CITY of SARATOGA SPRINGS

MULTIHAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

DRAFT

AUGUST 30, 2017

Sensitive Security Information

Strictly not for Public Distribution

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

NUMBERS Cover 1

Table of Contents 2

Executive Summary 3

1.0 Introduction 4-7

2.0 Organization of Resources 8-9

3.0 Risk Analysis 10-50

4.0 Mitigation Plan 51- 56, 56a- 56d

List of Figures

1.1: Regional Map 6

1.2: City of Saratoga Springs Map 7

3.1- 3.3: Hazard Maps 18-50

List of Tables

3.1 Risk Analysis Summary 16,17

4.1 Summary of Hazard Mitigation Action Plan 55,56

Attachment A: Record of Community Outreach Meetings 57-99

Attachment B: Debris Flow Mitigation Plan for Loose Canyon 100-108

Attachment C: Field Survey Information 109-119

Attachment D: Coordination with MAG Plan 120-122

Attachment E: Coordination with State of Utah Plan 123-142

i) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Saratoga Springs (the City) has a population of more than 30,000, according to the City’s 2016/2017 budget plan. The City is one of the fastest growing municipalities in the greater Salt Lake City area (also known as the Wasatch Front). Land development in the City has taken the form of large “master planned” communities, with progressive land-use and zoning practices. The City anticipates a population of over 120,000 upon final build-out.

The City has chosen to take a proactive approach to the management of the effects of natural hazards. As one of these proactive measures, the City cooperated in the development of the Mountainlands Association of Governments (MAG) plan, which was previously approved by FEMA in 2011. The City also participated in the current update to the MAG plan, which is scheduled to be approved by FEMA in mid to late 2017.

The MAG plan (by necessity) can not address the many and varied specific needs of each participating community. The City therefore requested and received a hazard mitigation planning grant from FEMA in 2017 to develop its own pre-disaster mitigation plan. This plan has been developed to meet the requirements in Federal Law, 44 CFR. The City initially considered a broad range of natural hazards, based upon the hazard listing in the risk analysis portion of the MAG plan. As a part of the City’s outreach efforts, the City met with MAG officials and discussed which of these hazards were more likely to have an impact on the City. This was a necessary step, since risks associated with natural hazards are not uniform throughout the Wasatch Front. City specific risk analyses were performed by a consulting firm (EPIC Engineering). Upon completion of the risk analysis, the City evaluated risk reduction alternatives. This evaluation considered natural hazard risks to life safety, community interruption, and property damage. The resources which the City has to respond to natural hazard events were also considered. Based upon these evaluations, the City identified hazard mitigation alternatives. The City then developed a multiyear plan to mitigate risks that are of the highest consequence. This plan consists of potential mitigation projects to mitigate natural hazards in the following order of priority:

Wildfire Hazard Mitigation through fuel reduction and fire break construction; Debris Flow Hazard Mitigation through channel improvements and basin construction; Severe Storm Hazard Mitigation through emergency generator installation; Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazard Mitigation through nonstructural strengthening of

certain critical facilities; Earthquake Liquefaction Hazard Mitigation through retrofit measures at certain critical

low lying infrastructure facilities; Flood Hazard Mitigation through possible construction of flood control measures around

certain critical facilities. Drought Hazard Mitigation, primarily through a continuation of ongoing water

conservation programs, with possible enhancements through interagency projects.

A listing of potential mitigation projects, estimated costs, and possible grant funding sources is provided in this plan. The plan encompasses a 10 year time frame (2017 to 2026.)

3 of 142

1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Springs has prepared this multihazard mitigation plan by utilizing a four step process; as required by CFR 44. This planning process consists (prescriptively) of the following steps:

1) ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCES; 2) RISK ANALYSIS; 3) DEVELOPMENT OF A MITIGATION PLAN; and 4) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.

As a part of plan implementation, the City intends to mitigate risks where economically feasible. The City may also undertake mitigation projects as a component of future facility improvement or expansion projects. This approach will result in significant risk reduction and improve the City’s ability to serve its constituents. Throughout the implementation phase, the City will coordinate mitigation activities in a manner which is consistent with goals and objectives of the Utah State Mitigation plan, as well as the Mountain lands Association of Governments (MAG) Plan. An overview of findings and mitigation actions identified in this planned process are briefly summarized below. The location of the City is shown in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2. The proximity of the City’s facilities to natural hazard areas or zones is shown in the Risk Analysis portion of this plan (Section 2.0).

1.1 Organization of Resources The City has organized and conducted meetings with stakeholders, regional risk planners, the State of Utah DEM emergency planners, FEMA, and local emergency planning groups as a part of preparation of this mitigation plan. The plan was prepared through collaborative efforts with these groups and with input on mitigation needs from the City’s department heads.

1.2 Risk Analysis The risk analysis included hazard identification, and hazard quantification. Probabilistic hazard definitions and quantification methodologies were used. The risk analysis began with consideration of all hazards listed in Mountainlands Association of Governments (MAG) Plan. Upon review of the MAG plan, and discussion of which hazards in the plan were more pertinent to the City, it was determined that the following hazards would be addressed in the City of Saratoga Springs Multihazard Mitigation Plan:

Wildfire Debris Flow Severe Weather Earthquake Flooding Drought

Other hazards identified in the MAG plan were also considered, but found to pose relatively low risks to the City, in comparison to the hazards listed above.

4 of 142

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.3 Mitigation Plan

Risk evaluation results led to the identification of potential natural hazard mitigation projects. These projects are listed in Section 4.0 of the City of Saratoga Springs Multihazard Mitigation Plan. The City proposes to complete these projects over a multiyear period of time.

1.4 Implementation

As recommended in the “Local Multihazard Mitigation Planning Guidance” document published by FEMA, The City formally adopts the mitigation plan after receiving approval of the draft final plan from the State of Utah and FEMA.

The Mitigation Plan will be updated every five years, as required by 44 CFR. Official plan revisions will be prepared and submitted to FEMA, as required by 44 CFR.

5 of 142

Figure 1.1 here

6 of 142

Figure 1.2 here

7 of 142

2.0 ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCES

The City has developed a multihazard mitigation plan in a manner which conforms to mitigation planning regulations under 44 CFR Part 201. The steps included in this process are described in Sections 2.1 through 2.7, below. The City sought and received input from numerous organizations in this planning process.

2.1 Identification of and Coordination with Representatives from the City's Operating Groups

The City has obtained input to the plan from management personal within the City’s emergency response, administration, public works, and engineering departments.

2.2 Identification of, Contact and Coordination with Emergency Services Personnel as Project Participants This task included outreach to emergency service groups, such as firefighting organizations and police.

2.3 Identification of, Contact and Coordination with Representatives of the MAG The Mountainlands Association of Governments (MAG), completed regional mitigation plans in 2011, and has its 2017 update under review by FEMA (as of the date of the City’s plan). The MAG plan encompasses the area served by City, as well as many other communities. The City reviewed the MAG plan and included several overall regional mitigation goals (from the MAG plan) into the City’s plan. The City anticipates adopting the MAG plan upon approval by FEMA. 2.4 Identification of, Contact and Coordination with Representatives of Communities Served by the City The City conducted four meetings to obtain input into its plan. These meetings are documented in Attachment A.

2.5 Meetings with Federal Agencies with Interest in the City’s Hazard Mitigation Planning Process The City’s grant writer met with a FEMA representative during BCA training at the Utah Capital. This meeting focused on discussion of possible near term FEMA grant submittals.

2.6 Meetings with State of Utah Emergency Management Personnel The City coordinated the risk analysis and mitigation planning progress through a regular dialog with the State of Utah Department of Emergency Management personnel. State of Utah personnel also attended public meetings.

8 of 142

2.0 ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCES 2.7 Public Meetings Public involvement in the planning process included multiple outreach efforts to other agencies and the public. The City conducted four formal outreach efforts. These included:

• Meeting with a MAG representative on January 25, 2017; • Meeting with State of Utah and FEMA representatives on March 9, 2017; • Conducting a technical outreach meeting with multiple agencies on March 14, 2017; and • Conducting an outdoor general public outreach meeting on March 20, 2017.

Records of these meetings are provided in Attachment A.

9 of 142

3.0 RISK ANALYSIS

3.1 Methodology

The City’s facilities are all located in relatively close proximity to each other; however, the natural hazards posed to each facility vary. This is due to variations in a number of parameters, including: proximity to hillside drainage areas, proximity to undeveloped areas with high fire hazards, variations in geology, variations in proximity to low lying areas, variation in soil types, variations in ground water elevations, and other parameters. On the other hand, some hazards do not vary substantially within the boundaries of the City. These hazards included ground acceleration levels due to seismic events, risks posed by extreme storm events (snow, wind, lightening) and drought.

3.1.1 Identification and Quantification of Hazards

3.1.1.1 Review mitigation effects on system risk reduction resulting from currently planned capital improvement projects.

The process for allocation of City funds to a project is through the budget process, which is adopted each year by the City Council. The identification of these funds is in the CIP, which is then incorporated in the budget process.

3.1.1.2 Review and incorporate MAG plan information

The MAG plan addresses risk and hazard mitigation for the City’s metropolitan area, as well as many other communities along the south portion of the Wasatch Front. As such, general regional risk assessment information and mitigation actions, which generally pertain to the City, are included in the MAG plan. Also, general hazard quantification and mitigation goals were developed in the MAG plan. Findings from the City’s hazard risk assessment process narrowed the hazards of concern to those most relevant to the City. A correlation of risk assessment findings in the MAG plan and risk assessment findings in the City’s plan is provided in Attachment D. 3.1.1.3 Review and incorporate State of Utah plan information.

The State of Utah plan was reviewed by the City and information was incorporated into the City’s plan, as appropriate. A correlation of risk assessment findings in the State of Utah plan and risk assessment findings in the City’s plan is provided in Attachment E.

3.1.1.4 Review and incorporate risk information from communities served

The City has reviewed natural hazards for each community served as a component of regional risk assessments.

3.1.1.5 Review and incorporate, FEMA Flood Hazard Maps, Fire Hazard Maps, USGS seismic hazard maps, and other published data.

One of the major efforts of the City’s risk assessment process was to develop City specific natural hazard maps. These maps allowed for visual and numerical assessment of the affects of each hazard considered. These maps are provided in Figures 3.1 to 3.33.

10 of 142

3.0 RISK ANALYSIS

3.1.1.6 Further analyses of hazards specific the City of Saratoga Springs

This work included performing visual reviews of representative wells, pump stations, sewer lift stations, office buildings, and maintenance buildings.

11 of 142

3.0 RISK ANALYSIS 3.2 Hazard Analysis

3.2.1 Identification of Primary Hazards of Concern Based on Regional Hazard Studies

The City’s facilities, as well as residences and businesses within the City, are exposed to many of the natural hazards listed in the MAG and the State plan. An important component of the City’s plan was to identify the hazards which pose significant risks to either essential facility components (or groups of facility components), which could then lead to consequences that did not meet operational /recovery priorities. These operational/recovery priorities were identified during project planning meetings, and are listed below:

1) Provide Life Safety Protection to City Residents and General Public that may be present in the community; 2) Mitigate Loss Property and Operational Disruptions, to the Extent that is economically feasible; and 3) Augment the City’s Disaster Response Preparedness.

The hazard assessment has thus been done in a manner which identifies and quantifies hazards which can pose the greatest threat (risk) to successful achievement of these objectives.

3.2.2 Quantification of Hazards with the Highest Potential Impact on City Facilities

Controlling hazards were found to be: Wildfire, Debris Flow, Extreme Weather (as it relates to power outage), Earthquake Hazards, Flooding, and Drought. Methods used to quantify these hazards for use in risk analysis are given in Section 3.3. Additional assistance was provided by other government officials during public forum and other project meetings. These same government officials were included in the mitigation planning portion of the project.

12 of 142

3.0 RISK ANALYSIS 3.3 Hazard Analysis by Hazard Type

3.3.1 Wildfire

The City assessed risks due to wildfire by reviewing historical wildfire records in the vicinity of the City. There have been 12 wildfires on Lake Mountain just west of Saratoga Springs since 1999. The fires historically have occurred on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property, which is immediately adjacent to the City on the entire west boundary, and portions of the Northern and southern boundaries. The City assessed hazards posed by wildfires to residences, businesses and infrastructure. A lesser wildfire hazards occurs within some undeveloped areas of the City and in areas on the eastern boundary (adjacent to undeveloped low land areas near Utah Lake). The City conducted additional wildfire risk assessments, beyond those done during the most recent MAG plan update. These assessments resulted in new wildfire hazard maps that shown reduced wildfire hazards within city boundaries, due to installation of infrastructure and pressurized water lines and fire hydrants. Concerning wildfires that affect the boundaries of the city, several practical risk mitigation alternatives are available to mitigate wildfire hazards, including fuel reduction and construction of fire breaks. Wildfire hazard maps are shown in Figures 3.26 to 3.33. 3.3.2 Debris Flow

Debris flows result from rapid storm water runoff thought steep natural channels and valleys, such as those in the mountains on the West side of the City. Debris flows are made more severe when a wildfire has recently occurred in affected areas. Due to removed vegetation and scarring on mountain or hillside slopes, there is potential flooding as well as debris flow. Improvements to natural channels are used to direct flooding away from homes, businesses and infrastructure. Debris basins are needed to further protect and keep debris flows away from developed areas. The City has experienced damage from debris flows as recently as 2012. Following this event, the City constructed a debris flow channel and basin to protect the portion of the City that was damaged in 2012.

As a part of development of this hazard mitigation plan, the City conducted a risk analysis of potential debris flow hazards originating in canyons on the west side of the city. This evaluation identified areas for which future debris flows may occur, as shown in Figures 3.7 to 3.9. The City evaluated these potential debris flow areas and determined that the highest risk is posed by debris flows in the Loose Canyon drainage, which could directly affect approximately 150 residential properties, 10 commercial properties, one major North/South traffic corridor, and numerous city streets and utilities in the City of Saratoga Springs. The City proposes to mitigate hazards posed in the Loose Canyon zone by constructing channel improvements and by installing debris basins, as described further in Attachment C. The City may also elect to mitigate potential debris flow hazards in other areas (shown in Figures 3.7 to 3.9 in future projects.

13 of 142

3.0 RISK ANALYSIS 3.3.3 Severe Weather

Hazards related to severe weather that could most significantly affect the city include winter storm, high wind events, and lightening. Tornados are rare in Utah and therefore do not pose a high likelihood hazard, in comparison to other sources of high wind.

Large snow events do historically occur, however the City and the State of Utah Department of Transportation have a well organized snow removal plan, with sufficient equipment to respond to major snow events.

A significant weather hazard posed to the City is high wind, which may occur any time of the year. High wind events have resulted in regional power losses. Lesser risks to city infrastructure include wind damage to buildings and interruption to transportation routes due to debris in traffic lanes.

3.3.4 Earthquake

Most of the City’s facilities and business and residential communities are located in regions which are moderate to high earthquake hazard areas. These areas can be affected by ground shaking, transient wave propagation, and liquefaction induced lateral spreading and permanent ground displacement. The potential for each of these earthquake hazards to result in damage to City’s facilities has been assessed.

Ground Shaking Ground shaking levels have been determined using USGS data at each site location. Ground shaking levels for two events have been determined: 1) An event with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, and 2) An event with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Significant City owned buildings have been designed using modern versions of the building code. Risk assessments conducted as a part of preparation of this plan did not identify any significant structural seismic retrofit needs for City owned buildings. However, nonstructural seismic hazards were identified. An overview of these nonstructural seismic hazards is provided in Attachment C. Ground shaking levels are shown in Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.21-3.23. Ground Displacement Effects Surface faulting locations of active (Holocene age) and historically active (Pleistocene age) ground were investigated and found to not be a significant direct hazard to City facilities, since no facilities are located within know fault rupture zones. Maps of fault zones along the Wasatch Range are included in Figures 3.16 and 3.17. Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Overall regional liquefaction information has been evaluated. With the exception of low lying areas near the Jordon River and along the Utah Lake shore, liquefaction risks are low. However, the City does have a portion of its infrastructure in the high liquefaction risk areas, including certain water wells and sewer lift stations. Liquefaction hazards areas are shown in Figures 3.3, 3.4, 3.24, and 3.25. These figures also illustrate where City owed infrastructure is with respect to high liquefaction hazard areas.

14 of 142

3.0 RISK ANALYSIS 3.3.5 Flooding

Flood hazards exist in certain low lying areas in the northern portion of the City, near the Jordan River. Risk analyses indicate that low lying utilities, such a sewer lift stations and wells may experience damage and loss of use should flooding occur at the location of these facilities. Flood hazard maps are shown in Figures 3.14 and 3.15.

3.3.6 Natural Hazard Induced Explosion

The City of Saratoga Springs has a number of explosives manufacturing and storage facilities within its boundaries. These facilities are vulnerable natural hazards, including seismic events, wildfire events, and extreme weather (lightening). These facilities are privately owned, therefore the City’s ability to impose natural hazard risk management measures are mostly limited to code enforcement measures.

3.3.7 Drought

Drought is a natural hazard in many parts of the western United States, including Utah. Fortunately, the City of Saratoga Springs has proactively developed and implemented a successful water conservations program. Continuation of this program as the City continues to grow is the most effective drought management strategy. Other drought management efforts could possibly include working with other entities to either pipe or line open secondary water canals. This is however complex from a facility and water rights ownership perspective.

3.3.8 Other Natural Hazards

Other hazards of potential concern for the City are identified and described in the MAG plan. These hazards included: avalanche, rockslides, land sliding, and other natural hazards, which are relevant to other facilities in the MAG study area, but were not found to pose any significant risks to the City’s facilities. Landslide maps are provided in Figures 3.18 and 3.19. 3.4 Summary of Risk Analysis Results

Table 3.1 provides a summary structural risk analysis results for all considered hazards. Risk analysis information is provided separately for each hazard considered.

