Otsego County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Risk Assessment Review Meeting Date November 14, 2018 Time 6:00 8:00 p.m.

Transcription

1 MEETING NOTES Meeting Otsego County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Risk Assessment Review Meeting Date November 14, 2018 Time 6:00 8:00 p.m. Location Attendees Otsego County Board of Representatives Meeting Room, Otsego County Offices, 197 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY Karen Sullivan, Planning Director, Otsego County Planning and Solid Waste Erik Scrivener, Senior Planner, Otsego County Planning and Solid Waste Art Klinger, Coordinator, Otsego County Office of Emergency Services Jordan Clements, District Manager, Otsego County Soil and Water Conservation District Deborah Wingert, Clerk, Town of Burlington Paul Irwin, Councilman, Town of Butternuts Ian Fuelner, Village Board Trustee, Village of Cherry Valley Danny L. Hawes, Superintendent of Highways, Town of Edmeston Doreé VanTassel, Supervisor, Town of Exeter Harold Palmer, Supervisor, Town of Maryland Paul Neske, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Town of Maryland; Code Enforcement Officer, Town of Oneonta Peg Leon, Councilperson, Town of Middlefield Bernadette Atwell, Supervisor, Town of Milford Lynn Joy, Town Supervisor, Town of Morris Patrick Pidgeon, Fire Chief/Emergency Manager, Oneonta Fire Department/Emergency Management Paul Palumbo, Supervisor, Town of Richfield Tony Subbio, Project Manager, Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) Purpose The purpose of the Risk Assessment Review Meeting was to review the results of the updated risk assessment analysis performed by Tetra Tech, collect feedback on the analysis, and identify problem areas or issues for each of the hazards identified. Discussion Points This section summarizes each discussion point addressed during the meeting. Feedback on the analysis of each hazard is provided below. Drought o Most farmers do not have crop insurance. PAGE 1 OF 3

2 MEETING NOTES Earthquake o An earthquake a few years ago broke some windows. Otherwise, attendees were not particularly concerned with this hazard. Extreme Temperatures o No feedback was provided. Attendees were not particularly concerned with this hazard. Flood o Tropical Storms Irene and Lee in 2011 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012 were the floods of record. o Mr. Clements reported that culverts are a major issue in the County. In the Butternut River watershed, which encompasses 7 towns and 3 villages, there are 1,000 culverts. Of those, 1/3 are undersized. Mr. Clements has been awarded funding to assess three watersheds for ice jam and flooding threats. Mr. Clements has been pushing for agencies to maintain detailed documentation of flood issues. He maintains a list of upgrade projects that have been implemented. Mr. Clements stated that the County needs a countywide plan to deal with flooding issues. Piecemeal solutions have not worked. o Mr. Scrivener stated that half of the culverts in the County are undersized. o Only the City of Oneonta has stormwater management regulations in effect. o Attendees stated that beaver dams cause a great deal of flooding in the County. o Town of Burlington The Creek Road culvert washed out during an October rainstorm. The Town spent $10,000 to evacuate people in the area. o Town of Edmeston A streambank is giving way. The Town has partnered with the County to secure a National Fish and Wildlife Fund grant to reinforce the bank. The overall project cost $130,000, but the Town only had to pay $6,200 in total. o Town of Maryland The Schenevus Creek is eroding its banks and threatens a residential area. o Town of Middlefield The Highway Department buildings and salt garage flood. They are in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain. The Town has property to which these facilities could be relocated. They could possibly use the State s Water Quality Improvement Project (WQIP) program funding for that project. o Village of Morris The Silver Creek flooded twice and destroyed bridges. Bridges on County Route 13, State Highway 93, and Grove Street are choke points. o City of Oneonta The West End of the City (Winney Hill) has an issue in which there is a pinch point in the Presidential District. Drainage pipes make a 90 degree turn. There are four undersized culverts. The wastewater treatment plant needs $8 million in upgrades. Three small streams need maintenance. One stream cuts off the high school when it floods. o Town of Oneonta A mobile home park on State Highway 23 is vulnerable to flooding. PAGE 2 OF 3

