9.16 Town of Mohawk · rebuilt before operations could resume. 9.16.5 Capability Assessment This...

Section 9.16: Town of Mohawk

DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Montgomery County, New York 9.16-1 January 2016

9.16 Town of Mohawk

This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Mohawk.

9.16.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact

The following individuals have been identified as the hazard mitigation plan’s primary and alternate points of

contact.

Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact

William Holvig, Highway Superintendent

2-4 Park Street, Fonda, NY 12068

Phone: (518) 853-3312

E-mail: [email protected]

Edward Bishop, Town Supervisor

140 Second Street, Fonda, NY 12068

Phone: (518) 853-3031

E-mail: [email protected] or

[email protected]

9.16.2 Municipal Profile

This section provides a summary of the community.

Population

According to the U.S. Census, the 2010 population for the Town of Mohawk was 3,844, of which 575 are

citizens over the age of 65. That encompasses 15.0 percent of the population.

Location

The Town of Mohawk is located in Montgomery County, New York. It includes the Village of Fonda and part

of Tribes Hill. The Town is bounded on the south by the Mohawk River. Fulton County is the northern border,

and the Towns of Palatine and Amsterdam represent the western and eastern borders, respectively. The Town

is home to the County Seat, Fonda. Fonda is also home to the Fonda Fairgrounds and Speedway. The National

Kateri Tekakwitha Shrine is located in the Town, as are several other historic landmarks. The Montgomery

County Offices are also located in Fonda. The southern half of the Town of Johnstown became the Town of

Mohawk on April 4, 1837.

Brief History

The Town of Mohawk is rich with local history reaching back to when the Indian tribe "Mohawks" inhabited

the area and when the Jesuit priests came to set up the Kateri Tekakwitha Shrine we still know today. After the

American Revolution, the area of New York State then known as Tryon County was renamed Montgomery

County in honor of General Richard Montgomery. With the railroad being built in 1834, towns along its path

became more prosperous, Fonda being one of those towns. With the increase in population and the county seat,

which at the time was Johnstown (a city only accessible by stage), Fonda became the new county seat in 1836.

Governing Body Format

The Town of Mohawk is governed by a supervisor and town board. This governing body will assume

responsibility for adoption and implementation of this plan.

mailto:[email protected]





Growth/Development Trends

The following table summarizes major residential/commercial development and major infrastructure

development that are identified for the next five (5) years in the Town. Refer to the map in section 9.16.8 of

this annex which illustrates the hazard areas along with the location of potential new development.

Table 9.16-1. Growth and Development

Property Name

Type

(Residential or

Commercial)

Number of

Structures Parcel ID(s)

Known Hazard

Zone* Description/Status

Possible annexation of

Johnstown Industrial

Park

Commercial Industrial

Buildings State Route 30A Traffic

Preliminary

Environmental

Impact Analysis

* Only location-specific hazard zones or vulnerabilities identified.

9.16.3 Natural Hazard Event History Specific to the Town

Montgomery County has a history of natural and non-natural hazard events as detailed in Volume I, Section

5.0 of this plan. A summary of historical events is provided in each of the hazard profiles and includes a

chronology of events that have affected the County and its municipalities. The table below presents a

summary of natural events that have occurred to indicate the range and impact of natural hazard events in the

community. Information regarding specific damages is included if available based on reference material or

local sources.

Table 9.16-2. Hazard Event History

Dates of Event Event Type

FEMA Declaration # (If Applicable)

County Designated? Summary of Damages/Losses

April 14-18, 2007

* Severe Storms and

Inland and Coastal

Flooding

DR-1692 Yes

The Town Hall and Town Garage flooded as

a result of this storm. The Town Hall had

one foot of water and the Town Garage had

2.5 feet of water. There was also damage to

numerous culverts, shoulders, and roads.

Residential and commercial properties

experienced damage. Public Assistance was

requested by the Town. This event resulted

in overtime by highway and fire due to

cleanup.