15 of 142

Table 3.1, Page 1 here:

16 of 142

Table 3.1, Page 2 here:

17 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S GIS,

UTA

H GE

OLOG

ICAL

SURV

EY CULIN

ARY

SYST

EMEA

RTHQ

UAKE

S

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\CulinaryEarthquake.mxd

1/5/

2017

N

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

US SE

ISM

IC H

AZAR

D

2% IN

50 Y

EARS

PGA

HAZA

RD (%

g) 25 -

3031

- 35

36 -

4041

- 45

46 -

5051

- 55

Uta

h La

keFa

ults

Wel

l

Boos

ter

Tank

Pipe

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

18 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S GIS,

UTA

H GE

OLOG

ICAL

SURV

EY CULIN

ARY

SYST

EMEA

RTHQ

UAKE

S

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\CulinaryEarthquake.mxd

1/5/

2017

S

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

US SE

ISM

IC H

AZAR

D

2% IN

50 Y

EARS

PGA

HAZA

RD (%

g) 25 -

3031

- 35

36 -

4041

- 45

46 -

5051

- 55

Uta

h La

keFa

ults

Wel

l

Boos

ter

Tank

Pipe

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

19 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S GIS

CULIN

ARY

SYST

EMLIQ

UEFA

CTIO

N

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\CulinarylLiquefaction.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

Wel

l

Boos

ter

Tank

Pipe

Lique

factio

nPo

tentia

l Very

Hig

h

Hig

h

Mod

erat

e-H

igh

Mod

erat

e

Low

Very

Low

N

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

20 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S GIS

CULIN

ARY

SYST

EMLIQ

UEFA

CTIO

N

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\CulinarylLiquefaction.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

Wel

l

Boos

ter

Tank

Pipe

Lique

factio

nPo

tentia

l Very

Hig

h

Hig

h

Mod

erat

e-H

igh

Mod

erat

e

Low

Very

Low

S

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

21 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

FEMA

DAM

FAILU

RE

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\DamFailureNew.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gsD

ry C

reek

D

am F

ailu

re N

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

22 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

FEMA

DAM

FAILU

RE

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\DamFailureNew.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gsD

ry C

reek

D

am F

ailu

re S

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

23 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, FE

MA, V

IE EN

GINE

ERIN

G

DEBR

I FLO

WS

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\DebriFlow1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

N

His

toric

Deb

ri Fl

owPo

tent

ial

Deb

ri Fl

ow

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

24 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, FE

MA, V

IE EN

GINE

ERIN

G

DEBR

I FLO

WS

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\DebriFlow1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

S

His

toric

Deb

ri Fl

owPo

tent

ial

Deb

ri Fl

ow

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

25 of 142

SOURCE UTAH AGRC, CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS,UTAH GEOLGICAL SURVEY

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\DebriFlow02_23.mxd

DATE2/28/2017

LEGEND

epicEN GIN EERING

REVISIONS

DRAWN: JRCDESIGNER: JRCREVIEWED: KRT

HORIZ: 1"=6,000'(8.5"X11")

PROJECT # 16SG012

SCALES

PROJECT NAME:

SHEET TITLE:

PLAN SET:

SARATOGA SPRINGS

PRELIM.

POTENTIAL DEBRI FLOW

FIGURE:---

SaratogaSprings

SARATOGA SPRINGS

Drainage Basins

Historic Debri FlowPotential Debri Flow

Potentially ActiveAlluvium

Moderate Risk BasinHigh Risk Basin

HIGH RISK BASINS IDENTIFIEDBY SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF SLOPE,

GEOLOGIC UNIT, AREA AND THREAT TO DEVELOPMENT.

POTENTIAL DEBRI FLOWFROM STUDY BY VIE

ENGINEERING.

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

26 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UN

L, NO

AA, U

SDA,

NATI

ONAL

DRO

UGHT

MI

TIGA

TION

CENT

ER

DROU

GHT

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\Drought1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

N

Mod

erat

e D

roug

ht

Curre

nt Dr

ough

tSt

atus

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

27 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UN

L, NO

AA, U

SDA,

NATI

ONAL

DRO

UGHT

MI

TIGA

TION

CENT

ER

DROU

GHT

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\Drought1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

S

Mod

erat

e D

roug

ht

Curre

nt Dr

ough

tSt

atus

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

28 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UT

AH G

EOLO

GICA

LSU

RVEY

ENGI

NEER

ING

HAZA

RDS

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\EngineeringHazards1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

N

Lim

esto

ne(K

arst

)

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

29 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UT

AH G

EOLO

GICA

LSU

RVEY

ENGI

NEER

ING

HAZA

RDS

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\EngineeringHazards1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

S

Lim

esto

ne(K

arst

)

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

30 of 142

Utah

Lake

DATE ep

icEN

GIN

EER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NER

: K

MC

REV

IEW

ED:

JPM

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT

NAME

:

SHEE

T TI

TLE:

PLAN

SET

:FIG

URE:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PREL

IM.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH

AGRC

, SAR

ATOG

A SP

RING

S, FE

MA,

MOU

NTAI

NLAN

DAO

G

FLOO

DING

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\Flood1.mxd

3/15

/201

7

Sar

atog

aS

prin

gs

N

Flood

Zone

s

Uta

h La

ke

0.2

% A

nnua

l C

hanc

e

Zone

AE

-1%

Zone

AE

-1%

Floo

dway

Zone

AH

-1%

Zone

AO

-1%

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

31 of 142

Utah

Lake

DATE ep

icEN

GIN

EER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NER

: K

MC

REV

IEW

ED:

JPM

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT

NAME

:

SHEE

T TI

TLE:

PLAN

SET

:FIG

URE:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PREL

IM.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH

AGRC

, SAR

ATOG

A SP

RING

S, FE

MA,

MOU

NTAI

NLAN

DAO

G

FLOO

DING

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\Flood1.mxd

3/15

/201

7

Sar

atog

aS

prin

gs

S

Flood

Zone

s

Uta

h La

ke

0.2

% A

nnua

l C

hanc

e

Zone

AE

-1%

Zone

AE

-1%

Floo

dway

Zone

AH

-1%

Zone

AO

-1%

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

32 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UT

AH G

EOLO

GICA

LSU

RVEY

GEOL

OGY

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\Geology1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

N

Uta

h La

keFa

ults

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

33 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UT

AH G

EOLO

GICA

LSU

RVEY

GEOL

OGY

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\Geology1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

S

Uta

h La

keFa

ults

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

34 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UT

AH G

EOLO

GICA

LSU

RVEY

LAND

SLID

ES

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\Landslides1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

N

His

toric

Land

slid

eLa

ndsl

ide

Scar

psLa

ndsli

de R

isk*

*No

colo

r ind

icat

es

very

low

riskLow

Ris

k

Mod

erat

e R

isk

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

35 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UT

AH G

EOLO

GICA

LSU

RVEY

LAND

SLID

ES

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\Landslides1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

S

His

toric

Land

slid

eLa

ndsl

ide

Scar

psLa

ndsli

de R

isk*

*No

colo

r ind

icat

es

very

low

riskLow

Ris

k

Mod

erat

e R

isk

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

36 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S GIS,

UTA

H GE

OLOG

ICAL

SURV

EY

SECO

NDAR

Y SY

STEM

EART

HQUA

KES

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\SecondaryEarthquake.mxd

1/5/

2017

N

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

US SE

ISM

IC H

AZAR

D

2% IN

50 Y

EARS

PGA

HAZA

RD (%

g) 25 -

3031

- 35

36 -

4041

- 45

46 -

5051

- 55

Uta

h La

keFa

ults

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

37 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S GIS,

UTA

H GE

OLOG

ICAL

SURV

EY

SECO

NDAR

Y SY

STEM

EART

HQUA

KES

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\SecondaryEarthquake.mxd

1/5/

2017

S

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

US SE

ISM

IC H

AZAR

D

2% IN

50 Y

EARS

PGA

HAZA

RD (%

g) 25 -

3031

- 35

36 -

4041

- 45

46 -

5051

- 55

Uta

h La

keFa

ults

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

38 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S GIS,

UTA

H GE

OLOG

ICAL

SURV

EY CULIN

ARY

SYST

EMEA

RTHQ

UAKE

S

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\SewerEarthquake.mxd

1/5/

2017

N

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

US SE

ISM

IC H

AZAR

D

2% IN

50 Y

EARS

PGA

HAZA

RD (%

g) 25 -

3031

- 35

36 -

4041

- 45

46 -

5051

- 55

Uta

h La

keFa

ults

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

39 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S GIS,

UTA

H GE

OLOG

ICAL

SURV

EY CULIN

ARY

SYST

EMEA

RTHQ

UAKE

S

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\SewerEarthquake.mxd

1/5/

2017

S

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

US SE

ISM

IC H

AZAR

D

2% IN

50 Y

EARS

PGA

HAZA

RD (%

g) 25 -

3031

- 35

36 -

4041

- 45

46 -

5051

- 55

Uta

h La

keFa

ults

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

40 of 142

Lift 3

Lift 3

Lift 2

Lift 2

Pose

yPo

sey

Lift 1

Lift 1

Inlet

Park

Inlet

Park

DATE ep

icEN

GIN

EER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NER

: K

MC

REV

IEW

ED:

JPM

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT

NAME

:

SHEE

T TI

TLE:

PLAN

SET

:FIG

URE:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PREL

IM.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH

AGRC

, SAR

ATOG

A SP

RING

S GIS

SEW

ER S

YSTE

MLIQ

UEFA

CTIO

N

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\SewerLiquefaction02_24.mxd

2/24

/201

7

Lique

factio

nPo

tentia

l

N

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

Hig

hSensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

41 of 142

Lift 5

Lift 5

Lift 4

Lift 4

Lift 3

Lift 3

Lift 6

Lift 6

Lift 7

Lift 7

DATE ep

icEN

GIN

EER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NER

: K

MC

REV

IEW

ED:

JPM

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT

NAME

:

SHEE

T TI

TLE:

PLAN

SET

:FIG

URE:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PREL

IM.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH

AGRC

, SAR

ATOG

A SP

RING

S GIS

SEW

ER S

YSTE

MLIQ

UEFA

CTIO

N

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\SewerLiquefaction02_24.mxd

2/24

/201

7

Lique

factio

nPo

tentia

l

S

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

Hig

hSensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

42 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, FF

SL

WILD

FIRE H

ISTOR

Y

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\WildfireHistory1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

N

Burn

Are

as

Burn

Loc

atio

n

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

43 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, FF

SL

WILD

FIRE H

ISTOR

Y

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\WildfireHistory1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

S

Burn

Are

as

Burn

Loc

atio

n

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

44 of 142

DATE ep

icEN

GIN

EER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NER

: K

MC

REV

IEW

ED:

JPM

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT

NAME

:

SHEE

T TI

TLE:

PLAN

SET

:FIG

URE:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PREL

IM.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH

AGRC

, SAR

ATOG

A SP

RING

S, FF

SL, T

IMMO

NS G

ROUP

WILD

FIRE

RISK

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\WildfireRisk1.mxd

2/23

/201

7

Sar

atog

aS

prin

gs

N

Fire

Hyd

rant

s

Bur

n Lo

catio

ns

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

45 of 142

DATE ep

icEN

GIN

EER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NER

: K

MC

REV

IEW

ED:

JPM

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT

NAME

:

SHEE

T TI

TLE:

PLAN

SET

:FIG

URE:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PREL

IM.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH

AGRC

, SAR

ATOG

A SP

RING

S, FF

SL, T

IMMO

NS G

ROUP

WILD

FIRE

RISK

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\WildfireRisk1.mxd

2/23

/201

7

Sar

atog

aS

prin

gs

S

Fire

Hyd

rant

s

Bur

n Lo

catio

ns

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

46 of 142

DATE ep

icEN

GIN

EE

RIN

G

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPRI

NGS

PREL

IM.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE UT

AH AG

RC, S

ARAT

OGA

SPRI

NGS,

FFSL

, TIM

MONS

GROU

P

WILD

FIRE R

ISK

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\WildfireRisk1.mxd

2/24

/201

7

Sar

atog

aS

prin

gs

N

Fire

Hyd

rant

s

Bur

n Lo

catio

ns

Land

Own

ership

Poss

ible W

ildfir

e Th

reatFe

dera

l

Priv

ate

Stat

e

Extre

me

Very

Hig

h

Hig

h

Mod

erat

e H

igh

Mod

erat

e

Mod

erat

e Lo

w

Low

Very

Low

Very

Ver

y Lo

w

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

47 of 142

DATE ep

icEN

GIN

EE

RIN

G

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPRI

NGS

PREL

IM.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE UT

AH AG

RC, S

ARAT

OGA

SPRI

NGS,

FFSL

, TIM

MONS

GROU

P

WILD

FIRE R

ISK

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\WildfireRisk1.mxd

2/24

/201

7

Sar

atog

aS

prin

gs

S

Fire

Hyd

rant

s

Bur

n Lo

catio

ns

Land

Own

ership

Poss

ible W

ildfir

e Th

reatFe

dera

l

Priv

ate

Stat

e

Extre

me

Very

Hig

h

Hig

h

Mod

erat

e H

igh

Mod

erat

e

Mod

erat

e Lo

w

Low

Very

Low

Very

Ver

y Lo

w

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

48 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UT

AH C

OUNT

Y

WILD

LAND

URB

AN

INTE

RFAC

E

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\WildlandInterface1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

N

Cou

nty

Def

ined

Inte

rface

City

Def

ined

Inte

rface

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

49 of 142

DATE ep

icE

NG

INE

ER

ING

REV

ISIO

NS

1. DR

AWN

:

JR

CD

ESIG

NE

R:

KM

CR

EVIE

WED

: JP

M

HO

RIZ

: 1"=

4,00

0'

(8.5

"X11

")

PRO

JEC

T #

16SG

012

SCAL

ES

PROJ

ECT N

AME:

SHEE

T TITL

E:

PLAN

SET:

FIGUR

E:

SARA

TOGA

SPR

INGS

PR

ELI

M.

01/2

"

LEGE

ND

SOUR

CE U

TAH A

GRC,

SARA

TOGA

SP

RING

S, UT

AH C

OUNT

Y

WILD

LAND

URB

AN

INTE

RFAC

E

S:\PROJ\Saratoga Springs\GIS\WildlandInterface1.mxd

1/5/

2017

Sara

toga

Sprin

gs

S

Cou

nty

Def

ined

Inte

rface

City

Def

ined

Inte

rface

Sensitive Security Information Not for Public Distribution

50 of 142

4.0 MITIGATION PLAN 4.1 Mitigation Plan Summary The risk assessment for the City’s Multihazard Mitigation Plan has resulted in the identification of areas in the City’s facilities and the community served which are vulnerable to damage due to natural disasters. The City has prepared a mitigation plan to implement the highest benefit natural hazard mitigation projects. Potential mitigation projects are shown in Table 4.1.

4.2 Methodology for Development of Mitigation Plan

The City has developed potential mitigation actions for facilities which currently may not meet post disaster performance objectives. These performance objectives were determined on a hazard specific basis. Performance objectives were therefore based on life safety protection, continuity of facility use objectives, and input obtained from community outreach meetings. Strategies for hazard mitigation for each considered hazard type are provided in Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.7.

4.2.1 Wildfire Hazard Mitigation

The City has taken a number of steps to mitigate wildfire hazards thus far. This includes adopting and implementing the State Urban Wildfire Plan. The City is considering plans to implement further wildfire hazard mitigation in the flowing ways: 1) Conduct fuel reduction projects on undeveloped lands adjacent to City boundaries, where such lands pose a wildfire hazard to the City. This will be done cooperatively with the BLM, DNR, and private land owners. 2) Construct fire breaks along or near certain boundaries of the City. This may be done in cooperation with trail development projects, 3) Reduce fuels on undeveloped lands that are in close proximity to City owned infrastructure, such as wells and pump stations. 4) Conduct public education programs, in cooperation with other agencies, such as BLM and DNR to promote fire safe practices on public lands.

4.2.2 Debris Flow Hazard Mitigation

Mitigation of debris flow hazards has been identified as a high priority based on risk assessments described in Section 3.0. One canyon (or drainage area) which recently caused significant damage in the City has been mitigated by installation of channel improvements and basins. The City plans to implement the following additional debris flow hazard mitigation measures: 1) Construct channel improvements and a debris flow basin(s) for the Loose Canyon Drainage; 2) Perform a detailed hazard assessment of other potential debris flow areas; 3) Implement other debris flow hazard mitigation projects, if warranted by 2); and 4) Consider further zoning restrictions as an alternative to 3), where practical.

4.2.3 Extreme Weather Hazard Mitigation

The City currently manages extreme weather as a component of its normal operations. In the case of transportation infrastructure: extreme snow storms, and to a lesser degree flooding have historically resulted in traffic delays. From an overall infrastructure perspective, one of the hazards posed by extreme weather has been loss of electrical power. To mitigate this concern, the City is considering purchasing and installing additional emergency generators. These generators would be serve critical facilities.

51 of 142

4.0 MITIGATION PLAN 4.2.4 Seismic Hazard Mitigation

As stated in the risk assessment portion of this plan, most of the City’s buildings are fairly new (less than 20 years old). Therefore, seismic shaking hazards are relatively low for existing buildings. A visual review of representative City owned buildings did however identify some nonstructural seismic risks that are being considered for mitigation.

Earthquake induced ground settlement and liquefaction may pose risks to facilities located in liquefiable zones. Liquefaction could lead to increase damage levels in buried piping and possibly damage (due to floatation) buried utility vaults. Mitigation for these conditions could include installation of gravel drains at buried vaults, use of flexible piping (such as HDPE piping). Other entities in the western US have also used SCADA upgrades (in some cases in conjunction with earthquake actuated shut off values) to manage water loss until piping repairs can be made after a seismic event. The City is considering the possible application of some of these technologies. 4.2.5 Drought Hazard Mitigation

The water for this system comes from three irrigation grade water wells, the Utah Lake Distributing Canal, and the Spring Creek Canal. The City has an active water conservation program, which includes:

The City has Secondary Water Metering and a Tiered Rate Structure. Coordination of Water Savings Projects Occurs with Local and Regional Water

Management Entities, including: - CUWCD - Local Canal Companies The City may consider submitting grants requests to the US Bureau of Reclamation for future conservation efforts.

4.2.6 Flood Hazard Mitigation

Flood hazards have been mapped by FEMA as a part of the Flood Insurance Risk Management (FIRM) program. This program effectively mitigates many flood hazards by restricting, or requiring flood insurance in mapped flood hazard areas. The MAG plan also provides additional local flood hazard data. One of the most effective hazard mitigation tools for management of flood hazards are the (already in place) zoning and development restrictions in flood hazard risk areas within the City.

However, some facilities by necessity are located in flood hazard areas. In the case of the City, these include certain water wells and many of the City’s sewer lift stations. These facilities are located in low lying areas for hydraulic and other technical reasons. Other facilities, such as transportation infrastructure may be located in low lying areas, or in higher elevation areas in the path of natural drainages. T he City will consider flood hazard mitigation activities for these facilities, which may include:

Installations of berms around low lying sewer lift stations or well pump houses. Construction of additional drainage culverts under transportation infrastructure. Debris flow management, as discussed under the Debris flow mitigation section of this

plan.

52 of 142

4.0 MITIGATION PLAN 4.3 Implementation of the Plan The City intends to implement this mitigation plan in the timeframe shown in Table 4.1. The City will update the plan as projects are implemented, and as long term capital improvement plans are developed by the City. The City will keep a current amended plan on file and submit this plan to FEMA, as required during preparation and submittal of future PDM or HMGP grant requests.

The primary responsible party for implementation actions shall be the City’s Fire Chief (currently Mr. Jess Campbell). This same individual will keep the City’s management personnel up to date regarding plan implementation progress.

The City will inform the State of Utah Division of Emergency Management of plan implementation status. This communication will be sent to the manager of this Division (currently Mr. Brad Bartholomew). 4.3.1 Coordination of Hazard Mitigation Projects With Other Capital Improvement Projects

Culinary Water Improvement Projects The culinary water improvement projects can be coordinated and incorporated into the multi-hazard mitigation plan in the following ways:

As new culinary water storage tanks, pump stations, and well houses are built, the designs may integrate further seismic, fire, and flood protection into the buildings and equipment.

As new sources are developed, more stringent source protection plans can be integrated to protect against specific hazards identified in the multi-hazard mitigation plan for the specific source locations.

