Mitigation Plan - Clinton County Government

Transcription

Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Prepared for:
Clinton County Department of Emergency
Services
22 Cree Drive
Lock Haven, PA 17745
Prepared by:
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
1818 Market Street, Suite 3110
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130
Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Table of Contents
Table of Tables ................................................................. v
Table of Figures ............................................................. vii
1. Introduction ............................................................... 1
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
2.
Background .................................................................................. 1
Purpose......................................................................................... 1
Scope ............................................................................................ 2
Authority and References ........................................................... 2
Community Profile .................................................... 3
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
3.
Geography and Environment ...................................................... 3
Community Facts ......................................................................... 6
Population and Demographics ................................................... 6
Land Use and Development ........................................................ 8
Data Sources and Limitations .................................................. 13
Planning Process ................................................... 15
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
4.
Update Process and Participation Summary .......................... 15
The Planning Team .................................................................... 20
Meetings and Documentation ................................................... 23
Public & Stakeholder Participation .......................................... 24
Multi-Jurisdictional Planning .................................................... 25
Existing Planning Mechanisms ................................................ 26
Risk Assessment .................................................... 27
4.1.
4.2.
4.2.1.
4.2.2.
Update Process Summary ........................................................ 27
Hazard Identification .................................................................. 28
Table of Presidential Disaster Declarations .......................................... 28
Summary of Hazards ............................................................................... 31
4.3. Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability Analysis ............................. 36
NATURAL HAZARDS ............................................................................ 36
4.3.1. Drought..................................................................................................... 36
4.3.1.1. Location and Extent ............................................................................. 36
4.3.1.2. Range of Magnitude ............................................................................. 38
4.3.1.3. Past Occurrence .................................................................................. 42
i
4.3.1.4. Future Occurrence ............................................................................... 47
4.3.1.5. Vulnerability Assessment ..................................................................... 49
4.3.2. Flood, Flash Flood and Ice Jam ............................................................. 50
4.3.2.3. Past Occurrence .................................................................................. 61
4.3.3. Hurricane, Tropical Storm, Nor’ easter .................................................. 74
4.3.3.3. Past Occurrence .................................................................................. 78
4.3.4. Landslide .................................................................................................. 82
4.3.4.3. Past Occurrence .................................................................................. 85
4.3.5. Tornado, Windstorm................................................................................ 89
4.3.5.3. Past Occurrence .................................................................................. 91
4.3.6. Wildfire ..................................................................................................... 98
4.3.6.2. Range of Magnitude ........................................................................... 101
4.3.6.3. Past Occurrence ................................................................................ 101
4.3.6.4. Future Occurrence ............................................................................. 104
4.3.6.5. Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................... 105
4.3.7. Winter Storm .......................................................................................... 105
4.3.7.1. Location and Extent ........................................................................... 105
4.3.7.3. Past Occurrence ................................................................................ 108
HUMAN-MADE HAZARDS ................................................................... 114
4.3.8. Dam Failure ............................................................................................ 114
4.3.8.3. Past Occurrence ................................................................................ 114
ii
4.3.9. Environmental Hazard ........................................................................... 114
4.3.9.3. Past Occurrence ................................................................................ 126
4.3.10. Levee Failure ........................................................................................ 140
4.3.10.1. Location and Extent ......................................................................... 140
4.3.10.2. Range of Magnitude ......................................................................... 143
4.3.10.3. Past Occurrence .............................................................................. 143
4.3.10.4. Future Occurrence ........................................................................... 143
4.3.10.5. Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................. 144
4.3.11. Transportation Accidents .................................................................... 146
4.3.11.1. Location and Extent ......................................................................... 146
4.3.11.2. Range of Magnitude ......................................................................... 149
4.3.11.3. Past Occurrence .............................................................................. 150
4.3.11.4. Future Occurrence ........................................................................... 151
4.3.11.5. Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................. 151
4.4.
Hazard Vulnerability Summary ............................................... 155
4.4.1.
4.4.2.
4.4.3.
4.4.4.
5.
Methodology .......................................................................................... 155
Ranking Results .................................................................................... 157
Potential Loss Estimates ...................................................................... 160
Future Development and Vulnerability ................................................ 164
Capability Assessment ........................................ 166
5.1.
5.2.
Update Process Summary ...................................................... 166
Capability Assessment Findings ............................................ 167
5.2.1.
5.2.2.
5.2.3.
5.2.4.
5.2.5.
5.2.6.
5.2.7.
5.2.8.
6.
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
Emergency Management ...................................................................... 167
Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) ......... 170
Planning and Regulatory Capability .................................................... 171
Administrative and Technical Capability ............................................. 174
Fiscal Capability .................................................................................... 175
Political Capability ................................................................................. 176
Self-Assessment .................................................................................... 176
Existing Limitations............................................................................... 177
Mitigation Strategy ............................................... 178
Mitigation Goals and Objectives ............................................ 196
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Techniques .......... 200
iii
6.4.
7.
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
8.
9.
Mitigation Action Plan ............................................................. 201
Plan Maintenance ................................................. 237
Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan ..................... 237
Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ................... 238
Continued Public Involvement ............................................... 239
Plan Adoption ....................................................... 240
Appendices ........................................................... 243
iv
Table of Tables
Table 2.3-1: List of municipalities in Clinton County with associated populations (US Census). .. 7
Table 3.1-1: Summary of participation from local municipalities during the 2011 Hazard
Mitigation Planning Process. ....................................................................................................... 17
Table 3.1-2: Summary of changes to the format of the 2006 and 2011 versions of the Clinton
County HMP................................................................................................................................ 20
Table 3.2-1: Stakeholders who participated in the 2011 Plan Update. ....................................... 21
Table 3.2-2: Jurisdictional Representatives to Assist with Plan Implementation and Updates. .. 23
Table 4.2-1: Presidential Disaster and Emergency Declarations affecting Clinton County......... 28
Table 4.2-2:Clinton County Gubernatorial Disaster Declarations or Proclamations ................... 29
Table 4.2-3: Clinton County Disaster Events Receiving Small Business Administration Loan
Assistance................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 4.2-4: Hazards identified in the 2011 Clinton County Hazard Mitigation Plan and their
respective definitions. ................................................................................................................. 32
Table 4.3.1-1: Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI) classifications (NDMC, 2009). ............... 38
Table 4.3.1-2 Precipitation deficit drought indicators for Pennsylvania (DEP, 2007). ................. 40
Table 4.3.1-3 History of drought in Clinton County ..................................................................... 42
Table 4.3.1-4 Declared drought status history 1980-1993 in Clinton County.............................. 43
Table 4.3.1-5 Declared drought status history 1995-2011 in Clinton County.............................. 44
Table 4.3.1-6 Summary of PDSI values for periods of two or more months of severe or extreme
drought in the Central Mountains Climate Division (NCDC, 2006). ............................................ 45
Table 4.3.1-7: Number of domestic wells per municipality in Clinton County (PAGWIS, 2011).. 49
Table 4.3.2-1: History of flooding in Clinton County ................................................................... 61
Table 4.3.2-2: Summary of the number and type of Repetitive Loss properties by municipality
(PEMA, 2010). ............................................................................................................................ 65
Table 4.3.2-3: Communities within Clinton County participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program ...................................................................................................................................... 69
Table 4.3.2-4: Recurrence intervals and associated probabilities of occurrence (FEMA, 2001).