August 26 –

September 5, 2011 *Hurricane Irene DR-4020 Yes

The Town Hall and Town Garage flooded as

a result of this storm. The Town Hall had

one foot of water and the Town Garage had

2.5 feet of water. There was also damage to

numerous culverts, shoulders, and roads.

Residential and commercial properties

experienced damage. Public Assistance was

requested by the Town. This event resulted

in overtime by highway and fire due to

cleanup.

* The reviewer is advised that the summary of damages for both events are essentially identical, since each set of damages

emanated from very similar events, that is, heavy rainfall and, specifically, comparable rises in the level of the Mohawk River. Notes:

EM Emergency Declaration (FEMA) FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

DR Major Disaster Declaration (FEMA)

IA Individual Assistance N/A Not Applicable



PA Public Assistance



9.16.4 Hazard Vulnerabilities and Ranking

The hazard profiles in Section 5.0 of this plan have detailed information regarding each plan participant’s

vulnerability to the identified hazards. The following summarizes the hazard vulnerabilities and their ranking

in the community. For additional vulnerability information relevant to this jurisdiction, refer to Section 5.0.

Hazard Risk/Vulnerability Risk Ranking

The table below summarizes the hazard risk/vulnerability rankings of potential hazards for the community.

Table 9.16-3. Hazard Risk/Vulnerability Risk Ranking

Hazard type

Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Structures Vulnerable to the

Hazarda,c,d Probability of

Occurrence

Risk Ranking

Score (Probability

x Impact) Hazard

Rankingb

Drought Damage estimate not available Occasional 26 Medium

Earthquake 500-Year MRP: $1,153,887

Rare 12 Low 2,500-Year MRP $11,415,783

Extreme Temperature Damage estimate not available Frequent 18 Medium

Flood 1% Annual Chance: $115,991,000 Frequent 42 High

Severe Storm 500-Year MRP: $187,400 Frequent 48 High

Severe Winter Storm 1% GBS: $1,640,820

Frequent 51 High 5% GBS: $8,204,100

Notes: a. The general building stock valuation is based on the custom inventory generated for the municipality and based on improved

value. b. High = Total hazard priority risk ranking score of 31 and above

Medium = Total hazard priority risk ranking of 20-30+ Low = Total hazard risk ranking below 20

c. Loss estimates for the severe winter storm hazard is structural values only and do not include the value of contents. Loss estimates for the flood and earthquake hazards represent both structure and contents.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Summary

The following table summarizes the NFIP statistics for the Town.

Table 9.16-4. NFIP Summary

Municipality # Policies

(1)

# Claims (Losses)

(1) Total Loss

Payments (2)

# Rep. Loss

Prop. (1)

# Severe Rep. Loss

Prop. (1)

# Policies in the

1% Flood Boundary (3)

Mohawk, Town of 11 4 $26,605.17 1 0 4

Source: FEMA Region 2, 2013

(1) Policies, claims, repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss statistics provided by FEMA Region 2, and are current as of May 31, 2013. Please note the total number of repetitive loss properties includes the severe repetitive loss properties. The number of claims

represents claims closed by 5/31/2013.

(2) Total building and content losses from the claims file provided by FEMA Region 2. (3) The policies inside and outside of the flood zones is based on the latitude and longitude provided by FEMA Region 2 in the policy file.

Notes: FEMA noted that where there is more than one entry for a property, there may be more than one policy in force or more than one GIS possibility.

A zero percentage denotes less than 1/100th percentage and not zero damages or vulnerability as may be the case.



Critical Facilities

The table below presents HAZUS-MH estimates of the damage and loss of use to critical facilities in the

community as a result of a 1-percent annual chance flood event.