As new transmission lines are designed and constructed (in high hazard areas) mitigation measures may be incorporated into the design. An example would be transmission lines that will be servicing areas (that have been identify as high risk for wildfire) could have additional fire protection and flow capacity, and fire hydrants placed more frequently than in low hazard areas.

Secondary Water Improvements The secondary water improvement projects can be coordinated and incorporated into the multi-hazard mitigation plan in the following ways:

System improvements near undeveloped areas of the town and near areas identified as high risk for wildfire can have fire protection uses designed into the system, such as the utilization of green strips and defensible space.

Open channel ditches can be sized for flood control in high hazard flood areas.

53 of 142

4.0 MITIGATION PLAN

Sewer System Improvements The sewer system improvement projects can be coordinated and incorporated into the multi-hazard mitigation plan in the following ways:

As lift stations, pump stations, and wastewater treatment plants are improved, additional seismic, fire, and flood protections may be integrated to help protect against unforeseen natural disasters.

As waste water systems are inspected and repairs are made in high risk areas, such as areas identified to have the potential for liquefaction, seismic protection factors may be incorporated as identified by the plan.

Storm Drain Improvements The storm drain improvement projects can be coordinated and incorporated into the multi-hazard mitigation plan in the following ways:

Culverts in areas that are identified as debris flow basins can be sized appropriately to pass debris without clogging, or have protections placed on them to prevent damage from debris flow.

Open channel storm drain channels can be sized to help channel flood flows in areas identified as high hazard for floods.

Transportation Improvement Projects The transportation improvement projects can be coordinated and incorporated into the multi-hazard mitigation plan in the following ways:

Culverts in areas that are identified as debris flow basins can be sized appropriately to pass debris without clogging, or have protections placed on them to prevent damage from debris flow.

Roads in areas identified as high hazard for wildfire can be designed and laid out as fire breaks.

4.3.2 Annual Evaluation of Plan Implementation Progress.

The City will conduct an annual evaluation of plan implementation progress. The update will consist of a memo stating actual plan progress as it compares to goals in Table 4.1. Updates will also be added if facilities listed in the current plan undergo changes, such as renovations, or additions.

4.3.3 Formal 5-Year Plan Updates

The City will prepare a formal plan update every five years for submittal to the State of Utah and FEMA. 4.3.4 Outreach Plan for Communication of Plan Progress to Stakeholders and the Public

Over the course of the timeframe given in Table 4.1, the City will continue outreach efforts in a manner consistent with those used in the development of this plan.

54 of 142

Table 4.1 page 1 here

55 of 142

Table 4.1 page 2 here

56 of 142

4.0 MITIGATION PLAN

(Section 4.4 Added To Plan On August 30, 2017, No Other Changes Made.)

4.4 Inclusion of FEMA Plan Recommendations

The City participated in the current MAG plan and has formally adopted the MAG plan. As such,

the City intends to participate in hazard mitigation actions listed in the MAG plan as appropriate.

Further, the authorities, policies and programs listed in the MAG plan are in included in the

City’s plan also, by virtue of adoption of the MAG plan. The purpose of the City’s plan is to

provide more City specific information and hazard mitigation planning measures. At FEMA’s

request (based on FEMA Comments dated August 17, 2017), the following additional

information has been added to the draft plan dated March 31, 2017:

4.4.1 Documentation of each jurisdiction existing authorities, policies, programs and resources

and its ability to expand on and improve these existing policies and programs (Requirement

§201.6(c)(3)) Addresses FEMA Comment C1.

General: The City has adopted the existing authorities, policies, programs and resources in the

current MAG plan. The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan therefore includes these provisions in its

plan by reference. Additional narrative specific to the City of Saratoga Springs, related to

authorizes, policies, programs and resources is provided in Sections 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3.

4.4.1.1 Existing Authorities and Capabilities

a) City Level Authorities and Responsibilities

As stated in the MAG Plan: “The Association of Governments (MAG in this case) has been duly

constituted under the authority of Title XI, Chapter13, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended

(The Inter-local Cooperation Act) and pursuant to Section 3 of the Executive Order of the

Governor of the State of Utah, dated May 27, 1970, with the authority to conduct planning

studies and to provide services to its constituent jurisdictions. Utah Code, Title 17, Chapter 27 is

the County Land Use Development and Management Act that grants authority to counties. Utah

Code, Title 10 Chapter 9, grants authority to municipalities”.

The City has further defined responsibilities and authorities of each department within the City.

The City has existing full time professional management and technical staff. These personnel

are fully capable of managing the implementation of the hazard mitigation plan. These

responsibilities and authorizes are as follows: City Administrative and Management Personnel:

Includes a full time city manager and support staff. Fire & EMS: Includes a full time fire chief

and multiple full time personnel and substantial EMS equipment at multiple locations. The City’s

fire chief has primary responsibility for supervision of implementation of hazard reduction

projects described in the City’s hazard mitigation plan. Fire and EMS staff sizes vary, but will

increase as/if necessary, as the population of the city continues to increase, and thus are not

specifically listed in this plan. Public Works: includes several full time professional engineers,

operations personnel, maintenance personnel and support staff. The City also has its own

equipment and supplies needed for ongoing maintenance and operation of city owned utilities.

Building Inspectors: includes inspectors across required disciplines. Engineering: includes a full

time chief engineer, several staff engineers and GIS personnel.

b) State Level Authorities and Capabilities

As listed in the MAG plan: “The State of Utah derives its authority under the Emergency

Management Act of 1981 (Utah Code 53-2, 63-5) as well as the Governor’s Emergency

Operations Directive and Executive Order of the Governor 11”. State level capabilities are listed

in the MAG plan. As such, these capabilities are not repeated in the City’s plan. The City’s

ability to take advantage of State capabilities will be augmented by virtue of implementing

mitigation actions identified in the City’s plan. The City worked with the State in developing

this plan, which lists City specific mitigation actions (rather than general mitigation actions). The

City will work with State level agencies listed in the MAG plan, as appropriate. These agencies

include: the Utah Division of Emergency Management (as related to pursuit of funding for

mitigation projects), the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (as related to fire hazard

risk reduction), the Division of Natural Resources (as related to fire and flood mitigation), the

Utah Geological Survey (as related to geological hazards assessments).

c) Federal Level Authorities and Capabilities

Federal level authorities and capabilities are listed in the MAG. As such, these capabilities are

not repeated in the City’s plan. The City’s ability to take advantage of Federal capabilities will

be augmented by virtue of implementing mitigation actions identified in the City’s plan. The

City has developed mitigation actions which meet the City’s mitigation goals, while also being

aligned with Federal assistance programs (including PDM and HMGP, FP&S, and others listed

in the adopted MAG plan.) The City intends to cooperate with Federal agencies, including

FEMA, USCOE, BLM and others as needed. The City intends to pursue hazard mitigation grants

available by virtue of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which defines mitigation planning

requirements for state, local, and tribal governments.

4.4.1.2 Existing Policies (and potential improvements based on implementation of the hazard

mitigation plan)

The City’s policies, as related to hazard mitigation of buildings, currently require the use of

nationally accepted building codes (IBC-2015). Further, the City has adopted a formal flood

management policy, as described in Section 4.4.2. The city has adopted other standards for

construction of or review of public works projects, including those listed in the MAG plan as

appropriate.

4.4.1.3 Existing Programs (and potential improvements based on implementation of the hazard

mitigation plan)

The City has ongoing programs to mitigate natural hazards. These programs include fire

management programs, storm water management plans, water and wastewater system

improvements, and enforcement of building codes. These and other programs are described in

detail on the City’s website and are available in on-line master plans, and are briefly

summarized in Section 4.3. The City intends to implement hazard mitigation actions, as

previously described in Sections 4.1 to 4.3.

4.4.1.4 Existing Resources (and potential improvements based on implementation of the hazard

mitigation plan)

The City currently has robust administrative, fire and EMS, public works, engineering, and code

enforcement capabilities. These personnel resources will be used to manage implementation the

City’s hazard mitigation plan. The City is likely to retain consultants and construction companies

to design and construct certain hazard mitigation projects. The process of implementing the plan

will increase awareness of natural hazard methods and procedures across all departments in the

City. The educational effects and experience gained through plan implementation will be

beneficial and City personnel as they design future projects and review future projects proposed

by developers and others.

The City will proactively utilize other resources available to assist the City in its hazard

mitigation objectives, as outlined in its plan. Local resources (in addition to City resources)

include: Utah County and other MAG Participant Communities (See MAG plan for more

specific information.) State level resources include: State DEM, DNR, and others as listed in the

MAG plan. Federal resources include: FEMA, USCOE, BLM, and others as listed in the MAG

plan.

4.4.2 Description of Saratoga Springs participation in the NFIP and continued compliance with

NFIP requirements (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) Addresses FEMA Comment C2.

The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This allows us to stay

current with federal programs and technical assistance and helps obtain reduced insurance rates

for all residents who purchase flood insurance. The City has taken the following steps as a part of

adoption of the NFIP (taken directly from the City’s published publically available information):

“The City recently completed a storm drainage study of the entire geographic area of the City.

This study indicates areas more susceptible to flood damage and makes recommendations

concerning the correct locations of detention ponds, storm channels and culvert facilities. The

City will be installing these improvements over the next 10 years, as needed, to accommodate

growth in existing and future neighborhoods. The City has also had the practice of trying to raise

awareness of issues like flooding so that you can take whatever steps you need to ensure

maximum protection.

The City has already made or required developers to make improvements to install storm drain

ponds, underground drain systems, and open storm channels leading to Utah Lake. The City also

has several regional park facilities planned of over twenty (20) acres in size that will collect

storm water during large storms. These facilities are all designed to divert and collect water away

from residential areas.

The City also requires Floodplain Development Permits (FDPs) any time that fill or structural

improvements are proposed in the regulatory floodplain. The regulatory floodplain is that area

shown on the approved FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These maps are available

on the City website (see quick links) or at FEMA’s Website. More complete and detailed

information on floodplain management regulations and procedures can be found in Section

18.02 of the City Code.”

4.4.3 Goals to reduce/avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards (Requirement

§201.6(c)(3)(i)) Addresses FEMA Comment C3.

Mitigation of vulnerabilities in the long-term will be done in the following four ways:

a) Mitigation options for currently known hazards are listed in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 provides a

summary of currently identified hazard mitigation actions over the next ten years (2017 to 2026).

This is the same table as in the MAG plan (since the City provided this table to MAG).

b) Mitigation measures may be incorporated into capital improvement plans. Hazard mitigation

is achieved over the long term by incorporation of hazard mitigation into capital improvement

projects, as previously described in Section 4.3.

c) Mitigation measures will be accomplished by participating in other mitigation regional actions

in the MAG plan (not relisted here).

d) Mitigation measures will be accomplished by incorporating mitigation actions in the State of

Utah Plan, as described in Attachment E (not relisted here).

As recommended by FEMA (in comments dated August 17, 2017) future plan updates may

incorporate master planning updates and other updated plans, such as transportation corridor and

storm water plans. Future plan updates to the City’s Plan (done every five years) may also

incorporate future MAG and State of Utah Plan updates, as appropriate.

Attachment A: Documentation of Outreach

57 of 142

A.1 Documentation of Outreach The City conducted four formal outreach efforts. These included:

• Meeting with a MAG representative on January 25, 2017 • Meeting with State of Utah and FEMA representatives on March 9, 2017 • Conducting a technical outreach meeting with multiple agencies on March 14, 2017

and • Conducting an outdoor general public outreach meeting on March 20, 2017

Records of these meetings are provided in this attachment. This attachment also includes the outreach presentation used at the March 14, 2017 meeting. The outcome of each meeting is summarized as well.

58 of 142

January 25, 2017

Location: Saratoga City Fire Station Attendees: Aaron Cloward (MAG) Kim Coburn (EPIC) Mike McChandles (EPIC) Jess Campbell (Saratoga Springs Fire Chief) John Masek (Saratoga Springs grant writer) Discussion Topics: 1) An overview of the draft plan was presented by Epic. 2) An overview of possible future grant opportunities was presented by VIE. 3) A discussion of coordination with future ERP updates was discussed. (The ERP update is a separate project to be done after Epic submits the HMP.) 4) Input from MAG: - Fire hazard mitigation is a high priority. -The MAG plan included debris flow mitigation costs under flood mitigation. Debris flow costs referred to in the MAG plan applied to debris flows off the Wasatch Mountains (which are not relevant to Saratoga Springs). - Flood mitigation actions have been taken by other entities since the 2010 MAG plan was written. - Liquefaction hazards pertinent to Saratoga Springs are mostly concentrated along the banks of Utah Lake and along the Jordan River. - Emergency generators are a viable mitigations option for power outage at critical facilities. See attached email also.

59 of 142

John Masek <jpmseismic1@gmail.com>

Saratoga Springs Follow up 1 message

Kim Coburn <kcoburn@epiceng.net> Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:29 PMTo: "acloward@mountainland.org" <acloward@mountainland.org>Cc: Josh Call <jcall@epiceng.net>,

Hello Aaron,

I wanted to thank you for coming to our meeting earlier this week to discuss Saratoga Spring’s Mitigation HazardMitigation Plan.

Please let us know when the updated hazard mitigation plan is available.

https://mountainland.org/articles/view/Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plans

The liquefaction data is from the State (attached is the map that we had shown you earlier for easy reference). Wethought it was a little bit more robust than the data you showed by having several distinct layers.

https://gis.utah.gov/data/geoscience/

ftp://ftp.agrc.utah.gov/UtahSGID_Vector/UTM12_NAD83/GEOSCIENCE/PackagedData/_Statewide/LiquefactionAndLandslides/

We will also let you know when the next public meeting is.

Thank You!

Kimberly Coburn

50 East 100 South

Heber City, UT 84032

“Sustainability is Epic”

Agreed upon action items in the meeting were: to include further information concerning debris flow and wildfire management. For now, debris flow mitigation costs are included under flood mitigation costs in the MAG plan.

60 of 142

Meeting at Utah State Office Building re Saratoga Springs Projects Date: March 9, 2017 Present: JPM (in a capacity of grant writer for future grants for Saratoga Springs) Brad Bartholomew (State of Utah) Eric Martineau (State of Utah) Brooke Conner (FEMA) Discussion: 1) Wildfire mitigation projects that are to be funded by FEMA should focus on fuel reduction. 2) Future debris flow mitigation projects should coordinate BCA methodology with FEMA personnel through the FEMA helpline, and this coordination should be documented in writing and then attached to grant submittals. 3) Proposed nonstructural mitigation projects appear to be eligible.

61 of 142

March 14, 2017

Location: Saratoga City Fire Station Attendees: See attached attendance list. Discussion Topics: 1) An overview of the draft plan was presented by Epic Engineering. 2) An overview of possible future grant opportunities was presented by VIE. 3) A discussion of coordination with future ERP updates was discussed. (The ERP update Is a separate project to be done after Epic submits the HMP.) 4) Input from the presentation by attendees; -Water system improvements should focus on SCADA, rather than necessarily installation of shut off valves. - Fire hazard mitigation is a high priority. - Nonstructural seismic hazard mitigation is likely to be low cost and very effective. - Flood mitigation of low lying facilities merits consideration. - Attention was brought to future outside public forum meeting to occur on March 20. - A draft plan will be submitted by Epic by March 27. - The city council will consider the plan in its April meeting. - The MAG plan included debris flow mitigation costs for Saratoga Springs under flood mitigation. Debris flow costs referred to in the MAG plan applied to debris flows off the Wasatch Mountains. See attached presentation dated March 14, 2017

62 of 142

63 of 142

C

ity o

f Sar

atog

a S

prin

gs M

ultih

azar

d M

itiga

tion

Pla

n

Out

reac

h M

eetin

g

64 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Pur

pose

of t

his

Out

reac

h M

eetin

g

Sum

mar

ize

Why

the

City

’s is

Dev

elop

ing

its O

wn

Nat

ural

H

azar

d R

isk

Man

agem

ent P

lan

(HM

P)

D

escr

ibe

the

Type

s of

Nat

ural

Haz

ards

bei

ng C

onsi

dere

d

Intro

duce

the

City

’s C

urre

nt L

istin

g of

Pos

sibl

e N

atur

al H

azar

d M

itiga

tion

Pro

ject

s

D

escr

ibe

How

the

City

’s H

MP

is to

be

Coo

rdin

ated

with

oth

er

Reg

iona

l and

Sta

tew

ide

Pla

nnin

g E

fforts

Obt

ain

Your

Inpu

t Dur

ing

Pre

para

tion

of th

e P

lan

65 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Pro

ject

Pur

pose

:

To P

repa

re a

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

whi

ch In

dent

ifies

Ris

ks

Due

to N

atur

al H

azar

ds a

nd D

evel

op a

FE

MA

App

rove

d P

lan

to

Man

age

and,

whe

re F

easi

ble,

Miti

gate

Ris

ks P

osed

by

Nat

ural

H

azar

ds

C

oord

inat

e Th

is P

lann

ing

Effo

rt w

ith A

ffect

ed L

ocal

Com

mun

ity

Gov

ernm

ents

and

Em

erge

ncy

Res

pond

ers

to M

axim

ize

the

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

Pla

n

66 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Coo

rdin

atio

n W

ith th

e C

ity’s

MM

P w

ith R

egio

nal M

MP

s •

Nec

essa

ry fo

r Miti

gatio

n P

lann

ing

and

Em

erge

ncy

Res

pons

e to

R

egio

nal H

azar

ds

•E

vent

s O

utsi

de o

f Sar

atog

a C

ity C

ould

Affe

ct th

e C

ity, S

uch

as W

ind

or W

inte

r Sto

rm L

eadi

ng to

Reg

iona

l Pow

er O

utag

e •

Nee

ded

to B

ette

r Ena

ble

Mut

ual A

id R

espo

nse

67 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

M

ultih

azar

d M

itiga

tion

Pla

n

Haz

ards

as

Rel

ated

to

City

Infra

stru

ctur

e,

Bus

ines

ses

and

Res

iden

ces

have

B

een

Map

ped

68 of 142

Haz

ards

to b

e Q

uant

ified

and

Miti

gate

d

D

ebri

s Flo

w M

itiga

tion

W

ildfir

e M

itiga

tion

Po

wer

Out

age

(may

be

due

to a

num

ber o

f nat

ural

haz

ards

, in

clud

ing

stor

m e

vent

s, w

ildfir

e ev

ents

, flo

odin

g, o

r se

ism

ic e

vent

s.)

