal business hours. Also, suc h doc uments are available on the District's website at www.eastvalley.org subject to staff's ability to post the doc uments before the meeting. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disability -related modific ation or ac commodation, inc luding auxiliary aids or servic es, that is sought in order to participate in the above-agendized public meeting should be direc ted to the District Clerk at (909) 885-4900 at least 72 hours prior to said meeting. Minutes: 08/12/15 etb Subject to Approval EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT August 12, 2015 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. Director Carrillo led the flag salute. PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Coleman, Morales, Shelton ABSENT: None STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer; Tom Holliman, Engineering; Justine Hendricksen, District Clerk; Eileen Bateman, Senior Administrative Assistant LEGAL COUNSEL: Jean Cihigoyenetche GUEST(s): Members of the public PRESENTATION AND CEREMONIAL ITEMS • INTRODUCTION OF PATRICK MILROY, OPERATIONS MANAGER The General Manager/CEO introduced Patrick Milroy, the District’s recently hired Operations Manager to the Board. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Morales declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5:32 pm. The District Clerk stated that she received a letter that was requested to be read into the record for Item #2b. There being no further written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/S/C (Coats-Carrillo) that the August 12, 2015 agenda be approved as submitted. Vice Chairman Coats recommended pulling Item #2b from the consent calendar for further discussion. Minutes: 08/12/15 etb 2 APPROVE THE JULY 22, 2015 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES M/S/C (Coats-Carrillo) that the Board approve the July 22, 2015 regular board meeting minutes as submitted. DIRECTORS’ FEES AND EXPENSES FOR JULY 2015 The District Clerk read a letter addressed to Chairman Morales and the Board of Directors into the record. “I want to express my concerns once again about Director Coleman who continues to misrepresent his constituents through lying cheating, falsifying and failing to heed to board policy and procedure. As a concerned citizen of the District I must speak out against Mr. Coleman and push for no confidence in his attempt at re-election. This man demonstrates a lack of character and integrity and is someone that we do not need to be re-elected to the Board. His actions are self-serving and do not represent the constituency of the District.” Sincerely, Michael Estrada 7917 San Benito St. Highland, CA Vice Chairman Coats stated that the reason for his recommendation to approve the Directors’ expense reports with the exception of Director Coleman’s was due to Resolution 2015.16, which was adopted on June 24, 2015, censuring Director Coleman from compensation for attending certain meetings. He recommended that Director Coleman resubmit his expense report with only the two qualifying meetings. He reiterated his statement from the June 24th meeting, that when we lose our integrity, we have nothing else of value to lose; that Director Coleman showed a great lack of integrity in submitting a reimbursement request for non-compensable meetings. Legal Counsel provided a chronological order of events that led up to Mr. Coleman’s censorship. Director Coleman stated that prior to Vice Chairman Coats’ motion; he was going to request that his expense report be removed and he would re-submit it at a later date. He also stated that anyone that has committed the same crimes, using the word crimes loosely, that he has, that they would suffer the same fate that he has because he is not the only one that is guilty or semi-guilty of the things that were listed against him; as far as Attorney Filarsky, he was supposed to be an independent counsel, have an un-biased opinion and be un-prejudice, he had neither an un-biased opinion and or was un- prejudiced. Mr. Coleman stated that some of the people he requested to be interviewed were not, and all of his requests he made were annulled. Director Coleman also stated that he was under the impression that when elected by the public he had a right to serve the public and that is all he was trying to do, serve the public. Minutes: 08/12/15 etb 3 Chairman Morales asked Legal Counsel for his recommendation on how the District should notify regional entities of the action(s) the Board took regarding Director Coleman, specifically, regarding his attendance at meetings as a member of the public and not as a representative of East Valley Water District. Legal Counsel stated that the notification can be completed by the Chairman through staff; that the Resolution is a public document and a matter of record; that there is nothing confidential about the resolution and there is nothing that would preclude such notification. Chairman Morales stated specific information regarding the document(s) that were presented to the Board and enacted upon, which included a public lie and the falsification of a public document. The Chairman also stated that Director Coleman admitted that he had lied in a meeting with legal counsel and stated that the Board took action and implemented the censorship to ensure that when Director Coleman attends an event he is not representing the District he is attending as a private citizen. Chairman Morales opened the meeting for public comments. Mr. LeVesque stated that there are many challenges associated with being in public office; he expressed his concerns regarding Director Coleman’s previous election statement, which in his view was based on a lie about the wasteful spending and actions of the District. He also stated Mr. Coleman did not attend any board meetings prior to his election. He noted that as a former Chairman of the Board, he was present during several meetings that discussed Director Coleman’s inappropriate conduct with staff; that in his opinion the public has the right to know of these instances especially with the current election in progress. He stated that although Director Coleman was previously elected, he should not be re-elected due to his current actions. He also stated that he will inform the public of Director Coleman’s actions and hopes to see Director Shelton and Carrillo get re-elected. M/S/C (Coats-Shelton) that the Board approve the Directors’ fees and expenses for July 2015 with the exception of Director Coleman’s expense report, and that Mr. Coleman can resubmit his July 2015 expense report which includes two compensable meetings at a future board meeting. Directors Carrillo, Coats, Morales and Shelton voted yes. Director Coleman abstained from the vote. RECEIVE THE SPRING 2015 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Mrs. Pilar Oñate-Quintana, David Quintana, and Audrey Durfor provided a presentation including but not limited to the current drought actions taken by the State Water Resources Control Board, enacted Budget Trailer Bills, pending and current Legislation, recycled water issues, general political and legislative updates, potential water public goods use charge and future potential water issues. Information only. Minutes: 08/12/15 etb 4 IDENTIFY THE CANDIDATES TO BE SELECTED ON THE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES (ACWA) 2016-17 REGION 9 BOARD BALLOT The General Manager/CEO provided an overview of ACWA’s Region 9 Board and information regarding the nominees. He stated that he concurs with ACWA’s Nominating Committee’s recommended slate. M/S/C (Coats-Shelton) that the Board approve the Nominating Committee’s recommended slate for ACWA’s 2016-17 Region 9 board ballot. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2015.20 TO SUPPORT THE NOMINATION OF KATHLEEN TIEGS AS THE ACWA PRESIDENT The General Manager/CEO provided a brief overview of the statewide association election process; he reviewed Kathleen Tiegs’ current position as Vice Chairman and her interest in the Chairman position. He also stated the importance of having a regional representative from San Bernardino County and supports her nomination. Chairman Morales noted that the District supported Kathleen Tiegs when she ran for ACWA’s Vice Chairman position and that she is a well-qualified candidate to represent the area. M/S/C (Carrillo-Coats) that the Board adopt Resolution 2015.20. BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS Director Carrillo reported on the following: on July 29th he attended Metropolitan Water District’s where Felicia Marcus, Chair of State Water Resources Control Board was a keynote speaker and the items discussed included the decision process for setting regulations for the drought mandates, economic concerns, the possible effects of El Nino for California and the need for the snow melt from the Sierra Mountains; he and Director Shelton attended the Conservation Ad-Hoc Committee meeting where they discussed conservation goals; he attended a meeting with the General Manager/CEO and Supervisor James Ramos’ Chief of Staff, Bill Pauly where they discussed the proposed Water Recycling Center and the LAFCO process. Director Coleman reported on the following: he attended a meeting with the General Manager/CEO to discuss his candidacy and his expense report. Director Shelton reported on the following: she attended the Highland Chamber of Commerce monthly luncheon where they honored their sponsors; she also attended the Conservation Ad-Hoc Committee meeting where they discussed updates to the District’s rebate programs, conservation representatives and large-scale efficiency projects. Vice Chairman Coats reported on the following: he and Chairman Morales met with staff to discuss updates to the Recycled Water Facility; he also attended the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Districts Board Workshop where they discussed funds for turf Minutes: 08/12/15 etb 5 removal rebates and attended their board meeting where they discussed the development of an Ad-Hoc Committee to discuss recycled water and the City Creek hydro-project. Chairman Morales reported on the following: he and the General Manager/CEO met with San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District’s Chairman and General Manager to discuss the Recycled Water Center; he also reviewed CSDA’s Legislative update. Information only. GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORTS The Public Affairs/Conservation Manager provided a drought update including regulation updates, rebate program, large scale efficiency projects, pilot program with WaterSmart; outreach efforts and media coverage. The General Manager/CEO reported on the following: election update; he discussed the benefits of the CCR including increased communication regarding projects and programs beyond water quality and noticeable increase in call volume from customers regarding water conservation. The CCR is a direct mailer to customers and residents informing them that our water quality met all state and federal regulations and the costs associated with the printing and mailing of the CCR. He also discussed the monthly field and operations reports and provided an overview of the Turf Removal Program. Information only. LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT No reports at this time. BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMENTS Director Carrillo stated that he is proud of the ratepayers of the District for assisting with the achievement of being placed as the #1 agency in conservation in the Inland Empire. Director Coleman stated that he echoes Director Carrillo’s comments on water reduction by our ratepayers and their actions to reduce the amount of water used to water their grass, he personally reduced his watering to twice a week, twice a day and the parts of the lawn that didn’t die took over and is now growing; that it was alleged that he lied about his hatred of water rate increases and that he used his lie on the ballot to get elected, he didn’t go on the ballot to get elected and lie about rate increases but went on the ballot because of all the waste that was going on with the District; in his first year the District saved over a million dollars in expenses and took a building that was supposed to be built for $31 million dollars by the previous board and reduced it to $17 million, and if you take account the difference and the interest on the loan, the District saved almost 50% by being more judicious in where we spent money and how the building was going to be perceived. He also stated that when we built this building it Minutes: 08/12/15 etb 6 was made to be multi-functional so that people who wanted to rent it for a wedding reception or business meeting and things alike they could do so and the District would reap the economic benefits. He noted that there are five candidates for two seats for a 4-year term, it’s great to have a lot of community interest in working for the District; he stated that Mr. Sturgeon would have been able to tell you that its expensive to not be liked by the EVWD Board; that he has been to various meetings that were paid for by the District and returned with ways to increase our return on investments and some of those ways were looked at and accepted and a lot of them weren’t, so we’re not making as much money on our bonds as we could; that he is running for re-election not because of an ego but because he believes this valley and the ratepayers deserve people who are fiscally conservative, and he is fiscally conservative and he thinks the rate increase that was implemented was necessary so that we could keep things running to deliver water to our customers and he will continue to work hard to do so; that not being able to attend various and sundry meetings helps promote ignorance because he cannot afford to pay to go to the meetings, and if he can’t go to meetings then he can’t find ways to help make EVWD better and can’t help find ways to help the economics of EVWD; that there are some meetings that he will continue to attend anyway because they are close enough to allow him to attend but there is no way that he can afford to attend the ACWA Conference even though it is an essential part of education. Director Shelton stated that as a member of East Valley Water District we are all charged with holding the values of Leadership, Partnership and Stewardship and are expected to lead with a sense of ethical and moral conduct; that our behavior at meetings reflects on all of us and when we do not hold ourselves in the manner expected then procedures are put in place, she respects the procedures and the decisions that come from this process. Vice Chairman Coats stated that he concurs with the statements made by Director Carrillo and Shelton. Chairman Morales stated that the statement by Director Coleman may have called him ignorant however, he and the Board responded to admitted lies and the falsification of a public document and the Board took appropriate action to curtail the actions of Director Coleman. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. _________________________ James Morales, Jr., Chairman ____________________ John J. Mura, Secretary BOARD AGENDA ST AFF REPORT Agenda Item #2.b. Meeting Date: September 9, 2015 Consent Item T o: Governing Board Members From: General Manager/CEO Subject: Directors f ees and expenses f or July and August 2015 RECOM MENDAT ION: Approve the Governing Board Members’ fees and expenses for August 2015. BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: The Board has instructed staf f to list all director fees and expenses as a separate agenda item to show full fiscal transparency. Only after Board review and approval will the compensation and expenses be paid. AGENCY IDEALS AND ENDEAVORS: I deals and Endeavor I I - Maintain An Environment Committed To Elevated Public Service (E) – Practice transparent & accountable f iscal management REVIEW BY OT HERS: This agenda items has been reviewed by the Administration department. FISCAL IM PACT : The f iscal impact associated with this agenda item is $5,681.21 which is included in the current f iscal budget. Respectfully submitted: Recommended by: John Mura Justine Hendricksen General Manager / CEO District Clerk ATTACHMENTS: Description Ty pe Directors Fees & Expenses for J uly & August 2015 Backup Material BOARD AGENDA ST AFF REPORT Agenda Item #3. Meeting Date: September 9, 2015 Discussion Item T o: Governing Board Members From: General Manager/CEO Subject: Hazard Mitigation Plan Update RECOM MENDAT ION: Approve the revised Hazard Mitigation Plan and adopt Resolution 2015.22. BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: Emergencies take place throughout the country on a regular basis. I n order ensure that adequate step are being taken to prepare for potential risks, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all governmental agencies to have a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I f a governmental agency does not have an HMP, the agency will not be eligible to receive any hazard mitigation f unding or Department of Homeland Security grant f unding either at the time of a disaster or af ter it has occurred. Hazard Mitigation Plans are intended to identif y policies and action that can be implemented over the long term to reduce risk and future losses. It creates the f ramework f or risk-based decision making to reduce damage to lives, property, and the economy from f uture disasters. Within East Valley Water District’s Hazard Mitigation Plan there are six categories of potential hazards. East Valley Water District first adopted a HMP in 2005, and subsequently adopted revisions in 2011. Staff has completed the required update of the HMP within the guidelines set up by FEMA, the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and San Bernardino County Fire Office of Emergency Services. In 2013 the District submitted an updated plan f or FEMA f or approval. Staff incorporated additional comments from FEMA and received notification that the HMP, as revised, meets all standards. The District’s updated Hazard Mitigation Plan will also be included in the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in participation with other agencies in San Bernardino County. The HMP will serve as a guide for taking steps to reduce the District’s hazard vulnerability. This update included minimal changes to the original 2010 HMP, based on specific comment received by the District f rom FEMA representatives. Once adopted, staff will begin a complete document revision to be completed prior to the 2016 required update. AGENCY IDEALS AND ENDEAVORS: I deals and Endeavor I - Encourage Innovative I nvestments To Promote Sustainable Benefits (D) - Enhance Emergency Preparedness Programs FISCAL IM PACT : There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Respectfully submitted: Recommended by: John Mura General Manager / CEO Kelly Malloy Public Af f airs/Conservation Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description Ty pe Resolution 2015.22 Resolution Letter 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan revision Backup Material RESOLUTION 2015.22 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, ADOPT THE REVISED 2010 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the preservation of life and property is an inherent responsibility of local, state and federal government, and the East Valley Water District (District); and WHEREAS, the District is subject to various hazards including wildfires, earthquakes, drought, and floods; and WHEREAS, the District is committed to increasing the disaster resistance of the infrastructure within the District boundaries as well as the region; and WHEREAS, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all cities, counties, and special districts to adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to receive disaster mitigation funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and WHEREAS, the District has approved and adopted a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in participation with other agencies in San Bernardino County. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the East Valley Water District adopt the Revised 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopted this 9th day of September, 2015 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Morales, Jr. Board President September 9, 2015 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution 2015.22 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting held September 9, 2015. ___________________________ John Mura, Board Secretary Hazard Mitigation Plan Community of East Valley Water District, CA Adoption Date: September 9, 2015 Primary Point of Contact: Kelly Malloy Public Affairs/ Conservation Manager East Valley Water District 31111 Greenspot Road Highland, CA 92346 (909) 885-4900 (office) kmalloy@eastvalley.org East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 2 - Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ..................................................................................................5 1.2 Authority ..................................................................................................................5 1.3 Community Profile...................................................................................................5 1.3.1 Physical Setting ...............................................................................................5 1.3.2 History.............................................................................................................6 1.3.3 Demographics .................................................................................................7 1.3.4 Existing Land Use ...........................................................................................8 1.3.5 Development Trends .......................................................................................8 Section 2 Plan Adoption ............................................................................................................9 2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body........................................................................9 2.2 Promulgation Authority ...........................................................................................9 2.3 Primary Point of Contact .......................................................................................10 Section 3 Planning Process .....................................................................................................11 3.1 Preparing for the Plan ............................................................................................11 3.1.1 Planning Team ..............................................................................................13 3.2 Coordination with Other Jurisdictions, Agencies, and Organizations ...................14 3.3 Public Involvement/Outreach ................................................................................15 3.4 Assess the Hazard ..................................................................................................15 3.5 Set Goals ................................................................................................................15 3.6 Review and Propose Mitigation Measures ............................................................17 3.7 Draft the Hazard Mitigation Plan ...........................................................................17 3.8 Adopt the Plan........................................................................................................17 Section 4 Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................18 4.1 Hazard Identification .............................................................................................18 4.1.1 Hazard Screening Criteria .............................................................................18 4.1.2 Hazard Assessment Matrix ...........................................................................19 4.1.3 Hazard Prioritization .....................................................................................19 4.2 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................20 4.2.1 Dam Inundation Description .........................................................................20 4.2.2 Drought Hazard .............................................................................................22 4.2.3 Earthquake Hazard ........................................................................................24 4.2.4 Flooding Hazard............................................................................................27 4.2.5 Wildfires Hazard ...........................................................................................31 4.3 Inventory Assets.....................................................................................................33 4.3.1 Population .....................................................................................................33 East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 3 - 4.3.2 Buildings .......................................................................................................33 4.3.3 Critical Facility List ......................................................................................34 4.4 Vulnerability Assessment ......................................................................................39 4.4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................39 4.4.2 Dam Inundation Vulnerability Analysis .......................................................40 4.4.3 Drought Vulnerability Analysis ....................................................................40 4.4.4 Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis ...............................................................40 4.4.5 Flooding Vulnerability Analysis ...................................................................41 4.4.6 Wildfires Vulnerability Analysis ..................................................................41 4.4.7 Potential Loss Estimation .............................................................................42 Section 5 Community Capability Assessment.......................................................................48 5.1 Agencies and People ..............................................................................................48 5.2 Existing Plans.........................................................................................................48 5.3 Regulations, Codes, Policies, and Ordinances .......................................................48 5.4 Mitigation Programs ..............................................................................................49 5.5 Fiscal Resources.....................................................................................................49 Section 6 Mitigation Strategies ...............................................................................................51 6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................51 6.2 Mitigation 5-Year Progress Report ........................................................................51 6.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Projects............................................................51 6.3.1 All Hazards ...................................................................................................51 6.3.2 Drought .........................................................................................................52 6.3.3 Earthquake ....................................................................................................52 6.3.4 Flood .............................................................................................................53 6.3.5 Wildfires .......................................................................................................53 6.4 Mitigation Priorities...............................................................................................54 6.5 Implementation Strategy........................................................................................54 Section 7 Plan Maintenance....................................................................................................59 7.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan .....................................................59 7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs ..........................................................59 7.3 Continued Public Involvement ..............................................................................59 East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 4 - Tables Table 1 Time table .......................................................................................................12 Table 2 Screening Assessment Matrix .........................................................................19 Table 3 Hazard Prioritization Matrix ...........................................................................20 Table 4 Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Dam Inundation) .............................................20 Table 5 Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Drought) .........................................................22 Table 6 Drought History ..............................................................................................24 Table 7 Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Earthquake) ....................................................24 Table 8 Earthquake History .........................................................................................26 Table 9 Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Flooding) ........................................................27 Table 10 Flooding History ...........................................................................................29 Table 11 Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Wildfires) .....................................................31 Table 12 List of Critical Facilities ..............................................................................35 Table 13 Economical Impacts on Critical Facilities ....................................................43 Figures Figure 1 Dam Inundation Map .....................................................................................21 Figure 2 Flood Map .....................................................................................................28 Figure 3 Fire Map ........................................................................................................32 Figure 4 District Facilities ...........................................................................................34 Appendices Appendix A: Resolution 2011.19 Appendix B: List of Meetings Appendix C: Earthquake Probabilities Appendix D: Water Conservation Ordinance 358 Section 15 East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 5 - SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Plan Emergencies and disasters cause death or leave people injured or displaced, cause significant damage to our communities, businesses, public infrastructure and our environment, and cost tremendous amounts in terms of response and recovery dollars and economic loss. Hazard mitigation reduces or eliminates losses of life and property. After disasters, repairs and reconstruction are often completed in such a way as to simply restore infrastructure to pre- disaster conditions. Such efforts expedite a return to normalcy; however, the replication of pre- disaster conditions results in a cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Hazard mitigation attempts to break this cycle which results in a reduction in hazard vulnerability. While we cannot prevent disasters from happening, their effects can be reduced or eliminated through a well-organized public education and awareness effort, preparedness and mitigation. For those hazards, which cannot be fully mitigated, the community must be prepared to provide efficient and effective response and recovery. 