Table 9.16-5. Potential Flood Losses to Critical Facilities

Name Municipality Type

Exposure

Potential Loss from

1% Flood Event

1% Event

Percent

Structure

Damage

Percent

Content

Damage

Days to

100-

Percent(2)

CO RD 26 Mohawk, Town of Highway

Bridge X - - -

COUNTY ROUTE 27 Mohawk, Town of Highway

Bridge X - - -

Source: HAZUS-MH 2.1 Note:

NP Not provided by HAZUS

x Facility located within the DFIRM boundary. - No loss calculated by HAZUS

NA Not calculated in HAZUS

NF HAZUS estimate the facility will not be functional WW Pump Wastewater Pump Station

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Please note it is assumed the wells have electrical equipment and openings are three-feet above grade. (1) HAZUS-MH 2.1 provides a general indication of the maximum restoration time for 100% operations. Clearly, a great deal of effort is

needed to quickly restore essential facilities to full functionality; therefore this will be an indication of the maximum downtime

(HAZUS-MH 2.1 User Manual). (2) In some cases, a facility may be located in the DFIRM flood hazard boundary; however HAZUS did not calculate potential loss. This

may be because the depth of flooding does not amount to any damages to the structure according to the depth damage function used in

HAZUS for that facility type. (3) Dams located in the floodplain are not listed in the table above. HAZUS does not calculate potential losses to a dam as a result of a

flood event.

Other Vulnerabilities Identified by Town

The Town identified the following vulnerabilities that impact the community:

Flood

Flooding from the Mohawk River remains a problem in the Town of Mohawk. Two major floods in 2007 and

2011 caused significant damage to Town infrastructure, the Town Hall, and Town Garage. When the spring

thaw occurs and a major rainstorm hits, there is flooding.

Loss of Service

During the flood event in April 2007 and Hurricane Irene, the Town Hall and the Town Garage were flooded

with one foot and two and a half feet of water respectively. Both facilities were closed due to flood damage

until repairs could be made. Highway personnel and the Fire Department took on the responsibility of

cleaning up debris throughout the Town following both events.

Infrastructure Damage

Infrastructure damage throughout the Town was widespread following the April 2007 flood and Hurricane

Irene. Culverts and the shoulders of roads were the most damaged infrastructures. Roadways throughout the

Town sustain damage when a major rainstorm occurs during the spring thaw.



Facility/Structural Damage

The damage sustained to the Town Hall and the Town Garage required the facilities to be gutted, dried out, and

rebuilt before operations could resume.

9.16.5 Capability Assessment

This section identifies the following capabilities of the local jurisdiction:

Planning and regulatory capability

Administrative and technical capability

Fiscal capability

Community classification

NFIP

Integration of mitigation planning into existing and future planning mechanisms

Planning and Regulatory Capability

The table below summarizes the regulatory tools that are available to the community.

Table 9.16-6. Planning and Regulatory Tools

Tool / Program (code, ordinance, plan)

Do you have this? (Yes/No)

If Yes, date of adoption or update

Authority (local,

county, state,

federal)

Dept. /Agency

Responsible

Code Citation and Comments (Code Chapter, name of plan, explanation of authority, etc.)

Planning Capability

Master Plan Yes Local

Planning

Board and

Town Board

Town of Mohawk Comprehensive

Plan, 2014

Capital Improvements Plan No

Floodplain Management / Basin Plan No

Stormwater Management Plan No

Open Space Plan No

Stream Corridor Management Plan No

Watershed Management or Protection

Plan Yes State

Engineering

and DPW

Mohawk River Watershed

Management Plan, 2015

Economic Development Plan No

Comprehensive Emergency

Management Plan Yes

County,

Local

Emergency

Manager

Emergency Operation Plan Yes County,

Local

Emergency

Manager

Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No

Transportation Plan No

Strategic Recovery Planning Report Yes State and

County NYSDOS New York Community Rising

Other Plans: Yes

County and

Inter-

municipal

NYSDOS Mid-Montgomery County Local

Waterfront Revitalization Plan, 2009

Regulatory Capability

Building Code Yes State Code New York State Building Codes



Tool / Program (code, ordinance, plan)

Do you have this? (Yes/No)

If Yes, date of adoption or update

Authority (local,

county, state,

federal)

Dept. /Agency

Responsible

Code Citation and Comments (Code Chapter, name of plan, explanation of authority, etc.)

