9.6 town of clinton · 2018-12-12 · section 9.6: town of clinton dma 2000 hazard mitigation plan...

SECTION 9.6: TOWN OF CLINTON

DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Hunterdon County, New Jersey 9.6-1May 2016

9.6 TOWN OF CLINTON

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

9.6.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT

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

Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact

Rich Phelan, Administrator43 Leigh Street, P.O. Box 5194, Clinton, NJ 08809Phone: (908) 735-8616Email: [email protected]

Brett Matheis, Chief of Police/OEM Coordinator43 Leigh Street, P.O. Box 5194, Clinton, NJ 08809Phone: (908) 735-2665

9.6.2 MUNICIPAL PROFILE

The Town of Clinton is located in central Hunterdon County in northwest New Jersey. The Town is borderedby Franklin Township, Union Township, and Clinton Township. The Town is also located within the NewJersey Highlands Region. It is located near Routes 78 and 31 and is approximately 1.5 square miles in size. TheSouth Branch of the Raritan River runs through the center of the Town and the River is crossed by a historic irontruss bridge. Other bodies of water in the Town include: Mulhockaway Creek, Beaver Brook, and Spruce Run.Spruce Run and South Branch Raritan River also have their confluence within the municipality. According tothe U.S. Census, the 2010 population for the Town of Clinton was 2,719.

Growth/Development Trends

The following table summarizes recent residential/commercial development since 2010 to present and anyknown or anticipated major residential/commercial development and major infrastructure development that hasbeen identified in the next five years within the municipality. Refer to the maps in subsection 9.6.8 of this annexwhich illustrate the hazard areas along with the location of potential new development.

Table 9.6-1. Growth and Development

Property orDevelopment Name

Type(e.g. Res.,Comm.)

# of Units/Structures

Location(address and/or

Block & Lot)

KnownHazardZone(s)

Description/Statusof Development

Recent Development from 2010 to present

Riverside Drive Residential 8 Duplex Homes

Riverside DriveBlock 23, Lots11.06, 11.05,11.07, 6, 6.01

Flood: 1%Chance;

Wildfire: High

6 completed, 2 underconstruction

Park ValleyDevelopers (TwinPonds)

Residential 60-unit apartmentcomplex

Village RoadBlock 1, 60.02

CarbonateHazard Under construction

Eastern Hill Residential 35-unit apartmentcomplex

Halstead StreetBlock 16, Lot

22.02

CarbonateHazard

Before the Land UseBoard

Known or Anticipated Development in the Next Five YearsNone identified at the time of this plan

* Only location-specific hazard zones or vulnerabilities identified.



9.6.3 NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPALITY

Hunterdon County has a history of natural and non-natural hazard events as detailed in Volume I, Section 5.0 ofthis plan. A summary of historical events is provided in each of the hazard profiles and includes a chronologyof events that have affected the County and its municipalities. For the purpose of this plan update, events thathave occurred in the County from 2008 to present were summarized to indicate the range and impact of hazardevents in the community. Information regarding specific damages is included, if available, based on referencematerial or local sources. This information is presented in the table below. For details of these and additionalevents, refer to Volume I, Section 5.0 of this plan.

Table 9.6-2. Hazard Event History

Date(s) ofEvent Event Type

FEMADeclaration #(If Applicable)

CountyDesignated? Summary of Damages/Losses

March 12 –April 15, 2010

Severe Stormsand Flooding DR-1897 Yes Beaver Brook drainage basin flooding. Clinton

Fire House sustained water damage.

August 26 –September 5,

2011Hurricane Irene DR-4021 Yes

South Branch of the Raritan River and the BeaverBrook flooded Lower Center Street, Main Street,East Main Street, Old Highway 22, Halstead Street

by the South Branch Bridge and lower LeighStreet, which were all force to close due to

flooding. Damage to a repetitive lose property(since been elevated), water in basements oneffected streets and the Clinton Dam and Dike

retaining wall superstructure at the Hunterdon ArtsCenter was destroyed by river flood waters/debris.The fire house and EMS building were staffed toreceive evacuees if necessary. The Clinton FireHouse also sustained water damage. Debrisremoval and cleanup of streets for three days.

September 28 –October 6, 2011

Remnants ofTropical Storm

LeeDR-4039 Yes

Similar flooding to Hurricane Irene on downtownstreets, sporadic power outages and debris

cleanup. There was water damage to basementsalong Main and lower Leigh Streets.

October 29,2011 Severe Storm DR-4048 Yes

Sporadic power outages, numerous trees down anddamaged from ice/snow accumulations. Treedebris removal and disposal for several days.

October 26 –November 8,

2012Hurricane Sandy DR-4086 Yes

Power outages ranging from 5 – 15 daysdepending on the section of Town. Large amountof debris clean-up caused by downed trees. It tookthe Town a total of 41 days to clean up from this

storm. There was overtime costs foradministrative, police, DPW, water and sewer.