.................................................................................................................................................... 70
Table 4.3.2-5: Structure and population vulnerability to floods in Clinton County. ...................... 71
Table 4.3.2-6: Critical Facilities for Clinton County by Type in SFHA.. ...................................... 73
Table 4.3.3-1: Saffir-Simpson Scale categories with associated wind speeds and damages
(NHC, 2009). ............................................................................................................................... 77
Table 4.3.3-2: Annual probability of tropical storm and hurricane strength wind speeds for
(FEMA, 2000).............................................................................................................................. 79
Table 4.3.4-1 Addressable structure and critical facilities in combo-high landslide areas. ......... 87
v
Table 4.3.5-1: Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale) categories with associated wind speeds and
description of damages. .............................................................................................................. 90
Table 4.3.5-2: History of Tornadoes in Clinton County (NCDC and SHELDUS 2010) ............... 94
Table 4.3.6-1: List of wildfire events reported in Clinton County from 2002-2009 (DCNR and
PEIRS, 2011) ............................................................................................................................ 102
Table 4.3.7-1: History of winter storms in Clinton County (NCDC and SHELDUS, 2011) ....... 109
Table 4.3.9-1 Highway-related hazardous material release incident statistics (PHMSA). ........ 127
Table 4.3.9-2 Rail-related hazardous material release incident statistics (PHMSA). ................ 128
Table 4.3.9-3 Air-related hazardous material release incident statistics (PHMSA)................... 128
Table 4.3.9-4 EPA hazardous material facilities within Clinton County, (www.EPA.gov 2011). 136
Table 4.3.9-5: Addressable and Critical Facilities within 1.5 miles of hazardous material sites.
.................................................................................................................................................. 138
Table 4.3.9-6: Addressable and Critical Facilities within 1.5 miles of Marcellus Shale Areas. . 139
Table 4.3.10-1: Clinton County Levee Systems, Locations, and Proximity to Critical Facilities
and Addressable Structures. ..................................................................................................... 145
Table 4.3.11-1: Roadways and intersections along Clinton County prone to transportation
accidents (Clinton County Comprehensive Plan, 2005). .......................................................... 150
Table 4.3.11-2: Structures within vulnerable radii of major highways, rail lines and airports in
Clinton County, (ESRI, 2010; PEMA, 2010; County GIS Department, 2011). (Major Highways
include Interstates, US Highways and State Highways.) .......................................................... 153
Table 4.4-1: Summary of Risk Factor approach used to rank hazard risk. .............................. 156
Table 4.4-2: Ranking of hazard types based on Risk Factor methodology. ............................ 157
Table 4.4-3: Calculated Countywide Risk Factor by hazard and comparative jurisdictional risk
.................................................................................................................................................. 158
Table 5.2-1: Summary of planning tools adopted by each municipality in Clinton County (HMP
Capability Assessment Surveys, 2011; Clinton County Planning Department 2011) ............... 171
X= Falls under Clinton County .................................................................................................. 171
Table 5.2-2: Summary of self-assessment capability responses expressed as a percentage of
responses received. .................................................................................................................. 177
Table 6.1-1: List and review summary of 2006 mitigation strategy goals and objectives. ........ 179
Table 6.1-2: 2006 Mitigation Actions ........................................................................................ 187
Table 6.2-1: 2011 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................. 196
Table 6.3-1: Mitigation techniques used for moderate and high risk hazards in Clinton County.
.................................................................................................................................................. 201
Table 6.4-1: List of 2011 mitigation actions with information including community or communities
affected, action category, hazard addressed, action description, lead agency/department and
general implementation schedule. This table also includes mitigation actions from the previous
2006 plan to be implemented in the 2011 Plan. ........................................................................ 202
vi
Table 6.4-2: List of 2011 mitigation actions that are more preparedness and response orientated
actions....................................................................................................................................... 214
Table 6.4-3: Summary of mitigation action prioritization using PASTEEL methodology for
Actions Listed in Table 6.4-1. .................................................................................................... 219
Table 6.4-4: Summary of mitigation action prioritization using PASTEEL methodology for those
actions that are more preparedness and response oriented. ................................................... 232
Table of Figures
Figure 2.1-1 Base map of Clinton County ..................................................................................... 4
Figure 2.1-2: Watersheds of Clinton County ................................................................................ 5
Figure 2.4-1 Clinton County land use-land cover (County Comprehensive Plan, 2005). ........... 10
Figure 2.4-2: Clinton County future land use (Comprehensive Plan, 2005). ............................. 11
Figure 2.4-3: Central Core Growth Areas as identified in the 2005 Clinton County
Comprehensive Plan................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4.3.1-1: Land cover map of Clinton County from Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2005. 37
Figure 4.3.1-2: Percent of time areas of the United States have PSDI values </= -3 (NIDS,
2010) ........................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 4.3.2-1: Map showing the location of watercourses and flood zones throughout Clinton
County......................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4.3.2-2: Diagram identifying Special Flood Hazard Area, 1% annual chance (100-Year)
floodplain, floodway and flood fringe. .......................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.3.2-3: FIRM Panel 42035C0389D, effective September 2008, showing flood hazard
areas near the City of Lock Haven. ............................................................................................. 54
Figure 4.3.2-4 Flooding as a result of an ice jam, Clinton County 1964. .................................... 57
Figure 4.3.2-5: Flooding as a result of the heavy rain associated with Tropical Depression Ivan
2004. ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 4.3.2-6: Cars being swept away in the Borough of Renovo during the heavy rain
associated with Tropical Depression Ivan in 2004. ..................................................................... 58
Figure 4.3.2-7 Rescuers pulling flood victims to safety during Tropical Depression Ivan 2004. . 59
Figure 4.3.2-8 Flooding from Hurricane Agnes in 1972 in Clinton County. ................................. 60
Figure 4.3.2-9: Flooding in the downtown of Lock Haven during Hurricane Agnes. ................... 60
Figure 4.3.3-1: Design wind speed zones for Clinton County (FEMA, 2009)............................. 76
Figure 4.3.3-2: Seasonal probability of a hurricane or tropical storm affecting Clinton County
(NOAA HRD, 2009). .................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 4.3.4-1: Landslide susceptibility and incidence in Clinton County. ................................. 83
vii
Figure 4.3.4-2: Photos showing damage to a private home (left) and PA Route 51 (right) due to
landslide incidents....................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 4.3.5-1: Tornado activity from 1950-1998. ...................................................................... 92
Figure 4.3.5-2: Tornado activity in Clinton County from 1950-2004. As shown on the map, there
were nine tornadoes which originated in or just outside of Clinton County during this time period.