3 MEETING NOTES The Town is undergoing a stream project to fix a flat spot to provide stormwater retention. The Town updated a culvert at the Walmart. o Town of Pittsfield Beaver dams are an issue. o Town of Unadilla Backwater flooding is an issue. The Town Hall floods. o There are over 1,800 structures in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain throughout the County, but only 183 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in effect. There is a substantial amount of uninsured property at risk. Landslide o There is a steep grade at Otsego Lake in the Town of Middlefield along County Highway 33. o The embankment along State Highway 23 at the Oneonta Ford dealership was lost to the Susquehanna River in the Town of Oneonta. Severe Storms o Power companies have been good at trimming back vegetation from power lines. o Mr. Klinger reported that the whole stretch of County Route 31 in the Town of Middlefield has experienced outages. It is the same stretch of road as is vulnerable to landslides. Severe Winter Storm o Each town has only 4-5 staff on 1 crew to plow roads. Plowing stops when they have to take a break. Wildfire o No feedback was provided. Attendees were not particularly concerned with this hazard. They were surprised that the State had records of wildfires from Risk Ranking Mr. Subbio discussed the risk ranking scores received by each hazard. These scores are based on Tetra Tech s current ranking methodology, but that methodology is evolving based on feedback on plans throughout the State. Local capabilities to minimize the impacts of hazards will be incorporated into the new methodology. The final version of the HMP will include an updated risk ranking table and discussion. Next Steps The following next steps were discussed at the meeting: Municipal representatives will continue to complete the information-gathering worksheets and provide them to Mr. Scrivener and/or the Tetra Tech planner assigned to the jurisdiction. Tetra Tech s planners will work with the jurisdictions to identify additional problem areas and issues related to the hazards analyzed. The New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services will conduct a Mitigation Strategy Workshop in late January More information on that workshop will be forthcoming. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. PAGE 3 OF 3

4 Otsego County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Risk Assessment Review Meeting Welcome Agenda Drought Earthquake Extreme Temperature Flood Landslide Severe Storm Severe Winter Storm Wildfire Next Steps Questions Drought History Five droughts since 1998 Abnormally dry conditions 11 more times since 1998 Impacts About $64,000 in crop damage since 2012 Drought (continued) Entire population is vulnerable Reduction in firefighting capability No direct effects on structures; may increase vulnerability to wildfires Severe economic impacts on agriculture 995 farms 180,750 acres Earthquake History Nine earthquakes with Magnitude 5 or greater were epi-centered in the County since 1816 Location Known fault lines exist in the County Impacts Shaking Evacuation of buildings No damage so far Probability - frequent 1

5 Earthquake (continued) Entire population is exposed, especially: Urban areas Elderly Individuals living below the poverty line On soft soils 26,138 people (42.0% of the County population) 12,425 buildings (42.0% of the County total) $5.6 billion in property replacement cost Earthquake (continued) 500-year Mean Return Period (MRP) earthquake 3 households displaced 1 person injured $3.6 million in damage $1.5 million in income loss Critical facilities no significant damage Debris 1,999 tons of brick/wood debris 577 tons of concrete/steel debris Extreme Temperature History (since 1950) 15 extreme lows 4 extreme high Impacts Health effects Drought Utility load Probability 19 events in 68 years - 28% chance each year Review Vulnerability Assessment Extreme Temperature Entire population is vulnerable, especially: Elderly Infants and children The sick Low-income individuals who cannot afford heating/cooling Overexertion/hypothermia All structures are vulnerable Overloaded HVAC systems Frozen/bursting pipes Loss of business, cost of repairs Flood History 19 Presidential Disaster Declarations 59 events since 1950 Location 1% annual chance floodplain 0.2% annual chance floodplain Ice jams Flash flooding Flood (continued) Impacts $118.8 million in reported property damage since 1950 Probability 59 events in the last 69 years 86% chance each year 2

6 Flood (continued) 1% Annual Chance Floodplain 3,647 people (5.9% of total population) 1,814 buildings (6.1% of total) $756 million in structure and contents replacement cost value $154.4 million in expected losses 63 critical facilities, not counting bridges or dams 11,790 tons of debris Flood (continued) 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain (Exposure Only) 5,701 people (9.2% of total population) 2,571 buildings (8.7% of total) $1.11 billion in structure and contents replacement cost value 80 critical facilities, not counting bridges or dams Flood (continued) Flood insurance statistics (as of June 30, 2018) 477 policies in the County 183 policies in the 1% annual chance floodplain 466 claims $9.4 million in payments Repetitive Loss (RL) Two or more reported losses over $1,000 in any 10-year rolling period since total; 54 were residential Landslide Entire County has low incidence History o July 2006 Route 33/31 in the Village of Cooperstown o State identifies 7 since 1837, but no records are available Impacts two injuries Landslide Hazard Areas o Greater than 25% slope adjacent to Route 31 along Otsego Lake shoreline o No people, buildings, or critical facilities are on slopes greater than 25% grade Severe Storm Hail Wind Lightning Thunderstorms Tornado Hurricane/Tropical Storm Severe Storm (continued) History 14 Presidential Disaster Declarations 251 events since 1950 Impacts 21 injuries, 2 fatalities since 1950 $6.5 million in property damage since 1950; $1.4 million in crop damage since 2011 Utility failure Probability 251 events since % chance each year 3