9.6.4 HAZARD VULNERABILITIES AND RANKING

The hazard profiles in Section 5.0 of this plan have detailed information regarding each plan participant’svulnerability to the identified hazards. The risk ranking methodology is presented in Section 5.3. However, eachmunicipality had the opportunity to adjust the final ranking based on municipal feedback. The followingsummarizes the hazard vulnerabilities and their ranking in the Town of Clinton. For additional vulnerabilityinformation 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 Town of Clinton.



Table 9.6-1 Hazard Risk/Vulnerability Risk Ranking

Hazard typeEstimate of Potential Dollar Losses to

Structures Vulnerable to the Hazard a, c

Probabilityof

Occurrence

Risk RankingScore

(Probability xImpact)

Hazard Rankingb

Dam Failure Damage estimate not available Occasional 24 MediumDrought Damage estimate not available Frequent 30 Medium

Earthquake100-Year GBS: $0

Occasional 28 Medium500-Year GBS: $459,6062,500-Year GBS: $7,571,681

Flood 1% Annual Chance: $4,791,000 Frequent 18 Medium

Geologic GBS Exposed to CarbonateRock Areas: $83,163,696 Occasional 36 High

Hurricane100-year MRP: $7,527

Frequent 48 High500-year MRP: $171,693Annualized: $1,567

Nor'Easter Damage estimate not available Frequent 48 High

Severe Weather100-Year MRP: $7,527

Frequent 48 High500-year MRP: $171,693Annualized: $1,567

Severe WinterWeather

1% GBS: $948,617Frequent 51 High

5% GBS: $4,743,085

WildfireEstimated Value in theExtreme, Very High, andHigh Hazard Areas:

$1,234,200 Frequent 24 Medium

Disease Outbreak Damage estimate not available Frequent 36 HighHazardousMaterials Damage estimate not available Frequent 36 High

Notes:GBS = General building stock; MRP = Mean return period.

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

b. High = Total hazard priority risk ranking score of 31 and aboveMedium = Total hazard priority risk ranking of 20-30+Low = Total hazard risk ranking below 20

c. Loss estimates for the severe storm and severe winter storm hazards are structural values only and do not include the estimatedvalue of contents. Loss estimates for the flood and earthquake hazards represent both structure and contents. Potential flood lossestimates were generated using Hazus-MH 3.0 and the 2009 FEMA DFIRM for the 1-percent annual chance event. For the geologicand wildfire hazards, the improved value and estimated contents of buildings located within the identified hazard zones isprovided.



National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Summary

The following table summarizes the NFIP statistics for the Town of Clinton.

Table 9.6-4. NFIP Summary

Municipality # Policies (1)

# Claims

(Losses) (1)

Total Loss

Payments (2)

# Rep.

Loss Prop.

(1)

# Severe

Rep. Loss

Prop.

(1)

# Policies in

1% Flood

Boundary

(3)

Town of Clinton 76 39 $466,706 6 0 44Source: FEMA Region 2, 2014(1) Policies, claims, repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss statistics provided by FEMA Region 2, and are current as of 12/31/2014.

Please note the total number of repetitive loss properties includes the severe repetitive loss properties. The number of claimsrepresents claims closed by 12/31/14.

(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.Number of policies and claims and claims total exclude properties located outside County boundary, based on provided latitudeand longitude.

Critical Facilities

The table below presents the number of critical facilities, by type, in the community located in the effectiveFEMA flood zones (1% and 0.2% annual chance boundaries).

Table 9.5-4. Number of Critical Facilities in the DFIRM 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Boundaries

Municipality

1% and 0.2% Annual Chance

Daycare EMS EOC FireMunicipal

Hall PolicePost

Office Shelter

Clinton, Town of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2Source: Hunterdon County; FEMA, 2012Note: All facilities are located in both the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance hazard zone.

Other Vulnerabilities Identified by Municipality

Out of bank flooding in the South Branch Raritan River floodplain, upstream from the confluence with SpruceRun and paralleling Halstead Street, is fairly frequent; however, damage from such floods is much less frequent.Additionally, flooding near the Old Clinton Mill Dam by Spruce Run can occur during larger storms. The milldam and numerous road crossings can be found in this area. The majority of the Spruce Run floodplain isundeveloped. Lastly, out of bank flooding by Beaver Brook (near U.S. Route 22 and associated businesses andcommercial establishments) is fairly frequent but significant damage only results during larger storms (FEMAFIS 2012).

9.6.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

This section identifies the following capabilities of the local jurisdiction:

Planning and regulatory capability Administrative and technical capability Fiscal capability Education/Outreach and Community classification Self-Assessment of Capability



National Flood Insurance Program 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 Town of Clinton.

Table 9.6-5. Planning and Regulatory Tools

Tool/Program(code, ordinance, plan)

Do you havethis?