.................................................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 4.3.5-3: Graph showing the number of tornado events across Pennsylvania by county
between 1950 and November 30, 2009 (NCDC, 2009). ............................................................. 95
Figure 4.3.5-4: Total tornado events per square mile in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania State
Climatologist). ............................................................................................................................. 96
Figure 4.3.5-5: Wind events per square mile in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania State
Climatologist). ............................................................................................................................. 97
Figure 4.3.6-1: Wildfire origins throughout Clinton County. ....................................................... 99
Figure 4.3.6-2: Map of municipalities within Clinton County and their risk to wildfire............... 100
Figure 4.3.6-3: Breakdown of Pennsylvania State Forest Districts, Department of Natural
Resources. ................................................................................................................................ 104
Figure 4.3.7-1: Mean annual snowfall for Pennsylvania and Clinton County (NOAA-NWSFO).
.................................................................................................................................................. 107
Figure 4.3.9-1: Distribution of Pennsylvania coals (PADCNR-BTGS, 2008). .......................... 118
Figure 4.3.9-2: Active and Abandoned Coal Mine Sites for Clinton County, PA (PADEP, 2011).
.................................................................................................................................................. 119
Figure 4.3.9-3: Active and abandoned oil and gas well locations throughout Clinton County (PA
DEP, 2011) ............................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 4.3.9-4: Natural gas fire in Hopewell Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania.
Photo from Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 17, 2010. ................................................................ 124
Figure 4.3.10-1: Levee locations throughout Clinton County. .................................................. 142
Figure 4.3.11-1 Basemap showing Clinton County’s transportation network............................ 147
Figure 4.3.11-2: Traffic volume along Clinton County roadways (PennDOT, 2010) ................ 148
Figures 4.3.11-3 and 4: Photos showing the wreckage from the “whiteout,” along Interstate 80.
Photos were taken from Daily Item, a newspaper in Sunbury, Pennsylvania. .......................... 149
Figure 4.4-1: Clinton County parcel assessed values (Clinton County GIS Department, 2011).
.................................................................................................................................................. 161
Figure 4.4-2: FEMA HAZUS Map for Clinton County ............................................................... 163
Figure 4.4-3: Clinton County population change from 2000-2010, (Census 2010). ................. 165
Figure 6.1-1: Table 5.3 From Clinton County’s Previous Hazard Mitigation Plan. ................... 195
viii
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Background
Across the United States, natural and man-made disasters have led to increasing levels of
deaths, injuries, property damage, and interruption of business and government services. The
time, money, and effort needed to recover from these disasters exhausts resources, diverting
attention from important public programs and private agendas. Since 1955 there have been 42
Presidential Disaster Declarations and four Presidential Emergency Declarations in
Pennsylvania, six and three of which have included Clinton County. In addition to these
Presidential Declarations, there have been eleven Gubernatorial Declarations or Proclamations
affecting Clinton County since 1955. The emergency management community, citizens, elected
officials and other stakeholders in Clinton County, Pennsylvania recognize the impact of
disasters on their community and support proactive efforts needed to reduce the impact of
natural and human-made hazards.
Hazard mitigation describes sustained actions taken to prevent or minimize long-term risks to
life and property from hazards and create successive benefits over time. Pre-disaster mitigation
actions are taken in advance of a hazard event and are essential to breaking the disaster cycle
of damage, reconstruction and repeated damage. With careful selection, successful mitigation
actions are cost-effective means of reducing risk of loss over the long-term.
Hazard mitigation planning has the potential to produce long-term and recurring benefits by
breaking the cycle of loss. A core assumption of mitigation is that current dollars invested in
mitigation practices will significantly reduce the demand for future dollars by lessening the
amount needed for recovery, repair, and reconstruction. These mitigation practices will also
enable local residents, businesses, and industries to re-establish themselves in the wake of a
disaster, getting the economy back on track sooner and with less interruption.
Accordingly, the Clinton County Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee (HMSC), composed of
government leaders from Clinton County, in cooperation with the elected officials of the County
and its municipalities, have prepared this Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) update. The Plan is the
result of work by citizens of the County to develop a pre-disaster multi-hazard mitigation plan
that will not only guide the County towards greater disaster resistance, but will also respect the
character and needs of the community.
1.2.
Purpose
The purpose of this All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (HMPU) is:
•
•
•
•
•
To protect life, safety, and property by reducing the potential for future damages and
economic losses that result from natural hazards’;
To qualify for additional grant funding, in both the pre-disaster and the post-disaster
environment;
To qualify for additional credit under the Community Ratings System (CRS);
To speed recovery and redevelopment following future disaster events;
To demonstrate a firm local commitment to hazard mitigation principles; and
1
•
1.3.
To comply with both state and federal legislative requirements for local hazard mitigation
plans.
Scope
The Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan update has been prepared to meet
requirements set forth by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) in order for the County to be eligible for
funding and technical assistance from state and federal hazard mitigation programs. It will be
updated and maintained to address both natural and human-made hazards determined to be of
significant risk to the County and/or its local municipalities. Updates will take place at a
minimum every five years, but they will also take place following significant disaster events.
1.4.
Authority and References
Authority for this plan originates from the following federal sources:
• Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C., Section
322, as amended;
• Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44, Parts 201 and 206;
• Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390, as amended; and
• National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.
Authority for this plan originates from the following Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sources:
• Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code. Title 35, Pa C.S. Section 101;
• Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code of 1968, Act 247 as reenacted and amended
by Act 170 of 1988; and
• Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act of October 4, 1978. P.L. 864, No. 167.
The following FEMA guides and reference documents were used to prepare this document:
• FEMA 386-1: Getting Started. September 2002.
• FEMA 386-2: Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses.
August 2001.
• FEMA 386-3: Developing the Mitigation Plan. April 2003.
• FEMA 386-4: Bringing the Plan to Life. August 2003.
• FEMA 386-5: Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning. May 2007.
• FEMA 386-6: Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into
Hazard Mitigation Planning. May 2005.
• FEMA 386-7: Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning. September 2003.
• FEMA 386-8: Multijurisdictional Mitigation Planning. August 2006.
• FEMA 386-9: Using the Hazard Mitigation Plan to Prepare Successful Mitigation
Projects. August 2008.
• FEMA Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance. July 1, 2008.
• FEMA National Fire Incident Reporting System 5.0: Complete Reference Guide.
January, 2008.
The following PEMA guides and reference documents were used prepare this document:
2
•
•
•
PEMA: Hazard Mitigation Planning Made Easy!
PEMA Mitigation Ideas: Potential Mitigation Measures by Hazard Type; A Mitigation
Planning Tool for Communities. March 6, 2009.
PEMA: Standard Operating Guide. October 9, 2009.
The following additional guidance document produced by the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) was used to update this plan:
• NFPA 1600: Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity
Programs. 2007.
2.
2.1.
Community Profile
Geography and Environment
Clinton County covers approximately 891 square miles (land area) and is located in the northcentral portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Adjacent counties include Potter to the
north, Lycoming to the east, Union to the southeast, Centre to the south, Clearfield to the
southwest, and Cameron to the west.
The northern and western sections of the County are heavily forested and mountainous, while
the southern reaches are characterized by the two prominent valleys – Sugar Valley and Nittany
Valley – located between Bald Eagle Mountain and Nittany Mountain. Approximately 96% of
Clinton County's total land area is undeveloped, with about 94% of this land in forest or
agricultural use.