Enforcement

Officer

Zoning Ordinance Yes Local

Planning

Board and

Zoning Board

of Appeals

Last updated in 1998

Subdivision Ordinance No

NFIP Flood Damage Prevention

Ordinance Yes

Federal,

State, Local

Code

Enforcement

Officer

2007

NFIP: Cumulative Substantial

Damages No

NFIP: Freeboard No

Growth Management Ordinances No

Site Plan Review Requirements Yes Local

Local

Planning

Board and

ZBA

Stormwater Management Ordinance No

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

System (MS4) No

Natural Hazard Ordinance No

Post-Disaster Recovery Ordinance No

Real Estate Disclosure Requirement Yes State Realtor

NYS mandate, Property Condition

Disclosure Act, NY Code - Article 14

§460-467

Other [Special Purpose Ordinances

(i.e., sensitive areas, steep slope)]

Administrative and Technical Capability

The table below summarizes potential staff and personnel resources available to the community.

Table 9.16-7. Administrative and Technical Capabilities

Resources

Is this in place?

(Yes or No) Department/ Agency/Position

Administrative Capability

Planning Board Y

Mitigation Planning Committee N

Environmental Board/Commission N

Open Space Board/Committee N

Economic Development Commission/Committee N

Maintenance Programs to Reduce Risk N

Mutual Aid Agreements Y Surrounding municipalities

Technical/Staffing Capability



Resources

Is this in place?

(Yes or No) Department/ Agency/Position

Planner(s) or Engineer(s) with knowledge of land

development and land management practices Y McDonald Engineering

Engineer(s) or Professional(s) trained in construction

practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Y McDonald Engineering

Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural

hazards Y McDonald Engineering

NFIP Floodplain Administrator Y Ronald Hinkle, Code Enforcement Officer

Surveyor(s) N

Personnel skilled or trained in “GIS” applications N Provided through County Planning

Scientist familiar with natural hazards in the Town N

Emergency Manager Y William Holvig, Emergency Manager

Grant Writer(s) Y Leberge Engineering, William D. Holvig

Staff with expertise or training in benefit/cost analysis N

Professionals trained in conducting damage assessments N

Fiscal Capability

The table below summarizes financial resources available to the community.

Table 9.16-8. Fiscal Capabilities

Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use

(Yes/No/Don’t Know)

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes

Capital Improvements Project Funding No

Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes

User fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service No

Impact Fees for homebuyers or developers of new

development/homes No

Incur debt through general obligation bonds No

Incur debt through special tax bonds No

Incur debt through private activity bonds No

Withhold public expenditures in hazard-prone areas No

Other Yes

Mitigation grant programs (e.g., NYDEC, NYS DHSES) Yes

Community Classifications

The classifications listed below relate to the community’s ability to provide effective services to lessen its

vulnerability to the hazards identified. These classifications can be viewed as a gauge of the community’s

capabilities in all phases of emergency management (preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation) and are

used as an underwriting parameter for determining the costs of various forms of insurance. The Community

Rating System (CRS) class applies to flood insurance while the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule

(BCEGS) and Public Protection classifications apply to standard property insurance. CRS classifications range

on a scale of 1 to 10 with class 1 being the best possible classification, and class 10 representing no

classification benefit. Firewise classifications include a higher classification when the subject property is

located beyond 1,000 feet of a creditable fire hydrant and is within five road miles of a recognized Fire Station.



The table below summarizes classifications for community program available to the community.