(Yes/No)If Yes, dateof adoptionor update

Authority(local, county,state, federal)

Dept./AgencyResponsible

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

Planning Capability

Master Plan 2008 Local Land Use Board Chapter 88 of the Town of ClintonOrdinances

Capital Improvements Plan N/A LocalAdministration,Finance, Mayorand Council

N/A – Done via the annualmunicipal budget process

FloodplainManagement/Basin Plan 2008 Local

Land UseBoard, Zoning,Floodplain

Administrator

Chapter 88 of the Town of ClintonOrdinances

Stormwater ManagementPlan 2008 Local Land Use

Board, EngineerChapter 88 of the Town of ClintonOrdinances

Open Space Plan 2008 LocalLand Use

Board, Planner,Zoning Officer


Stream CorridorManagement Plan No

Watershed Management orProtection Plan No

Economic Development Plan NoComprehensive EmergencyManagement Plan No

Emergency Response Plan Yes Local OEM 2014Post-Disaster Recovery Plan NoTransportation Plan NoStrategic Recovery PlanningReport No

Other Plans: NoRegulatory Capability

Building Code Yes State & Local State Uniform Construction CodeAct (N.J.S. 52:27D-119 et seq.)

Zoning Ordinance 2008 LocalZoning,

Construction,Land Use Board


Subdivision Ordinance 2008 LocalZoning,

Construction,Land Use Board


NFIP Flood DamagePrevention Ordinance Yes Federal, State,

LocalBusiness

Administrator /§88-59 – Flood DamagePrevention



Table 9.6-5. Planning and Regulatory Tools

Tool/Program(code, ordinance, plan)

Do you havethis?

(Yes/No)If Yes, dateof adoptionor update

Authority(local, county,state, federal)

Dept./AgencyResponsible

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

Public WorksAdministrator

NFIP: CumulativeSubstantial Damages No

NFIP: Freeboard Yes State, Local

BusinessAdministrator /Public WorksAdministrator

N.J.A.C 7:13 – Flood Hazard AreaControl Act

Growth ManagementOrdinances Yes Local

BusinessAdministrator /Public WorksAdministrator

§88-60.1

Site Plan ReviewRequirements Yes Local

Zoning,Construction,Land Use Board


Stormwater ManagementOrdinance 2005 Local

Zoning,Construction,Land Use Board


Municipal Separate StormSewer System (MS4) 2005 Local Chapter 112 (Sewers)

Natural Hazard Ordinance NoPost-Disaster RecoveryOrdinance No

Real Estate DisclosureRequirement Yes State

Division ofConsumerAffairs

N.J.A.C. 13:45A-29.1

Other [Special PurposeOrdinances (i.e., sensitiveareas, steep slope)]

Yes Chapter 79 (Fire Zones)

Administrative and Technical Capability

The table below summarizes potential staff and personnel resources available to the Town of Clinton.

Table 9.6-6. Administrative and Technical Capabilities

Resources

Is this inplace?(Yes or

No) Department/Agency/Position

Administrative CapabilityPlanning Board Yes Land Use BoardMitigation Planning Committee NoEnvironmental Board/Commission Yes Volunteer Environmental CommissionOpen Space Board/Committee NoEconomic Development Commission/Committee NoMaintenance Programs to Reduce Risk Yes Done via our insurance company and risk manager



Table 9.6-6. Administrative and Technical Capabilities

Resources

Is this inplace?(Yes or

No) Department/Agency/Position

Mutual Aid Agreements Yes Various with Hunterdon CountyTechnical/Staffing CapabilityPlanner(s) or Engineer(s) with knowledge of landdevelopment and land management practices Yes Municipal Engineer and Planner, Zoning Officer, Land

Use BoardEngineer(s) or Professional(s) trained in constructionpractices related to buildings and/or infrastructure No

Planners or engineers with an understanding of naturalhazards No

NFIP Floodplain Administrator Yes AdministrationSurveyor(s) Yes Municipal EngineerPersonnel skilled or trained in GIS and/or Hazus-MHapplications Yes Municipal Engineers

Scientist familiar with natural hazards NoEmergency Manager Yes Chief of PoliceGrant Writer(s) NoStaff with expertise or training in benefit/cost analysis NoProfessionals trained in conducting damage assessments No

Fiscal Capability

The table below summarizes financial resources available to the Town of Clinton.

Table 9.6-7. Fiscal Capabilities

Financial ResourcesAccessible or Eligible to Use

(Yes/No/Don’t Know)

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG, CDBG-DR) Don’t KnowCapital Improvements Project Funding YesAuthority to levy taxes for specific purposes YesUser fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes (Water and Sewer only)Impact Fees for homebuyers or developers of new development/homes YesStormwater Utility Fee NoIncur debt through general obligation bonds YesIncur debt through special tax bonds YesIncur debt through private activity bonds NoWithhold public expenditures in hazard-prone areas NoOther Federal or State Funding Programs No

Open Space Acquisition Funding Programs Yes (Via The Hunterdon County OpenSpace Tax)

Other N/A

Education/Outreach and Community Classifications

The table below summarizes education/outreach programs the community participates in and the classificationsfor community program available to the Town of Clinton.



Table 9.6-8. Education/Outreach and Community Classifications

Program

Do youhave/participatein this? (Yes/No)

Classification(if applicable)

Date Classified(if applicable)

Community Rating System (CRS) No NP N/ABuilding Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule(BCEGS) No

Public Protection (ISO Fire Protection Classes 1 to10) No

Storm Ready No NP N/AFirewise No NP N/ADisaster/Safety Programs in/for Schools TBD TBD TBDOrganizations with Mitigation Focus (advocacygroup, non-government) TBD TBD TBD

Public Education Program/Outreach (throughwebsite, social media) TBD TBD TBD

Public-Private Partnerships TBD TBD TBDN/A = Not Applicable. NP = Not Participating. -= Unavailable. TBD = To Be Determined.