The West Branch Susquehanna River is the dominant drainage feature for the whole County.
Major tributaries include Kettle Creek, Young Woman's Creek, Hyner Run, Queen's Run,
Chatham Run, McElhattan Creek, Fishing Creek, Bald Eagle Creek, and Beech Creek. Many of
the streams throughout the County qualify as Special Protection Waters according to chapter 93
of the Pennsylvania Code, and most are classified as High Quality-Cold Water Fisheries.
Fourteen waters in the County are Exceptional Value Streams. However, many other waters in
the County have been impaired by Acid Mine Drainage. The watersheds of Clinton County are
displayed in Figure 2.1-2
3
Figure 2.1-1 Base map of Clinton County
4
Figure 2.1-2: Watersheds of Clinton County
5
2.2.
Community Facts
Settlers to this area arrived along the banks of the Susquehanna River in the late 1700s and
created a frontier outpost named Fort Reed at what eventually became the City of Lock Haven.
Abundant natural resources in the area led to the growth of industries such as lumber export,
brick manufacturing, textile mills, and railroad car repair facilities. More recent industries in the
County include the Piper Aircraft Plant and paper product manufacturing. The Pennsylvania
State Government owns about 60% of the land in Clinton County and uses it for logging, gas
wells, and coal mining. The County receives only minimal income from the state use of this land.
Clinton County became the 55th county in the state in 1839, formed from parts of Centre and
Lycoming Counties. Today Clinton County is made up of 29 municipalities, including 21
townships, seven boroughs, and one city. The County Seat is the City of Lock Haven, home to
Lock Haven State University.
The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the County as of October 2010 was 8.9%. Of
those employed in the County, 25.4% work in management/professional occupations, 24.3%
work in sales/office occupations, 20.3% work in production/transportation/material moving
occupations, 18.4% work in service occupations, 10.8% work in
construction/extraction/maintenance/repair occupations, and 0.8% work in
farming/fishing/forestry occupations.
Top employers in the area include Lock Haven State University, Keystone Central School
District, Wal-Mart, First Quality Products (paper goods), Woolrich Woolen Mills, Brodart
Company, Lock Haven Hospital, Jersey Shore Steel, Truck-Lite Company Inc., and Avis
America.
2.3.
Population and Demographics
The population of Clinton County as documented in the 2010 Census was 39,238. This is a
3.5% increase since the last Census update in 2000. The County ranks 57th out of the 67
municipalities in regards to population.
Only one of the 29 municipalities is considered urban. None of the municipalities in the County
have populations over 10,000, and majority of the municipalities have populations under 2,500.
The following table provides a distribution of population per municipality, per Census data.
6
Table 2.3-1: List of municipalities in Clinton County with associated populations (US Census).
Municipalities
2010 Census Population 2000 Census Population Percent Change
Allison Township
193
198
-2.5%
Avis Borough
1,484
1,492
-0.5%
Bald Eagle Township
2,065
1,898
8.8%
Beech Creek Borough
701
717
-2.2%
Beech Creek Township
1,015
1,010
0.5%
Castanea Township
1,185
1,233
-3.9%
Chapman Township
848
993
-14.6%
Colebrook Township
199
179
11.2%
Crawford Township
939
848
10.7%
Dunnstable Township
1,008
945
6.7%
East Keating Township
11
24
-54.2%
Flemington Borough
1,330
1,319
0.8%
Gallagher Township
381
340
12.1%
Greene Township
1,695
1,464
15.8%
Grugan Township
51
52
-1.9%
Lamar Township
2,517
2,450
2.7%
Leidy Township
180
229
-21.4%
Lock Haven City
9,772
9,149
6.8%
Logan Township
817
773
5.7%
Loganton Borough
468
435
7.6%
Mill Hall Borough
1,613
1,568
2.9%
Noyes Township
357
419
-14.8%
Pine Creek Township
3,215
3,184
1.0%
Porter Township
1,460
1,419
2.9%
Renovo Borough
1,228
1,318
-6.8%
South Renovo Borough
439
557
-21.2%
Wayne Township
1,666
1,363
22.2%
West Keating Township
29
42
-31.0%
Woodward Township
2,372
2,296
3.3%
Significant population changes were seen in several municipalities, most notably in East and
West Keating Townships. The largest gain in municipal population was in Wayne Township.
The population increased by 22.2%.
7
About 95.9% of Clinton County's population is White, the remaining 4.1 % being Black or
African American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, and being “Other”. The percentage of
County population that is age 18 and older 79.3%.
Please note that all data related to population came from the recent 2010 Census. The
household information used is from the 2000 Census, because the Decennial Census no longer
collects this type of information. The median household income (in 1999 dollars) in the County is
$31,064 compared to the national average of $41,994, and the family poverty rate for the
County is just slightly lower than the national average at 9.0% compared to 9.2%.
The median value of single-family owner-occupied homes in the County is significantly lower
than the national average at $78,000 compared to $119,600. About 74% of the homes in Clinton
County are single-family, with 14% being multi-family, and 12% being other types of housing
such as mobile homes. As a mecca for hunters and fishermen, the County has a large stock of
seasonal housing, which is vacant most of the year. Eighty percent of the County's housing
stock was built before 1979. Nearly one third of units were built before 1940.
2.4.
Land Use and Development
About 87% (nearly 495,000 acres) of land in the County is forested. There are about 312,000
acres of State Forests and 22,000 acres of State Game Lands in the County.
Most development in the County has historically occurred along the West Branch of the
Susquehanna River and Bald Eagle Creek, stretching from the Borough of Avis, through the
City of Lock Haven, and the Boroughs of Flemington, Mill Hall, and Beech Creek, and several
adjacent townships. This area is historically a logical point for development along the West
Branch of the Susquehanna River, along rail transportation and also PA 150 and now US 220.
However, the recent trend has been for residential and commercial development to move from
the traditional centers out to more remote areas where public utilities and emergency services
become strained.
There were 1,083 total miles of highway in the County in 2008 with 62.1% being PennDOT and
other state and federal highways and 37.9% being local (municipal) highways. Currently, I-80
routes interstate traffic through rural parts of the County which are ill-equipped to deal with the
resulting development pressures. Development along I-80 Interchanges is mostly travel-related,
such as truck stops, restaurants, and motels. If I-99 is constructed through the County, it will
relieve some of these development pressures and provide connectivity to existing population
centers such as the City of Lock Haven.
There were 420 farms (53,166 acres) in the County in 2002 and 537 farms (56,626 acres) in the
County in 2007. This was 9.3% of the land in the County in 2002 and 9.9% in 2007. About 40%
of these farms qualify as very small, 49% as small, 9% as medium, and 2% as large farms.
The next two figures below depict the existing land use and future land use as identified in the
2005 Clinton County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The future areas of growth and
development are: Lamar, Loganton, Lock Haven, Beech Creek, Flemington, Dunstown, Avis,
Woolrich, Renovo and South Renovo.