1.2 Authority As required by the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS-FEMA), all Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMP) must be updated, adopted and approved every five (5) years; the District’s current HMP expired April 2010. The purpose of the update is to validate and incorporate new information into the plan and identify progress that has been made since the last approval of the plan. It should also be noted that an approved HMP is required to receive federal assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) or Pre Disaster Mitigation (PDM) programs. 1.3 Community Profile 1.3.1 Physical Setting East Valley Water District encompasses the Northeast section of the San Bernardino Valley in San Bernardino County. The San Bernardino Valley is located 65 miles due east of the Los Angeles Basin. The San Bernardino Valley is home to the cities of San Bernardino, Redlands, Loma Linda, Colton, Grand Terrace, Highland and the San Manual Reservation. The Districts' service area includes the easterly part of the City of San Bernardino, all of the City of Highland and small-unincorporated areas of the County of San Bernardino. The San Bernardino Valley is desert and is surrounded by mountains on the North and East. Elevations within the valley range from about 500 feet on the valley floor. Elevations in the Mountain area range from 2,000 feet along the foothills to the 11,502-foot summit of Mount San Gorgonio, the highest peak in Southern California. The Seven Oaks Dam is also, located in the District’s boundaries and also home of one of the oldest operating water conveyance canals in Southern California, the North-Fork East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 6 - Irrigation Canal. This canal was constructed in 1880 to supply water to the famers in and Highland and San Bernardino. Today this canal still serves water to some famers, but most importantly, this canal serves treated water to the residents of East Valley Water District. The District has two independent government entities located within its service area. The San Manual Band of Mission Indians reservation and Patton State Hospital, which is a State of California institution for the criminally insane. EVWD contracts with these entities to provide potatable water and sewer service. The San Bernardino Valley is a desert area. There are two major earthquake faults in the San Bernardino Valley, the San Andreas Fault and the San Jacinto fault. The San Andreas Fault runs though the District’s boundaries, starting on the north eastside. This fault basically cuts the District in half, with potable water reservoirs on the north side of the fault and wells and pipeline structures on the south side of the fault. The San Jacinto Fault is within 5 miles of the District’s southern and western boundaries. 1.3.2 History East Valley Water District East Valley Water District is a County District, formed in 1954 through an election by local residents who wanted water service by a public agency. Originally called the East San Bernardino County Water District, the name was changed to East Valley Water District in 1982. The District was originally formed to provide domestic water service to the unincorporated and agricultural-based communities of Highland and East Highlands. Later, as the population increased, the need for a modern sewer system to replace existing septic tanks became apparent. The residents voted to give East Valley Water District the responsibility for their sewer system, as they did earlier with their water service. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 7 - Over the years, some of the District’s service area was annexed into the City of San Bernardino. But water service remained with the District, primarily due to logistics and cost. Now, the District’s previously agriculturally dominated service area is urbanized. Before September 2000, the District’s service area was approximately 14,750 acres, or 28.5 square miles. An annexation in September 2000 increased the District’s service area by 3,228 acres and included the Greenspot Ranch Area. The District has a service population of approximately 70,000 and collects no tax money. All services are financed solely by rates – customers pay only for the benefits and services they receive. City of Highland Highland's original town site was founded in 1891, and the community soon became an important contributor to the citrus industry. Many of the buildings constructed during the town's early era are still in use, helping to preserve the sense of community and transition into the Highland of today. The City of Highland was incorporated as a California general law city in November 1987. City of San Bernardino The City of San Bernardino is a community rich in history and cultural diversity. Influenced of Native Americans, Mexican settlers, Spanish missionaries and Mormon immigrants can still be seen throughout the city today. From the day in 1801 when Franciscan missionary Father Dumetx named the area San Bernardino in to the present, San Bernardino has been recognized for its scenic beauty and strategic location. Today, the City of San Bernardino serves as the county seat and is the largest city in the County of San Bernardino with a population of over 205,000. San Bernardino city spans over 81 square miles. 1.3.3 Demographics The District is currently a bedroom community and has no public Hospitals or major manufactures within its boundaries. The District’s service area contains approximately 30 square miles and currently serves approximately 101,000 people. The District serves the San Manual Reservation. The Reservation operates a Casino on a 24-hr basis and also, operates 6 restaurants within the casino. Patton State Hospital is currently a forensic facility with a licensed bed capacity of 1,287. This hospital is for individuals who have been committed by the judicial system for treatment. 1.3.4 Existing Land Use The area industry includes agricultural production of citrus and small industrial business. The San Manuel Indian Casino and Reservation is located in the Highland area and the East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 8 - District serves both water and sewer to the reservation. Patton State Hospital is also located in the District’s service boundaries. Patton is a major forensic mental hospital operated by the California Department of State Hospitals with a licensed bed capacity of 1287 for patients who have been committed by the judicial system for treatment. The District is currently a bedroom community and has no public Hospitals or major manufactures within its boundaries. Land use is determined by the Cities of Highland and San Bernardino. 1.3.5 Development Trends Since 2008, the EVWD service area, like most portions of California, has experienced a dramatic decrease in population growth. However, the EVWD service area consists of scenic open space conducive to residential growth. The Harmony development is the largest of the master planned communities within the District, located east of Greenspot Road in the eastern-most portion of the service area. The new development consists of approximately 1,900 acres and may add up to 20,000 new residents in the District upon build-out anticipated in 2035. Due to the economic downturn, smaller development or in- fill projects requiring new water connections have dramatically decreased year over year since 2007. However it is anticipated that new water connections will begin to increase year over year starting in 2011. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 9 - SECTION 2: PLAN ADOPTION 2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body This 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) will be presented to the East Valley Water District Governing Body for adoption upon final approval by FEMA. Upon adoption, Board meeting minutes will be included within the HMP. Appendix A: Draft Resolution 2.2 Promulgation Authority Authority This Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed and approved by the following Promulgation Authorities: James Morales, Jr. Board President Description of Involvement: Board President, East Valley Water District Board of Directors Ronald Coats Vice President Description of Involvement: Vice President, East Valley Water District Board of Directors. Chris Carrillo Director Description of Involvement: Director, East Valley Water District Board of Directors Ben Coleman Director Description of Involvement: Director, East Valley Water District Board of Directors Nanetter Shelton Director Description of Involvement: Director, East Valley Water District Board of Directors John Mura General Manager / Board Secretary Description of Involvement: General Manager of East Valley Water District, EVWD Board secretary. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 10 - 2.3 Primary Point of Contact The Point of Contact for information regarding this plan is: Kelly Malloy Public Affairs/Conservation Manager East Valley Water District 31111 Greenspot Road Highland, CA 92346 909-885-4900 (Office) kmalloy@eastvalley.org East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 11 - SECTION 3: PLANNING PROCESS The purpose of this section is to document the planning process that was taken to review, revise, and update the 2005 HMP. A comprehensive description of the planning process not only informs citizens and other readers about how the plan was developed, but also provides a permanent record of how decisions were reached so it can be replicated or adapted in future plan updates. An integral part of the planning process is documentation of how the public was engaged through the process. This HMP was completed with the coordination and involvement in the San Bernardino Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update planning efforts. The update process was done with the assistance of a local Planning Team, consisting of members within the District who had a vested interest and were appropriate for the level of knowledge required for the local HMP. For example, one person on the planning team has been with the District since 1987 and knew the history of previous hazards affecting the District. This team developed and implemented the planning process. This section includes a list of the planning team members, a summary of the meetings held, coordination efforts with surrounding communities/groups, and all Public Outreach efforts. 3.1 Preparing for the Plan The District’s local planning team reviewed the existing 2005 HMP and Crosswalk to determine which sections of the plan needed to be updated. Once the planning team had reviewed these documents and added any new hazard and mitigation program information, recommendations were presented for public review and input. The update process consisted of: • Documenting actions since 2005; • Incorporating new data; • Engaging the Planning Team; • Posting the 2005 and 2010 plan onto the District’s Web-site; • Talking with the Highland Community News and attempting to get an article published • Sharing information at the EVWD Board meetings that are held twice a month; and • Conducting Public Outreach To provide a better understand of the Planning Process and give a timeframe of the effort, Table 1 shows the draft timeline for preparing the Draft HMP for the District and the San Bernardino County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, discussed further in the following sections. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 12 - Table 1: Time Table 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Meeting(s) Working Group Stakeholder Group Review 2005 SB Co HMP and Crosswalk Establish Planning Team Initial Public Outreach Update the 2005 HMP Chapter 1- Introduction Chapter 2- Plan Adoption Chapter 3- Planning Process Chapter 4- Risk Assessment Chapter 5 Community Capability Assessment Chapter 6- Mitigation Strategy Chapter 7- Plan Maintenance Second Public Outreach and Comment Period Incorporate Revisions Upload HMP Update on portal ICF Team Comments Revise HMP Submit to SB County OES for transmission to Cal EMA Submit to Cal EMA for approval Submit to FEMA for approval pending adoption Adoption by local governing body FEMA Approval In Person Conf Call Deadline Group 2 October November December January March 2011 February 2010 June July August September East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 13 - 3.1.1 Planning Team This Hazard Mitigation Plan was compiled and authored by members of the following Planning Team: Cecilia Contreras Administrative Office Specialist II Description of Involvement: Cecilia Contreras is the Administrative Office Specialist II for East Valley Water District. She coordinates meetings, type’s agenda and helps with the input of information into the Mitigation Plan. She attends the public meeting and compiles the minutes for all mitigation meetings and contacts all members for meeting reminders. Gary Sturdivan Safety and Regulatory Affairs Director Description of Involvement: Gary Sturdivan is the Safety and Regulatory Affairs Director for East Valley Water District and is the Planning Team Leader for the District's Mitigation Plan and was the main preparer of this document. Ron Buchwald District Engineer Description of Involvement: District Engineer for East Valley Water District, Internal Mitigation Planning Team member. Eliseo Ochoa Assistant District Engineer Description of Involvement: Assistant District Engineer for East Valley Water District. Internal Mitigation Planning Team member Gerald Sievers Water System Superintendent Description of Involvement: Water System Superintendent for East Valley Water District. Internal Mitigation Planning Team member. Mike Henderson Water Production Supervisor Description of Involvement: Water Production Supervisor for East Valley Water District, Internal Mitigation Planning Team member. Dan Borell GIS Coordinator, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Description of Involvement: Dan Borell is the GIS Coordinator for the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. Dan is a member of the East Valley Water District Mitigation Planning Team. Dan brings his input and concerns to the planning of our Mitigation Plan. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 14 - Frank Salazar ERC Regulatory Analyst, City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department Description of Involvement: Frank Salazar is the Safety Manager at the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. Frank is a member of the East Valley Water District Mitigation Planning Team. Frank brings his input and concerns to the planning of our Mitigation Plan. John Hull Public Works Manager, Yucaipa Valley Water District Description of Involvement: John Hull is the Safety Manager at Yucaipa Valley Water District. John is a member of the East Valley Water District Mitigation Planning Team. John brings his input and concerns to the planning of our Mitigation Plan. Jonathon Dizon Engineering, Monte Vista Water District Description of Involvement: Jonathon Dizon is the Safety Manager at Monte Vista Water District. Jonathon is a member of the East Valley Water District Mitigation Planning Team. Jonathon brings his input and concerns to the planning of our Mitigation Plan. A planning team made up of personnel from the Engineering, Production, Field and Administration department meet to review the current mitigation plan. During these meetings, the group discusses possible hazards at the District facilities and mitigation measures. 