The classifications listed above relate to the community’s ability to provide effective services to lessen itsvulnerability to the hazards identified. These classifications can be viewed as a gauge of the community’scapabilities in all phases of emergency management (preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation) and areused as an underwriting parameter for determining the costs of various forms of insurance. The CommunityRating 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 rangeon a scale of 1 to 10 with class 1 being the best possible classification, and class 10 representing no classificationbenefit. Firewise classifications include a higher classification when the subject property is located beyond 1,000feet of a creditable fire hydrant and is within five road miles of a recognized fire station.

Criteria for classification credits are outlined in the following documents:

The Community Rating System Coordinators Manual The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule The ISO Mitigation online ISO’s Public Protection website at http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc-

program.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 Clinton’s capability to work in a hazard-mitigation capacity and/or effectively implement hazard mitigation strategies to reduce hazard vulnerabilities.



Table 9.6-9. Self-Assessment of Capability

Area

Degree of Hazard Mitigation Capability

Limited

(If limited, what are

your obstacles?) Moderate High

Planning and Regulatory Capability XAdministrative and Technical Capability XFiscal Capability XCommunity Political Capability X

Community Resiliency Capability XCapability to Integrate Mitigation into MunicipalProcesses and Activities X

National Flood Insurance Program

NFIP Floodplain Administrator (FPA)

Richard Phelan, Business Administrator

Flood Vulnerability Summary

The Town does not maintain lists or inventories of properties that have been damaged by floods. In recentstorms, the properties that have been damaged are primarily residential properties that are located within thefloodplain. The FPA does not make Substantial Damage estimates and none were conducted during recentflooding events. There is currently no interest in mitigation (acquisition or elevation) within the Town.

Resources

The FPA is the sole person assuming the roles and responsibilities of floodplain administration for the Town.However, he does receive assistance from the zoning officer as needed. Duties of the FPA include providingfeedback when requested to the Land Use Board and/or property owners seeking to make improvements toproperties located in the floodplain. Currently, the Town does not provide any outreach or education regardingflood hazards/risk or flood risk reduction. The FPA indicated that there are barriers to running an effectivefloodplain management program which includes staffing and funding. He also indicated that he does not feeladequately supported or training to fulfill the role as the municipal floodplain administrator. The FPA wouldconsider attending continuing education and/or trainings on floodplain management if offered.

Compliance History

The Town of Clinton is currently in good standing with then NFIP; however, the FPA indicated he is unawareof when the most recent compliance audit was conducted.

Regulatory

The Town's flood damage prevention ordinances meets the minimum set forth by FEMA and the State of NewJersey. The Town does not have any local ordinances, plans or programs that support floodplain managementnor has the Town considered joining CRS.

Community Rating System

The Town of Clinton does not participate in the Community Rating System (CRS) program.



Integration of Hazard Mitigation into Existing and Future Planning Mechanisms

The 2008 Town of Clinton Master Plan guides all areas of community development in the Town including landuse, utilities, parks and open space, infrastructure, circulation, utilities among others. The Master Planestablishes goals and objectives, identifies existing conditions throughout the Town and outlines strategies forimproved community health, safety, and quality of life. These improvements include many recommendationsthat enhance hazard mitigation efforts including the protection of environmental resources and their associatedbenefits (e.g. flood protection, air filtration, water filtration etc.), enhancements to public safety, improvedcirculation and the reliable provision of essential services (e.g. wastewater treatment, stormwater management,public utilities, police and fire protection).

The Town of Clinton is located in the New Jersey Highlands Region and is located within both the HighlandsPreservation Area and Highlands Planning Area. As such, the Town is one of 88 municipalities protected byand subject to the provisions of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act that protects, enhances andrestores Highland’s natural resources. The goals of the Highlands Master Plan include to protect, restore andenhance the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater, to preserve extensive and contiguous areas of landin its natural state, to protect the natural, scenic and other resources of the Town, to preserve farmland, historicsites and other historic resources, to preserve outdoor recreation opportunities in publicly owned land, to promoteconservation of water resources, to promote brownfield remediation and redevelopment, to promote compatibleagricultural, horticultural, recreational and cultural uses and opportunities, and to prohibit construction ordevelopment which is incompatible with the preservation of this unique area.

The Highlands Act requires that future land use in the Highlands Region be guided by the Regional MasterPlan’s Land Use Capability Map (LUCM) Series which includes tools to identify and protect the natural, scenicand other resources of the region. In supporting and complying with the Highlands Act, the Town enactedamendments and updates to local zoning and development ordinances that ensure the protection of importantresources and areas. The Highlands Act creates three primary zones: a Protection Zone, a Conservation Zoneand an Existing Community Zone. Protection Zones are areas with the highest quality resources with extremelimitations on allowable development while Conservation Zones have significant agricultural lands andassociated woodlands and environmental features with allowable development consisting primarily ofagricultural uses. Existing Community Zones consist of areas of concentrated development with limitedenvironmental constraints. These zones are overlaid with existing local zoning maps to identify and addressissues of public interest including watershed management, open space preservation, historic preservation, floodprotection among others.