8
Based on a review of 1990-2000 population change reveals that the development centers of
Avis, Lock Haven, Beech Creek Borough, Flemington Borough and Mill Hall Borough each lost
population during this decade. Population shifted to the suburban townships such as Bald
Eagle, Castanea, Crawford, Dunnstable, Gallagher, Greene, and Wayne, each of which
experienced population increases during the decade from 1990 to 2000.
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that commercial centers are moving to these communities,
for example, along PA 150 between Flemington and Mill Hall in Bald Eagle Township. Much of
the new residential and commercial development is occurring in the townships and the
traditional centers are struggling to maintain housing, commercial and retail activity, and
population. Also, these communities will struggle with providing services for an aging population
that will require specialized housing, medical, and recreational services.
The construction of I-80, along with four interchanges in the County, opened up this area for
transportation access and development activity. Most of the development that has occurred over
the past 30 years has been centered on the interchanges especially the PA 64 interchange
where there is a number of truck stops, motels, and restaurants. With public sewer and water in
this area it is likely there will be more development to service the travelers along I-80, which will
include more motels/hotels, truck stop, convenience stores and truck washes.
It is also likely that the interchange at Route 220 and I-80 in Lamar Township will come under
additional pressure as the I-99 corridor is completed both to the south in Centre County and to
the north in Lycoming County. This interchange and the unimproved section of US 220 in Lamar
Township will very likely come under greater development pressure upon completion of the I-99
corridor. The industrial park (100 acres across from the Clinton County Fairgrounds) will shortly
have sewer capacity. The Clinton County Recreation Authority owns the adjacent golf course
and is not anticipating any expansion beyond their golfing activities. Other potential
development in the Bell Springs area is an expansion of the Amish built storage barn facility.
Another land use consideration that needs to be addressed that was cited in the comprehensive
plan is the Townships that continue to grow, especially those which do not have good public
services including, fire, police, sewer and water. Gallagher Township is a good example. It is a
rural township that is mountainous and heavily wooded. It is located to the north of Lock Haven
and is accessed mainly via PA 664. Over the past decade the Township grew by 127 persons
for a 60 percent growth rate. This is not a big impact in the whole scheme of land use but it may
be the start of trend that could gain momentum elsewhere in the county. The concern here is
that development is reaching into areas not easily serviced by public services. These are
remote areas, yet they are proximate to Lock Haven and other service centers. However, they
do not have public sewer and water and are not easily accessed by fire, police and other
emergency services. It is a trend that needs to be taken into account in planning for future
services in the county.
9
Figure 2.4-1 Clinton County land use-land cover (County Comprehensive Plan, 2005).
10
Figure 2.4-2: Clinton County future land use (Comprehensive Plan, 2005).
11
Figure 2.4-3: Central Core Growth Areas as identified in the 2005 Clinton County Comprehensive Plan.
12
2.5.
Data Sources and Limitations
Data sources used for the Community Profile:
•
•
•
•
Clinton County Comprehensive Plan Update. September 8, 2005. Clinton County
Planning Department et al.
U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2000 data
County Profiles. Accessed January 25, 2011. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania.
Land Use and Growth Management Profile. 2005. PA DCED (new pa.com).
Data sources used for Environmental Hazards:
•
•
•
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2010%20Wells%20Drilled%20by
%20County.htm
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2010PermitDrilledmaps.htm
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/RIG10.htm
Limitations:
In order to assess the vulnerability of different jurisdictions to the hazards, data on past
occurrences of damaging hazard events was gathered. For a number of historic natural-hazard
events, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) database was utilized. NCDC is a division of
the US Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Information on hazard events is compiled by NCDC from data gathered by the National Weather
Service (NWS), another division of NOAA. NCDC then presents it on their website in various
formats. The data used for this plan came the US Storm Events database, which “documents
the occurrence of storms and other significant weather phenomena having sufficient intensity to
cause loss of life, injuries, significant property damage, and/or disruption to commerce” (NOAA,
2006).
When applicable, PEIRS incident data spanning approximately the last 8 years (1/1/2002 6/1/2009) was used in the 2011 plan update. Although PEIRS data proved valuable, primarily in
the human-made hazards section where few records of past occurrences exist, data limitations
exist in that the reporting system is not mandatory. As a result, while PEIRS reports provide
important information on the frequency of past events, because it is a voluntary reporting
system, the number and frequency of events may be under-reported.
Every attempt was made to provide consistency in reported data and in data sources. However,
at the time of this plan update, the US Census Bureau is in the middle of tabulating the results
of the 2010 Decennial Census; at this time, population counts are available at only the
municipal, county, and state level. No population counts exist for Census Tracts or Blocks in
Pennsylvania at this point. As a result, while population change data is reported in this HMP by
municipality from 2000-2010, the calculated population at risk to flooding in Section 4.3.3.5 is
derived from the 2000 Census Block geography. It was important to use the 2000 Block data to
interpolate the population living in the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) because larger
geographies would grossly overestimate risk. As new data from the 2010 Census becomes
available between 2011 and 2013, it will be incorporated into the HMP.
13
Additional information used to complete the risk assessment for this plan was taken from
various government agency and non-government agency sources. Those sources are cited
where appropriate throughout the plan with full references listed in Appendix A –Bibliography.
It should be noted that numerous GIS datasets were obtained from the Pennsylvania Spatial
Data Access (PASDA) website (http://www.pasda.psu.edu/). PASDA is the official public access
geospatial information clearinghouse for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. PASDA was
developed by the Pennsylvania State University as a service to the citizens, governments, and
businesses of the Commonwealth. PASDA is a cooperative project of the Governor's Office of
Administration, Office for Information Technology, Geospatial Technologies Office and the Penn
State Institutes of Energy and the Environment of the Pennsylvania State University.
HAZUS-MH is a powerful risk assessment methodology for analyzing potential losses from
floods, hurricane winds and earthquakes. In HAZUS-MH, current scientific and engineering
knowledge is coupled with the latest GIS technology to produce estimates of hazard-related
damage before, or after, a disaster occurs. This software was used to estimate losses for floods
in Clinton County.
This HMP evaluates the vulnerability of the County’s critical facilities. For the purposes of this
Plan, critical facilities are those entities that are essential to the health and welfare of the
community. The list of critical facilities was largely extracted from the list of State Critical
Facilities identified during the creation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2010 All-Hazard
Mitigation Plan and was finalized in consultation with the Clinton County Department of
Emergency Services. This includes law enforcement, fire departments, and airports. Locations
of nursing homes and hospitals were obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Health. For
a complete listing of critical facilities, please see Appendix E.
14
3.
Planning Process
3.1.
Update Process and Participation Summary
In June of 2004 Clinton County established a Hazard Mitigation Team comprised of various
county officials. The purpose of this team was to create a Hazard Mitigation Plan that will benefit
Clinton County and its local levels of government. This plan served as a guide for communities
in Clinton County to become more disaster resistant, thus making the residents, businesses and
communities less susceptible to future exposure to disastrous events. In hazard mitigation
planning, a key component is to have a clear understanding of what risks are out there in our
communities and what steps can be taken to prevent or lessen the impact of those risks. The
development of a Hazard Mitigation Plan was an important first step in the process as it
provides a beginning point of the process of assessing potential hazards and identifying cost
effective efforts that will help reduce or even possibly eliminate the damaging impacts of a given
hazard.