Fl

ood

Haz

ard

Miti

gatio

n

Seis

mic

Miti

gatio

n of

Str

uctu

ral a

nd N

onst

ruct

ural

Abo

ve

Gra

de F

acili

ty C

ompo

nent

s

Seis

mic

Miti

gatio

n D

ue to

Liq

uefa

ctio

n

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

orri

dor H

azar

d M

itiga

tion

D

roug

ht M

itiga

tion

69 of 142

Prio

r Deb

ris F

low

Miti

gatio

n P

roje

cts

Com

plet

ed D

ebri

s Fl

ow

Mit

igat

ion

Pro

ject

D

ebri

s Fl

ow

Even

t in

2006

Deb

ris

Flow

Th

roug

h Re

side

ntia

l A

rea

70 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Deb

ris F

low

Haz

ards

Nor

ther

n P

ortio

n of

City

71 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Deb

ris F

low

Sou

ther

n P

ortio

n of

City

Futu

re N

ear

Term

M

itig

atio

n

Proj

ect A

rea

72 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Met

hodo

logy

to D

eter

min

e N

eed

for

Futu

re D

ebris

Flo

w M

itiga

tion

Pro

ject

s

Exa

mpl

e of

Miti

gatio

n P

roje

ct

Cur

rent

ly U

nder

Con

side

ratio

n:

Loos

e C

anyo

n D

ebris

Flo

w

E

ngin

eerin

g E

valu

atio

n of

D

rain

age

Are

as a

nd P

roje

ct

Prio

ritiz

atio

n C

oord

inat

e w

ith W

ildfir

e M

itiga

tion

Effo

rts

73 of 142

Miti

gatio

n of

Wild

fire

Haz

ards

Zoni

ng

M

itig

ate

Wild

fire

Haz

ards

N

ear C

ity

Faci

litie

s

74 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Wild

fire

Haz

ards

, Nor

ther

n P

ortio

n of

City

(

O

lder

Map

Upd

ated

bas

ed o

n C

urre

nt C

ity In

frast

ruct

ure)

75 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Wild

fire,

Sou

ther

n P

ortio

n of

City

(

A

reas

Upd

ated

Bas

ed o

n C

urre

nt C

ity In

frast

ruct

ure)

Map

Bas

ed o

n O

utda

ted

Dat

a

Upd

ate

base

d on

Cur

rent

D

evel

opm

ent C

ondi

tion

s

76 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Upd

ated

Fir

e H

azar

d M

ap In

clud

ed in

Pla

n, N

orth

77 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Upd

ated

Fir

e H

azar

d M

ap, S

outh

78 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Floo

d H

azar

ds, N

orth

ern

Por

tion

of C

ity

79 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Floo

d H

azar

ds, S

outh

ern

Por

tion

of C

ity

80 of 142

Miti

gatio

n of

Flo

od H

azar

ds

Miti

gatio

n A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

es

Pos

sibl

e M

itiga

tion

of

Floo

d H

azar

ds to

Wel

ls (T

BD

)

-Zo

ning

-

Coo

rdin

atio

n of

Flo

od P

lann

ing

with

Oth

er A

genc

ies

-Fl

ood

Miti

gatio

n C

ritic

al F

acili

ties

in

Fl

ood

Haz

ard

Are

as

81 of 142

Miti

gatio

n of

Win

d an

d W

inte

r Sto

rm H

azar

ds

Gen

erat

ors

Exis

t at

som

e Fa

cilit

ies n

ow

(fir

e st

atio

n, se

wer

lift

st

atio

ns,

In

dent

ify N

ew

Emer

genc

y G

ener

ator

N

eeds

and

Pro

cure

an

d In

stal

l Add

itio

nal

Gen

erat

ors

82 of 142

Miti

gatio

n of

Dro

ught

Haz

ards

The

wat

er fo

r thi

s sy

stem

com

es fr

om th

ree

irrig

atio

n gr

ade

wat

er w

ells

, the

Uta

h La

ke D

istri

butin

g C

anal

, and

the

Spr

ing

Cre

ek C

anal

.

The

City

Alre

ady

has

Sec

onda

ry W

ater

Met

erin

g an

d a

Tier

ed

Rat

e S

truct

ure.

Coo

rdin

atio

n of

Wat

er S

avin

gs P

roje

cts

with

Loc

al a

nd

Reg

iona

l Wat

er M

anag

emen

t Ent

ities

:

- CU

WC

D

- L

ocal

Can

al C

ompa

nies

Pos

sibl

y S

ubm

it G

rant

s R

eque

sts

to U

S B

urea

u of

R

ecla

mat

ion .

83 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Seis

mic

Sha

king

, Nor

ther

n Ar

ea

Mod

erat

e to

Hig

h G

roun

d Sh

akin

g Le

vels

Sei

smic

Sha

king

, Nor

ther

n A

rea,

als

o M

oder

ate

to H

igh

Gro

und

Sha

king

Lev

els

84 of 142

Miti

gatio

n of

Ear

thqu

ake

Gro

und

Sha

king

Haz

ards

P

ossi

ble

Miti

gatio

n A

ctio

ns

M

ost o

f the

Citi

es B

uild

ings

w

ere

Bui

lt w

ithin

the

Pas

t 20

Year

s, w

hich

is a

par

tial

miti

gatio

n fa

ctor

in it

self.

Con

side

r pos

sibl

e us

e of

Ip

=1.5

(vs

1.0

or 1

.25)

R

equi

rem

ent f

or C

erta

in

Crit

ical

New

Fut

ure

Faci

litie

s (F

ire a

nd P

olic

e S

tatio

ns,

Em

erge

ncy

Res

pons

e Fa

cilit

ies.

)

Impl

emen

t Non

stru

ctur

al

Sei

smic

Bra

cing

Con

side

r Sei

smic

Upg

rade

to

Ip =

1.5

for C

erta

in M

ore

Crit

ical

Cul

inar

y W

ell F

acilit

ies

85 of 142

Miti

gatio

n of

Sei

smic

Sha

king

Non

stru

ctur

al S

eism

ic

Haz

ard

Miti

gatio

n

Eve

n fo

r New

Fac

ilitie

s,

“Non

stru

ctur

al” S

eism

ic

Con

cern

s E

xist

Anc

hor E

quip

men

t

Pro

vide

Sei

smic

Res

train

ts

for P

ipin

g

Pro

vide

Fle

xibl

e P

ipin

g C

onne

ctio

ns

O

verh

ead

Equ

ipm

ent a

nd

Non

stru

ctur

al It

em B

raci

ng

A

utom

atic

Gas

Shu

toff

Valv

es

86 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

nPla

n

E

aste

rn P

ortio

n of

City

in

low

lyin

g ar

eas

is in

a

high

liqu

efac

tion

area

.

Mos

t res

iden

tial a

nd

com

mer

cial

dev

elop

men

t is

not

in h

igh

lique

fact

ion

risk

area

.

Som

e ne

w d

evel

opm

ent

near

the

lake

is in

a h

igh

lique

fact

ion

risk

area

Crit

ical

infra

stru

ctur

e m

ay b

e vu

lner

able

-s

ewer

lift

stat

ions

, se

wer

pip

ing

- W

ater

wel

ls, w

ater

pi

ping

87 of 142

Miti

gatio

n of

Liq

uefa

ctio

n an

d G

roun

d S

ettle

men

t H

azar

ds

S

tudy

SC

AD

A up

grad

es

to a

llow

ope

rato

rs to

m

onito

r and

adj

ust

syst

em o

pera

tion

shou

ld p

ipe

leak

s oc

cur

durin

g a

seis

mic

eve

nt.

Con

side

r wat

er s

yste

m

upgr

ades

to im

prov

e re

silie

nce

to s

eism

ic

even

ts.

88 of 142

M

itiga

tion

of L

ique

fact

ion

Haz

ards

St

udy

Liqu

efac

tion

M

itig

atio

n of

Exi

stin

g Va

ults

(Pos

sibl

y In

stal

l G

rave

l Dra

ins o

r Oth

er

Mea

sure

s

Con

side

r fur

ther

des

ign

requ

irem

ents

for f

utur

e ne

w fa

cilit

ies.

Use

of f

lexi

ble

pipi

ng in

liq

uefa

ctio

n ar

eas

(bei

ng

done

now

from

lift

st

atio

ns)

89 of 142

Miti

gatio

n of

Haz

ards

Pos

ed b

y In

dust

ry a

nd

Min

ing

Ope

ratio

ns

M

itiga

tion

of H

azar

ds p

osed

by

Exp

losi

ves

Faci

litie

s

Zoni

ng

E

nfor

cem

ent o

f Saf

ety

Sta

ndar

ds

W

ildfir

e M

itiga

tion

90 of 142

Miti

gatio

n R

esul

ting

from

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n C

orrid

or Im

prov

emen

ts P

ossi

ble

Haz

ard

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

to S

uppl

emen

t P

lann

ed Im

prov

emen

ts

S

torm

Dra

inag

e U

nder

E

xist

ing

Cor

ridor

s

Deb

ris F

low

Miti

gatio

n (a

s O

utlin

ed in

Prio

r Deb

ris F

low

D

iscu

ssio

n.)

91 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan,

C

oord

inat

e Fu

ture

Haz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

roje

cts

With

CIP

S

92 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Gra

nt A

pplic

atio

n C

onsi

dera

tions

FE

MA

GR

AN

TS

By

com

plet

ing

and

obta

inin

g FE

MA

App

rova

l of t

he C

ity’s

H

azar

d M

itiga

tion

Pla

n th

e C

ity w

ill b

e el

igib

le fo

r gra

nts

to fu

nd a

por

tion

of m

itiga

tion

cost

s.

G

rant

s ar

e up

to $

4.0

Mill

ion

per P

roje

ct

G

rant

s ge

nera

lly fu

nd 7

5% o

f pr

ojec

t cos

ts

A

mou

nt a

vaila

ble

dete

rmin

ed

annu

ally

by

Con

gres

s O

THE

R G

RA

NT

SO

UR

CE

S

U

SB

OR

EPA

FOR

ES

T A

ND

FIR

E S

TATE

LA

ND

S (D

NR

)

93 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Pro

vidi

ng C

omm

unity

Inpu

t to

the

Pla

n •

Sug

gest

ions

for I

tem

s to

Incl

ude

in th

e C

ity’s

Pla

n (to

Inco

rpor

ate

Item

s in

You

r Age

ncie

s’ o

r Org

aniz

atio

n’s

Cur

rent

Em

erge

ncy

Pla

ns

or M

itiga

tion

Pla

ns)

•S

ugge

stio

ns to

the

City

to B

ette

r Ena

ble

Your

Age

ncy

or

Org

aniz

atio

n to

Res

pond

to a

nd P

repa

re fo

r a N

atur

al D

isas

ter

•S

ugge

stio

ns to

the

City

for M

etho

ds to

Com

mun

icat

e to

You

r Age

ncy

or O

rgan

izat

ion

Dur

ing

the

Pro

cess

of P

lan

Pre

para

tion

•A

lso

an O

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r the

City

to P

artic

ipat

e in

any

Pre

disa

ster

or

Pos

t Dis

aste

r Pla

nnin

g E

fforts

With

in y

our A

genc

y or

Org

aniz

atio

n.

94 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

Res

ults

of H

azar

d M

itiga

tion

Pla

n W

ill b

e:

Th

e C

ity w

ill h

ave

mor

e in

dep

th k

now

ledg

e of

pot

entia

l ris

ks

befo

re a

nat

ural

dis

aste

r occ

urs

- Im

prov

ed E

mer

genc

y R

espo

nse

Ach

ieva

ble

- B

ette

r Coo

rdin

atio

n w

ith L

ocal

, Sta

te a

nd F

eder

al G

over

nmen

t A

chie

vabl

e

The

City

will

be

able

to d

evel

op p

lans

for m

itiga

ting

natu

ral h

azar

d ef

fect

s ac

cord

ing

to:

- H

ighe

st B

enef

it/C

ost

- C

oord

inat

ed w

ith C

apita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pla

ns

- S

eek

Gra

nt F

undi

ng to

Pay

for a

Por

tion

of M

itiga

tion

Pro

ject

s

95 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

96 of 142

City

of S

arat

oga

Spr

ings

Mul

tihaz

ard

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

97 of 142

PU

BLIC

MEE

TIN

G A

NN

OU

NCE

MEN

T:

THE

CITY

OF

SARA

TOG

A SP

RIN

GS

NAT

URA

L HA

ZARD

MIT

IGAT

ION

PLA

N

LOCA

TIO

N: R

OAD

IN F

RON

T O

F TR

ACTO

R SU

PPLY

DA

TE: M

ON

DAY

MAR

CH 2

0

TIM

E: 5

:00

PM to

7:0

0 PM

RE

FRES

HMEN

TS W

ILL

BE S

ERVE

D TH

E CI

TY IS

SEE

KIN

G Y

OU

RTH

IS P

LAN

WIL

L IM

PRO

VE T

HE C

ITY’

S AB

ILIT

IY T

O M

ANAG

E FU

TURE

NAT

URA

L HA

ZARD

S SU

CH A

S:

INPU

T IN

TO IT

S N

ATU

RAL

HAZA

RD M

ITIG

ATIO

N P

LAN

FLO

ODI

NG

AND

DEBR

IS F

LOW

S DR

OU

GHT

AND

WIL

DFIR

E EA

RTHQ

UAK

ES

EXTR

EME

WEA

THER

EVE

NTS

PO

WER

OU

TAGE

TH

IS I

S AN

OPP

ORT

UN

ITY

LEAR

N H

OW

WE

WIL

L BE

MAK

ING

OU

R CI

TY S

AFER

AN

D TO

OFF

ER

YOU

R IN

PUT

TO T

HE P

LAN

NIN

G PR

OCE

SS.

PLEA

SE JO

IN U

S AN

D M

EET

REPR

ENTA

TIVE

S FR

OM

YO

UR

CITI

ES F

IRST

RES

PON

DER

ORG

ANIZ

ATIO

NS

AND

DISC

USS

ON

GOIN

G PL

ANS

WIT

H CI

TY P

ERSO

NN

EL A

ND

THEI

R PL

ANN

ING

CON

SULT

ANTS

.

98 of 142

RE

SULT

S O

F M

EETI

NG:

AP

PRO

XIM

ATEL

Y 40

MEM

BERS

OF

THE

PUBL

IC A

TTEN

DED

THE

MEE

TIN

G FR

OM

5PM

TO

7PM

. GE

NER

AL IN

QU

IRES

CO

NCE

RNIN

G HA

ZARD

MIT

IGAT

ION

PLA

NN

ING

WER

E DI

SCU

SSED

.

99 of 142

Attachment B: Debris/Flood Flow Analysis

100 of 142

Attachment B: Debris/Flood Flow Analysis

Debris flows have historically occurred in recent times in the direct vicinity of the proposed Background

Loose Canyon Debris Flow Mitigation Projectcanyon. Fortunately, the debris flow was not directly aligned with developed areas. Nonetheless,

. As recently as 2012, a large debris flow occurred in an adjacent

many homes were flooded, with debris accumulating in basements and first floor levels these homes (ref 1). Additionally, emergency funding, exceeding $3,000,000 dollars, was needed to construct remediation measures at an accelerated pace (Table 1).

Historical data clearly illustrates the hazards posed by debris flow events (caused by water rapid runoff in fire damaged areas) in northern Utah. Peer reviewed scholarly publications indicate that this problem is likely to become more severe, as the effects of climate change in Utah lead to a dryer more fire prone environment. This effect, combined the possibility of storms of increasing severity, further emphasizes the need to construct the proposed mitigation project in the near future. (Refs. 5,6)

Effects of Climate Change on Increased Risk of Wildfire and Debris Flow

The City of Saratoga seeks through this grant request funding to mitigate a potentially much more Proposed Mitigation and Risk Estimate Methodology

severe debris flow event in a canyon near the prior 2012 debris flow event. This canyon is known as Loose Canyon. Unlike the 2012 event, the outfall area for Loose Canyon debris and flooding is directly aligned with a densely developed residential area.

-adapt FEMA/USCOE loss estimation methods from static flood damage of residential facilities;

Losses for residential damage are estimated in Attachment D. In addition to economic losses, considering the direct alignment of the debris flow with residences, loss of life is considered a possibility. For the unmitigated condition, a thorough analysis has been done to:

-determine economic losses based on adaptation of FEMA/USCOE methodologies (Attachment B), based on flood depth and current values of affected residences (Attachment C).

It is important to note that use of the BCA 5.2.1 flood module would be an incorrect approach for loss estimation for the Loose Canyon debris flow scenario. The BCA 5.2.1 software is intended for traditional flow volume analysis is streams/rivers. Debris flow is not directly modeled by the BCA software, therefore FEMA recommends using the damage frequency assessment module. Furthermore, and very importantly, current design codes for buildings (ASCE 7-10, section 5.4.5) require impact analysis of structures in debris flow areas. Loads from debris flow are in addition to hydraulic loads due to static water flooding. This type of analysis is rarely if ever done for typical residential tract type construction. BCA 5.2.1 Software does not have algorithms to estimate losses based on ASCE 7-10 load analysis. As noted in peer reviewed scientific publications (Refs.2,3,4) estimation of debris flow volumes is not readily done with established fragility functions, such as those in the FEMA BCA 5.2.1 or HAZUS programs. Therefore, rational interpretation of data is needed, as recommended by ASCE 7-10 and FEMA. Further, while it is well known and accepted that fire damaged terrain in alluvial and fluvial deposits can flow and lead to destructive loss of life and property; fire frequency estimation is more difficult. Use of historical data is the recommended by FEMA methodology. Fortunately, there is fairly substantial data concerning fire occurrence in the Loose Canyon and foothills area near Saratoga City. These data are referred to in the attached report by CRS consultants. References: 1) Desert News, September 4, 2012, article excerpt attached. 2) Hazus MH Technical Manual; Department of Homeland Security, Washington DC 3) Analysis of Residential Depth-Damage Functions, USCOE, Report 92-R03 4) Journal of the American Waterworks Association, Predicting Debris Yield from Burned Watersheds, 2009 5) K. Sassa, P. Canuti (eds.), USGS, Landslides – Disaster Risk Reduction, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009 6) FEMA: Mitigation Ideas A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards, 2013, page 27

101 of 142

� � ��

�

� � �

�������������� �������������� �������������������� �������������� ����������!�"���#����$�����%�&�'�� ��( )�*�� +����*��,�*�� +��( )�- �������� ��.�/) ��'�� ��0) 1������.��)�� �������2)�2�)�� ��( )�������/3 ����� (��������4����5��6�0)�4. �����)�� � +�� ��+)����7����"��2�)( )3�*�����)� )��)�" �7� (������)�����)) ��* �+�- �������� �� ����)�� +���2) �+��#�����' 7���� �� �����*�6�� � �����8'�96:���"��2) " *��������*) � +����*�(� *�3 *�� �+���*��%���������*��� �� �( )3�� ��� �*�"�� 2���/�� ��( )�*�� +������3�� ��*�� +����*�� ������ 3����������"����� �2) " *�*��** � ����*�����/ ���2 ���� ���*�3�+��������3��� ���)� (�����2) 1���� ��� ��� 32����*����'�96�2) " *�*�������*) � +����*�2�)( )3�*���������� �������������������*������)��� )3��/ ���2)����*�2 ���/�)��� �* � ����;�������*) +)�2�������/�������/�� 7����

��

������

�������

��������

��������

��������

��������

��������

�� ��� ����

� ���

����

���

����������

������ ��!� "����

��#%�&���#%�&���#%�&�

102 of 142

� � �

� � �

��;���� ����" ��3�� (�(� 7� ����)��(���� ���� 7��/�� 7�( )�����������*������)��� )3���6������/������� ��/ �������( +�)����/ "����*�������/���/�� 7�����2 ���/�)��� �* � �� �����)����7 ��������"�)���������2)�4/�)��� �* � �����

�� '��#*+� � '����*+� �'����*+� �

�����6�8����6��&� �"�<��+���

����%�&�� �=� ��� ����� ����=�

����%�&�� �� ��>� >��==� ���>��

����%�&�� �?� =��� ��=�=� ������

�

�@� ��������&��� �� ����������&�����&��� �"�8������������+&��� �G�������������� ���&��"�8K�+Q������V�"+���������@��+����������"���+�Q� "�"�� ������+ �����������& �8����� �� ���������"����+� ���������KQ��&��K�&��+��"���&��&QQ�����&���K���V��������"�8��������������"��Q��+������+�Q� ��� �&�� ������+QQ���&��+@�&���& �&��&���������& ����&������8&�� ���+���8��"���� �"�����&����&�����V��������Q����8+� �@��+��������"�8����������@��+���������� �� ����+� ���+��&8�@����

����Q�&X�������� ��������Q��#8+� �����K�&����������&QQ�����&���K��[+�@&�� ���������Q�&X�������������8+�X�"�Q���#8+� �����K�&�������������������������@� ��������+��"������"���+ �� ������"�����������+�������&"\&�� ���+8"�@���� ���������������&QQ�����&���K����������� ��&��"�&�����"�&��&�&������ �8�������

������

��������

��������

��������

�������

��������

=�������

�� ��� ����

� ���

����

���

����������

]����^�@����K�*+� �!� "���� ��#%�&���#%�&���#%�&�

103 of 142

� � �

� � �

�

�����&��&�� + "&����&QQ�����&���K�=��������+ "����#�����������&���G���������+ "����#�����������&���G����������+ "����#����������&����& "����������+ "���#�����������&���������&@��&���@&�+������������ �����&��&����&QQ�����&���K�_��G�������������"���+�"�&������Q&���� ����+����8+��"� �G�� ���������8+��"� ��& "��������&���&�� &������@&�+������������&���������&@��&���&��+ "�_�G���G�����&�����

6+�����&��������@&��� �Q�� ��� �`�"���"�`�&"������"�Q������8+�K�� �������&"��������������=������"��Q��{�����|6}���&�� ���K���Q��@�"�"�& ���&����� ����&��� G�����&@��8�� ����"��@�������Q�� ����&�������+�"��&X��|6}��&QQ�����&���K�#����+���������Q� "�& "����&��������&"�&K�&"�[+&���K�������&�����������+�����

���������&����&���&�����"�&� &���&QQ�����&���K�?�������� ������������~�����!& K� �"�&� &�����&��&����������� ��������+8"�@���� �&�������+��� �������������"�&� &�����������&"@& �&���+��K����&��"����Q&���������"������K�� �������!��K���������"�&� ��K�����& "�&�����&��& ������� ���&���� ������������ ���+���� ����&�"�8����8&�� ��!`^�������� "����&������!��K��� ���+�������"�8����8&�� �� �������&�����"�&� &���������� �����& "���Q��K�&��+�������& ��������#"���������������������~�����!& K� ��������"�8����8&�� ��6+�������������Q����Q�������������&� G�������&����������� "�"���&������8&�� ��� ��������8��+��"����&@��"�&���� ����& ��K��&���8&�� ����8���� ���+���"�������&K�+���������8&�� �& "��+�������& ������� ��+"�"�&��& �&��&���� �����������������&������������"���� ����� ��+"�"�8�������

�����&�������� ���������"���� ����������&���&��� �����Q�+ "�� ��\+���&8�@��]&�8���'&�X�&K�& "�� ��&���&QQ�����&���K��������������������"�&� �Q�Q� ������� ������������������� ��������"�&� ��K�������������Q���������������&��G��

���

`�"���"�`�&"�

~�����!& K� �6�&� &���

104 of 142

� � �

� � �

����� ������ �� �� ���� ������&������X����8& X�� ��� �������� !% ����_���������������� ��G������_���������&������X�����&@&��� � �������� !% =���_���������������� ���G������_�������������������&8��� �������� ^% ����_���������������� ��G>�����_������������6���`�Q�&Q ������ !% >����_�������������� ���G������_��������8����&��� � ~^ ��G������_������ ��G������_��������!��&�� ����+88� ��6�������� � ~^ ��G������_������ ��G������_�������������&��@���&����&�� �� 6&K� �G=�����_�������� �=G������_���������+� ����& "�� ��&���^& "������� �>� !% =����_�������������� ��G������_���������� ������&"� � � ~^ �G������_�������� �G������_�����������!� ���+���� ��������`�&" � ~^ ��G������_������ ��G������_���������=�� ���`!'�6�&� �'�Q� � ���� ~� �����_������������ �=�G������_������!&��#� #'�&���!� ������'�Q��� ���� � �� �G������_�������� �G������_���������������"�{������ �� � ���� ~� ��=�_���������������� �G�����_�������������������� &�K��� � ~^ ��G������_������ ��G������_��������~& "�'+���&�� � ���� ��G������_������ ��G������_��������!�& ���`��� ���+���� ?�� ~� ������_������������ ���G������_������� �� ���� ���V >>G>�=���_��������!� ���+���� ��& &���� ��=V ��G��>���_��������

����� ������������� ����(�� ����"������<���� ���2������(����()���� ������3�����8$�:���=4����������������+���� ���)���������������� ����� ������

�

����)������*��)�0�����0) 1��������+�)�

Costs to Mitigate, Proposed 2015/2016 PDM Project

105 of 142

Phase Engineers Estimate Base BidEmergency (2012) $120,000.00 $116,580.68

Phase 1- Upper Channel Improvements $220,000.00 $195,200.00Phase 2- Debris Basins Construction $1,200,000.00 $739,500.00Phase 3- Lower Channel Improvements $1,300,000.00 $839,000.00Phase 4- Park Detention Basin $350,000.00

2013 Total $3,070,000.00 $1,773,700.00

Grand Total $3,190,000.00 $1,890,280.68

Engineering Services CostEmergency (2012) $29,908Base Design Contract $135,100Construction Management $124,000Additional Design Costs $118,200

Total $407,207.83

Approved TA Funding $187,189.75 (10% of Total NRCS CRemaining TA funding $220,018.08 (remaining TA fundin

NRCS FA Construction Costs (75%) $1,871,897.48NRCS TA Remaining $165,013.56Total Requested Reimbursement $2,036,911.04

City share of Construction Costs (25%) $623,965.83City Share of Remaining TA Funding $55,004.52Total City Share $678,970.35

NRCS EWP Grant Breakdown

Table 1, Costs to Repair/Mitigate from 2012 Saratoga Debris Flow

106 of 142

Change Orders Total Construction Cost Engineering Fee$116,580.68 $29,908

$27,672.00 $222,872.00$87,910.62 $827,410.62

$140,000.00 $979,000.00$0.00 $350,000.00

$255,582.62 $2,379,282.62 $377,300

$255,582.62 $2,495,863.30 $407,208

Construction Costs)ng over 10% of construction costs are rolled into FA costs)

$377,300

107 of 142

108 of 142

Attachment C: Field Survey Information

109 of 142

C.1 Field Survey Information As a component of development of the City’s hazard mitigation plan, a field survey of representative City facilities was conducted. This survey was used to visually assess these facilities and determine likely hazards that could affect them. Table C.1 Field Survey Results ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS Secondary Well 2

Newer well building structure, likely to be adequate for seismic loads.

Pipe Stand at Well 2

Nonstructural seismic retrofit of piping supports may be needed.

Booster Pump Station 3

Newer well building structure, likely to be adequate for seismic loads.

110 of 142

ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS Pipe Stand at Booster 3

Nonstructural seismic retrofit of piping supports may be needed.

Tank 3

Consideration may be given to valve or SCADA modifications to enhance ability to manage earthquake damage to downstream piping.

Lift Station 2

Several nonstructural items, including equipment and tanks may require nonstructural seismic strengthening. Mitigation of brush fire hazard recommended.

111 of 142

ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS Equipment at Lift Station 2

Several nonstructural items, including equipment and tanks may require nonstructural seismic strengthening.

Tank at Lift Station 2

Several nonstructural items, including equipment and tanks may require nonstructural seismic strengthening.

Culinary Well 3

Newer well building structure, likely to be adequate for seismic loads.

112 of 142

ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS Pipe Stands at Culinary Well 3

Nonstructural seismic retrofit of piping supports may be needed.

Pipe Stands at Culinary Well 3

Nonstructural seismic retrofit of piping supports may be needed.

Culinary Well 1

Newer well building structure, likely to be adequate for seismic loads.

113 of 142

ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS Pipe Stands at Culinary Well 1

Nonstructural seismic retrofit of piping supports may be needed.

Public Works Office Building

Newer building structure, likely to be adequate for seismic loads.

Public Works Shop Building

Newer building structure, likely to be adequate for seismic loads.

114 of 142

ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS Overhead Heaters in Public Works Shop Building

Overhead heaters and piping may require seismic bracing.

Sewer Lift Station 1

Lift station vault may be vulnerable to liquefaction effects.

Vault in Sewer Lift Station 1

Lift station may be vulnerable to liquefaction effects.

115 of 142

ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS Emergency Generator at Sewer Lift Station 1

Emergency generators are being considered for installation at other critical facilities as well.

Firehouse 262

Newer building, likely to be adequate for seismic loading.

Open Field Adjacent to Firehouse 262

This area experienced moderate debris flow effects (about 2” of material) in the 2012 debris flow.

116 of 142

ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS Area of now completed Debris Flow Mitigation Project

Finished construction of basin in area affected by 2012 debris flow.

Booster Pump 4

Newer building, likely to be adequate for seismic loading.

Equipment at Booster Pump 4

Equipment generally well anchored for seismic loads, with some exceptions for some pipe supports.

117 of 142

ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS Tank 7

Consideration may be given to valve or SCADA modifications to enhance ability to manage earthquake damage to downstream piping.

Lift Station 6

Newer above grade building, likely to be adequate for seismic loading. Lift station vault may be vulnerable to liquefaction effects.

Fire Station HQ

Newer building, likely to be adequate for seismic loading.

118 of 142

ITEM PHOTO OBSERVATIONS City Hall

Newer building, likely to be adequate for seismic loading.

119 of 142

Attachment D: Correlation of City of Saratoga Springs Hazard Mitigation Plan to MAG Plan

120 of 142

D.1 Correlation of City of Saratoga Springs Hazard Mitigation Plan to MAG Plan

The City actively participated in the MAG planning process. However, by necessity, the MAG plan did not include detailed information on every hazard that could affect the City, nor did it provide detailed mitigation actions. The purpose of the City’s hazard mitigation plan was to build upon the MAG plan and provide more detailed information that was specific to the City.

Table D.1 lists excerpts from MAG plan risk assessment summaries, as well as commentary on how these risk assessment and mitigation actions correlate to the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The mitigation action items common to the Saratoga Springs Plan and the MAG Plan are shown in Table D.1. As the City of Saratoga Springs developed its own hazard mitigation plan, additional actions (beyond those listed in Table D.1 were identified as follows:

� Flooding Mitigation:Flood mitigation may include two components: protection of low lying critical facilities and mitigation of debris flow hazards.

� Earthquake Hazard Mitigation:While earthquake ground shaking hazards are considered low for new above grade facilities (since most are newer buildings), other hazards exist which may be considered for mitigation. These include installation of seismic restraints for nonstructural items and liquefaction mitigation for below grade vaults in liquefaction zones.

� Wildfire Mitigation:The City has undertaken public education programs as listed in the MAG plan. The City has also indentified other potential wildfire hazard mitigation projects. These may include fuel reduction and fire break projects. Fire breaks could be potentially be combined with expansion of the City’s trail system.

� Landslide Mitigation:In the case of the City of Saratoga Springs, landslide mitigation may be combined with debris flow mitigation.

Further discussion of each of these hazard mitigation items may be found in Section 3.0 of the City’s hazard mitigation plan.

121 of 142

Prot

ectin

g C

urre

nt R

esid

ents

and

Stru

ctur

es: A

naly

sis o

f 201

0 G

oals

Haz

ard

Act

ion

Prio

rity

Tim

elin

eEs

timat

ed

Cos

tPo

tent

ial

Fund

ing

Sour

ces

Res

pons

ible

Par

tyC

ompl

eted

?If

not,

why

?

Floo

ding

/ D

am F

ailu

rePr

omot

e N

FIP

parti

cipa

tion.

Hig

hO

ngoi

ngM

inim

alLo

cal C

ash,

G

rant

s

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, UD

HS

Yes

Earth

quak

eIn

vent

ory

curr

ent c

ritic

al fa

cilit

ies f

or

seis

mic

stan

dard

s.H

igh

3 ye

ars

TBD

Loca

l Cas

h,

Gra

nts

Loca

l Gov

ernm

entN

oM

ostly

ne

wbu

ildin

gs

Wild

fire

Educ

ate

hom

eow

ners

on

FIR

EWIS

E pr

actic

es.

Hig

hO

ngoi

ngM

inim

alLo

cal C

ash,

G

rant

sLo

cal G

over

nmen

tYes

Land

slid

ePu

blic

edu

catio

n on

and

cor

rect

w

ater

ing

prac

tices

and

reta

inin

g m

easu

res i

n su

scep

tible

are

as.

Med

ium

1 ye

arTB

DLo

cal C

ash,

G

rant

sLo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent,

UG

SY

es

Prot

ectin

g Fu

ture

Res

iden

ts an

d St

ruct

ures

: Ana

lysi

s of 2

010

Goa

ls

Haz

ard

Act

ion

Prio

rity

Tim

elin

eEs

timat

ed

Cos

tPo

tent

ial

Fund

ing

Sour

ces

Res

pons

ible

Par

tyC

ompl

eted

?If

not,

why

?

Floo

ding

/ D

am F

ailu

re

Upd

ate

Floo

d an

d In

unda

tion

map

ping

and

inco

rpor

ate

them

into

ge

nera

l pla

ns a

nd o

rdin

ance

s.H

igh

2 ye

ars

TBD

Loca

l Cas

h,

Gra

nts

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, UD

HS

Parti

al: 1

.5 o

f 3

dete

ntio

n ba

sins

bu

ilt

Earth

quak

ePr

omot

e ea

rthqu

ake

awar

enes

s and

pr

epar

atio

n.H

igh

1 ye

arM

inim

alLo

cal C

ash,

G

rant

s

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, U

GS,

USG

S

Parti

al: I

nfo

on

web

site

& so

cial

m

edia

, sta

rting

C

ERT

Wild

fire

Inco

rpor

ate

FIR

EWIS

E la

ndsc

apin

g re

quire

men

ts in

to lo

cal o

rdin

ance

s w

ithin

are

as a

t ris

k.H

igh

1 ye

arM

inim

alLo

cal C

ash,

G

rant

sLo

cal G

over

nmen

tYes

Land

slid

eC

oord

inat

e an

d up

date

land

slid

e m

appi

ng w

ithin

the

area

with

UG

S an

d U

SGS.

Hig

h3

year

sM

inim

alLo

cal C

ash,

G

rant

s

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, U

GS,

USG

S

Parti

al; s

ome

hills

ide

stab

ilize

d th

roug

h co

nstru

ctio

n ef

forts

.

Tabl

e D

.1 S

umm

ary

of A

ctio

n Ite

ms

from

MA

G P

lan

122 of 142

Attachment E: Correlation of City of Saratoga Springs Hazard Mitigation Plan to State of Utah Plan, Utah County

123 of 142

E.1 Correlation of City of Saratoga Springs Hazard Mitigation Plan to State of Utah Plan for Utah County

The City is included in the State of Utah Hazard Mitigation Plan. As with the MAG Plan, the State of Utah Plan also did not include detailed information on every hazard that could affect the City, nor did it provide detailed mitigation actions that were specific to the City only. The City’s hazard mitigation plan builds upon the Utah plan and provides more detailed information that isspecific to the City.

Table E.1 contains excerpts from the Utah plan risk assessment summaries, as well as commentary on how these risk assessment and mitigation actions correlate to the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The mitigation action items common to the City of Saratoga Springs Plan and the State of Utah Plan are as follows: (Listed in order shown in State plan, higher priority items only listed)

� Flood:The City’s plan is consistent with the primary action items shown in Table E.1

� Wildfire:The City’s plan is consistent with the primary action items shown in Table E.1. It is noted that the City is considering both fuel reduction, as well as fire break construction, as recommended in the State plan.

� Debris Flow: The City’s proposed debris flow mitigation projects are consistent with the State plan.

� Drought: The City has a very proactive water conservation program now, as recommendin the State plan. To the extent that interagency coordination is possible, the City may pursue additional multijurisdictional projects in this regard. (Such as canal lining or piping)

� Severe Weather: The City proposes to mitigate this hazard (in part) by installation of emergency generators at certain critical facilities, where generators are not currently present.

� Liquefaction: The State plan encourages code compliance for new buildings to mitigate this hazard. The City’s plan also proposes to study liquefaction mitigation for existing below grade structures, for certain critical facilities.

� Earthquake Shaking: The State plan proposes enforcement of seismic codes for new buildings and seismic retrofitting (structural and nonstructural) of older at risk buildings. The City has mostly new buildings. However, some level of nonstructural seismic strengthening is being considered.

124 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

Floo

d

Obj

ectiv

e: S

uppo

rt th

e N

atio

nal F

lood

In

sura

nce

Prog

ram

(NFI

P), F

lood

Map

M

oder

niza

tion

Prog

ram

, to

upda

te fl

ood

risk

and

flood

map

s in

the

Cou

nty

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: F

lood

ing

occu

rs p

rimar

ily fr

om sp

ring

snow

-mel

t and

occ

asio

nally

from

loca

lized

sum

mer

thun

ders

torm

s.

Iden

tifyi

ng a

nd th

en c

ontro

lling

floo

ding

will

ass

ist i

n re

spon

ding

to fl

ood

even

ts.

Prot

ectio

n of

life

and

pro

perty

bef

ore,

dur

ing,

and

afte

r a

flood

ing

even

t is e

ssen

tial.

A

ctio

n: S

uppo

rt St

ate

Floo

dpla

in M

anag

er in

th

e Fl

ood

Map

Mod

erni

zatio

n Pr

ogra

m

HIG

H

Nex

t thr

ee y

ears

D

epen

dent

on

if co

st

shar

e is

requ

ired.

C

ount

ywid

e

Dep

ende

nt o

n sc

ope

of

indi

vidu

al

map

ping

pr

ojec

ts.

City

/Cou

nty

Emer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t, C

ount

y/C

ity

Engi

neer

(s),

Stat

e Fl

oodp

lain

M

anag

er,

Con

tract

ors.

The

Stat

e ha

s des

igna

ted

Uta

h C

ount

y as

the

num

ber o

ne p

riorit

y co

mm

unity

in th

e St

ate

for u

pdat

ed

flood

map

s. C

ount

y ne

eds t

o su

ppor

t thi

s des

igna

tion.