Numerous additional geographic areas of importance and related objectives were identified through anEnvironmental Resource Inventory. Areas of importance were delineated to protect specific forest resources,open water and riparian areas, steep slopes, critical habitats, agricultural areas, water resources, lake managementareas and prime groundwater recharge areas. The Town’s Master Plan Element also recommends the utilizationof development practices that limit or prevent negative impacts to the environment including an inventory ofcontaminated sites to identify areas with potential negative impacts on important resources, promotion of clusterdevelopment to protect open spaces and natural areas, and utility and infrastructure planning among others. TheEnvironmental Resource Inventory and Highlands Master Plan Element together help the Town to guide landuseand development to protect critical resources and ensure they continue to provide services to the community.These services include potential hazardmitigation improvements through water filtration, flood protection, shadeand cooling, clean drinking water among many others.



Regulatory and Enforcement (Ordinances)

The Town has multiple codes and ordinances pertaining to the mitigation of hazards. These ordinances includethe establishment of an Environmental Commission, Board of Health, Board of Recreation, Land Use Ordinance,Zoning Ordinance, Construction Code, and Fire Code. The municipal Code and ordinances are available on theTown website: http://www.clintonnj.gov/

In addition, the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act provides additional regulatory control overdevelopment within the Town. While Major Highlands Development projects, as defined by the Highlands Act,still require local approvals, they must first receive a Highlands Resource Applicability Determination and beevaluated for consistency with the provisions of the Highlands Act. Major Highlands Development projectsinclude a variety of projects such as any non-residential development, any residential development that disturbsone or more acres of land, and any development that disturbs ¼ acres of more of forest among others. Thisprocess identifies any potential Highlands Resources on the site and if found requires adherence to relevantdevelopment standards and restrictions.

Operational and Administration

The Town has established Land Use Board, Zoning Board, Board of Health, Board of Recreation, EnvironmentalCommission, Historic Preservation Commission, and Shade Tree Commission that support land use decisions,public health and safety and assure compliance with regulations, ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.

Funding

The Town’s operating budget contains minimal provisions for expected repairs like snow removal andinfrastructure repair after a storm or natural disaster. While the Town currently does not have line item provisionsfor mitigation project funding in its budget (neither under general allocations nor capital improvement spending),it has allocated funding previously towards mitigation projects.

Education and Outreach

The Town’s website posts information regarding upcoming community events and important municipaldecisions. Information includes news and events related to safety and hazard mitigation including fire safetytips, advisories and alerts, stormwater management guidelines, link to weather updates, local emergency contactinformation and a dedicated First Aid & Rescue Squad webpage. The First Aid & Rescue Squad webpageprovides detailed information on local emergency response capabilities, training, events, and other relevantemergency response information.

A screenshot of the Town OEM webpage is provided below:



Figure 9.6-1. Town of Clinton OEM Webpage

9.6.6 MITIGATION STRATEGY AND PRIORITIZATION

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

Past Mitigation Initiative Status

The following table indicates progress on the community’s mitigation strategy identified in the 2011 Plan.Actions that are carried forward as part of this plan update are included in the following subsection in its owntable with prioritization. Previous actions that are now on-going programs and capabilities are indicated as suchin the following table and may also be found under ‘Capability Assessment’ presented previously in this annex.



Table 9.6-10. Past Mitigation Initiative Status

2011 Mitigation ActionResponsibleParty

Status(Inprogress,Noprogress,Complete)

Describe Status1. Please describe what was

accomplished and indicate %complete.

2. If there was no progress, indicatewhat obstacles/delaysencountered?

3. If there was progress, how is/wasthe action being funded (e.g., FEMAHMGP grant, local budget)?

Next Step(Include in2016 HMP? orDiscontinue)

Describe Next Step1. If including action in the

2016 HMP, revise/rewordto be more specific (asappropriate).

2. If discontinue, explain why.

Elevation of three RepetitiveLoss properties on LeighStreet.

OEMCoordinator

No Progress 1. 0% Complete2. Budget constraints on owners of theproperties in question3. No funding secured.

Include in 2016HMP

Elevation of three RepetitiveLoss properties on Leigh Street abovethe base flood elevation.

Elevation of one RepetitiveLoss property on Main Street.

OEMCoordinator

No Progress 1. 0% Complete2. Budget constraints on owners of theproperties in question3. No funding secured.

Include in 2016HMP

Elevation of one Repetitive Lossproperty on Main Street above thebase flood elevation.

Elevation of one RepetitiveLoss property on HalsteadStreet.

OEMCoordinator

Complete 1. 100% complete2. No delays.3. Property owner secured funding via theirinsurance company to elevate the propertyabove the base flood elevation

Discontinue Work completed. No longer need toinclude on the HMP.

Upgrade and improvestormwater managementsystem at Beaver Brook Basin.

MunicipalEngineer

No Progress 1. 0% Complete2. No progress made.3. No funding secured

Include in 2016HMP

Upgrade and improve stormwatermanagement system at Beaver BrookBasin to reduce flooding.