3.2 Coordination with Other Jurisdictions, Agencies, and Organizations San Bernardino County Fire Department Office of Emergency Services (OES) is coordinating the update of the “San Bernardino County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan”. The current “Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan” contains information from 55 local HMPs, and are included as an annex to the County’s Operational Area plan. The 55 participants include all of the 24 (formatting problem)incorporated cities and towns, 30 special districts, and areas in the unincorporated county. The District is a participating special district within the San Bernardino County OES Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The District participated in the bi-weekly meetings to coordinate and receive support for their HMP with the County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The support included receiving technical expertise, resource material and tools. This assistance was used to expedite the HMP update process, and to ensure that the updates are in compliance with federal requirements of the program. The tools, resource material, and other project related information were maintained on a project portal (https://tmsprojects.icfi.com/sbhmpupdate/default.aspx) to ensure the same information was available to all participants. Also, interaction with other local water agencies proved valuable in the development of the mitigation projects for the plan. Water Districts within the County of San Bernardino met to collectively discuss necessary decisions for the HMP and evaluate new ideas to streamline resources. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 15 - East Valley Water District hosted meetings at our agency headquarters and organized the processes for participating water agencies. 3.3 Public Involvement/Outreach EVWD and the Safety Regulatory Director has worked with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), All Hazard Planning Committee on ShakeOut and the ARkStorm Planning Committee. These sessions were set to conduct scientific hazard planning with other water agencies within California. To accomplish the same end on a national level, they coordinated with the American Water Works Associations Emergency Preparedness and Security Committee. The District’s Safety & Regulatory Director is Chair of this committee. EVWD holds yearly emergency response exercises with the public, other water agencies, California Water Wastewater Agency Response Network, California Emergency Managament Agency (CalEMA) and the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino Operational Area’s attend and coordinate water and wastewater issues. An effort was made to solicit public input during the planning process during the Board Meetings beginning September 28th, 2009 until completion of the plan. Information about the plan was posted on the District’s website (www.eastvalley.org) and on Board Agendas for any public comments. There was a short article in the Highland Committee News, published on November 26, 2010. The 2005 and 2010 HMPs were posted on the District Web-site for public comments. No public comments were received. Please see Appendix B for the details of the public involvement process including meeting dates, purpose, agendas, sign-in sheets, minutes, and more. 3.4 Assess the Hazard. This HMP has been developed through an extensive review of available information on hazards. The District’s 2009 Emergency Response Plan, the Water Master Plan, the 2006 and Draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plans were studied. All related, engineering drawings, aerial photographs and available geotechnical and geologic data both from the District and outside sources ,i.e. the California Geological Survey for detailed fault investigation reports were examined. The assessment of the various hazards was completed by the Planning Team. The members of this team averaged 25 years of District experience and knew the history of past hazardous events. 3.5 Set Goals The Planning Team established four overall mitigation goals used to establish and prioritize specific goal objectives and mitigation measures for each hazard. These include:  Minimize loss of life and property from natural hazard events East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 16 -  Protect public health and safety  Increase public awareness of risk from natural hazards  Enhance emergency services/response Project and community hazard mitigation goals and objectives for the District were set by the Planning Team to guide the development of the Plan. The goals in the National context discussed below were considered during this process. National Mitigation Strategies and Goals: FEMA has developed ten fundamental principles for the Nation’s mitigation strategy and goals: 1. Risk reduction measures must ensure long-term economic success for the community as a whole, rather than short-term benefits for special interests. 2. Risk reduction hazards for one natural hazard must be compatible with risk reduction measures for other natural hazards. 3. Risk reduction measures must be evaluated to achieve the best mix for a given location. 4. Risk reduction measures for natural hazards must be compatible with risk reduction measures for technological (man-made) hazards and vice versa. 5. All mitigation is local. 6. Emphasizing proactive mitigation before emergency response can reduce disaster costs and the impacts of natural hazards. Both pre-disaster (preventative) and post-disaster (corrective) mitigation is needed. 7. Hazard identification and risk assessment are the cornerstones of mitigation. 8. Building new federal-state-local partnerships and public-private partnerships is the most effective means of implementing measures to reduce the impact of natural hazards. 9. Those who knowingly choose to assume greater risk must accept responsibility for that choice. 10. Risk reduction measures for natural hazards must be compatible with the protection of natural and cultural resources. FEMA’s goals are to:  Substantially increase public awareness of natural hazard risks so that the public demands safer communities in which to live and work;  Significantly reduce the risk of loss of life, injuries, economic costs, and destruction of natural and cultural resources that result from natural hazards. Hazard mitigation planning is a collaborative process whereby hazards affecting the community are identified, vulnerability to the hazard is assessed, and consensus reached on alternative mitigation measures that will best eliminate or reduce the effects of these hazards on the community. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 17 - 3.6 Review and Propose Mitigation Measures Meetings (both in-person and virtual) were held with the Planning Team to solicit their input and review sections of the HMP. Each meeting focused on specific sections from the 2005 HMP, including the Introduction, Participation Information, Planning Process and Public Involvement, Risk Assessment, Mitigation Strategy, and Plan Maintenance. 3.7 Draft the Hazard Mitigation Plan The Safety and Regulatory Affairs Director for the District, who was on the Planning Team also assisted the District in completing the 2005 HMP, drafted this HMP. The updated HMPs were measured against a FEMA-designed Crosswalk. The Crosswalk links the federal requirement with the section in the HMP where the information can be found. From this a rating of the level of compliance was compared with the regulation 3.8 Adopt the Plan Upon finalizing the HMP, the Planning Team sent it to the County of San Bernardino and the State of California for approval, before sending it to FEMA for final approval. Once approved by FEMA, the plan would be presented to the District’s Board for adoption as written. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 18 - SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT The goal of mitigation is to reduce the future impacts of a hazard including property damage, disruption to local and regional economies, and the amount of public and private funds spent to assist with recovery. In addition, mitigation should be based on risk assessment. The purpose of this section is to describe the methodology used to understand the hazards in the District’s service area. There were four steps in this process: 1) identify and screen the hazards; 2) profile the hazards; 3) inventory the assets; and, 4) estimate losses. This risk assessment involved measuring the potential loss from a hazard event by assessing the vulnerability of buildings, infrastructure, and people. It identified the characteristics and potential consequences of each potential hazard. This assessment measured the extent of damage possible in the District and the impact on District assets. The projected risk assessment consisted of three components: hazard identification, vulnerability analysis, and risk analysis. Though these are individual parts, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably 4.1 Hazard Identification 4.1.1 Hazard Screening Criteria The intent of screening the hazards wasto help prioritize which hazard creates the greatest concern to the District. Because the previous process (in 2005) used to rank hazards (Critical Priority Risk Index (CPRI) software) was not being utilized, the alternative approach will be explained. The process that was implemented is logical and can be universally applied. For this 2010 HMP Update, the District is utilizing a non-numerical ranking system for the hazard screening process. A list of the natural hazards to consider was obtained from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “State and Local Mitigation Planning how-to guide: Understanding Your Risks”, (FEMA 386-1). The District’s planning team reviewed each hazard on the list and using their experience with the hazards, the following conclusions were drawn. Natural hazards considered by the District’s planning team include the following: • Dam Inundation • Drought • Earthquake • Flash flooding • Flooding • Wildfires East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 19 - The following natural hazards were considered not to affect or be a risk to the District as decided by the District’s planning team: • Extreme Heat • High Winds/Straight Line Winds • Lightning • Tornados • Hurricans • Hailstorms 4.1.2 Hazard Assessment Matrix For this 2010 HMP Update, the District utilized a non-numerical ranking system consisting by generating a non-numerical ranking (similar to high, medium and low) rating for the probability and impact of each of the District’s screened hazards. • For Probability, the rating options are: Highly Likely, Likely, or Somewhat Likely • For Impact, the rating options are: Catastrophic, Critical, or Limited Table 2 is the screening assessment matrix used for the District’s hazards. The hazards have been placed in the appropriate/corresponding box/cell of the corresponding “Hazard Matrix” A subset of this group of hazards was used for the prioritization of the hazards in the following section. Table 2: Screening Assessment Matrix 4.1.3 Hazard Prioritization Using the hazard screening criteria and assessment matrix discussed in the previous two sections, the District’s planning team identified the following three hazards to be the most likely to affect the District: Pr o b a b i l i t y Impact Catastrophic Critical Limited Highly Likely Earthquake Wildfires, Drought Likely Flooding, Flash Flooding Somewhat Likely Dam Inundation East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 20 - 1. Wildfires: Many of the District’s facilities are located in the Foothills and have a high fire potential as well as limited access to the facilities during a wildfire. 2. Earthquake Hazard: There are two active faults within miles of the District’s service area. The San Andreas Fault runs within the District’s service area. The second fault is the San Jacinto fault. These faults could potentially damage 100% of the District’s critical facilities. The San Andreas is 150 years overdue for a major event and was identified by USGS as one of the most likely faults in the U.S. to rupture in the next 30 years. 3. Drought: A drought could impact 100% of the District’s population. Table 3 presents the summary results of prioritizing each hazard based on the level of risk. The “red shaded” boxes are the top ranked hazards and are the District’s priority (or high profile) hazards. The hazards in the “white” boxes are the less critical hazards for the District. Table: 3 Hazard Prioritization Matrix The three high profile hazards for the District are wildfire, earthquake, and drought. While other hazards are profiled in the following sections for completeness, the District’s priority and focus for the mitigation projects will be for only the three high profile hazards. 4.2 Hazard Profile 4.2.1 Dam Inundation Description Table 4: Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Dam Inundation) Pr o b a b i l i t y Impact Catastrophic Critical Limited Highly Likely Earthquake Wildfires, Drought Likely Flooding, Flash Flooding Somewhat Likely Dam Inundation Pr o b a b i l i t y Impact Catastrophic Critical Limited Highly Likely Likely Somewhat Likely Dam Inundation East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 21 - The following section describes the hazard and then details the historical events associated with this hazard for the East Valley Water District. General Definition: Dam failure Inundation is defined as the flooding which occurs as the result of structural failure of a dam. Description: In reviewing the “Dam Inundation Areas”, attached map, it appears that portions of the District’s service area falls within a dam inundation area. The Districst’s Plant 125 is located in the dam inundation area. The areas affected are mostly unpopulated. The Phillip A. Disch Surface Water Treatment Plant is not located within the dam inundation area but would be affected. This Treatment plant receives water from the Santa Ana River and supplies about 15% of the total supply of drinking water within the District. Please see Figure 1 for details. Therefore, the District is dropping this hazard from further evaluation. Also, the District has no history of dam inundation. Figure 1: Dam Inundation Map East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 22 - 4.2.2 Drought Hazard The following section describes the hazard and then details the historical events associated with this hazard for the East Valley Water District. Table 5: Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Drought) 1. General Definition: A drought is a period of dryer-than-normal conditions that results in water-related problems. Precipitation (rain or snow) falls in uneven patterns across the country. When no rain or only a small amount of rain falls, soils can dry out and plants can die. If dry weather persists and water supply problems develop, the dry period can become a drought. Droughts differ from typical emergency events such as floods or forest fires, in that they occur slowly over a multiyear period. California has faced numerous challenges in recent years, including a nearly decade-long drought on the Colorado River, snowpacks that are below normal, and court-mandated reductions in the amount of water available for delivery by the State Water Project. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline. Climate change, population growth, and the increasing instability of the water supplies in the delta formed by the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers threaten to exacerbate the crisis Description: The District provides water and a severe multi year drought can be a hazard to the District. A drought is defined as a series of years with less than average rainfall and typically lasts seven years. Southern California has a history of severe droughts. There have been six severe extended droughts within the last 400 years (the most severe drought lasted from approximately 1650 to 1700). The U.S. Weather Service is forecasting 20 more years of below average rainfall. The 2009 California Water Plan states that Water Year 2009 was the third consecutive dry year for the state. Because of losses caused by this drought, the U.S. Department of Agriculture in September designated all of the counties within the San Joaquin River, Tulare Lake, and Central Coast Hydrologic Regions as either Primary Natural Disaster Areas or Natural Disaster Areas (statewide total was 21 counties and 29 counties, respectively). The state entered the 2009-2010 Water Year with its key supply reservoirs at only 68 percent of average. Pr o b a b i l i t y Impact Catastrophic Critical Limited Highly Likely Drought Likely Somewhat Likely East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 23 - The fundamental drought impact to water agencies is a reduction in available water supplies. As a result, historic occurrences of drought have encouraged water agencies to review the reliability of their water supplies and to initiate planning programs addressing identified needs for improvement. In addition, public and media interest in droughts fosters heightened awareness of water supply reliability issues in the Legislature. More than 50 drought-related legislative proposals were introduced during the severe, but brief 1976-77 drought. About one-third of these eventually became law. Similar activity on drought-related legislative proposals was observed during the 1987-92 droughts. One of the most significant pieces of legislation was the 1991 amendment to the Urban Water Management and Planning Act, in effect since 1983, which requires water suppliers to estimate available water supplies at the end of one, two, and three years, and to develop contingency plans for shortages of up to 50 percent. The District’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP EVWD, 2006) presents water supply to demand comparisons through 2030. The 2010 UWMP will be completed by June 30, 2011 and will update any demand and supplies documented in the 2005 UWMP The plan also presents water supply to demand comparisons for single dry to multiple dry year scenarios. The comparisons show that the District has adequate supply through 2030. The Bunker Hill Basin covers approximately 92,000 acres. It is located at the top of the Santa Ana River watershed and received all the surface water runoff from the headwaters of the Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, Lytle Creek, and other tributaries. The Bunker Hill Basin stores approximately five million acre feet of water. The basin is recharged by rain, runoff from the surrounding mountains and imported water. The Bunker Hill Basin provides water to approximately 650,000 people in the cities of Highland, San Bernardino, Redlands, Loma Linda, Colton, Rialto, Bloomington, Fontana, Grand Terrace, and Riverside. Southern California has a history of severe droughts. There have been six severe extended droughts within the last 400 years (the most severe drought lasted from approximately 1650 to 1700). The U.S. Weather Service is forecasting 20 more years of below average rainfall. The 2009 California Water Plan states that Water Year 2009 was the third consecutive dry year for the state. Because of losses caused by this drought, the U.S. Department of Agriculture in September designated all of the counties within the San Joaquin River, Tulare Lake, and Central Coast Hydrologic Regions as either Primary Natural Disaster Areas or Natural Disaster Areas (statewide total was 21 counties and 29 counties, respectively). The state entered the 2009-2011 Water Year with its key supply reservoirs at only 68 percent of average. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 24 - Table 6 summarizes the occurrences, impact, and costs of this hazard. Table 6: Drought History Date of Event Type of Damage Amount of Damage Statewide or Local 1976-1977 Annual statewide runoff dropped 21% below average. 1976-$888.5M; 1977-$1.775M; TOTAL- $2.7B various 1987-1992 Annual statewide runoff dropped 27% below average. Twenty-three counties had declared local drought emergencies by the end of 1991. SWP terminated services to agricultural contractors and provided only 10% of requested urban deliveries. Appropriate $34.8M from the General Fund to the Department for financial assistance to local water suppliers for emergency drought-relief water supply, technical water conservation assistance, and operation of the Department's Drought Information Center. various 1998-current San Bernardino National Forest - dead and dying trees, bark beetle infestations. $12,100 crop damage. various Summarizing Risk Probability: Highly Likely Impact: Critical 4.2.3 Earthquake Hazard Table 7: Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Earthquake) Pr o b a b i l i t y Impact Catastrophic Critical Limited Highly Likely Earthquake Likely Somewhat Likely East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 25 - The following section describes the hazard and then details the historical events associated with this hazard for the East Valley Water District. General Definition: An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the Earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the Earth's surface. For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of plate tectonics have shaped the Earth as the huge plates that form the Earth's surface move slowly over, under, and past each other. Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates are locked together, unable to release the accumulating energy. When the accumulated energy grows strong enough, the plates break free causing the ground to shake. Most earthquakes occur at the boundaries where the plates meet; however, some earthquakes occur in the middle of plates. Ground shaking from earthquakes can collapse buildings and bridges; disrupt gas, electric, water utilities, and phone service; and sometimes trigger landslides, avalanches, flash floods, fires, and huge, destructive ocean waves (tsunamis). Buildings with foundations resting on unconsolidated landfill and other unstable soil, and trailers and homes not tied to their foundations are at risk because they can be shaken off their mountings during an earthquake. When an earthquake occurs in a populated area, it may cause deaths and injuries and extensive property damage. Earthquakes strike suddenly, without warning. Earthquakes can occur at any time of the year and at any time of the day or night. On a yearly basis, 70 to 75 damaging earthquakes occur throughout the world. Estimates of losses from a future earthquake in the United States approach $200 billion. There are 45 states and territories in the United States at moderate to very high risk from earthquakes, and they are located in every region of the country. California experiences the most frequent damaging earthquakes; however, Alaska experiences the greatest number of large earthquakes—most located in uninhabited areas. The largest earthquakes felt in the United States were along the New Madrid Fault in Missouri, where a three- month long series of quakes from 1811 to 1812 included three quakes larger than a magnitude of 8 on the Richter Scale. These earthquakes were felt over the entire Eastern United States, with Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi experiencing the strongest ground shaking. Description: There are two earthquake faults located within the District’s service area. They are the San Andreas Fault and the San Jacinto Fault. The source for the earthquake profile is a new earthquake rupture forecast for California developed by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP 2007). The Working Group was organized in September 2005, by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the California Geological Survey (CGS), and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). The group produced a revised, time independent forecast for California for the national seismic hazard maps. Appendix C presents the earthquake profile findings for the District’s service area. The ground motion findings indicate the peak ground acceleration (PGA) within the District’s East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 26 - service area could potentially exceed 80 percent. Typically, any acceleration over 3 percent is considered excessive. Also, the map shown in Appendix C illustrates there is a 97% probability that Southern California will have a 7.6 scale earthquake over the next 30 years. Since the 2005 HMP, the District has no damages to facilities resulting from earthquakes. Table 8 summarizes the occurrences, impact, and costs of this hazard. Table 8: Earthquake History Earthquake Name Date of Earthquake Magnitude of Quake Damage Description Wrightwood Earthquake Dec. 8, 1812 7.5 40 deaths. Cajon Pass July 22, 1899 5.7 Landslides, heavy damage to buildings in San Bernardino. No deaths. San Jacinto Dec. 25 1899 6.5 San Jacinto & Hemet had severe damage. Six deaths. Chimneys thrown down and walls cracked in Riverside. Elsinore May 15, 1910 6 Chimney’s toppled. San Jacinto April 21, 1918 6.8 Most damage in San Jacinto and Hemet. Several injuries, one death. Landslides, cracks in ground, roads, and canals. North San Jacinto July 22, 1923 6.3 Chimney’s toppled, broken windows, 2 critical injuries, no deaths, San Bernardino hospital and Hall of Records badly damaged. San Jacinto Terwilliger March 25, 1937 6.0 Few chimneys damaged, some plaster cracked, a few windows broken. Minimal damage mostly due to sparsely populated area. Fish Creek Mountains Oct 21, 1942 6.6 Little damage due to remote location, felt over a large area. Rockslides Desert Hot Springs Dec 4, 1948 6.0 Widespread damage. In Los Angeles, 5,800 gallon water tank split, water pipes broken in Pasadena, at UCLA, and San Diego. Walls cracked in Escondido and Corona. 1954 San Jacinto March 19, 1954 6.4 Minor widespread damage. Parts of San Bernardino experienced a temporary blackout. Borrego Mountain April 8, 1968 6.5 Largest most damaging earthquake in 16 years. Damage across most of Southern California. Landslides, huge boulders thrown. Lytle Creek Sept. 12, 1970 5.2 Landslides, rock falls, 4 injuries, San Bernardino radio station knocked off the air. White Wash Feb 25, 1980 5.5 Landslides. Windows and dishes broken. Fire broke out in Rancho Mirage due to a gas line rupture in an empty home. 1988 Upland and 1990 Upland June 26, 1988 and Feb 28, 1990 4.7 and 5.4 respectively Landslides, damage to San Antonio Dam, 38 minor injuries. Public-$4.87M; business-$4.7M; private-$2,4M; total-$12M; 501 homes and 115 businesses damaged or destroyed. North Palm Springs July 8, 1986 5.6 29 injuries. Destruction or damage of 51 homes. Landslides. Damage over $4M. Joshua Tree April 22, 1992 6.1 32 minor injuries. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 27 - Earthquake Name Date of Earthquake Magnitude of Quake Damage Description Big Bear/Landers June 28,1992 2 separate earthquakes – Big Bear - 6.4, Landers – 7.3. Landslides in San Bernardino Mountains. Substantial damage in Big Bear. Landers was the largest earthquake in southern California in 40 years. Earthquake ruptured 5 separate faults. Total rupture length was 53 miles. One death, 402 injuries. Private-$47.5M; business-$17M; public-$26.6M; total-$91M; 77 homes destroyed, 4,369 homes damaged, 139 businesses damaged. Hector Mine Oct. 16, 1999 7.1 Very remote location. Ruptured in both directions from the epicenter. Summarizing Risk Probability: Highly Likely Magnitude/Severity: Catastrophic 4.2.4 Flooding Hazard Table 9: Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Flooding) The following section describes the hazard and then details the historical events associated with this hazard for the East Valley Water District. General Definition: A flood, as defined by the National Flood Insurance Program is: "A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of normally dry land area or of two or more properties (at least one of which is your property) from: • Overflow of inland or tidal waters. • Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, or a mudflow. Floods can be slow or fast rising but generally develop over a period of days. Mitigation includes any activities that prevent an emergency, reduce the chance of an emergency happening, or lessen the damaging effects of unavoidable emergencies. Flash flooding tends to occur in the summer and early fall because of the monsoon and is typified by Pr o b a b i l i t y Impact Catastrophic Critical Limited Highly Likely Likely Flooding Somewhat Likely East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 28 - increased humidity and high summer temperatures. The standard for flooding is the so- called "100-year flood," a benchmark used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to establish a standard of flood control in communities throughout the country. Thus, the 100-year flood is also referred to as the "regulatory" or "base" flood It means there is a one in one-hundred (or 1%) chance of a flood of that intensity and elevation happening in any given year. In other words, it is the flood elevation that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. And it could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. (By comparison, the 10-year flood means that there is a ten percent chance for a flood of its intensity and elevation to happen in any given year.)1 Figure 2: Flood Map In recent history, there have been 17 floods, storms, and flash floods in the District’s general service area. Table 11 summarizes the occurrences, impact, and costs of this hazard. 1 Rod Bolin, The Ponca City News, July 18, 2002. Page 5-A East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 29 - Table 10: Flooding History Date of event Type of Damage Amount of Damage Statewide or Local Dec-55 74 deaths $200 M State wide Apr-58 13 deaths, several injuries $20 M, plus $4 M agricultural State wide Fall 1965 Abnormally heavy and continuous rainfall. Public- $5.8 M; private $16.0 M; Total $21.8 M Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Diego Counties Winter 1966 Abnormally heavy and continuous rainfall. Public- $14.6 M; private $14 M; Total $28.7 M Various Winter 1969 Storms, flooding, 47 dead, 161 injured. An alluvial flood and debris flow on Deer Creek in San Bernardino County killed 11 people. Public- $185 M, Private - $115 M; Total -$300 M Various Sep-76 High winds, heavy rains, and flooding Public-$65.7 M; private- $54.3 M; TOTAL-$120 M Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Counties Winter 1978 14 dead, at least 21 injured Public-$73 M; private-$44 M; Total -$117 M; 2,538 homes destroyed Various Jul-79 Public-$3.0 M; private- $22.9 M; Total -$25.9 M Riverside Feb-80 Rain, wind, mud slides, and flooding Various Winter 82-83 Heavy rains, high winds, flooding, levee breaks Public-$151 M; private- $159 M; agricultural-$214 M; TOTAL-$524 M Various Aug-83 High winds, storms, and flooding; 3 deaths Public $10 M, private $15 M, agricultural $10 M; TOTAL-$35 M Inyo, Riverside, San Bernardino Counties East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 30 - Date of event Type of Damage Amount of Damage Statewide or Local Feb-92 Flooding, rainstorms, mud slides; 5 deaths Public-$95 M; private- $18.5 M; business-$8.5 M, agricultural-$1.5 M; TOTAL-$123 M Los Angeles, Ventura, Kern, Orange, San Bernardino Counties Dec-92 Snow, rain, and high winds, 20 deaths, 10 injuries Total - $600 M Various Jan-95 11 deaths Public-$299.6 M; individual-$128.4 M; businesses $58.4 M; highways-$158 M; ag-$97 M; TOTAL-$741.4 M; damage to homes: major- 1,883; minor-4, 179; destroyed-370. Various Feb-95 17 deaths Public property-$190.6 M; individual-$122.4 M; business-$46.9 M; highways-$79 M; ag-$651.6 M; TOTAL-approximately $1.1 billion; damage to homes: major-1,322; minor- 2,299; destroyed-267 57 counties (all except Del Norte) Feb-98 17 deaths $550 M Various Dec-03 15 deaths San Bernardino – Waterman Canyon from Lytle Creek River. Summarizing Risk Probability: Likely Magnitude/Severity: Critical East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 31 - 4.2.5 Wildfires Hazard Table 11: Hazard Prioritization Matrix (Wildfires) The following section describes the hazard and then details the historical events associated with this hazard for the East Valley Water District. General Definition: A wildland fire is a type of fire that spreads through all types of vegetation. It often begins unnoticed, spreads quickly, and is usually signaled by dense smoke that may be visible from miles around. Wildland fires can be caused by human activities (such as arson or campfires) or by natural events such as lightning. Wildland fires often occur in forests or other areas with ample vegetation. In addition to wildland fires, wildfires can be classified as urban fires, interface or intermix fires, and prescribed burns. The following three factors contribute significantly to wildland fire behavior and can be used to identify wildland fire hazard areas:  Topography: As slope increases, the rate of wildland fire spread typically increases. South facing slopes are also subject to more solar radiation, making them drier and thereby intensifying wildland fire behavior. However, ridge tops may mark the end of wildland fire spread, since fire spreads more slowly or may even be unable to spread downhill.  