Table 9.16-9. Community Classifications

Program Classification Date Classified

Community Rating System (CRS) NP N/A

Building Code Effectiveness Grading

Schedule (BCEGS)

N

Public Protection N

Storm Ready N

Firewise N

N/A = Not Applicable NP = Not participating __ = Unavailable TBD = To Be Determined

Criteria for classification credits are outlined in the following documents:

The CRS Coordinators Manual

The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule

The ISO Mitigation online ISO’s Public Protection website at

http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/0000/ppc0001.html

The National Weather Service Storm Ready website at

http://www.weather.gov/stormready/howto.htm

The National Firewise Communities website at http://firewise.org/

Self-Assessment of Capability

The table below provides an approximate measure of the Town of Mohawk's capability to work in a hazard-

mitigation capacity and/or effectively implement hazard mitigation strategies to reduce hazard vulnerabilities.

Table 9.16-10. Self-Assessment Capability for the Municipality

Area

Degree of Hazard Mitigation Capability

Limited (If limited, what are

your obstacles?)* Moderate High

Planning and Regulatory Capability X

Administrative and Technical Capability X

Fiscal Capability X

Community Political Capability X

Community Resiliency Capability X

Capability to Integrate Mitigation into

Municipal Processes and Activities. X

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

The Town of Mohawk entered the NFIP on August 5, 1985 and is currently in good standing with the NFIP.

The Town Floodplain Administrator is the Code Enforcement Officer according to the Flood Damage

http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/0000/ppc0001.html

http://www.weather.gov/stormready/howto.htm

http://firewise.org/



Prevention Ordinance. As of May 31, 2013, the Town had 11 policies, with one being a repetitive loss

property and four located within the 1% annual chance flood area. There have been six claims made total and,

with two paid claims totaling $26,605.17 (as of February 29, 2016).

Integration of Hazard Mitigation into Existing and Future Planning Mechanisms

It is the intention of this Town to incorporate hazard mitigation planning and natural hazard risk reduction as

an integral component of ongoing Town operations. The following textual summary identifies relevant

planning mechanisms and programs that have been/will be incorporated into municipal procedures, which may

include former mitigation initiatives that have become continuous/on-going programs now considered

mitigation “capabilities:”

Hazard Mitigation – The Town actively supports this Hazard Mitigation Plan by implementing,

monitoring, and updating its implementation as defined in Section 7.0 of this plan. County-wide

initiatives identified in the County annex are also supported throughout the life cycle of the plan.

Floodplain Management – The Town continues to pursue its options of membership in the CRS

program. Efforts have been made as well to ensure compliance with and good standing in the NFIP.

Building Code, Ordinances, and Enforcement-The Town is continuing to incorporate hazard

information and recommendations from this Hazard Mitigation Plan into pending updates and

revisions to be made to Zoning, Subdivision, and Site Plan Review ordinances.

Emergency Response Plan – The Town continues to develop, enhance, and implement existing

emergency plans. There is currently an emergency response plan for the Town. Having this plan

affords the Town the opportunity to outline in detail the functions and responsibilities of each Town

department during a large scale natural or man-made emergency, so that response to emergencies

lessens the severity of a disaster on property and the population. This plan includes many pre-event

actions that both mitigate disaster losses and directly supports recovery efforts.



9.16.6 Mitigation Strategy and Prioritization

This section discusses past mitigations actions and status, describes proposed hazard mitigation initiatives, and

prioritization.

Past Mitigation Initiative Status

The following table indicates progress on the community’s mitigation strategy identified in the 2008 plan.

Actions that are carried forward as part of this plan update are included in the following subsection in its own

table with prioritization. Previous actions that are now on-going programs and capabilities are indicated as

such in the following table and may also be found under ‘Capability Assessment’ presented previously in this

annex.

Table 9.16-11. Past Mitigation Initiative Status

Description Status Review Comments

1: Where appropriate, support retrofitting,

purchase, or relocation of structures located in

hazard-prone areas to protect structures from

future damage, with repetitive loss and severe

repetitive loss properties as priority.

No Progress

Progress continues to be made on appropriate

projects throughout the Town. This initiative will

be carried over into the updated mitigation

strategy.

2: Consider participation in incentive-based

programs such as CRS. Continuous

This is a programmatic and operational action,

and will be moved to the Capabilities section,

Integration of Hazard Mitigation into Existing and

Future Planning Mechanisms.