Waterproofing of basementarea of the older portion of theMunicipal Complex located at43 Leigh Street.

MunicipalEngineer

No Progress 1. 0% Complete2. Budget constraints by the Town of Clinton3. No funding secured.

Include in 2016HMP

Waterproofing of basement area of theolder portion of the MunicipalComplex located at 43 Leigh Street tominimize flood damage.

Water proofing utilities in thebasement of property located at47 Leigh Street.

MunicipalEngineer

No Progress 1. 0% Complete2. Budget constraints by the Town of Clinton3. No funding secured.

Include in 2016HMP

Waterproofing of basement area of theolder portion of the MunicipalComplex located at 43 Leigh Street tominimize flood damage.



2011 Mitigation ActionResponsibleParty

Status(Inprogress,Noprogress,Complete)

Describe Status1. Please describe what was

accomplished and indicate %complete.

2. If there was no progress, indicatewhat obstacles/delaysencountered?

3. If there was progress, how is/wasthe action being funded (e.g., FEMAHMGP grant, local budget)?

Next Step(Include in2016 HMP? orDiscontinue)

Describe Next Step1. If including action in the

2016 HMP, revise/rewordto be more specific (asappropriate).

2. If discontinue, explain why.Backup generator for shelter atthe Clinton Public Schoollocated on School Street.

OEMCoordinator

No Progress 1. 0% Complete2. Budget constraints by the Clinton PublicSchool District3. No funding secured.

Include in 2016HMP

Provide backup generator for shelterat the Clinton Public School locatedon School Street.

Backup generator for policecommunication and alternateEmergency Operation Centerwithin the Municipal Complexlocated on Leigh Street.

OEMCoordinator

Complete 1. 100 % Complete. Purchased a small,portable generator and manual transferswitch that will power the building at 47Leigh Street. In the event of a power outage,all operations would be moved to thislocation.2. N/A3. Funded via the municipal budget.

Discontinue Work completed. No longer need toinclude on the HMP.

Conduct all‐hazards publiceducation and outreachprogram for hazard mitigationand preparedness.

OEMCoordinator,incoordinationwith HCOEM

In Progress 1. On-going process.2. N/A3. Funded via the municipal budget.

Include in 2016HMP

On-going process to conduct all‐hazards public education and outreachprogram for hazard mitigation andpreparedness.



Completed Mitigation Initiatives not Identified in the Previous Mitigation Strategy

The Town has identified the following mitigation projects/activities that have also been completed but were notidentified in the previous mitigation strategy in the 2011 Plan:

None noted

Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives for the Plan Update

The Town participated in a mitigation action workshop in April 2015 and was provided the following FEMApublications to use as a resource as part of their comprehensive review of all possible activities and mitigationmeasures to address their hazards: FEMA 551 ‘Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for FloodproneStructures’ (March 2007) and FEMA ‘Mitigation Ideas – A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards’(January 2013). In May 2015, the County hosted a second workshop led by FEMA Region 2 and NJOEM andwas provided the results to the risk assessment to further assist with the identification of mitigation actions.

Table 9.6-11 summarizes the comprehensive-range of specific mitigation initiatives the Town would like topursue in the future to reduce the effects of hazards. Some of these initiatives may be previous actions carriedforward for this plan update. These initiatives are dependent upon available funding (grants and local matchavailability) and may be modified or omitted at any time based on the occurrence of new hazard events andchanges in municipal priorities. Both the four FEMA mitigation action categories and the six CRS mitigationaction categories are listed in the table below to further demonstrate the wide-range of activities and mitigationmeasures selected.

As discussed in Section 6, fourteen evaluation/prioritization criteria are used to complete the prioritization ofmitigation initiatives. For each new mitigation action, a numeric rank is assigned (-1, 0, or 1) for each of the 14evaluation criteria to assist with prioritizing your actions as ‘High,’ ‘Medium,’ or ‘Low.’ The table belowsummarizes the evaluation of each mitigation initiative, listed by Action Number.

Table 9.6-12 provides a summary of the prioritization of all proposed mitigation initiatives for the Plan update.



Table 9.6-11. Proposed Hazard Mitigation InitiativesIn

itia

tiv

e

Mitigation Initiative

Applies toNew

and/orExisting

Structures*Hazard(s)Mitigated Goals Met

Lead andSupportAgencies

EstimatedBenefits

EstimatedCost

Sources ofFunding Timeline Priority

Mit

iga

tio

nC

ate

go

ry

CR

SC

ate

go

ry

Clinton-1

Secure funding to elevatethree repetitive lossproperties on Leigh Street toabove the base floodelevation.

Existing

Flood,SevereWeather,Hurricane,Nor’easter

1, 2, 3, 5 OEMCoordinator High High

FEMAHMGP,PDM, andFMA;

NJOEM;County

Short, DOF Medium SIP PP,PR

Clinton-2

Secure funding to elevateone repetitive loss propertyon Main Street to above thebase flood elevation.

Existing


1, 2, 3, 5 OEMCoordinator High High


NJOEM;County


Clinton-3

Upgrade and improvestormwater managementsystem at Beaver BrookBasin to reduce flooding.