Although drafted in 2004, the plan was not adopted by the County and municipalities in 2005.
The plan was officially approved by FEMA in 2006. Successful completion of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan allowed the twenty-nine (29) municipalities to be eligible for future hazard
mitigation grant funding as well as provide each jurisdiction with an understanding of its
vulnerability to the hazards and a plan for mitigating the effects of those hazards.
Working as a team, the various Clinton County officials identified a number of natural hazards
that the County is most susceptible to. Additionally, they evaluated the severity, frequency and
monetary impact these hazards would have on the municipalities. The natural hazards
evaluated in the previous plan included:
•
•
•
•
•
Floods
Dam Failure
Landslides
Blizzards / Winter Storms
Severe Thunderstorms
By far, flooding was and still is the most common natural hazard with the greatest potential for
significant human and financial impact upon Clinton County. Based on a 1-percent-annualchance flood, in 2006, it was estimated that such a flooding event would cause $62,000,000.00
in damages. However, other hazards such as those listed above are also capable of resulting in
significant financial losses. Along with the financial impact some loss of life and other
irreplaceable impacts would also be realized as a result of these identified hazards.
The human-made hazard evaluated in the previous 2006 plan included:
•
Dam Failure
15
To begin the 2011 HMP update process, the Clinton County Emergency Management Agency
formed their planning team. Most team members served on the 2006 plan. The update process
followed a very similar process with holding informative meetings and seeking input via surveys
from the municipalities. After the team met and established a schedule invitations were mailed
to the CEO and EMC (when applicable) in each municipality as well as the County
Commissioners, adjacent county commissioners, and other stakeholders from state and local
agencies, non-profits, and advocacy organizations. A complete mailing list can be found in
Appendix C. During the first meeting, a Contact Information Sheet was collected from each
attendee; the Hazard Mitigation mailing list was created from this contact information. Section
3.2 provides as discussion of the participants as well as a table of members and the
organization or jurisdiction they represented.
Municipal officials and the other stakeholders continued to receive notification regarding all HMP
meetings using their preferred mode of contact: USPS, telephone, email, or some combination.
Written notices were mailed to communities who had not completed a Contact Information
Sheet to ensure the municipality was informed of the meeting. A brief description of each
meeting that was held can be found in Section 3.3. In addition, meeting minutes, which
describe each meeting in detail, are available in Appendix C – Meeting and Other
Participation Documentation.
In order to obtain information from municipalities and stakeholders, forms and surveys were
distributed and collected throughout the planning process. Some of the forms were completed
during the planning meetings while others were sent via email and were posted to the HMP
website, www.ClintonHMP.com, and completed and returned in between meetings. All
municipalities were required to have a representative attend at least one meeting and provide
pertinent information for the HMP update. Table 3.1-1 lists each municipality along with their
specific participation and contributions to the planning process. Sign-in sheets for each meeting
with the names and organizations of participants are available in Appendix C – Meeting and
Other Participation Documentation along with all completed forms and surveys.
16
Table 3.1-1: Summary of participation from local municipalities during the 2011 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process.
MUNICIPALITY
MEETING
KICK-OFF
February 10,
2011
RA &
MITIGATION
SOLUTIONS
WORKSHOP
March 24,
2011
PUBLIC
MEETING
May 12, 2011
WORKSHEETS/SURVEYS/FORMS
MITIGATION
EVALUATION
ACTION
WEBEX
INDIVIDUAL
OF
CAPABILITY
GOALS AND
FORM OR
June 9 and CONFERENCE IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES
PROJECT
CALLS
HAZARDS
SURVEY
EVALUATION
10, 2011
EVALUATION
AND RISK
FORM
Allison Twp.
Avis Borough
Bald Eagle
Township
X
X
X
Beech Creek
Borough
Beech Creek
Township
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Castanea
Township
X
Chapman
Township
City of Lock
Haven
X
X
X
Colebrook
Township
X
Crawford
Township
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dunnstable
Township
East Keating
Township
X
Flemington
Borough
X
Gallagher
Township
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
MUNICIPALITY
MEETING
KICK-OFF
February 10,
2011
RA &
MITIGATION
SOLUTIONS
WORKSHOP
March 24,
2011
Greene
Township
MITIGATION
EVALUATION
ACTION
WEBEX
INDIVIDUAL
OF
CAPABILITY
GOALS AND
FORM OR
PROJECT
CALLS
HAZARDS
SURVEY
EVALUATION
10, 2011
EVALUATION
AND RISK
FORM
X
Grugan
Township
Lamar
Township
PUBLIC
MEETING
May 12, 2011
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Leidy Township
X
X
X
X
X
Logan
Township
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Loganton
Borough
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mill Hall
Borough
X
X
X
X
X
X
Noyes
Township
X
X
X
X
X
Pine Creek
Township
X
Porter
Township
X
X
X
Renovo
Borough
X
X
X
South Renovo
Borough
Wayne
Township
X
18
MUNICIPALITY
MEETING
KICK-OFF
February 10,
2011
West Keating
Township
Woodward
Township
RA &
MITIGATION
SOLUTIONS
WORKSHOP
March 24,
2011
PUBLIC
MEETING
May 12, 2011
MITIGATION
EVALUATION
ACTION
WEBEX
INDIVIDUAL
OF
CAPABILITY
GOALS AND
FORM OR
PROJECT
CALLS
HAZARDS
SURVEY
EVALUATION
10, 2011
EVALUATION
AND RISK
FORM
X
X
X
X
X
19
With funding support from PEMA, Michael Baker Jr., Inc., a full-service engineering firm that
provides hazard mitigation planning guidance and technical support, assisted the County
through the HMP update process. The 2011 Clinton County HMPU was completed in May
2011. The 2011 plan follows an outline developed by PEMA in 2009 which provides a
standardized format for all local HMPs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a result, the
format of the 2011 Clinton County HMP contrasts with the 2006 HMP, but all information that
was still current was carried over into the new plan. These changes are summarized in Table
3.1-2. Additional update summaries are provided in for each section of the plan in Sections 4.1,
5.1, 6.1, and 7.1.
Table 3.1-2: Summary of changes to the format of the 2006 and 2011 versions of the Clinton
County HMP.
2006 HMP
2011 Plan Update
1.0 Introduction
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
2.0 Community Profile
3.0 Hazard Mitigation Goals
3.0 Planning Process
4.0 Capability Assessment
4.0 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
5.0 Mitigation Strategy
5.0 Capability Assessment
6.0 Plan Maintenance Procedures
6.0 Mitigation Strategy
Appendices
7.0 Plan Maintenance
8.0 Adoptions and Resolutions
9.0 Appendices
3.2.