O

bjec

tive:

Pro

mot

e flo

od in

sura

nce

thro

ugho

ut th

e C

ount

y

Act

ion:

Cre

ate

outre

ach

docu

men

t pro

mot

ing

flood

insu

ranc

e an

d in

clud

e in

loca

l ne

wsp

aper

(s),

libra

ries,

and

othe

r pub

lic

build

ings

. Es

peci

ally

afte

r wild

fires

whe

re p

ost

fire

debr

is fl

ows a

re o

f con

cern

.

HIG

H

1 ye

ar

Min

imal

C

ount

ywid

e U

nkno

wn

Cou

nty

Engi

neer

/Flo

odp

lain

A

dmin

istra

tor,

Cou

nty

Emer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t, St

ate

Floo

dpla

in

Man

ager

, D

ES

Gen

eral

pub

lic is

usu

al n

ot a

war

e th

ey c

an p

urch

ase

flood

insu

ranc

e ev

en if

they

are

loca

ted

outs

ide

of a

Sp

ecia

l Flo

od H

azar

d A

rea.

Thi

s in

form

atio

n is

esp

ecia

lly c

ritic

al

whe

n po

st fi

re d

ebris

flow

pot

entia

l ha

s bee

n id

entif

ied

and

hom

es a

re

loca

ted

on a

lluvi

al fa

ns.

O

bjec

tive:

Red

uce

thre

at o

f uns

tabl

e ca

nals

thro

ugho

ut th

e C

ount

y. Id

entif

y C

ount

y-w

ide

cana

l sys

tem

s

125 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

A

ctio

n: M

ap a

nd a

sses

s for

stru

ctur

al in

tegr

ity

cana

l sys

tem

s in

the

Cou

nty

H

IGH

3-

5 ye

ars

Fede

ral g

rant

s C

ount

ywid

e U

nkno

wn

Cou

nty

Engi

neer

, C

ount

y Pu

blic

W

orks

, C

ount

y In

form

atio

n an

d Te

chno

logy

, C

ount

y Em

erge

ncy

Man

agem

ent

Priv

ate

and

Publ

ic c

anal

s are

use

d fo

r tra

nspo

rtatio

n an

d di

sper

sion

of

wat

er a

s wel

l as f

lood

con

trol.

O

bjec

tive:

Ens

ure

EOC

(s) a

re e

quip

ped

to re

spon

d to

floo

ding

.

A

ctio

n: O

btai

n co

mm

unic

atio

n eq

uipm

ent t

hat

will

allo

w fo

r tim

ely

resp

onse

to fl

oodi

ng.

HIG

H

1 ye

ar

Fede

ral G

rant

s C

ount

ywid

e $3

0,00

0

Cou

nty

Sher

iff,

Cou

nty

Emer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t

Supp

ort r

espo

nse

from

alte

rnat

e EO

C.

Ade

quat

e co

mm

unic

atio

n ca

pabi

litie

s are

ess

entia

l bet

wee

n al

l re

spon

se a

genc

ies w

ithin

the

Cou

nty.

O

bjec

tive:

Min

imiz

e fu

ture

floo

d da

mag

e in

th

e un

inco

rpor

ated

Cou

nty

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: U

tah

Cou

nty

is o

ne o

f the

smal

lest

cou

ntie

s in

the

stat

e te

rms o

f siz

e an

d un

inco

rpor

ated

pop

ulat

ion

– w

ith le

ss th

an

5 pe

rcen

t of i

ts re

siden

ts liv

e in

the

unin

corp

orat

ed c

ount

y. T

he C

ount

y do

es p

artic

ipat

e i n

the

Nat

iona

l Flo

od In

sura

nce

Prog

ram

and

the

map

ping

is sc

hedu

led

to b

e up

date

d. N

o m

ajor

rive

rs th

reat

en la

rge

unin

corp

orat

ed u

rban

dev

elop

men

ts.

Ther

efor

e, n

o st

ruct

ural

floo

d co

ntro

l pro

ject

s are

war

rant

ed a

t thi

s tim

e.

One

exc

eptio

n to

this

is th

e sm

all d

evel

opm

ent,

sout

h of

Pay

son,

kno

wn

as S

prin

g La

ke, t

hat i

s vu

lner

able

to fl

oodi

ng a

nd d

ebris

flow

s. A

larg

e de

bris

floo

d ev

ent o

ccur

red

here

in 2

002

(follo

win

g th

e ad

jace

nt M

ollie

Wil d

fire

in 2

001

whi

ch m

ade

cond

ition

s “rip

e” fo

r thi

s typ

e of

eve

nt).

Pos

t fire

hill

side

stab

iliza

tion

mea

sure

s sho

uld

redu

ce th

e flo

od th

reat

to S

prin

g La

ke.

G

ener

al fl

ood

thre

ats i

n th

e un

inco

rpor

ated

cou

nty

incl

ude

the

Uta

h La

ke tr

ibut

arie

s, an

d ot

her p

oten

tial f

lood

sour

ces s

uch

as U

tah

Lake

its

elf.

126 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

Act

ion:

Non

stru

ctur

al m

easu

res a

ppea

r to

be

the

mos

t pru

dent

opt

ion

for t

he c

ount

y to

im

plem

ent i

n th

e un

inco

rpor

ated

are

as.

Zoni

ng

to re

gula

te d

evel

opm

ent o

f stru

ctur

es n

ear a

ll riv

ers,

cree

ks, a

nd la

kes w

ould

be

prud

ent (

100

ft m

inim

um se

tbac

k or

gre

ater

) as w

ell a

s lim

iting

dev

elop

men

t on

allu

vial

fans

. N

ew

deve

lopm

ent n

ear c

anal

s sho

uld

be m

itiga

ted

to

limit

loss

es d

ue to

can

al fa

ilure

s. T

he c

ount

y sh

ould

requ

ire d

evel

oper

s in

thes

e po

tent

ial

haza

rd a

reas

to su

bmit

site

spec

ific

miti

gatio

n pl

ans t

o m

inim

ize

pote

ntia

l los

ses.

Cos

ts

asso

ciat

ed w

ith m

itiga

ting

the

pote

ntia

l haz

ard

shou

ld b

e bo

rne

by th

e de

velo

per.

HIG

H

3 to

5 y

ears

D

evel

oper

U

ninc

orpo

rate

d C

ount

y M

inim

al

Cou

nty

staf

f

O

bjec

tive:

Min

imiz

e fu

ture

floo

d da

mag

e in

C

edar

Hill

s.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: C

edar

Hill

s is d

evel

opin

g ra

pidl

y –

mos

tly w

ith la

rge

sing

le-f

amily

hom

es.

It fa

ces a

sign

ifica

nt fl

ood

thre

at,

espe

cial

ly o

n th

e ea

st si

de o

f tow

n, fr

om H

eise

tt’s H

ollo

w a

nd a

djac

ent,

fairl

y la

rge

unna

med

dra

inag

es to

the

north

and

sout

h. A

lthou

gh n

ot

curre

ntly

par

ticip

atin

g in

the

NFI

P, th

is c

omm

unity

shou

ld d

efin

itely

be

cons

ider

ed a

t rat

her h

igh

risk

of fl

oodi

ng a

nd sh

ould

be

incl

uded

in

any

Uta

h C

ount

y m

ap u

pdat

es o

r rev

isio

ns.

A

ctio

n: A

pot

entia

lly v

iabl

e al

tern

ativ

e w

ould

be

to c

onst

ruct

a d

eten

tion/

debr

is b

asin

at t

he

mou

th o

f Hei

sett’

s Hol

low

. H

IGH

U

nkno

wn

Unk

now

n C

edar

Hill

s O

ne m

illio

n U

nkno

wn

Act

ion:

As w

ith si

mila

r com

mun

ities

, the

re

lativ

ely

mod

erat

e th

reat

of f

lood

ing

in m

any

parts

of t

he c

omm

unity

indi

cate

s tha

t no

nstru

ctur

al z

onin

g is

pre

fera

ble

to st

ruct

ural

m

easu

res u

nles

s a h

isto

ric fl

ood

prob

lem

is

know

n to

exi

st (s

ee d

iscu

ssio

n on

zon

ing

in th

e C

ount

y’s m

itiga

tion

sect

ion

abov

e).

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Ced

ar H

ills

Unk

now

n

Unk

now

n

O

bjec

tive:

Min

imiz

e fu

ture

floo

d da

mag

e in

Ea

gle

Mou

ntai

n.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: E

agle

Mou

ntai

n is

loca

ted

abou

t 6 m

iles s

outh

wes

t of L

ehi j

ust s

outh

of H

ighw

ay 7

3. A

lso

one

of th

e st

ate’

s new

er

com

mun

ities

, it i

s gro

win

g ve

ry ra

pidl

y. A

s of 2

003,

Eag

le M

ount

ain

now

has

a p

opul

atio

n of

abo

ut 8

,000

resi

dent

s com

pare

d to

the

2,00

0 id

entif

ied

in th

e 20

00 C

ensu

s. C

hann

el m

odifi

catio

ns h

ave

been

mad

e to

Tic

kvill

e G

u lch

and

its t

ribut

ary

Wes

t Can

yon

Was

h th

at fl

ow

thro

ugh

the

north

par

t of t

he c

omm

unity

. Th

ere

are

also

num

erou

s unn

amed

dra

inag

es a

long

the

east

side

of E

agle

Mou

ntai

n th

at d

rain

Lak

e M

ount

ain.

The

se d

rain

ages

rang

e in

size

from

abo

ut 1

to 3

squa

re m

iles a

nd th

eref

ore

wou

ld p

ose

a m

oder

ate

leve

l of t

hrea

t dur

ing

an

infre

quen

t flo

od e

vent

.

Act

ion:

A p

oten

tially

via

ble

alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld

be to

floo

d pr

oof t

hose

rela

tivel

y fe

w e

xist

ing

low

-lyin

g st

ruct

ures

that

are

subj

ect t

o flo

odin

g ne

ar T

ickv

ille

Gul

ch a

nd W

est C

anyo

n W

ash.

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Eagl

e M

ount

ain

$10k

-$30

k pe

r st

ruct

ure

City

& c

ount

y st

aff

127 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

Act

ion:

As w

ith si

mila

r, gr

owin

g co

mm

uniti

es,

the

rela

tivel

y lo

w to

mod

erat

e th

reat

of f

lood

ing

to m

ost o

f the

hom

es in

dica

tes t

hat

nons

truct

ural

zon

ing

is p

refe

rabl

e to

stru

ctur

al

mea

sure

s unl

ess a

n hi

stor

ic fl

ood

prob

lem

is

know

n to

exi

st (s

ee d

iscu

ssio

n on

zon

ing

in th

e C

ount

y’s m

itiga

tion

sect

ion

abov

e).

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Eagl

e M

ount

ain

Unk

now

n C

ity &

cou

nty

staf

f

O

bjec

tive:

Min

imiz

e fu

ture

floo

d da

mag

e in

El

k R

idge

.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: A

lso a

rela

tivel

y ne

w c

omm

unity

, Elk

Rid

ge is

situ

ated

just

sout

heas

t of P

ayso

n. E

lk R

idge

is fl

anke

d by

Loa

fer

Can

yon

on th

e ea

st a

nd o

ther

unn

amed

dra

inag

es th

roug

h th

e re

st o

f the

com

mun

ity.

Dev

elop

men

t for

the

mos

t par

t, ap

pear

s to

be si

ted

up

and

a way

from

the

chan

nels

. H

owev

er if

the

chan

nels

/cul

verts

wer

e to

bec

ome

bloc

ked

by d

ebris

or i

f wild

fire

wer

e to

occ

ur in

the

surro

undi

ng m

ount

ain,

dev

asta

ting

flood

, mud

, and

deb

ris fl

ows a

re p

ossi

ble.

(A

wild

fire

was

exp

erie

nced

in th

e ar

ea d

urin

g th

e su

mm

er o

f 20

03.)

A

ctio

n: A

pot

entia

lly v

iabl

e al

tern

ativ

e w

ould

be

to fl

ood

proo

f tho

se re

lativ

ely

few

exi

stin

g lo

w-ly

ing

stru

ctur

es th

at a

re su

bjec

t to

flood

ing.

H

IGH

U

nkno

wn

Unk

now

n El

k R

idge

$1

0k-$

30k

per

stru

ctur

e C

ity &

cou

nty

staf

f

Act

ion:

As w

ith si

mila

r, gr

owin

g co

mm

uniti

es,

the

mod

erat

e th

reat

of f

lood

ing

indi

cate

s zon

ing

wou

ld b

e le

ss c

ostly

than

stru

ctur

al m

easu

res

(unl

ess a

n hi

stor

ic fl

ood

prob

lem

is k

now

n to

ex

ist -

see

disc

ussi

on o

n zo

ning

in th

e C

ount

y’s

miti

gatio

n se

ctio

n ab

ove)

.

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Elk

Rid

ge

Unk

now

n C

ity &

cou

nty

staf

f

O

bjec

tive:

Min

imiz

e fu

ture

floo

d da

mag

e in

G

oshe

n.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: A

lthou

gh n

ot p

artic

ipat

ing,

this

com

mun

ity a

ppea

rs to

hav

e lit

tle fl

ood

thre

at -

unl

ess G

oshe

n R

eser

voir

has

prob

lem

s in

the

futu

re (e

arth

quak

e or

slop

e st

abili

ty is

sues

).

Act

ion:

As w

ith si

mila

r sm

all c

omm

uniti

es, t

he

rela

tivel

y lo

w th

reat

of f

lood

ing

indi

cate

s tha

t no

nstru

ctur

al z

onin

g is

pre

fera

ble

to st

ruct

ural

m

easu

res u

nles

s a h

isto

ric fl

ood

prob

lem

is

know

n to

exi

st (s

ee d

iscu

ssio

n on

zon

ing

in th

e C

ount

y’s m

itiga

tion

sect

ion

abov

e).

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Gos

hen

Unk

now

n C

ity &

cou

nty

staf

f

O

bjec

tive:

Min

imiz

e fu

ture

floo

d da

mag

e in

Sa

ntaq

uin.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: A

lthou

gh S

anta

quin

has

a N

SFH

A d

esig

natio

n ba

sed

on it

s old

tow

n bo

unda

ries,

it cl

early

has

a v

ery

high

floo

d,

mud

, and

deb

ris fl

ow th

reat

in th

e ne

wer

par

t of t

own

– ea

st o

f Int

erst

ate

15 –

that

nee

ds to

be

addr

esse

d. I

t app

ears

that

virt

ually

all

deve

lopm

ent e

ast o

f I-1

5 is

at ri

sk d

ue to

its l

ocat

ion

right

on

top

of m

ajor

allu

vial

fans

. Th

ey a

re k

now

n as

Trib

utar

ies 4

, 5, a

nd 6

(nor

th to

so

uth)

. A

lthou

gh d

evel

opm

ent f

or th

e m

ost p

art,

appe

ars t

o be

site

d up

and

aw

ay fr

om th

e ch

anne

ls, d

urin

g th

e 20

0 2 d

ebris

flow

eve

nt

(pre

cede

d by

the

2001

Mol

lie W

ildfir

e), t

he c

hann

els b

ecam

e bl

ocke

d by

deb

ris a

nd a

dev

asta

ting

flood

, with

mud

and

deb

ris fl

ows o

ccur

red

– pu

tting

the

lives

of m

any

in c

omm

unity

at v

ery

high

risk

. (A

maz

ingl

y no

one

was

inju

red

or k

illed

in th

e di

saste

r.) D

ebris

flow

bou

ndar

ies

delin

eate

d by

the

Uta

h G

eolo

gica

l Sur

vey

(atta

ched

) sho

uld

be u

sed

as a

min

imum

to a

ppro

xim

ate

the

flood

thre

at u

ntil

deta

iled

anal

yses

can

be

mad

e.

128 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

A

ctio

n: D

eten

tion/

debr

is b

asin

s are

urg

ently

ne

eded

if th

e to

wn

is g

oing

to c

ontin

ue to

allo

w

deve

lopm

ent “

in h

arm

s way

”.

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Sant

aqui

n

App

roxi

mat

ely

$500

k - $

1 m

illio

n ea

ch –

To

tal $

2.5

m

illio

n

City

, Fed

eral

ag

ency

staf

f.

Act

ion:

As w

ith si

mila

r gro

win

g co

mm

uniti

es,

nons

truct

ural

zon

ing

is le

ss c

ostly

than

st

ruct

ural

mea

sure

s to

prev

ent f

utur

e da

mag

es

(see

dis

cuss

ion

on z

onin

g in

the

Cou

nty’

s m

itiga

tion

sect

ion

abov

e).

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Sant

aqui

n U

nkno

wn

City

staf

f.

O

bjec

tive:

Min

imiz

e fu

ture

floo

d da

mag

e in

Sa

rato

ga S

prin

gs.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: L

ike

Sant

aqui

n, th

is c

omm

unity

has

als

o gr

own

very

rapi

dly

and

is al

so d

esig

nate

d as

a N

SFH

A.

It ap

pear

s to

face

a

mod

erat

e flo

od th

reat

from

Tic

kvill

e G

ulch

on

the

north

and

at l

east

a d

ozen

oth

er d

rain

ages

alo

ng th

e ea

st si

de o

f tow

n (in

add

ition

to th

e th

reat

from

Uta

h La

ke).

A

ctio

n: A

pot

entia

lly v

iabl

e al

tern

ativ

e w

ould

be

to fl

ood

proo

f tho

se re

lativ

ely

few

exi

stin

g lo

w-ly

ing

stru

ctur

es th

at a

re su

bjec

t to

flood

ing.

H

IGH

U

nkno

wn

Unk

now

n Sa

rato

ga S

prin

gs

$10k

-$30

k pe

r st

ruct

ure

City

staf

f

Act

ion:

As w

ith si

mila

r, gr

owin

g co

mm

uniti

es,

the

low

to m

oder

ate

thre

at o

f flo

odin

g in

dica

tes

that

non

stru

ctur

al z

onin

g is

pre

fera

ble

to

stru

ctur

al m

easu

res u

nles

s an

hist

oric

floo

d pr

oble

m is

kno

wn

to e

xist

(see

dis

cuss

ion

on

zoni

ng in

the

Cou

nty’

s miti

gatio

n se

ctio

n ab

ove)

.

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Sara

toga

Spr

ings

U

nkno

wn

City

staf

f, D

ES

O

bjec

tive:

Min

imiz

e fu

ture

floo

d da

mag

e in

V

iney

ard

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: A

lthou

gh th

ere

is n

o flo

od th

reat

from

any

rive

rs, c

reek

s, or

stre

ams,

Uta

h La

ke is

with

in th

e co

rpor

ate

boun

dary

-le

avin

g V

iney

ard

at so

me

risk.

A 1

997

CO

E re

conn

aiss

ance

stud

y (P

rovo

Riv

er a

nd T

ribut

arie

s) d

eter

min

ed th

at th

e 10

0 -yr

ele

vatio

n of

Uta

h La

ke w

ould

be

appr

oxim

atel

y 44

94.5

MSL

. M

ost o

f Vin

eyar

d is

wel

l abo

ve th

is el

evat

ion

so th

e re

lativ

e ris

k is

min

imal

.