Fuel: The type and condition of vegetation plays a significant role in the occurrence and spread of wildland fires. Certain types of plants are more susceptible to burning or will burn with greater intensity. Dense or overgrown vegetation increases the amount of combustible material available to fuel the fire (referred to as the “fuel load”). The ratio of living to dead plant matter is also important. The risk of fire is increased significantly during periods of prolonged drought as the moisture content of both living and dead plant matter decreases. The fuel’s continuity, both horizontally and vertically, is also an important factor.  Weather: The most variable factor affecting wildland fire behavior is weather. Temperature, humidity, wind, and lightning can affect chances for ignition and spread of fire. Extreme weather, such as high temperatures and low humidity, can lead to extreme wildland fire activity. By contrast, cooling and higher humidity often signals reduced wildland fire occurrence and easier containment. Description: The average annual rainfall in the District’s service area is less than 15 inches per year. Portions of the area are rural, with forests surrounding portions of the District. Wildfires are a potential significant hazard. Pr o b a b i l i t y Impact Catastrophic Critical Limited Highly Likely Wildfires Likely Somewhat Likely East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 32 - Figure 3 shows the “Very High” fire threat map for the District’s north and east systems in San Bernardino County, prepared by the California Department of Forestry. The maps show five threat classes that range from Non- Wildland Non-Urban to Very High. However, a more detailed examination during the District Facility site reconnaissance determined a moderate fire hazard existed because of clearing zones around each facility. The District has an active maintenance program to address such issues. Still, the District has had water plant sites inaccessible to fire equipment and were and damaged due to wildfires in 2003. The District has many facilities in the foothills that could be affected by fires. The lack of access during a fire is the main concern. Figure 3: Fire Map Summarizing Risks Probability: Highly Likely Magnitude/Severity: Critical East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 33 - 4.3 Inventory Assets This section provides an overview of the assets in the East Valley Water District and the hazards to which these facilities are susceptible. 4.3.1 Population The total population of East Valley Water District is currently approximately 70,000. 4.3.2 Buildings As of August 2010, the District operates and maintains the following facilities: • 14 pressure zones, • 23 existing reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 29 million gallons (MG). • 17 existing wells with a total pumping capacity of 17 million gallons a day (mgd). • Philip A Disch Surface Water Treatment Plant (4 mgd capacity) utilizing local surface water from the Santa Ana River via the North Fork Irrigation Canal and water from the State Water Project (SWP). • Approximately 495 miles of water and sewer distribution and transmission facilities (sizes 4 inches to 36 inches) Figure 4 is a map of the District’s facilities. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 34 - Figure 4 Potable water service to the entire City of Highland, sections of the unincorporated County of San Bernardino and the eastern portion of the City of San Bernardino is provided by the East Valley Water District. EVWD currently serves more than 70,000 residents through approximately 22,000 connections. Water demands in the service area vary throughout the year with maximum daily summer demands estimated at 34 mgd (July 2007). The District has several sources of water for domestic water supply. These sources include the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin, the State Water Project and Santa Ana River water. Seventeen groundwater extraction wells draw an average of approximately seventeen million gallons per day (mgd) from the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin. Santa Ana River water is diverted at a point south of the Seven Oaks Dam and transported via the North Fork Canal to the Philip A. Disch Surface Water Treatment Plant. State Water Project water is supplied to the District and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District via a separate pipe system. 4.3.3 Critical Facility List This section provides a listing of the critical facilities in East Valley Water District. The primary contact for all the District facilities is the following: East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 35 - Primary Contact: Eliseo Ochoa, San Bernardino, CA Phone: 909-888-8986 Fax: 909-383-1481 Because the District’s exact location of facilities is extremely sensitive, especially due to increased concerns for national security, only general locations have been included in this section. Critical Facilities: The Phillip A. Disch Surface Water Treatment Plant (PDSWTP) is identified as a critical facility because it supplies approximately 15 percent of the water supplied to District customers. The remaining facilities in the District’s system are considered critical facilities and include reservoirs, wells, booster stations, and treatment plants. Also, the 287 miles of water mains at the District are considered critical because they are needed to transport water. In addition the 203 +/- miles of sewer distribution piping are also critical to the safe transport of sewage. To minimize any hazard potential from the District’s newly constructed facilities, all future reservoirs will be constructed adequately for existing seismic conditions. Some of these include a swivel joint for the inlet/outlet of water tanks to allow movement and anchoring for the tank with bolts to the concrete footing. As older facilities are rehabilitated, seismic retrofits will be included, if possible. In addition, all buildings will be brought into compliance to meet the current seismic building codes. Table 12: Summary of the critical facilities for the District. Plant 9 Water Plant Size: 4,900 SF Facility Description: Forebay, Water Well, and Booster Station Plant 11 Water Plant Size: 6,200 SF Facility Description: Water Well Plant 12 Water Plant Size: 25,000 SF Facility Description:Forebay, Water Well, and Booster Station Plant 24 Water Plant Size: 56,700 SF Facility Description: Forebay, Water Well, and Booster Station. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 36 - Plant 25 Water Plant Size: 5,800 SF Facility Description: Water Well, and Booster Station Plant 28 Water Plant Size: 10,500 SF Facility Description: Water Well, and GAC Treatment Plant Plant 33 Water Plant Size: 49,000 SF Facility Description: Water Storage and Booster Plant Plant 34 Water Plant Size: 46,300 SF Facility Description: Water Storage, Booster Station , and Hydro Plant 37 Water Plant Size: 80,000 SF Facility Description: Water Storage and Booster Plant 39 Water Plant Size: 404,200 SF Facility Description: Water Storage, Water Well,Booster Station, and Blending Treatment Plant 40 Water Plant Size: 8,500 SF Facility Description: Water Well, and Ion exchangeTreatment Plant Plant 56 Water Plant Size: 28,300 SF Facility Description: Water Storage and Booster Station Plant 59 Water Plant Size: 113,700 SF Facility Description: Water Storage and Booster Station, and Hydro East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 37 - Plant 99 Water Plant Size: 16,200 SF Facility Description: Water Storage, Booster Station, and Two Way Radio Repeater Station. Plant 101 Water Plant Size: 23,600 SF Facility Description: Water Storage and Booster Station, and Hydro Plant 107 Water Plant Size: 88,800 SF Facility Description: Water Well and Ion ExchangeTreatment Plant Plant 108 Water Plant Size: 57,500 SF Facility Description: Water Storage and Booster Station Plant 125 Water Plant Size: 8,000 SF Facility Description: Water Well, Forebay, and Booster Station Plant 127 Water Plant Size: 7,800 SF Facility Description: Water Booster Station Plant 129 Water Plant Size: 106,000 SF Facility Description: Water Storage and Booster Station Plant 130 Water Plant Size: 1,200 SF Facility Description: Booster Station Plant 131 Water Plant Size: 64,100 SF Facility Description: Water Booster Station East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 38 - Plant 132 Water Plant Size: 29,500 SF Facility Description: Water Well Plant 134 Water Plant Size: 171,900 SF Facility Description: Surface Water treatment Plant, Water Storage, and Booster Station Plant 137 Water Plant Size: 7,400 SF Facility Description: Water Storage and Booster Station Plant 140 Water Plant Size: 52,600 SF Facility Description: Water Storage, and Booster Station Plant 141 Water Plant Size: 5,900 SF Facility Description: Water Well Plant 142 Water Plant Size: 12,400 SF Facility Description:Forebay, Water Well, and Booster Station Plant 143 Water Plant Size: 147,300 SF Facility Description: Water Well Plant 146 Water Plant Size: 19,400 SF Facility Description: 2-Water Well Plant 147 Water Plant Size: 40,600 SF Facility Description: Water Well East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 39 - Plant 148 Water Plant Size: 25,100 SF Facility Description: Water Storage Plant 149 Water Plant Size: 12,900 SF Facility Description: Water Storage and Booster Station, and Hydro Plant 151 Water Plant Size: 31,200 SF Facility Description: Water Well North Fork Water CanalSize: 95,040 SF Facility Description: Water Channel for Irrigation and future Drinking Water Headquarters Government Facilities Size: 12,000 SF Facility Description: Administration, Finance, Engineering Services, Customer Service District Yard Emergency Response Facilities Size: 280,000 SF Facility Description: Water Production, Meter Shop, Field Services, Warehouse, Garage, SCADA System, Two way radio. 4.4 Vulnerability Assessment 4.4.1 Methodology The facility replacement costs were calculated using the District’s accounting and insurance replacement values and/or the following engineering estimates for construction of new facilities: 1. Reservoirs – Cost is typically $1.00 per gallon of capacity. 2. Pump Stations – Cost is approximately $2,000 per horsepower (HP) of operation 3. Pipelines – Cost is approximately $9-10 per diameter-inch, per foot of pipeline. 4. Wells – Cost is typically $1,500,000 per well. The annual economic impacts were estimated by ranking the facilities by their importance to the District’s production of water. These were used to develop a percentage of importance for each facility. This percentage was applied to the projected East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 40 - 2009/2010 annual water revenue from the District of $14,100,000 to obtain the annual economic impact for each facility. 4.4.2 Dam Inundation Vulnerability Analysis Population: Approximately 10% of the District’s population is vulnerable. Critical Facilities: Approximately 5% of the District’s critical facilities are vulnerable. There are several water and sewer pipelines that cross various creeks and channels. These are subject to damage from mud and rock flows. Estimated Losses: The economic loss resulting in this hazard is approximately $2.2M. 4.4.3 Drought Vulnerability Analysis Population: 100% of the District’s population is vulnerable. Critical Facilities: Approximately 55% of the District’s critical facilities are vulnerable. The facilities vulnerable to drought in East Valley Water District include all wells and the Treatment Plant. The wells are critical to drought because they supply most of the water for the District. During a drought, the levels in the wells become lower than the pumping bowls and suction from the pumps is broken. Either the equipment is pulled and bowls are added to get lower into the water, along with a changeout of pumps to extend the range. Or the well is taken off line until the water level rises again and the existing bowls are back under water. The Treatment Plant is vulnerable, since there is less urface water supply to treatt, more water has to be imported from Northern California through the State Water Project, at a higher cost. Of the 36 critical facilities, 20 are wells and treatment facilities. This calculates to 55% being at risk. Reservoirs and pipelines are NOT critical in a drought. Estimated Losses: The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $24.8M. As a drought mitigation measure, the District adopted Amended Ordinance No. 358 Section 15 Water Conservation Plan on 11/7/2002, establishing the policy and conservation measures to be followed during drought conditions. See Appendix D – Ordinance No 358 Section 15 4.4.4 Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis Population: 100% of the District’s population is vulnerable. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 41 - Critical Facilities: 100% of the District’s critical facilities are vulnerable. All District facilities are vulnerable in the event of a major earthquake within or around the East Valley Water District’s Boundaries. There are two faults that affect the District facilities, the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault. The District facilities are built on both sides of the San Andreas Fault. The San Jacinto fault enters the San Bernardino Valley from the southeast and joins the San Andreas fault in the Cajon Pass, running along the southern boundary of the District. Estimated Losses: The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $46M. Losses are estimated assuming: 1. The projected 2009/2010 annual water revenue from the District at $24.5M is used to estimate the lost annual revenue. 2. The District has 6 months of lost revenue from the earthquake. 3. All the District’s critical facilities are at risk, including 100% of the District’s pipelines. 4. Without the critical facilities no revenue can be generated for the District. The percent of District's population at risk: 100% 4.4.5 Flooding Vulnerability Analysis Population: Approximately 5% of the District’s population is vulnerable. Critical Facilities: Approximately 10% of the District’s critical facilities are vulnerable. The specific critical facilities vulnerable in East Valley Water District are: Well 143, 146 and 147 and 125, 142, 140, 148, and 37 Estimated Losses: The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $5.5M. 4.4.6 Wildfires Vulnerability Analysis Population: Approximately 50% of the District’s population is vulnerable. Critical Facilities: Approximately 50% of the District’s critical facilities are vulnerable. The critical facilities are: 37, 56, 59, 99, 101, 125, 129, 131, 134, 137, 140, 148, and 149. Estimated Losses: The economic loss resulting from this hazard is approximately $27.8M. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 42 - 4.4.7 Potential Loss Estimation Table 13 summarizes the economic impacts on the critical facilities for the District. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 43 - Table 13: Economic Impacts on Critical Facilities for the District Plant 9 Facility Replacement cost: $ 575,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 39,351 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 11 Facility Replacement cost: $ 195,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 74,791 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 12 Facility Replacement cost: $ 335,500 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 24 Facility Replacement cost: $ 490,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 192,396 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 25 Facility Replacement cost: $ 215,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 42,624 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 28 Facility Replacement cost: $ 475,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 69,876 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 33 Facility Replacement cost: $ 3,810,460 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 34 Facility Replacement cost: $ 690,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 37 Facility Replacement cost: $ 5,781,192 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 44 - Description of Economic Impact: Plant 39 Facility Replacement cost: $ 2,960,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 57,429 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 40 Facility Replacement cost: $ 1,295,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 47,488 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 56 Facility Replacement cost: $ 315,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 59 Facility Replacement cost: $ 1,057,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 99 Facility Replacement cost: $ 345,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 101 Facility Replacement cost: $ 1,275,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 107 Facility Replacement cost: $ 1,515,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 80,383 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 108 Facility Replacement cost: $ 550,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 125 Facility Replacement cost: $ 245,000 East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 45 - Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 101,619 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 127 Facility Replacement cost: Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 350,000 Description of Economic Impact: Plant 129 Facility Replacement cost: $ 1,100,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 130 Facility Replacement cost: $ 110,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 131 Facility Replacement cost: $ 70,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 132 Facility Replacement cost: $ 895,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 68,161 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 134 Facility Replacement cost: $ 13,500,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 169,691 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 137 Facility Replacement cost: $ 180,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 140 Facility Replacement cost: $ 1,850,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 46 - Plant 141 Facility Replacement cost: $ 275,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 118,917 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 142 Facility Replacement cost: $ 405,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 35,940 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 143 Facility Replacement cost: $ 2,675,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 54,031 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 146 Facility Replacement cost: $ 275,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 47,784 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 147 Facility Replacement cost: $ 130,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 106,605 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales Plant 148 Facility Replacement cost: $ 630,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Loss of water sales Description of Economic Impact: Plant 149 Facility Replacement cost: $ 430,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: Plant 151 Facility Replacement cost: $ 375,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 154,273 Description of Economic Impact: Loss of water sales District Yard Facility Replacement cost: $ 446,081 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 47 - Headquarters Facility Replacement cost: $ 500,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): Description of Economic Impact: North Fork Facility Replacement cost: $ 2,500,000 Estimated Economic Impact (per month): $ 340,000 Description of Economic Impact: North fork was an irrigation ditch now running entirely in pipe starting from the mouth of the Santa Ana River approximately five miles west to Palm Avenue in Highland. This channel was constructed in 1885 of stone and concrete. The water from this channel feeds the Farmers in the area as well as the East Valley Water Treatment Plant. This Plant supplies 2.5 million gallons of water a day to the residents of Highland East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 48 - SECTION 5: COMMUNITY CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 5.1 Agencies and People East Valley Water District is located in the southwest section of San Bernardino County in San Bernardino Valley. East Valley Water District serves the eastern portion of the City of San Bernardino, the City of Highland, and small sections of the unincorporated area of the County of San Bernardino. To help identify the potential impacts of disasters, EVWD formed the Emergency Response Network of the Inland Empire (ERNIE) consisting of 19 water agencies within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The ERNIE group of agencies meets monthly and coordinates emergency policies, procedures and plans to offer help and mutual aid in a regional emergency. EVWD is also a member of the California Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (CalWARN) which develops programs to offer mutual aid within the State of California. EVWD employs 63 people. However, with the capabilities of ERNIE and CalWARN, the agency has the potential of having hundreds of mutual aid workers. 5.2 Existing Plans EVWD has a hazard communication program, emergency response plan, vulnerability assessment, IIPP, and mutual aid agreements within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties and in the State of California. As a government agency. The District has the ability to access EMMA Emergency Managers Mutual Aid (EMMA), Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) and FEMA for national mutual aid. 5.3 Regulations, Codes, Policies, and Ordinances Legislation provides the District with some water supply and drought hazard protection. In 1991, the amendment to the Urban Water Management and Planning Act, requires water suppliers to estimate available water supplies for periods of one, two, and three years, and develop contingency plans for shortages of up to 50 percent. The District’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, completed on June 30, 2011, does present water supply to water demand comparisons through 2035. It also shows water supply to demand comparisons for single dry to multiple dry year sccenarios. The UWMP also indentifies methods planned to comply to SBX 7- 7, which requires agencies to reduce their water demand by 20% by the year 2020.. Another planning document the District updates every 5-10 years is the Water Master Plan. The District developed a Water Master Plan updated January, 2008. It is currently being updated and due to be completed by December 15, 2013. The master plan develops a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the next 10-20 years. In the plan, the land use is based on the 1990 General Plans of the City of San Bernardino, City of Highland, and County of San Bernardino within EVWD jurisdictions. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 49 - The District has an Emergency Response Plan (updated in 2009) as a written plan detailing how the District will respond in the event of an emergency or disaster. The District must be prepared to respond to a variety of threats that require emergency actions by its employees. Potential threats include: • Operational incidents, such as fire or bacteriological contamination of water associated with District facilities. • Outsider malevolent acts, such as threatened or intentional contamination of water, intentional damage/destruction of facilities, detection of an intruder or intruder alarm, bomb threat, or suspicious mail. • Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, or wildfires. The District has a Sewer Master Plan (2002) due to be updated by April 15, 2013, a Sewer System Overflow Plan and a Sewer System Management Plan (adopted July 14, 2009). The District is a government agency operating in California and is required to follow the Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS). 5.4 Mitigation Programs This section serves to identify the previous mitigation plans, projects and actions. For the status of the District’s 2005 HMP Mitigation projects, refer to Section 6.2. Each District employee has been provided with a Disaster Preparedness Kit. Each kit contains lighting, warmth and cooking equipment, tools, personal hygiene kits, support items and a radio with batteries. Each kit is packaged in a duffel bag. The employee is also provided with three, 3- gallon water bottles, a medical kit and freeze dried food. Also, the District has an emergency disaster supply room at the Operations Yard for employees and families during an emergency. The supply room is complete with cooking stove, pots, first aid kits, lanterns, blankets, propane, food, cameras, cots, etc. 5.5 Fiscal Resources Fiscal resources for the District include the following: • Revenue from water sales • Revenue from sewer services • Fees for new facilities from developers • Metering availability charge • If necessary, local bond funds Through the California Department of Water Resources, local grants and/or loans are available for water conservation, groundwater management, studies and activities to enhance local water East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 50 - supply reliability. Project eligibility depends on the type of organization(s) applying and participating in the project and the specific type of study or project. More than one grant or loan may be appropriate for a proposed activity The district in the past has been a recipient of Hazard Mitigation funding and State Revolving Fund loans. The District is currently receiving SRF funding for enlarging and updating the Philip A. Disch Surface Water Treatment Plant, incorporating a small water system in EVWD, and the design of a new water treatment facility to further enhance the Districts capabilities in supplying a safe and dependable water system to the public. A benefit cost analysis is done on all mitigation projects and hazards prior to constructing a new facility. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 51 - SECTION 6: MITIGATION STRATEGIES 6.1 Overview The purpose of this analysis was to identify projects (actions) that helped the District to meet the Goals and Objective for each priority hazard. This process has identified hazards in our community, assessed which hazards pose the most significant risk, and identified projects to help reduce and/or eliminate the risk. 6.2 Mitigation 5-Year Progress Report The Seven Oaks Dam was constructed at the northeast section of the service area at the mouth of the Santa Ana River by the Army Corps of Engineers. This dam relieves the potential for flooding of the Santa Ana River. In 2006, the District was awarded $800,000 in Hazard Mitigation grant funding to protect and mitigate damages from fire, earthquake, flooding, landslides, and hill side eroding to the 1880’s North Fork Irrigation Canal. This funding was increased to $5.2 million in 2007. A four mile section of this canal system was replaced with an enclosed pipeline and moves to a safer area mitigating potential damages. This project was completed October 2008. As funding has become available, either through grants or District budgeting, other mitigation projects have been completed. 6.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Projects As discussed in Section 3.5, the process of identifying goals began with a review and validation of the Goals and Objectives in the District’s 2005 HMP and the San Bernardino County’s 2005 Operational Area HMP. Using the 2005 HMP as the basis, the District’s planning team completed an assessment/discussion of whether each of the goals was still valid. This discussion also led to the opportunity to identify new Goals and Objectives. This lead to identifying the four high profile hazards for the District, including drought, earthquake, flood, and fire. While other hazards were profiled in previous sections, the District’s priority and focus for the mitigation projects will be only the four high profile hazards. 6.3.1 All Hazards Description: Goal is to protect lives and mitigate damage to infrastructure. Many local laws have public safety of citizens as their primary concern. Protecting lives is also the basis for emergency planning, response, and mitigation activities. Objectives: • Continually improve the understanding of the location and potential impacts of natural hazards, the vulnerability of building types, and East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 52 - community development patterns and the measures needed to protect lives and critical infrastructure. • Continually provide state and local agencies with updated information about hazards, vulnerabilities, and mitigation measures. • Ensure that all local codes and standards ensure the protection of life. • Ensure District owned and operated infrastructure meet minimum standards for life safety. • Ensure that all District development in high-risk areas is protected by mitigation measures that provide for life safety and protect infrastructure. • Identify and mitigate all imminent threats to life safety. • Identify projects that would provide water supply reliability. 6.3.2 Drought Description: Goal is to improve drought preparedness. The goal is to address the drought hazard through mitigation over the long-term and the objectives listed below have been taken from the recently updated California Water Plan (2009). Objectives: • Increase water supply - Creating innovative ways to generate new supplies. • Improve Operational Efficiency & Transfers – this idea is to move water effectively and efficiently from where it is generated to where it will be used. • Reduce Water Demand - Water conservation has become a viable long-term option because it directly saves water and saves considerable capital and operating costs for the District. Mitigation Projects: As 85 % of East Valley Water District’s raw water supply comes from a ground aquifer, and the other 15 % is made up of surface water and State Project water, there are few measures that can minimize the effects of drought. However, the District has begun a water conservation program, to help educate the public on how to save water. 