The Planning Team
The 2011 Clinton County HMP update was led by a Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee
(HMSC), which included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bill Frantz , Clinton County Emergency Management Agency Coordinator
Tim Holladay, Clinton County Planning Director
Kevin Fanning, Director of Clinton County Department of Emergency Services
Chad Savrock, Clinton County Operations and Training Coordinator
Suzy Watson, Clinton County IT Director
Jim Watson, Clinton County GIS Director
Heather Sloniger, Planner at Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
In order to represent the diverse stakeholders in the County, the HMSC developed a diversified
list of potential Hazard Mitigation Planning participants. Invitations were extended not only to
municipal and county officials but also to adjacent jurisdictions, non-profit organizations, major
employers, and federal, state, and county agencies with an interest or focus on hazard
mitigation and emergency management. The HMSC worked throughout the process to plan
and hold meetings, collect information, and conduct public outreach.
20
The stakeholders listed in Table 3.2-1 served as participants for the 2011 update demonstrating
their commitment to actively participate in the planning process by attending meetings,
completing assessments, surveys, and worksheets, and/or submitting comments. The
participants consisted of county and local officials including municipal supervisors and council
members, and emergency management coordinators.
Table 3.2-1: Stakeholders who participated in the 2011 Plan Update.
MUNICIPALITY/ORGANIZATION
PARTICIPANT(S)
Allison Twp.
Avis Borough
Elmer Christian
Bald Eagle Township
Michelle Welizer and Jim Bechdel
Beech Creek Borough
Justin Kline
Denise Bittner
Castanea Township
Susan Heaton
Chapman Township
George R. Machak
City of Lock Haven
Skip Hocker and Robert Neff
Colebrook Township
Pauline Simcox
Crawford Township
Harold Jameson
Dunnstable Township
Marguerite Miller
Flemington Borough
Charity Walizer-Etters and Gilbert
Gallagher Township
Skip Hocker
Greene Township
Mala Moore
Grugan Township
Roy Schoonover
Lamar Township
Gene Slegle, Amy Bueao, Bill Garbrick
Leidy Township
Nancy Dingman
Logan Township
Robert Mills
Loganton Borough
Joyce Flynn, Robert Duty, Scott Kemmerer, and
Myron Seyler
Mill Hall Borough
William Strunk
Noyes Township
Donna Stout and Nancy Dingman
Pine Creek Township
Elmer Christian
Porter Township
Nevin Couster
Renovo Borough
Randy Bibey
Wayne Township
Rick Scheesley
Nancy Dingman
Woodward Township
Jim Crays
Citizen
Ernest T. Peterson
Clinton County Conservation District
Mary Ann Bower
21
Table 3.2-1: Stakeholders who participated in the 2011 Plan Update.
MUNICIPALITY/ORGANIZATION
PARTICIPANT(S)
Clinton County Planning Department
Tim Holliday
Clinton County Emergency Management
Coordinator
William Frantz
Clinton County Department of Emergency Services Kevin Fanning
Red Cross
Linda Hopkins and Tom Livington
Baker
Heather Sloniger
22
Table 3.2-2 indicates the representatives from each of the jurisdictions within Clinton County
that will assist with implementing and update the 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Table 3.2-2: Jurisdictional Representatives to Assist with Plan Implementation and
Updates.
Name
Title
Non-Participating
Municipality
Allison Twp.
Ms. Sandra Jenkins
Secretary
Avis Borough
Ms. Michelle Walizer
Secretary/Treasurer
Bald Eagle Township
Ms. Donna Bittner
Secretary
Beech Creek Borough
Ms. Denise Bittner
Secretary/Treasurer
Ms. Susan Heaton
Secretary
Castanea Township
Mr. George Machak
Township Supervisor
Chapman Township
Mr. Skip Hocker
Chief of Police
City of Lock Haven
Ms. Pauline Simcox
Secretary
Colebrook Township
Mr. Harold Jameson
Township Supervisor
Crawford Township
Non-Participating
Dunnstable Township
Ms. Marguerite Miller
Secretary
Ms. Charity Walizer-Etters
Secretary/Treasurer
Flemington Borough
Mr. Skip Hocker
Township Supervisor
Gallagher Township
Ms. Mala Moore
Secretary/Treasurer
Greene Township
Mr. Roy Schoonover
Township Supervisor
Grugan Township
Ms. Amy Bueno
Secretary/Treasurer
Lamar Township
Ms. Nancy Dingman
Emergency Management Coordinator
Leidy Township
Mr. Robert Mills
Township Supervisor
Logan Township
Ms. Joyce Flynn
Secretary/Treasurer
Loganton Borough
Mr. William Strunk
Mill Hall Borough
Ms. Donna Stout
Township Supervisor
Noyes Township
Ms. Darlene Macklem
Secretary
Pine Creek Township
Ms. Elaine Miller
Secretary
Porter Township
Mr. Randy Bibey
Borough Council
Renovo Borough
Non-Participating
Ms. Darlene Macklem
Secretary
Wayne Township
Ms. Nancy Dingman
Ms. Marian McDermit
Secretary
Woodward Township
3.3.
Meetings and Documentation
The following meetings were held during the planning process. All invitations, agendas, sign-in
sheets, and minutes for these meetings are included in Appendix C: Meeting and Other
23
January 13, 2011: Internal County Kickoff Meeting teleconference with HMSC discussed
scope, schedule, project goals, invitees, available resources, and planning standards.
February 10, 2011: Community Kickoff Meeting held at the Clinton County Office of
Emergency Management to introduce the project and to local stakeholders, inform community
representatives of the HMP update process and schedule, and make a formal request for
response to the Capability Assessment Survey and Evaluation of Identified Hazard and Risk
Worksheet.
March 23, 2011: Internal Mitigation Strategy Review Meeting teleconference held with the
HMSC to conduct a preliminary review of plan goals and objectives and evaluate the status of
2004 plan actions/projects in advance of the entire community reviewing the Mitigation Strategy.
March 24, 2011: Risk Assessment Review and Mitigation Solutions Workshop held at the
Clinton County Office of Emergency Management to review preliminary risk assessment results,
discuss mitigation goals and objectives, and select mitigation actions and projects to be
included in the HMP.
May 12, 2011: Final Public Meeting held to update the public about the HMP update process
and findings. The meeting was advertised in the Lock Haven Express newspaper. Several
verbal comments were noted in the meeting minutes and attendees were informed about the
timeline and their opportunity to review the entire plan on the HMP update website,
www.ClintonHMP.com and provide written comments.
June 10 & 11, 2011: Web ex were held for two days to summarize the whole process and get
those municipalities that haven’t participated involved so that they can be eligible to adopt the
plan.
Individual Conference Calls: For most municipal officials in Clinton County being an
Emergency Management Coordinator, Supervisor, or Secretary is a volunteer position, a
position that is usually not during normal business hours. Those that could not attend either the
meetings or Web ex sessions were provided the opportunity to have a conference call where
they were provided a PowerPoint presentation about the process, handouts about what hazard
mitigation is, and all of the worksheets. Ms. Sloniger went through the materials and answered
any questions.
Comment Period: The comment period for Clinton County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
began on May 13, 2011 and ended on June 13, 2011. Comments received were to use the
2010 Census and were on spellings of some of the local officials’ names. Comments were all
addressed the 2010 Census was used where applicable. All comments came from the County
GIS Department, Planning Department, and Emergency Services.