Existing


1, 2, 5, 6 MunicipalEngineer High High


NJOEM;County


Clinton-4

Secure funding towaterproof the basementarea and utilities of the olderportion of the MunicipalComplex, located at 43Leigh Street, to minimizeflood damage.

Existing


1, 2, 5, 6 MunicipalEngineer High High


NJOEM;County

Short, DOF Medium SIPPP,PR,ES

Clinton-5

Secure funding to providebackup generator for theshelter at the Clinton PublicSchool located on schoolstreet.

Existing All 1, 2, 6

OEMCoordinator,Clinton

Public School

High High


NJOEM;County;ClintonPublicSchoolDistrictBudget

Short, DOF High SIPPP,PR,ES

Clinton-6

Conduct all‐hazards publiceducation and outreachprogram for hazardmitigation and preparedness.

N/A All AllOEM

Coordinator,HCOEM

High Low MunicipalBudget Ongoing High EAP PI

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:CRS Community Rating SystemDPW Department of Public WorksFEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFPA Floodplain AdministratorHMA Hazard Mitigation AssistanceN/A Not applicableNFIP National Flood Insurance ProgramNJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionNJOEM New Jersey Office of Emergency ManagementOEM Office of Emergency Management

Potential FEMA HMA Funding Sources:FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant ProgramHMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant ProgramPDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant ProgramHMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program

Timeline:Short 1 to 5 yearsLong Term 5 years or greaterOG On-going programDOF Depending on funding

Costs: Benefits:Where actual project costs have been reasonably estimated:Low < $10,000Medium $10,000 to $100,000High > $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 theproject 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 notadequate 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= < $10,000Medium $10,000 to $100,000High > $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 riskexposure to property.

High Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure tolife 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 responseservices, and the protection of essential facilities



Table 9.6-12. Summary of Prioritization of Actions

MitigationAction/Project

NumberMitigation

Action/Initiative Lif

eS

afe

ty

Pro

pe

rty

Pro

tect

ion

Co

st-

Eff

ect

ive

ne

ss

Te

chn

ica

l

Po

liti

cal

Le

ga

l

Fis

cal

En

vir

on

me

nta

l

So

cia

l

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

Mu

lti-

Ha

zard

Tim

eli

ne

Ag

en

cyC

ha

mp

ion

Oth

er

Co

mm

un

ity

To

tal

High/Medium/Low

Clinton-1

Secure funding toelevate three repetitiveloss properties onLeigh Street to abovethe base floodelevation.

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

Clinton-2

Secure funding toelevate one repetitiveloss property on MainStreet to above thebase flood elevation.

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

Clinton-3

Upgrade and improvestormwatermanagement system atBeaver Brook Basinto reduce flooding.

1 1 1 -1 0 1 -1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 Medium

Clinton-4

Secure funding towaterproof thebasement area andutilities of the olderportion of theMunicipal Complex,located at 43 LeighStreet, to minimizeflood damage.

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

Clinton-5

Secure funding toprovide backupgenerator for theshelter at the ClintonPublic School locatedon school street.

1 1 1 0 1 1 -1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 9 High

Clinton-6

Conduct all‐hazardspublic education andoutreach program forhazard mitigation andpreparedness.

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 -1 1 0 0 1 8 High

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



9.6.7 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY

None at this time.

9.6.8 HAZARD AREA EXTENT AND LOCATION

Hazard area extent and location maps have been generated for the Town of Clinton that illustrate the probableareas impacted within the municipality. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of thepreparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. Maps have only been generatedfor those hazards that can be clearly identified using mapping techniques and technologies, and for which theTown of Clinton has significant exposure. These maps are illustrated in the hazard profiles within Section 5.4,Volume I of this Plan.

9.6.9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

None at this time.



Figure 9.6-2. Town of Clinton Hazard Area Extent and Location Map 1



Figure 9.6-3. Town of Clinton Hazard Area Extent and Location Map 2



Action Number: Clinton-1Mitigation Action/Initiative: Secure funding to elevate three repetitive loss properties on Leigh Street to

above the base flood elevation.

Assessing the Risk

Hazard(s) addressed: Flood, Severe Weather, Hurricane, Nor’easter

Specific problem beingmitigated:

Repetitive loss properties on Leigh Street

Evaluation of Potential Actions/Projects

Actions/Projects Considered(name of project and reasonfor not selecting):

1. Acquire and demolish repetitive loss properties – Residents have to move

2. Elevate repetitive loss properties – selected action

3. Do nothing – vulnerability continues

Action/Project Intended for Implementation

Description of SelectedAction/Project

Secure funding to elevate three repetitive loss properties on Leigh Street toabove the base flood elevation.

Action/Project Category SIP

Goals/Objectives Met 1, 2, 3, 5

Applies to existing and/or newdevelopment; or not applicable

Existing

Benefits (losses avoided) High

Estimated Cost High

Priority* Medium

Plan for Implementation

Responsible/LeadAgency/Department

OEM Coordinator

Local Planning Mechanism

Potential Funding Sources FEMA HMGP, PDM, and FMA; NJOEM; County

Timeline for Completion Short, Dependent on Funding

Reporting on Progress

Date of Status Report/Report of Progress

Date:Progress on Action/Project:



Action Number: Clinton-1Mitigation Action/Initiative: Secure funding to elevate three repetitive loss properties on Leigh Street to above the

base flood elevation.