6.3.3 Earthquakes Description: Goal is to avoid damages to property. The District is adhereing to new building, mechanical, and fire codes critical to the protection of property and life and the reduction of seismic risk, fire and flood hazards. Also when possible, retrofit programs have been funded to bring non-compliant structures up to code. These codes help water utilities design and construct reservoirs, pump stations, groundwater wells, and pipelines that resist the forces of nature and ensure safety. Objectives: • Design new facilities to withstand a 8.0 earthquake, This area of Southern California is a high earthquake risk and exists on the fault zone. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 53 - • Encourage property protection measures for structures located in high hazard area. • Follow related codes and standards to protect properties • Establish a partnership with all levels of government and the business community to improve and implement methods to protect property. Mitigation Projects: Mitigation projects include performing inspections, installing seismic valves on water reservoirs within the District, re-enforcing anchoring of critical structures at plants, stock piling of critical materials and spreading out the locations of operating equipment, and establishing emergency contracts with fuel vendors. 6.3.4 Flood Description: Goal is to minimize the potential risks resulting from flooding. Objective: Require identification, improvement and upgrading of critical facilities in flood hazard areas. Some measures include anchoring to prevent flotation, placing water tight barriers over openings, reinforcing tank walls to resist water pressures, using materials to reduce wall seepage and installation of pumping facilities for internal and subsurface drainage. Mitigation Projects: Raise key facilities and equipment above potential flooding level. Reinforce and stabilize existing conveyance facilities located in streambed and flood plains and on bridges. Stock and maintain k-rail materials at key facilities. Create a flash flood mitigation plan. 6.3.5 Wildfires Description: Goal is to minimize the potential risks resulting from the exposure of District residents to manmade and natural Wildfires. Objectives: The ability to respond to wildfires includes preparedness activities such as interagency planning: formation of cooperative agreements; training of personnel; equipment maintenance and positioning; and extensive communication. Mitigation Projects: Clear debris and brush to establish fire breaks. Inspect structures for wild fire vulnerability. Retrofit facility structures with fire retardant materials and firefighting equipment. Establish emergency response plans and training. Establish and conduct fire hydrant testing program and valve exercising plan. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 54 - 6.4 Mitigation Priorities The Planning Team proposed and discussed alternative mitigation goals, objectives, and specific mitigation measures the District should undertake to reduce the risk from the four critical hazards facing the District. Multiple factors were considered to establish the mitigation priorities included in this plan. Highest priority rankings were assigned to those mitigation measures that met three primary criteria: 1. Greatest potential for protecting life and property 2. Greatest potential for maintaining critical District functions and operability following a disaster; and 3. Achievability in terms of customer support and cost effectiveness All rankings were determined by the consensus of the Planning Team. Given the extreme importance of maintaining critical functions in times of disaster and the large number of customers who depend and rely on District services and infrastructure, those mitigation measures shown to improve disaster resistance, readiness, or recovery capacity are generally given higher priority. Drought, earthquake, flooding, and wildfire mitigation actions are identified and assigned a priority according to their importance. Cost, funding availability, status of planning, , and the anticipated schedule to implement the measures were considered. Using the above criteria for establishing mitigation priorities, each measure was assigned a priority ranking as follows:  High – Projects that will be the primary focus of implementation over the next five years  Medium – Projects that may be implemented over the next five years  Low – Projects that will not be implemented over the next five years unless conditions change (new program/funding source) 6.5 Implementation Strategy An implementation strategy is the key to any successful planning effort. The implementation strategy identifies who has lead responsibility for the action, the estimated timeframe for completion, potential funding source(s) to support implementation, and the priority ranking, defined as follows: • Timeframe: Short-term (less than 3 years); long-term (more than 3 years) • Funding source(s): Potential internal and external funding source(s) • Priority Ranking: High, Medium or Low East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 55 - 1 Short-term = Less than 3 years, Long-term = More than 3 years 2 High = Projects of primary focus, Medium = Projects that may be implemented over several years, Low = Projects that will be deferred until conditions change 3 Plant 40 CIP - EVWD as lead agency. Includes consultant and construction bidding. Hazard Projects Implementation Strategy Timing 1 Funding Sources Priority 2 Perform Inspection and prepare vulnerability assessment of existing facilities EVWD, consultant Short-term EVWD High Install seismic valves on key reservoirs EVWD, CIP Long-term EVWD Medium Install flex-tend couplings at key reservoirs EVWD, consultant, contractor Long-term EVWD Medium Re-inforce anchoring of critical utilities at Plants (e.g. electrical supply, pumps, SCADA equipment, etc.) EVWD, consultant, contractor Short-term EVWD Medium Prepare Emergency Operating Plan for facilities EVWD, local partnership Short-term EVWD High Install Back-up Power Generators at key facilities EVWD, CIP Short-term EVWD High Stock-piling of critical operating equipment, supplies, and parts EVWD On-going EVWD Medium Establish emergency contract with fuel vendors EVWD Short-term EVWD High Replace old and deteriorated system piping EVWD, CIP On-going EVWD Medium Earthquake – Highly likely/catastrophic East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 56 - 1 Short-term = Less than 3 years, Long-term = More than 3 years 2 High = Projects of primary focus, Medium = Projects that may be implemented over several years, Low = Projects that will be deferred until conditions change 3 Plant 40 CIP - EVWD as lead agency. Includes consultant and construction bidding. Hazard Projects Implementation Strategy Timing 1 Funding Sources Priority 2 Develop GIS mapping of wildfire hazard areas for analysis/planning EVWD Short-term EVWD High Clearing of debris and brush to establish fire break in and around facilities EVWD, contractor On-going EVWD High Inspect structures for wild-fire vulnerability EVWD, consultant Short-term EVWD Medium Retrofit facility structures with fire retardent materials and fire-fighting equipment EVWD, consultant, contractor Long-term EVWD Medium Install fire hydrants at key facilities EVWD, contractor Short-term EVWD Medium Establish emergency response plan and provide training EVWD, consultant Short-term EVWD High Establish and conduct fire hydrant and valve-exercising plan EVWD On-going EVWD High Install Back-up Power Generators at key facilities EVWD, CIP Short-term EVWD High Maintain safe and adequate access to all Plant sites EVWD On-going EVWD Medium Wildfires – highly likely/critical East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 57 - 1 Short-term = Less than 3 years, Long-term = More than 3 years 2 High = Projects of primary focus, Medium = Projects that may be implemented over several years, Low = Projects that will be deferred until conditions change 3 Plant 40 CIP - EVWD as lead agency. Includes consultant and construction bidding. Hazard Projects Implementation Strategy Timing 1 Funding Sources Priority 2 Establish Water Conservation Plan and Education Programs EVWD, Regional Partnership On-going EVWD, Grants High Improve water supply reliability (including water transfers, conjunctive use programing, and emergency connections) EVWD, CIP, Regional Partnership Short-term EVWD, Regional Partnership High Develop a drought mitigation/ allocation plan EVWD, Regional Partnership Long-term EVWD, Regional Partnership Low Develop water efficiency program EVWD, consultant On-going EVWD High Develop rate-based conservation incentives EVWD, consultant Short-term EVWD High Develop recycled water system (including source and customer development) EVWD, Regional Partnership Long-term EVWD Medium Reverse calling system for notification EVWD, consultant Long-term EVWD,grants low Develop outreach effort plans to cimmunicate drought usage requirement EVWD, Regional Partnership Long-term EVWD, Regional Partnership, grants low Drought – likely/critical East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 58 - 1 Short-term = Less than 3 years, Long-term = More than 3 years 2 High = Projects of primary focus, Medium = Projects that may be implemented over several years, Low = Projects that will be deferred until conditions change 3 Plant 40 CIP - EVWD as lead agency. Includes consultant and construction bidding. Hazard Projects Implementation Strategy Timing 1 Funding Sources Priority 2 Raise key facilities and equipment above potential flooding level EVWD, consultant, contractor Long-term EVWD Medium Reinforce and stabilize existing conveyance facilities located in streambed and flood plains EVWD, consultant, contractor Short-term EVWD Medium Relocate pipelines located in gullies and/or streambeds EVWD, CIP Short-term EVWD High Stock and maintain K-rail installations located at key facilities EVWD On-going EVWD High Install storm drain facilities at key facilities 3 EVWD, CIP Short-term EVWD High Flash flood mitigation plan EVWD, consultant Long-term EVWD Medium Plant 125 flood mitigation and retrofit measures EVWD, consultant, contractor Long-term EVWD Medium Flooding/Flash Flooding (incl. mud flows) – likely/limited East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 59 - SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE 7.1 Monitoring, Evaluation and Updating the Plan The Planning Team will be responsible for coordinating implementation of plan action items and undertaking the formal review process. The District’s Planning Team will review the Plan at least annually and update project status and other Plan elements as applicable. Each year proposed projects are reviewed by their respective Department Heads and the General Manager during budget development and selected projects are submitted for funding to the appropriate funding source. The Planning Team will meet as needed. The meetings will provide a forum to discuss, review and revise the action items. These meetings will also support the ongoing partnerships that are important to the Hazard Mitigations Plan’s sustainability. 7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs The Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a series of recommendations, many of which are closely related to the goals and objectives of existing planning programs. The District has implemented mitigation action items into existing programs and procedures such as the Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Master Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, Emergency Response Plan, and Sewer Master Plan documents. Each of these planning documents integrate data, information, goals, and actions for hazard mitigation, including: • Regional Urban Water Management Plan o Includes a section on coordinated planning with ERNIE, a water/wastewater mutual aid network that would be activated in the event of an emergency event. ERNIE meets quarterly and provides regular training for utilities in emergency response and long-term emergency planning. o Discusses system vulnerabilities and the actions identified for implementation if the District’s ability to provide potable water is affected. o Contains a section on management strategies for capital improvement, risk reduction, system upgrades, and operations. o Includes a discussion on a plan for water shortage contingencies. • Water Master Plan o Discusses reliability and redundancy during emergencies and providing adequate storage facilities for fire protection and fire flow. o Evaluations for water supply reliability are also included. • Capital Improvement Plan o Similar to the Regional Urban Water Management Plan, District projects have been identified that address rehabilitation, deterioration, capacity, and vulnerabilities to District systems/facilities. East Valley Water District, 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Page - 60 - • Emergency Response Plan o Guides the District and provides a plan of response to an emergency incident or event. o Contains a section on potential incidents with a step-by-step response task list for each natural hazard. A priority list is also included for each hazard to minimize risks. • Sewer Master Plan o Includes condition information on all District pipelines and deterioration graphs for pipeline materials.Similar to the Capital Improvement Plan, capacity deficiencies and improvements have been identified to strengthen the District’s systems/facilities. The Hazard Mitigation Plan goals and actions will be incorporated into various general operations of the District. For example, as future District plans are developed, the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be a road map in plan development efforts. 7.3 Continued Public Involvement The District is committed to involving the public directly in review and updates of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The public will also have the opportunity to provide feedback about the Plan. The public will continue to be apprised of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan actions through the District’s website (http://www.eastvalley.org). This site will also contain contact information to to direct their comments and concerns. BOARD AGENDA ST AFF REPORT Agenda Item #4. Meeting Date: September 9, 2015 Discussion Item T o: Governing Board Members From: General Manager/CEO Subject: Board Meeting Schedule for November and December 2015 RECOM MENDAT ION: Staf f recommends the f ollowing Board meeting changes: 1. Cancel the regular board meeting scheduled f or November 11 and November 25, 2015 2. Cancel the regular board meeting scheduled f or December 23, 2015 3. Schedule a special board meeting for November 18, 2015 BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: The East Valley Water District regular Board Meetings occur on the 2nd and 4th W ednesdays of each month. The f irst Wednesday of November falls on Veteran’s Day, the second Wednesday f alls on the day bef ore Thanksgiving and the second Wednesday of December falls on the day prior to Christmas Eve. Staf f is recommending that the Board of Directors approve the cancellation of the November 11th, 25th and the December 23rd regular board meetings. These cancellations will not impact District operations however; staff is recommending the Board schedule a special meeting on November 18th to address items that need Board approval, routine items may be deferred until the next regularly scheduled meeting. AGENCY IDEALS AND ENDEAVORS: I deals and Endeavor I I - Maintain An Environment Committed To Elevated Public Service (E) Practice Transparent and Accountable Fiscal Management FISCAL IM PACT : There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Respectfully submitted: Recommended by: John Mura General Manager / CEO Justine Hendricksen District Clerk