7 Severe Storm (continued) Every structure is vulnerable HAZUS Model 500-year MRP Event mph $1.4 million in structure damage No critical facilities impacted Insignificant income loss 12,419 cubic yards of debris (mostly tree) Severe Winter Storm Heavy Snow Blizzards Ice Storms Severe Winter Storm (continued) History 5 Presidential Disaster Declarations since USDA declarations - in 2012 and major events since 1950 Impacts $1.6 million in property damage $11,250 in crop damage Accidents Travel delays Probability 89 events in 68 years 100% chance each year Severe Winter Storm (continued) Entire population is vulnerable Increase in traffic accidents Overexertion Hypothermia Reduction in ability to access emergency services All buildings exposed - $6.8 billion Loss of functionality of critical facilities Economic impacts from loss of business Wildfire History No County records of events from , according to state records Location Wildland/urban interface Interface Intermix 1.5 miles from wildland Impacts No records Probability Frequent Wildfire (continued) Population exposed 45, % of County Building stock 21,686 buildings exposed $8.17 billion in value exposed 73.0% of total building value 4

8 Risk Ranking Next Steps Complete Worksheets Identify Problems Next Meeting Develop Mitigation Actions Questions? Thank you for your time! Contacts Erik Scrivener (607) Tony Subbio (717)

9 AGENDA OTSEGO COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE Risk Assessment Review Meeting Wednesday, November 14, :00 8:00 p.m. 1. Welcome 2. a. Drought b. Earthquake c. Extreme Temperature d. Flood e. Landslide f. Severe Storm g. Severe Winter Storm h. Wildfire 3. Next Steps a. Complete worksheets b. Identify problems c. Next meeting Develop Mitigation Actions 4. Questions

10 Otsego County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Risk Ranking Countywide Hazard of Concern Probability Impact Total = (Probability x Impact) Drought Earthquake Extreme Temperature Flood Landslide Severe Storm Severe Winter Storm Wildfire Otsego County HMP 1 Risk Ranking

11 Mitigation Strategies for Consideration Please consider the questions below for the update of actions and initiatives for your mitigation strategy. Suggested actions will be developed based on an analysis of Otsego County s needs and capabilities, or will be carried over from the previous hazard mitigation plan (HMP) update based on your responses in Worksheet 4. Some questions may not apply to your municipality. 1. Which properties in your jurisdiction are most at-risk to flood events and would have the greatest need for retrofitting or other flood hazard mitigation measures? Specific property addresses do not need to be listed (to ensure residential privacy), but names of streets or neighborhoods can be included. 2. What public outreach and education actions would you be most interested in implementing? Circle any that apply. A. Provide general natural hazard risk preparedness and mitigation and related National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) information in regular newsletters and mailings. B. Provide natural hazard risk and risk reduction information through social media channels and blast systems. C. Post flyers and other readily available NFIP informational materials at municipal hall or distribute at regular civic meetings. D. Develop/maintain a natural hazard risk management webpage on the municipal website where information and mapping can be posted. E. Encourage private business owners and managers of infrastructure that provide critical services in post-disaster situations to develop Continuity of Operations Plans or Business Continuity Plans. F. Enhance public outreach to residents in NFIP floodplain areas, which may include distributing periodic articles and including handouts in the annual newsletter, to inform them of annual grant opportunities. G. Other: 3. Which critical facilities still need or would benefit from a backup generator or redundant power supply? Otsego County Hazard Mitigation Plan 1

12 Mitigation Strategies for Consideration 4. Which critical facilities have been damaged by flood events and require floodproofing or relocation? 5. Which roads would benefit from mitigation or structural projects to reduce vulnerability to flood or stormwater incidents? Also, please specify the types of projects that would most help a high-risk road (for example, new/expanded culvert, road elevation, repaving, etc.), if this information is available. 6. What areas in the municipality are still in need of stormwater rehabilitation and upgrades? 7. What other mitigation projects are you interested in or targeting for completion during the next 5 years? Please provide as much detail as possible. Otsego County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2

13

14