3: Continue to support the implementation,

monitoring, maintenance, and updating of this

plan, as defined in Section 7.0.

Continuous





4: Strive to maintain compliance with, and

good-standing in the NFIP. Continuous





5: Continue to develop, enhance, and

implement existing emergency plans. Continuous





6: Create/enhance/maintain mutual aid

agreements with neighboring communities. Continuous





7: Support County-wide initiatives identified

in Section 9.1 of the County Annex. Continuous





8: Provide debris maintenance and removal at

Cayudta Creek No Progress

This initiative continues to be pursued but no

progress towards establishing a program has been

made. This initiative will be carried over into the

updated mitigation strategy.

9: Develop a public outreach program on

natural hazard mitigation activities

No Progress This initiative continues to be pursued but no




10: Develop Capital Improvement Plan

No Progress This initiative continues to be pursued but no




11: Pursue continuing professional education

and certification (e.g., Certified Floodplain

Continuous This is a programmatic and operational action,




Description Status Review Comments

Manager under the Association of State

Floodplain Managers) of Code Enforcement

Officers and NFIP FPAs in floodplain

management and hazard risk reduction.



Completed Mitigation Initiatives not Identified in the Previous Mitigation Strategy

Various projects pertaining to road maintenance and rebuilding the Town Garage have been completed using

FEMA funding.

Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives for the Plan Update

The community identified mitigation initiatives they would like to pursue in the future. Some of these

initiatives may be previous actions carried forward for this plan update. These initiatives are dependent upon

available funding (grants and local match availability) and may be modified or omitted at any time based on

the occurrence of new hazard events and changes in municipal priorities. Table 9.16-11 identifies the Town’s

updated local mitigation strategy.

As discussed in Section 6, 14 evaluation/prioritization criteria are used to complete the prioritization of

mitigation initiatives. For each new mitigation action, a numeric rank is assigned (-1, 0, or 1) for each of the

14 evaluation criteria to assist with prioritizing actions as ‘High,’ ‘Medium,’ or ‘Low.’ The table below

summarizes the evaluation of each mitigation initiative, listed by Action Number.

Table 9.16-12 provides a summary of the prioritization of all proposed mitigation initiatives for the plan

update.



Table 9.16-12. Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives

Init

iati

ve

Mitigation Initiative

Applies to New

and/or Existing

Structures* Hazard(s) Mitigated

Goals Met

Lead and Support Agencies

Estimated Benefits

Estimated Cost

Sources of Funding Timeline Priority M

itig

ati

on

C

ate

go

ry

CR

S C

ate

go

ry

Mohawk-1

Support the mitigation of vulnerable structures via retrofit (e.g. elevation, flood-proofing) or acquisition/relocation to protect structures from future damage, with repetitive loss and severe

repetitive loss properties as a priority when applicable. Assure that any mitigation addresses the 500-year flood event or “worst damage scenario”. Phase 1: Identify appropriate candidates and determine most cost-effective mitigation option (in progress).

Phase 2: Work with the property owners to implement selected action based on available funding and local match availability.

See above Existing All 1, 2, 5

Engineering via NFIP FPA

with NYS

DHSES, FEMA support

High High

FEMA

Mitigation Grant

Programs and

local budget (or property

owner) for

cost share

Ongoing

(outreach and specific project

identification);

Long term DOF (specific project

application and

implementation)

High SIP PP

Mohawk

-2

Relocate Town Hall and

Town Highway Garage to

higher ground to reduce flooding likelihood. Assure

that any mitigation

addresses the 500-year flood event or “worst

damage scenario”.

Existing Flood 1, 4, 5

Town Supervisor and

consulting

engineer

High High

FEMA

Mitigation

Grant Programs and

local budget

Short Term High SIP PP

Mohawk-

3

Develop Capital

Improvement Plan Existing All 1, 2

Town

Administration, DPW

Medium Low Operating

Budget Short Medium LPR PR

Mohawk-

4

Provide debris maintenance

and removal at Cayudta

Creek.