Criteria

NumericRank

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

Life Safety 1

Property Protection 1 Property above floodplain BFE

Cost-Effectiveness 1

Technical 0

Political 0

Legal 1

Fiscal -1 Requires outside funding

Environmental 1

Social 1

Administrative 0

Multi-Hazard 1 Flood, Severe Weather, Hurricane, Nor’easter

Timeline 1 Short, DOF

Local Champion 0Other CommunityObjectives 0

Total 7Priority(High/Med/Low) Medium



Action Number: Clinton-2Mitigation Action/Initiative: Secure funding to elevate one repetitive loss property on Main Street to above

the base flood elevation.

Assessing the Risk



Repetitive loss property on Main Street



1. Acquire and demolish repetitive loss property – Residents have to move

2. Elevate repetitive loss property – selected action




Secure funding to elevate one repetitive loss property on Main Street to abovethe base flood elevation.




Existing


Estimated Cost High

Priority* Medium



OEM Coordinator









Action Number: Clinton-2Mitigation Action/Initiative: Secure funding to elevate one repetitive loss property on Main Street to above the

base flood elevation.

Criteria

NumericRank


Life Safety 1

Property Protection 1 Property above floodplain BFE


Technical 0

Political 0

Legal 1


Environmental 1

Social 1

Administrative 0







Action Number: Clinton-3Mitigation Action/Initiative: Upgrade and improve stormwater management system at Beaver Brook Basin to

reduce flooding.

Assessing the Risk



Stormwater issues at Beaver Brook Basin



1. Upgrade and improve existing stormwater management system – selectedaction

2. Do nothing – vulnerability continues and potentially worsens

3.



Upgrade and improve stormwater management system at Beaver Brook Basin toreduce flooding.




Existing


Estimated Cost High

Priority* Medium



Municipal Engineer









Action Number: Clinton-3Mitigation Action/Initiative: Upgrade and improve stormwater management system at Beaver Brook Basin to

reduce flooding.

Criteria

NumericRank


Life Safety 1

Property Protection 1


Technical -1 May require additional assistance in determining necessary capacities andimprovements

Political 0

Legal 1


Environmental 1 Strengthen local natural functions, enhance drainage

Social 1

Administrative 0







Action Number: Clinton-4Mitigation Action/Initiative: Secure funding to waterproof the basement area and utilities of the older portion

of the Municipal Complex, located at 43 Leigh Street, to minimize flooddamage.

Assessing the Risk



Flood vulnerability (especially in basement and with utilities) of the olderportion of the Municipal Complex; could also impact government’s ability tooperate during some hazard events.



1. Waterproof the basement and older portion of Municipal Complex –selected action

2. Build new Municipal Complex sections – too expensive compared toalternative option




Secure funding to waterproof the basement area and utilities of the older portionof the Municipal Complex, located at 43 Leigh Street, to minimize flooddamage.




Existing


Estimated Cost High

Priority* Medium



Municipal Engineer









Action Number: Clinton-4Mitigation Action/Initiative: Secure funding to waterproof the basement area and utilities of the older portion of

the Municipal Complex, located at 43 Leigh Street, to minimize flood damage.

Criteria

NumericRank


Life Safety 1 Ensure government continuity of operations

Property Protection 1 Protect Municipal Complex from flood damage


Technical 0

Political 1

Legal 1


Environmental 0

Social 1

Administrative 0







Action Number: Clinton-5Mitigation Action/Initiative: Secure funding to provide backup generator for the shelter at the Clinton Public

School located on school street.

Assessing the Risk

Hazard(s) addressed: All Hazards Requiring Shelter Activation


Local shelter does not have backup power. This could cause problems if there isa power outage during shelter evacuation.



1. Install backup generator – selected action

2. Select another location as shelter – may still need backup generator




Secure funding to provide backup generator for the shelter at the Clinton PublicSchool located on school street.


Goals/Objectives Met 1, 2, 6


Existing


Estimated Cost High

Priority* High



OEM Coordinator, Clinton Public School District


Potential Funding SourcesFEMA HMGP, PDM, and FMA; NJOEM; County; Clinton Public SchoolDistrict Budget

Timeline for Completion Short, Dependent on funding






Action Number: Clinton-5Mitigation Action/Initiative: Secure funding to provide backup generator for the shelter at the Clinton Public

School located on school street.

Criteria

NumericRank


Life Safety 1 Ensures residents’ safety in shelter

Property Protection 1


Technical 0

Political 1

Legal 1


Environmental 0

Social 1

Administrative 1

Multi-Hazard 1 All Hazards


Local Champion 0Other CommunityObjectives 1 Also enhances local school district functionality

Total 9Priority(High/Med/Low) High

9.6 town of clinton · 2018-12-12 · section 9.6: town of clinton dma 2000 hazard mitigation plan...

Documents