Act

ion:

As w

ith si

mila

r com

mun

ities

, the

re

lativ

ely

low

thre

at o

f flo

odin

g in

dica

tes t

hat

nons

truct

ural

zon

ing

is p

refe

rabl

e to

stru

ctur

al

mea

sure

s unl

ess a

n hi

stor

ic fl

ood

prob

lem

is

know

n to

exi

st (s

ee d

iscu

ssio

n on

zon

ing

in th

e C

ount

y’s m

itiga

tion

sect

ion

abov

e).

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Vin

eyar

d M

inim

al

City

& D

ES

staf

f

O

bjec

tive:

Min

imiz

e fu

ture

floo

d da

mag

e in

W

oodl

and

Hill

s.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: A

lso

a re

lativ

ely

new

com

mun

ity, W

oodl

and

Hill

s is s

ituat

ed so

uthe

ast o

f Pay

son,

in th

e so

uthe

ast c

orne

r of U

tah

Cou

nty.

Woo

dlan

d H

ills i

s fla

nked

by

Map

le C

anyo

n on

the

east

and

is th

reat

ened

by

Bro

ad a

nd S

nell

Hol

low

s, as

wel

l as a

noth

er u

nnam

ed

drai

nag e

thro

ugh

the

rest

of t

he c

omm

unity

. D

evel

opm

ent f

or th

e m

ost p

art,

appe

ars t

o be

site

d up

and

aw

ay fr

om th

e ch

anne

ls.

How

ever

if

the

chan

nels

/cul

verts

wer

e to

bec

ome

bloc

ked

by d

ebris

or i

f wild

fire

wer

e to

occ

ur in

the

surro

undi

ng m

ount

ain,

dev

asta

ting

flood

, mud

, and

de

bris

flow

s are

pos

sibl

e –

putti

ng th

e co

mm

unity

at v

ery

high

risk

.

129 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

Act

ion:

A p

oten

tially

via

ble

alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld

be to

floo

d pr

oof t

hose

rela

tivel

y fe

w e

xist

ing

low

-lyin

g st

ruct

ures

that

are

subj

ect t

o flo

odin

g.

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Woo

dlan

d H

ills

$10k

-$30

k pe

r st

ruct

ure

City

staf

f

Act

ion:

As w

ith si

mila

r, gr

owin

g co

mm

uniti

es,

the

mod

erat

e th

reat

of f

lood

ing

indi

cate

s tha

t no

nstru

ctur

al z

onin

g w

ould

be

pref

erab

le to

st

ruct

ural

mea

sure

s (an

d le

ss c

ostly

- un

less

an

hist

oric

floo

d pr

oble

m is

kno

wn

to e

xist

- se

e di

scus

sion

on

zoni

ng in

the

Cou

nty’

s miti

gatio

n se

ctio

n ab

ove)

.

HIG

H

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Woo

dlan

d H

ills

Min

imal

C

ity &

DES

st

aff

Dam

Fai

lure

O

bjec

tive:

Obt

ain

mos

t up

to d

ate

and

accu

rate

in

form

atio

n on

dam

s in

Cou

nty

to p

rote

ct li

ves

and

prop

erty

from

dam

failu

re.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: N

atio

nal s

tatis

tics s

how

that

ove

rtopp

ing

due

to in

adeq

uate

spill

way

des

ign,

deb

ris b

lock

age

of sp

illw

ays,

or

settl

emen

t of t

he d

am c

rest

acc

ount

for 3

4% o

f all

dam

failu

res.

Foun

datio

n de

fect

s, in

clud

ing

settl

emen

t and

slop

e in

stab

ility

, acc

ount

for

30%

of a

ll fa

ilure

s. Pi

ping

and

seep

age

caus

e 20

% o

f nat

iona

l dam

failu

res.

This

incl

udes

inte

rnal

ero

sion

cau

sed

by se

epag

e, se

epag

e an

d er

osio

n al

ong

hydr

aulic

stru

ctur

es, l

eaka

ge th

roug

h an

imal

bur

row

s, an

d cr

acks

in th

e da

m. T

he re

mai

ning

16%

of f

ailu

res a

re c

ause

d by

oth

er

mea

ns.

Dee

r Cre

ek a

nd Jo

rdan

elle

Dam

s are

of s

peci

fic c

once

rn in

the

Cou

nty.

A

ctio

n: In

clud

e da

m in

unda

tion

map

s in

curr

ent

Cou

nty

EOP.

M

ED

3-

5 ye

ars

Und

eter

min

ed

Cou

ntyw

ide

$ 10

,000

.00

Cou

nty

Emer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t, B

OR

and

St

ate

Dam

Sa

fety

Map

s are

not

cur

rent

and

nee

d to

re

flect

impa

ct o

n ne

w re

side

ntia

l an

d co

mm

erci

al p

rope

rties

. U

tah

Div

isio

n of

Wat

er R

ight

s Dam

Sa

fety

Sec

tion

is c

urre

ntly

re

view

ing

the

map

s as w

ell a

s di

gitiz

ing

them

. D

igiti

zed

dam

fa

ilure

inun

datio

n m

aps w

ill a

id

Uta

h C

ount

y in

futu

re e

mer

genc

y m

anag

emen

t pla

nnin

g.

O

bjec

tive:

Ear

ly w

arni

ng s

yste

ms (

sire

ns) a

re c

ritic

al to

pro

tect

ing

lives

from

Jord

anel

le/D

eer C

reek

da

m fa

ilure

.

A

ctio

n: C

ontin

ue to

test

war

ning

sire

ns a

long

Pr

ovo

Riv

er

ME

D

Ong

oing

B

OR

and

Cou

nty,

Pr

ovo

and

Ore

m

City

C

ount

ywid

e U

nkno

wn

Cou

nty/

City

Em

erge

ncy

Man

agem

ent

and

Publ

ic

Wor

ks,

UD

OT,

BO

R,

Sher

iff a

nd

loca

l Pol

ice.

Cur

rent

sire

n sy

stem

nee

ds to

be

test

ed o

n a

regu

lar b

asis

and

allo

w

loca

l res

pond

ers t

o pa

rtici

pate

in th

e te

stin

g. T

his w

ill c

reat

e be

tter

plan

ning

and

aw

aren

ess a

t the

loca

l le

vel.

130 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

Wild

fire

Obj

ectiv

e: In

crea

se a

nd e

nsur

e co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith e

xist

ing

build

ing

and

fire

code

s, es

peci

ally

in

the

rura

l are

as o

f the

Cou

nty

whe

re

seco

ndar

y re

side

nces

are

upg

rade

d or

new

co

nstru

ctio

n.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: N

on-c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith F

irew

ise

deve

lopm

ent p

ract

ices

.

A

ctio

n: D

evel

op a

nd e

nfor

ce c

urre

nt lo

cal,

stat

e an

d na

tiona

l cod

es

HIG

H

Ong

oing

Lo

cal,

stat

e an

d fe

dera

l gra

nts

Cou

ntyw

ide

Unk

now

n Lo

cal,

stat

e an

d fe

dera

l ag

enci

es

Impl

emen

t and

enf

orce

rule

s, re

gula

tions

and

cod

es

O

bjec

tive:

Edu

cate

hom

eow

ners

on

how

to

redu

ce ri

sk o

f wild

fire

dam

age

Pr

oble

m Id

entif

icat

ion:

Bui

ldin

g co

ntin

ues t

o be

of c

once

rn in

Urb

an W

ildfir

e In

terfa

ce A

reas

(UR

WIN

). E

spec

ially

in th

e fo

llow

ing

area

s: Id

entif

ied

high

haz

ard

area

s alo

ng fo

othi

lls a

djac

ent t

o W

asat

ch F

ront

, eas

tern

Uta

h C

ount

y ad

jace

nt to

Hig

hway

6 to

incl

ude

Solid

er

Sum

mit,

and

are

as a

long

Hig

hway

89

Sout

h in

to S

anpe

te C

ount

y

A

ctio

n: C

ondu

ct a

n ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

(F

irew

ise)

on

redu

cing

wild

fire

risks

HIG

H

Ong

oing

C

ount

y C

ount

ywid

e M

inim

al

Fire

D

istri

ct(s

), C

ount

y Em

erge

ncy

Man

agem

ent,

Stat

e FF

SL

Educ

ate

hom

eow

ners

usi

ng

new

slet

ters

and

per

sona

l con

tact

s of

the

impo

rtanc

e of

cle

arin

g co

mbu

stib

les f

rom

per

imet

ers o

f th

eir h

omes

. C

urre

ntly

, Sun

danc

e is

th

e on

ly re

cogn

ized

Fire

wis

e C

omm

unity

in th

e C

ount

y.

Act

ion:

Wor

k w

ith S

tate

For

estry

Fire

and

Sta

te

Land

s and

US

Fore

st S

ervi

ce to

iden

tify

area

s w

here

fire

bre

aks a

nd b

e de

sign

ed, i

mpl

emen

ted

and

mai

ntai

ned.

HIG

H

3-ye

ars

Cou

nty,

Sta

te a

nd

Fede

ral

Cou

ntyw

ide

Unk

now

n

Priv

ate

land

ow

ners

, C

ount

y Pu

blic

W

orks

, C

ount

y Em

erge

ncy

Man

agem

ent,

Fire

Dis

trict

, St

ate

Fore

stry

Fi

re a

nd S

tate

La

nds,

US

Fore

st S

ervi

ce

Wild

fires

hav

e th

e po

tent

ial t

o th

reat

en h

igh-

dens

ity p

opul

atio

n co

mm

uniti

es a

long

the

Was

atch

Fr

ont.

131 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

A

ctio

n: U

sing

Sun

danc

e as

a m

odel

Fire

wis

e co

mm

unity

, pro

mot

e th

e Fi

rew

ise

Prog

ram

in

the

Cou

nty.

H

IGH

O

ngoi

ng

Cou

nty,

Sta

te a

nd

Fede

ral G

rant

s C

ount

ywid

e M

inim

al

Cou

nty

Emer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t, St

ate

FFSL

, U

S Fo

rest

Se

rvic

e

It is

ess

entia

l to

cont

inue

to p

rom

ote

wild

fire

miti

gatio

n ac

tions

and

ed

ucat

e ho

meo

wne

rs o

n w

ildfir

e ris

ks.

Obj

ectiv

e: R

educ

e po

tent

ial l

ands

lide

risk

on

com

mer

cial

, res

iden

tial s

truct

ures

, and

in

fras

truct

ure

(pip

elin

es a

nd u

tiliti

es) i

n ar

eas o

f kn

own

land

slid

e po

tent

ial.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: T

here

is a

pot

entia

l ris

k to

stru

ctur

es lo

cate

d in

are

as id

entif

ied

by th

e M

AG

GIS

as l

ands

lide

risk

area

s.

Act

ion:

Ass

ess t

he p

roba

bilit

y of

land

slid

es a

nd

iden

tify

spec

ific

stru

ctur

es a

nd in

fras

truct

ure

at

risk

espe

cial

ly in

the

hist

oric

al T

hist

le

Land

slid

e ar

ea.

ME

D

Und

eter

min

ed

Cou

nty

Engi

neer

, C

ount

y Em

erge

ncy

Man

agem

ent,

Cou

nty

Publ

ic

Wor

ks, U

tiliti

es,

UD

OT,

Dev

elop

ers

and

Prop

erty

O

wne

rs

Cou

ntyw

ide

Unk

now

n U

nkno

wn

Add

ition

al so

il su

rvey

s and

oth

er

engi

neer

ing

surv

eys a

re n

eede

d.

A

ctio

n: In

clud

e la

ndsl

ide

data

in C

ount

y In

form

atio

n an

d Te

chno

logy

GIS

syst

em a

nd

incl

ude

on C

ount

y w

ebsi

te.

ME

D

Und

eter

min

ed

Cou

nty,

pos

sibl

e gr

ants

C

ount

ywid

e To

be

dete

rmin

ed

Cou

nty

GIS

St

aff,

UG

S,

Gen

eral

pub

lic a

nd d

evel

oper

s w

ill

have

acc

ess t

o la

ndsl

ide

data

.

Obj

ectiv

e: R

educ

e lo

ss o

f life

and

lim

it da

mag

e to

pro

perty

. Pr

ovid

e ed

ucat

ion

on se

ism

ic

haza

rds a

nd m

itiga

tion

to U

tah

Cou

nty

resi

dent

s an

d ho

meo

wne

rs.

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: U

tah

Cou

nty

will

be

impa

cted

dire

ctly

from

an

earth

quak

e on

the

Was

atch

Fau

lt. T

here

are

als

o ot

her s

mal

ler f

aults

th

at c

ould

gen

erat

e si

gnifi

cant

dam

age.

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n an

d ut

ilitie

s ser

vice

s with

in C

ount

y co

uld

be se

vere

ly im

pact

ed.

A

ctio

n: D

evel

op a

nd p

rom

ote

earth

quak

e pu

blic

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

m.

HIG

H

Imm

edia

te

Cou

nty/

Stat

e C

ount

ywid

e $2

500.

00

Cou

nty

Emer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t, St

ate

Earth

quak

e Pr

ogra

m

Prov

ide

info

rmat

ion

to re

side

nts

and

busi

ness

ow

ners

to e

ncou

rage

th

em to

take

app

ropr

iate

mea

sure

s to

mak

e ho

mes

and

bus

ines

ses l

ess

susc

eptib

le to

dam

age

from

gro

und

shak

ing.

Edu

catio

n pe

rtain

ing

to

earth

quak

es w

ill b

e pa

rt of

a h

olis

tic

natu

ral h

azar

ds e

duca

tion

prog

ram

, in

clud

ing

wild

fires

, flo

odin

g, se

ver

wea

ther

, and

land

slid

es.

132 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

O

bjec

tive:

Thr

ough

the

CER

T Pr

ogra

m, e

duca

te c

omm

unity

on

earth

quak

e da

mag

e pr

even

tion

prac

tices

A

ctio

n: E

duca

te th

e pu

blic

on

dam

age

prev

entio

n pr

actic

es fo

r ear

thqu

akes

M

ED

2

year

s

Stat

e an

d Fe

dera

l G

rant

s fro

m st

ate

and

Fede

ral

gove

rnm

ents

Cou

ntyw

ide

$50,

000-

$75,

000

Cou

nty

Emer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t an

d vo

lunt

eers

Con

tinue

to su

ppor

t C.E

.R.T

. pr

ogra

m in

the

Cou

nty.

Ear

thqu

akes

pr

epar

edne

ss te

chni

ques

and

gu

idel

ines

can

be

utili

zed

in a

n al

l-ha

zard

app

roac

h to

per

sona

l and

in

divi

dual

pre

pare

dnes

s.

O

bjec

tive:

Incr

ease

qua

lity

and

quan

tity

of a

vaila

ble

natu

ral h

azar

ds d

ata

to fa

cilit

ate

bette

r dec

isio

n-m

akin

g.

A

ctio

n: U

pdat

e fa

ult z

one

and

lique

fact

ion

map

s for

the

coun

ty to

a b

ette

r sca

le

ME

D

Two

Yea

rs

Und

eter

min

ed,

pote

ntia

lly U

SGS

or

UG

S C

ount

ywid

e M

inim

al

USG

S &

UG

S St

aff

Prov

ide

upda

ted,

det

aile

d m

aps t

o ci

ty a

nd c

ount

y pl

anni

ng g

roup

s, em

erge

ncy

man

ager

s, an

d pu

blic

to

assi

st th

em in

mak

ing

educ

ated

de

cisi

ons b

y un

ders

tand

ing

earth

quak

e da

nger

zon

es.

A

ctio

n: D

evel

op b

ette

r gro

und

acce

lera

tion

map

s for

bui

ldin

g of

ficia

ls

ME

D

Thre

e Y

ears

UG

S, U

SGS,

Sta

te

Earth

quak

e Pr

ogra

m, U

tah

Seis

mic

Saf

ety

Com

mis

sion

Cou

ntyw

ide

Unk

now

n,

som

e co

st

shar

e fo

r pr

intin

g.

UG

S

Cur

rent

gro

und

acce

lera

tions

map

s ar

e to

o sm

all a

nd d

iffic

ult t

o re

ad.

Bet

ter m

aps c

reat

e be

tter d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing.

Dro

ught

O

bjec

tive:

Con

serv

e cu

linar

y w

ater

by

educ

atin

g th

e pu

blic

Pr

oble

m Id

entif

icat

ion:

Cyc

lical

per

iods

of d

roug

ht p

lace

a st

rain

on

com

mun

ity c

ulin

ary

wat

er re

sour

ces.

A

ctio

n: E

duca

te th

e pu

blic

on

the

need

to b

e w

ater

wis

e L

OW

O

ngoi

ng

Stat

e an

d Fe

dera

l C

ount

ywid

e M

inim

al

Wat

er

Dis

trict

s U

se a

new

slet

ter t

o ed

ucat

e th

e pu

blic

A

ctio

n: C

oord

inat

e w

ith c

urre

nt w

ater

syst

ems

and

deve

lop

a se

cond

ary

wat

er sy

stem

s pla

n fo

r dr

ough

t L

OW

Im

med

iate

U

ndet

erm

ined

loca

l so

urce

C

ount

ywid

e M

inim

al

Wat

er

Dis

trict

s

To re

duce

the

dem

and

on c

ulin

ary

syst

ems i

t is p

ropo

sed

that

mor

e co

mm

uniti

es st

udy

the

poss

ibili

ty o

f us

ing

seco

ndar

y w

ater

for

agric

ultu

ral u

ses s

uch

as ir

rigat

ion

and

law

n w

ater

ing.

Seve

re W

eath

er

Obj

ectiv

e: P

rote

ct C

ount

y fr

om a

dver

se a

ffect

s of

seve

re w

eath

er

Prob

lem

Iden

tific

atio

n: S

now

stor

ms,

sum

mer

thun

ders

torm

s, ha

il, a

nd h

igh

win

ds o

ver n

orth

ern

Uta

h ha

ve a

dra

mat

ic e

ffec

t on

regi

onal

co

mm

erce

, tra

nspo

rtatio

n, a

nd d

aily

act

ivity

and

are

a m

ajor

fore

cast

cha

lleng

e fo

r loc

al m

eteo

rolo

gist

s.

133 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

A

ctio

n: C

ount

y pa

rtici

pate

in th

e St

orm

Rea

dy

prog

ram

. H

IGH

2

year

s St

ate

and

Fede

ral

Cou

ntyw

ide

Min

imal

City

and

C

ount

y Em

erge

ncy

Man

agem

ent

Set u

p w

ithin

the

coun

ty e

mer

genc

y m

anag

emen

t and

enc

oura

ge a

ll ci

ties t

o pa

rtici

pate

, all

requ

irem

ents

of

the

Nat

iona

l Wea

ther

Ser

vice

St

orm

Rea

dy p

rogr

am.

A

ctio

n 2:

Enc

oura

ge a

vala

nche

pre

pare

dnes

s fo

r cou

nty

back

coun

try u

sers

. H

IGH

O

ngoi

ng

Fund

ing

alre

ady

in

plac

e C

ount

ywid

e M

inim

al

Cou

nty

Emer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t St

ate

Haz

ard

Miti

gatio

n Te

am

mem

bers

, U

tah

Ava

lanc

he

Fore

cast

C

ente

r.