Existing Flood 1, 4 Town DPW Medium Medium Operating

Budget Short Medium SIP PP

Mohawk-

5

Develop a public outreach

program on natural hazard mitigation activities.

Existing All 1, 2 Town

Administration Medium Medium

Operating

Budget Short Medium

LPR,

EAP

PR,

PI

Mohawk-6

Evaluate the flood

vulnerability of the bridges

located within the Town and identify feasible

mitigation options. Assure

that any mitigation addresses the 500-year

flood event or “worst

damage scenario”.

Existing

Flood,

Severe

Storms

2 Municipal NFIP FPA

High – Reduced

Risk to

Critical Facility

Low

Staff Time, FEMA, NYS

DHSES,

County, Municipality

Short Medium EAP, LPR

PI, PP

Notes: Not all acronyms and abbreviations defined below are included in the table. *Does this mitigation initiative reduce the effects of hazards on new and/or existing buildings and/or infrastructure? Not applicable (N/A) is inserted if this does not apply.



Acronyms and Abbreviations: Potential FEMA HMA Funding Sources Timeline:

CAV Community Assistance Visit CRS Community Rating System DPW Department of Public Works FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FPA Floodplain Administrator HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance N/A Not applicable NFIP National Flood Insurance Program OEM Office of Emergency Management

FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program RFC Repetitive Flood Claims Grant Program (discontinued 2015) SRL Severe Repetitive Loss Grant Program (discontinued 2015)

Short 1 to 5 years Long Term 5 years or greater OG On-going program DOF Depending on funding

Costs: Benefits: Where actual project costs have been reasonably estimated: Low < $10,000 Medium $10,000 to $100,000 High > $100,000 Where actual project costs cannot reasonably be established at this time: Low Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing on-going program. Medium Could budget for under existing work plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. High Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed project.

Where possible, an estimate of project benefits (per FEMA’s benefit calculation methodology) has been evaluated against the project costs, and is presented as: Low= < $10,000 Medium $10,000 to $100,000 High > $100,000 Where numerical project benefits cannot reasonably be established at this time: Low Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. Medium Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to

life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.

High Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property.

Mitigation Category:

Local Plans and Regulations (LPR) – These actions include government authorities, policies or codes that influence the way land and buildings are being developed and built.

Structure and Infrastructure Project (SIP)- These actions involve modifying existing structures and infrastructure to protect them from a hazard or remove them from a hazard area.

This could apply to public or private structures as well as critical facilities and infrastructure. This type of action also involves projects to construct manmade structures to reduce the

impact of hazards.

Natural Systems Protection (NSP) – These are actions that minimize damage and losses, and also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.

Education and Awareness Programs (EAP) – These are actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them.

These actions may also include participation in national programs, such as StormReady and Firewise Communities

CRS Category: Preventative Measures (PR) - Government, administrative or regulatory actions, or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built. Examples include

planning and zoning, floodplain local laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and storm water management regulations. Property Protection (PP) - These actions include public activities to reduce hazard losses or actions that involve (1) modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from

a hazard or (2) removal of the structures from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofits, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass. Public Information (PI) - Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include

outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and educational programs for school-age children and adults. Natural Resource Protection (NR) - Actions that minimize hazard loss and also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. These actions include sediment and erosion control,

stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. Structural Flood Control Projects (SP) - Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Such structures include dams, setback levees, floodwalls,

retaining walls, and safe rooms.