Ava

lanc

hes a

nd a

vala

nche

pr

epar

edne

ss is

not

ofte

n co

nsid

ered

w

hen

disc

ussi

ng m

itiga

tion

on th

e co

unty

or c

ity le

vel,

yet s

ever

al

peop

le d

ie e

ach

year

in U

tah’

s ba

ckco

untry

. W

hile

the

aval

anch

e te

rrai

n is

mai

nly

on U

S Fo

rest

Se

rvic

e la

nd th

e se

arch

and

resc

ue

for t

he lo

st in

divi

dual

in m

ore

ofte

n th

an n

ot c

oord

inat

ed b

y em

erge

ncy

man

ager

s with

sear

ch p

artie

s co

mpr

ised

of c

ount

y an

d ci

ty st

aff.

In

trodu

ctor

y av

alan

che

awar

enes

s tra

inin

g co

uld

less

en th

e co

sts t

o U

tah

Cou

nty

and

the

citie

s with

in

the

coun

ty.

Mos

t ava

lanc

he v

ictim

s di

e in

ava

lanc

hes s

tarte

d by

th

emse

lves

or s

omeo

ne in

ther

e pa

rty. T

hus,

educ

atio

n ca

n lim

it th

e nu

mbe

r of a

vala

nche

rela

ted

sear

ches

eac

h ye

ar.

A

ctio

n: A

sses

s EO

Cs t

o en

sure

they

are

gr

ound

ed li

ghtn

ing,

to in

clud

e bu

ildin

gs w

ith

tow

ers,

etc.

H

IGH

2-

3 ye

ars

Fede

ral G

rant

s C

ount

ywid

e U

nkno

wn

Cou

nty

Emer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t

Alte

rnat

e EO

C(s

), Sh

eriff

’s

Dis

patc

h, C

omm

and

Veh

icle

(s)a

nd

asso

ciat

ed e

quip

men

t nee

d to

be

prot

ecte

d fr

om se

vere

wea

ther

ev

ents

incl

udin

g lig

htni

ng.

RE

VIE

W O

F 20

04 P

LA

N M

ITIG

AT

ION

STR

AT

EG

IES

For t

he p

revi

ous (

2004

) Mou

ntai

nlan

d H

azar

d M

itiga

tion

Plan

, eac

h pa

rtici

patin

g ju

risdi

ctio

n pr

iorit

ized

thei

r miti

gatio

n ef

forts

and

iden

tifie

d a

sing

le p

roje

ct.

134 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

Wild

fire

Act

ion:

Edu

cate

hom

eow

ners

on

Fire

wis

e pr

actic

es

Stat

us: O

ngoi

ng

A

lpin

e, C

edar

For

t, Ea

gle

Mou

ntai

n

Com

mun

ity is

par

tner

ing

with

va

rious

fire

pre

vent

ion

agen

cies

to

educ

ate.

New

stan

dard

s in

Inte

rnat

iona

l Bui

ldin

g C

ode.

Liq

uefa

ctio

n

Act

ion:

Edu

cate

hom

eow

ners

/ re

quire

m

itiga

tion

on n

ew d

evel

opm

ent

Stat

us: O

ngoi

ng

Am

eric

an F

ork,

G

enol

a, G

oshe

n,

Lehi

, Map

leto

n,

Pays

on, S

alem

, Sa

rato

ga S

prin

gs,

Span

ish

Fork

, Sp

ringv

ille,

Uta

h C

ount

y, V

iney

ard

Com

mun

ity is

wor

king

to e

nsur

e st

ruct

ures

are

bui

lt to

pro

per

stan

dard

s

Lan

dslid

es /

Floo

d

Act

ion:

Par

ticip

ate

in th

e N

FIP;

Req

uire

site

-sp

ecifi

c so

ils re

ports

St

atus

: Ong

oing

C

edar

Hill

s

G

eote

chni

cal r

epor

ts a

re re

quire

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t

Wild

fire

/ Flo

od

Act

ion:

Edu

cate

hom

eow

ners

on

Fire

wis

e pr

actic

es; J

oin

NFI

P flo

od m

ap c

omm

unity

St

atus

: Ong

oing

El

k R

idge

Com

mun

ity is

par

tner

ing

with

va

rious

fire

pre

vent

ion

agen

cies

to

educ

ate.

New

stan

dard

s in

Inte

rnat

iona

l Bui

ldin

g C

ode.

Floo

d

Act

ion:

Enc

oura

ge h

omeo

wne

rs to

par

ticip

ate

in N

FIP

Stat

us: O

ngoi

ng

H

ighl

and,

Ple

asan

t G

rove

Th

e C

ity is

enc

oura

ging

pa

rtici

patio

n in

the

NFI

P.

Lan

dslid

e A

ctio

n: P

rohi

bit d

evel

opm

ent i

n la

ndsl

ide

area

s St

atus

: Ong

oing

Lind

on, W

oodl

and

Hill

s

G

eote

chni

cal r

epor

ts a

re re

quire

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t

Dam

Fai

lure

A

ctio

n: E

stab

lish

Early

War

ning

Sys

tem

St

atus

: Com

plet

ed

O

rem

, Pro

vo

Early

War

ning

Sys

tem

is in

pla

ce

Floo

d A

ctio

n: M

ap fl

ood

and

debr

is fl

ow a

reas

in

new

ly a

nnex

ed a

reas

Sant

aqui

n

N

ew in

form

atio

n ha

s bee

n de

velo

ped

and

will

con

tinue

as

grow

th o

ccur

s

RE

VIS

ED

AN

D U

PDA

TE

D M

ITIG

AT

ION

ST

RA

TE

GIE

S, 1

0/20

09

Tabl

e E

.1: S

tate

of U

tah

Pla

n E

xcer

pts

for U

tah

Cou

nty

135 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

Floo

ding

/ D

am

Failu

re

Obj

ectiv

e 1:

Pro

tect

ing

curr

ent r

esid

ents

and

st

ruct

ures

A

ctio

n: P

rom

ote

NFI

P pa

rtici

patio

n H

IGH

O

ngoi

ng

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s

Alp

ine,

Am

eric

an

Fork

, Ced

ar H

ills,

Dra

per,

Elk

Rid

ge,

Fairf

ield

, Gen

ola,

G

oshe

n, H

ighl

and,

M

aple

ton,

Ore

m,

Pays

on, P

leas

ant

Gro

ve, P

rovo

, Sa

lem

, San

taqu

in,

Sara

toga

Spr

ings

, Sp

anis

h Fo

rk,

Sprin

gvill

e,

Vin

eyar

d

Min

imal

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

A

ctio

n: Jo

in N

FIP

com

mun

ity /

parti

cipa

tion

ME

D

1 ye

ar

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s Ea

gle

Mou

ntai

n M

inim

al

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

A

ctio

n: P

rom

ote

NFI

P pa

rtici

patio

n; C

lean

dam

dr

aina

ge a

nd re

mov

e de

bris

from

wat

er w

ays

HIG

H

Ong

oing

Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Lehi

M

inim

al

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

A

ctio

n: P

rom

ote

NFI

P pa

rtici

patio

n; D

itch

impr

ovem

ents

; Ann

ual d

am in

spec

tions

(Dry

C

anyo

n, S

quaw

Hol

low

) H

IGH

O

ngoi

ng

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s Li

ndon

M

oder

ate

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

A

ctio

n: P

ipe

wat

er fr

om fl

ood

basi

n 20

0 S.

and

50

0 N

. to

cana

l. A

ppro

x. 8

,000

ft h

igh-

pres

sure

pi

pe

HIG

H

Ong

oing

Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Plea

sant

Gro

ve

$2,0

00,0

00

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

A

ctio

n: C

anyo

n D

ebris

Bas

ins

HIG

H

Ong

oing

Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Uta

h C

ount

y (u

ninc

orpo

rate

d)

TBD

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

136 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

O

bjec

tive

2: P

rote

ctin

g fu

ture

resi

dent

s and

st

ruct

ures

A

ctio

n: U

pdat

e Fl

ood

and

Inun

datio

n m

appi

ng

and

inco

rpor

ate

them

into

gen

eral

pla

ns a

nd

ordi

nanc

es

HIG

H

2 ye

ars

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s

Alp

ine,

Am

eric

an

Fork

, Ced

ar H

ills,

Dra

per,

Elk

Rid

ge,

Fairf

ield

, Gen

ola,

G

oshe

n, H

ighl

and,

Le

hi, M

aple

ton,

O

rem

, Pay

son,

Pl

easa

nt G

rove

, Pr

ovo,

Sal

em,

Sant

aqui

n, S

arat

oga

Sprin

gs, S

pani

sh

Fork

, Spr

ingv

ille,

U

tah

Cou

nty,

V

iney

ard

TBD

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

A

ctio

n: Jo

in N

FIP

com

mun

ity /

parti

cipa

tion

ME

D

1 ye

ar

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s Ea

gle

Mou

ntai

n M

inim

al

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

A

ctio

n: R

estri

ct d

evel

opm

ent i

n ha

zard

are

as,

mai

ntai

n st

orm

dra

inag

e fa

cilit

ies,

upda

te

ordi

nanc

es

HIG

H

Ong

oing

Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Lind

on

Min

imal

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

A

ctio

n: P

ipe

wat

er fr

om fl

ood

basi

n 20

0 S.

and

50

0 N

. to

cana

l. A

ppro

x. 8

,000

ft h

igh-

pres

sure

pi

pe

HIG

H

Ong

oing

Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Plea

sant

Gro

ve

$2,0

00,0

00

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, FE

MA

, U

DH

S

Ear

thqu

ake

Obj

ectiv

e 1:

Pro

tect

ing

curr

ent r

esid

ents

and

st

ruct

ures

137 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

A

ctio

n: In

vent

ory

curr

ent c

ritic

al fa

cilit

ies f

or

seis

mic

stan

dard

s H

IGH

3

year

s Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Alp

ine,

Am

eric

an

Fork

, Ced

ar F

ort,

Ced

ar H

ills,

Dra

per,

Eagl

e M

ount

ain,

Elk

R

idge

, Fai

rfie

ld,

Gen

ola,

Gos

hen,

H

ighl

and,

Map

leto

n,

Ore

m, P

ayso

n,

Plea

sant

Gro

ve,

Prov

o, S

alem

, Sa

ntaq

uin,

Sar

atog

a Sp

rings

, Spa

nish

Fo

rk, S

prin

gvill

e,

Uta

h C

ount

y,

Vin

eyar

d, W

oodl

and

Hill

s

TBD

Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent

A

ctio

n: P

rom

ote

earth

quak

e aw

aren

ess a

nd

prep

arat

ion

HIG

H

Ong

oing

Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Lehi

M

inim

al

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

A

ctio

n: F

ollo

w a

nd a

pply

cur

rent

bui

ldin

g co

des a

dopt

ed b

y C

ity

HIG

H

Ong

oing

Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Lind

on

Min

imal

Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent

O

bjec

tive

2: P

rote

ctin

g fu

ture

resi

dent

s and

st

ruct

ures

138 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

A

ctio

n: P

rom

ote

earth

quak

e aw

aren

ess a

nd

prep

arat

ion

HIG

H

1 ye

ar

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s

Alp

ine,

Am

eric

an

Fork

, Ced

ar F

ort,

Ced

ar H

ills,

Dra

per,

Eagl

e M

ount

ain,

Elk

R

idge

, Fai

rfie

ld,

Gen

ola,

Gos

hen,

H

ighl

and,

Map

leto

n,

Ore

m, P

ayso

n,

Plea

sant

Gro

ve,

Prov

o, S

alem

, Sa

ntaq

uin,

Sar

atog

a Sp

rings

, Spa

nish

Fo

rk, S

prin

gvill

e,

Uta

h C

ount

y,

Vin

eyar

d, W

oodl

and

Hill

s

Min

imal

Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent,

UG

S, U

SGS

A

ctio

n: In

vent

ory

curr

ent c

ritic

al fa

cilit

ies f

or

seis

mic

stan

dard

s H

IGH

3

year

s Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Lehi

M

inim

al

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, U

GS,

USG

S

A

ctio

n: P

rom

ote

earth

quak

e aw

aren

ess a

nd

prep

arat

ion.

Avo

id h

azar

d ar

eas (

faul

ts),

Can

berr

a ta

nk fa

ult s

tudy

H

IGH

3

year

s Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Lind

on

Mod

erat

e Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent,

UG

S, U

SGS

Wild

fire

Obj

ectiv

e 1:

Pro

tect

ing

curr

ent r

esid

ents

and

st

ruct

ures

139 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

A

ctio

n: E

duca

te h

omeo

wne

rs o

n FI

REW

ISE

prac

tices

H

IGH

O

ngoi

ng

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s

Alp

ine,

Ced

ar F

ort,

Ced

ar H

ills,

Dra

per,

Eagl

e M

ount

ain,

Elk

R

idge

, Fai

rfie

ld,

Gen

ola,

Gos

hen,

H

ighl

and,

Leh

i, M

aple

ton,

Ore

m,

Pays

on, P

leas

ant

Gro

ve, P

rovo

, Sa

lem

, San

taqu

in,

Sara

toga

Spr

ings

, Sp

anis

h Fo

rk,

Sprin

gvill

e, U

tah

Cou

nty,

Woo

dlan

d H

ills

Min

imal

Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent

A

ctio

n: E

duca

te h

omeo

wne

rs o

n FI

REW

ISE

prac

tices

. Fire

supp

ress

ion

requ

ired

in h

omes

on

stee

p sl

opes

. H

IGH

O

ngoi

ng

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s Li

ndon

M

inim

al

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

O

bjec

tive

2: P

rote

ctin

g fu

ture

resi

dent

s and

st

ruct

ures

A

ctio

n: In

corp

orat

e FI

REW

ISE

land

scap

ing

requ

irem

ents

into

loca

l ord

inan

ces w

ithin

are

as

at ri

sk

HIG

H

1 ye

ar

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s

Alp

ine,

Ced

ar F

ort,

Ced

ar H

ills,

Dra

per,

Eagl

e M

ount

ain,

Elk

R

idge

, Fai

rfie

ld,

Gen

ola,

Gos

hen,

H

ighl

and,

Map

leto

n,

Ore

m, P

ayso

n,

Plea

sant

Gro

ve,

Prov

o, S

alem

, Sa

ntaq

uin,

Sar

atog

a Sp

rings

, Spa

nish

Fo

rk, S

prin

gvill

e,

Uta

h C

ount

y,

Woo

dlan

d H

ills

Min

imal

Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent

A

ctio

n: Im

plem

ent a

pow

er li

ne in

spec

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

pro

gram

in th

e w

ild la

nd a

reas

H

IGH

1

year

Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Lehi

M

inim

al

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

140 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

A

ctio

n: In

corp

orat

e FI

REW

ISE

land

scap

ing

requ

irem

ents

into

loca

l ord

inan

ces w

ithin

are

as

at ri

sk

HIG

H

2 ye

ars

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s Li

ndon

M

inim

al

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t

Lan

dslid

e O

bjec

tive

1: P

rote

ctin

g cu

rren

t res

iden

ts a

nd

stru

ctur

es

A

ctio

n: P

ublic

edu

catio

n on

cor

rect

wat

erin

g pr

actic

es a

nd re

tain

ing

mea

sure

s in

susc

eptib

le

area

s M

ED

1

year

Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Alp

ine,

Am

eric

an

Fork

, Ced

ar F

ort,

Ced

ar H

ills,

Dra

per,

Eagl

e M

ount

ain,

Elk

R

idge

, Gen

ola,

H

ighl

and,

Leh

i, M

aple

ton,

Ore

m,

Pays

on, P

leas

ant

Gro

ve, P

rovo

, Sa

lem

, San

taqu

in,

Sara

toga

Spr

ings

, Sp

anis

h Fo

rk,

Sprin

gvill

e, U

tah

Cou

nty,

Woo

dlan

d H

ills

TBD

Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent,

UG

S

O

bjec

tive

2: P

rote

ctin

g fu

ture

resi

dent

s and

st

ruct

ures

A

ctio

n: C

oord

inat

e an

d up

date

land

slid

e m

appi

ng w

ithin

the

area

with

UG

S an

d U

SGS

HIG

H

3 ye

ars

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s

Alp

ine,

Am

eric

an

Fork

, Ced

ar F

ort,

Ced

ar H

ills,

Dra

per,

Eagl

e M

ount

ain,

Elk

R

idge

, Gen

ola,

H

ighl

and,

Map

leto

n,

Ore

m, P

ayso

n,

Plea

sant

Gro

ve,

Prov

o, S

alem

, Sa

ntaq

uin,

Sar

atog

a Sp

rings

, Spa

nish

Fo

rk, S

prin

gvill

e,

Uta

h C

ount

y,

Woo

dlan

d H

ills

Min

imal

Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent,

UG

S, U

SGS

141 of 142

Lo

cal

Mit

iga

tio

n S

tra

teg

ies

UTA

H C

OU

NTY

NA

TUR

AL

HA

ZAR

D M

ITIG

ATI

ON

PR

OJE

CTS

H

azar

d O

bjec

tive/

Proj

ect

Prio

rity

T

ime

Fram

e Po

ssib

le F

undi

ng

Sour

ces

Juri

sdic

tion

Aff

ecte

d E

stim

ated

Pr

ojec

t Cos

t R

espo

nsib

le

Age

ncy

Bac

kgro

und

A

ctio

n: C

reat

e a

vege

tatio

n pl

acem

ent a

nd

man

agem

ent p

lan

HIG

H

1 ye

ar

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s Le

hi

Min

imal

Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent,

UG

S, U

SGS

Deb

ris F

low

O

bjec

tive

1: P

rote

ctin

g cu

rren

t res

iden

ts a

nd

stru

ctur

es

A

ctio

n: C

onst

ruct

/ In

stal

l deb

ris fl

ow b

asin

s in

inve

ntor

ied

haza

rd a

reas

M

ED

5

year

s Lo

cal c

ash,

Gra

nts

Lind

on

Hig

h Lo

cal

Gov

ernm

ent,

UG

S

O

bjec

tive

2: P

rote

ctin

g fu

ture

resi

dent

s and

st

ruct

ures

A

ctio

n: M

aint

ain

debr

is fl

ow b

asin

s. M

onito

r w

ildfir

e an

d la

ndsl

ide

area

s H

IGH

O

ngoi

ng

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s Li

ndon

M

inim

al

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t, U

GS,

USG

S

RE

VIS

ED

AN

D U

PDA

TE

D M

ITIG

AT

ION

ST

RA

TE

GIE

S, 2

010

Dro

ught

O

bjec

tive:

Con

serv

e cu

linar

y w

ater

by

educ

atin

g th

e pu

blic

A

ctio

n: P

rom

ote

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

prog

ram

s "S

low

the

Flow

"

MED

O

ngoi

ng

Loca

l cas

h, G

rant

s, U

DW

R, C

UW

CU

C

ount

ywid

e M

inim

al

Act

ion:

Con

side

r the

ena

ctm

ent o

f wat

er w

ise

land

scap

ing

ordi

nanc

es

HIG

H

1-ye

ar

Loca

l Cas

h an

d G

rant

s

Cou

ntyw

ide

Min

imal

142 of 142