Emergency Services (ES) - Actions that protect people and property during and immediately following a disaster or hazard event. Services include warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities



Table 9.16-13. Summary of Prioritization of Actions

Mitigation

Action/Project

Number Mitigation Action/Initiative Lif

e S

afe

ty

Pro

per

ty P

rote

ctio

n

Co

st-E

ffec

tiv

enes

s

Tec

hn

ica

l

Po

liti

cal

Leg

al

Fis

cal

En

vir

on

men

tal

So

cia

l

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

Mu

lti-

Ha

zard

Tim

elin

e

Ag

ency

Ch

am

pio

n

Oth

er C

om

mu

nit

y

Ob

ject

ives

To

tal

High/Medium/Low

Mohawk-1 (Old 1)

Support the mitigation of vulnerable structures via retrofit (e.g. elevation,

flood-proofing) or acquisition /

relocation to protect structures from future damage

0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 10 High

Mohawk -2

Relocate Town Hall and Town

Highway Garage to higher ground to

reduce flooding likelihood. 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 High

Mohawk-3

(Old 10) Develop Capital Improvement Plan 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8 Medium

Mohawk-4

(Old 8)

Provide debris maintenance and

removal at Cayudta Creek. 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 8 Medium

Mohawk-5 (Old 9)

Develop a public outreach program

on natural hazard mitigation

activities. 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 Medium

Mohawk-6

Evaluate the flood vulnerability of the bridges located within the Town

and identify feasible mitigation

options.

0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 7 Medium

Note: Refer to Section 6 which contains the guidance on conducting the prioritization of mitigation actions.



9.16.7 Future Needs To Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability

None at this time.

9.16.8 Hazard Area Extent and Location

Hazard area extent and location maps have been generated for the Town of Mohawk that illustrate the probable

areas impacted within the Town. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation

of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. Maps have only been generated for those

hazards that can be clearly identified using mapping techniques and technologies, and for which the Town of

Mohawk has significant exposure. These maps are illustrated in the hazard profiles within Section 5.4,

Volume I of this plan.

9.16.9 Additional Comments

None at this time.



Name of Jurisdiction: Town of Mohawk

Number: Mohawk-2

Mitigation Action/Initiative: Relocate Town Hall and Town Highway Garage to higher ground to reduce

flooding likelihood.

Assessing the Risk

Hazard(s) addressed Flood

Specific problem being

mitigated

Flood damage sustained to Town Hall and Town Highway Garage due to

proximity to Mohawk River.

Evaluation of Potential Actions/Projects

Actions/Projects Considered

(name of project and reason

for not selecting)

1. Do nothing – current problem continues

2. Flood proof facility – expense, logistics, and accessibility to equipment

3. Relocate Town Hall and Town Highway Garage to higher ground

Action/Project Intended for Implementation

Description of Selected

Action/Project

Relocate Town Hall and Town Highway Garage to higher ground to reduce

flooding likelihood. Assure that any mitigation addresses the 500-year flood event

or “worst damage scenario”.

Mitigation Action/Project

Type SIP

Objectives Met 1,4, 5

Applies to existing

structures/infrastructure,

future, or not applicable

Existing

Benefits (losses avoided) High

Estimated Cost High

Priority* High

Plan for Implementation

Responsible Organization Town Supervisor and consulting engineer

Local Planning Mechanism Allocation of funding by Town Council

Potential Funding Sources FEMA mitigation funding with local cost share

Timeline for Completion Short Term

Reporting on Progress

Date of Status Report/

Report of Progress

Date:

Progress on Action/Project:



Name of Jurisdiction: Town of Mohawk

Number: Mohawk-2

Mitigation Action/Initiative: Relocate Town Hall and Town Highway Garage to higher ground to reduce

flooding likelihood.

Criteria

Numeric

Rank

(-1, 0, 1) Provide brief rationale for numeric rank when appropriate

Life Safety 0

Property Protection 1 Protect buildings from flood damages

Cost-Effectiveness 0

Technical 0

Political 0

Legal 0

Fiscal -1 Need to seek grant funding for this project

Environmental 0

Social 0

Administrative 1

Multi-Hazard 1

Timeline 1 Short Term - project will be completed in the next five years

Agency Champion 1

Other Community

Objectives 0

Total 4

Priority

(High/Med/Low) High

Date post:	06-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

9.16 Town of Mohawk · rebuilt before operations could resume. 9.16.5 Capability Assessment This...

Documents