3.4.
Public & Stakeholder Participation
Each stakeholder was given multiple opportunities to participate in the HMP update process
through invitations to meetings, reviews of risk assessment results and mitigation actions, and
an opportunity to comment on the draft HMP update. The five tools listed below were
24
distributed with meeting invitations, at meetings, and on the HMP update website to solicit
information, data, and comments from both local municipalities and other key stakeholders.
Responses to these worksheets and surveys are included in Appendix C: Meeting and Other
1. Evaluation of Identified Hazards and Risk Worksheet: Capitalizes on local
knowledge to evaluate the change in the frequency of occurrence, magnitude of impact,
and/or geographic extent of existing hazards, and allows communities to evaluate
hazards not previously profiled using the Pennsylvania Standard List of Hazards.
2. Capability Assessment Survey: Collects information on local planning, regulatory,
administrative, technical, fiscal, political and resiliency capabilities that can be included
in the countywide mitigation strategy.
3. Mitigation Strategy Goal and Objective Comment Worksheet: Collected comments
and suggestions from municipalities on the HMPU goals and objectives that had been
vetted by the HMSC at the Internal Mitigation Strategy Review Meeting.
4. Goals/Objectives Evaluation Form: Because Clinton County had an extensive list of
goals and objectives in the 2005 Plan, municipalities and county officials were asked to
evaluate whether they should be discontinued, merged or completed, and whether each
should be carried over into the 2011 Plan.
5. Mitigation Action Form: Allows communities to propose mitigation actions for the HMP
and include information about each action such as a lead agency/department,
implementation schedule, priority, estimated costs, and potential funding source(s).
Community participation and comments were encouraged throughout the planning process,
most notably through the HMP update website, www.ClintonHMP.com. This site acted as a
repository for the entire planning process, including presentations, agendas, minutes, and
worksheets from each meeting as well as promulgating meeting dates, times, and important
announcements. The public was also encouraged to provide images and stories on the effects
of the identified hazards in their community on the website. Additionally, notification of the HMP
update sent to representatives from neighboring communities is included in Appendix C.
The HMSC posted the draft Clinton County HMP update on the HMP update website,
www.ClintonHMP.com, beginning on May 13, 2011 and accepted comments through June 13,
2011. The availability of the draft HMP was made public by placing a public notice in the Lock
Haven Express on May 5, 2011 and disseminating the information to the HMPT via email.
Comments were to be submitted in writing to Ms. Heather Sloniger of Baker or online on the
HMP Update website. Copies of all comments received are located in Appendix C.
3.5.
Multi-Jurisdictional Planning
This HMP update was developed using a multi-jurisdictional approach. With funding support
form PEMA, the County had resources such as technical expertise and data which local
jurisdictions lacked, but involvement from local municipalities has been critical to the collection
of local knowledge relating to hazard events and mitigation activities. Local municipalities also
have the legal authority to enforce compliance with land use planning and development issues.
The County undertook an intensive effort to involve all jurisdictions in the planning process.
25
Table 3.1-1 documents jurisdictional presence at the meetings described in Section 3.3 and
other involvement from each jurisdiction throughout the planning process. Each municipality
was emailed or mailed invitations to all meetings and phone call reminders were provided.
Surveys and forms were emailed or mailed to jurisdictions along with letters requesting that
local information be provided, and the forms (with instructions) were also posted to the HMP
update website. In the end, 3 municipalities: Allison Township, Dunnstable Township, and
South Renovo Borough have not participated. Numerous attempts to get these municipalities to
participate were in the form of invitations, warning letter, phone calls, and emails. No response
was received from these municipalities. 3 municipalities attending meetings, but did not
complete paper work. 23 out of the 29 (79.3%) municipalities attended meetings and completed
paper work. Overall, 26 out of the 29 municipalities participated by either attending a meeting or
completing paperwork for a total of 89.6 %. Both numbers are an increase from the 55%
participation through meetings and surveys in the 2006 Plan. Efforts were made by each
member of the steering committee to engage the other communities to no avail. Members of the
HMSC called and left messages for the township supervisor and secretary on no fewer than four
occasions. In addition, paper initiations were mailed to the municipal building for each HMPU
meeting. Lastly, a warning packet was sent out. A copy of this packet can be found in
Appendix C.
3.6.
Existing Planning Mechanisms
There are numerous existing regulatory and planning mechanisms in place at the state, county,
and municipal level of government which support hazard mitigation planning efforts. These tools
include the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Standard All-Hazard Mitigation Plan, local
floodplain management ordinances, the Clinton County Comprehensive Plan, Clinton County
Emergency Operations Plan, Clinton County Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (HVA), local
Emergency Operation Plans, local zoning ordinances, local subdivision and land development
ordinances, local comprehensive plans, and watershed and other environmental plans. These
mechanisms were discussed at community meetings and are described in Section 5.2.
Information from several of these documents has been incorporated into this plan and mitigation
actions have been developed to further integrate these planning mechanisms into the hazard
mitigation planning process. In particular, information on identified development constraints and
potential future growth areas was incorporated from the Clinton County Comprehensive Plan so
that vulnerability pertaining to future development could be established. The County HVA
provided extensive information on past occurrences, vulnerability, and risk in the last five years,
including anecdotal information. Floodplain management ordinance information was used to aid
in the establishment of local capabilities in addition to participation in the NFIP.
26
4.
4.1.
Risk Assessment
Update Process Summary
The risk assessment provides a factual basis for activities proposed by the County in their
mitigation strategy. Hazards that may affect Clinton County are identified and defined in terms of
their location and extent, magnitude of impacts, previous events, and probability of future
events. This hazard profile structure differs from the structure used in the current Clinton County
HMP, where each profile had some combination of history, vulnerability, and probability.
However, all information from the previous plan has been incorporated and/or updated in the
2011 HMPU unless indicated.
The 2006 Clinton County Hazard Mitigation Plan focused on six hazards affecting the County.
The hazards chosen from the 2006 Plan were based on historical occurrences specific to
Clinton County, input from the individual Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, local officials, and
the public, coordination with different federal, state, and local agencies, review of previous
disaster declarations, hazard identification and risk assessment from the state and local level,
and internet research. The 2011 update followed the same procedure. Some differences
between the plans include more mapping to depict the geographic extent of each hazard and
the Risk Factor Analysis. In the 2006 plan probability was identified for each municipality using,
high, medium, and low. More discussion of the risk factor methodology will be covered in
Section 4.4.
To update these hazards, the HMPT were asked to assess the change in risk for all hazards
identified in the 2006 plan and vote on which hazards not previously identified but included in
the Pennsylvania Standard State List of Hazards provided had the potential to impact Clinton
County. After an analysis of the responses, consultation with the State Hazard Mitigation Plan,
and the HMSC’s assessment of hazards and municipalities, it was decided that additional
hazards should be added to the plan: Drought, Wildfire, Environmental, Levee, and
Transportation Accidents. Hazard profiles were then developed in order to define the
characteristics of each hazard as they apply to Clinton County.
Following hazard identification and profiling, a vulnerability assessment was conducted for each
hazard to identify the impact of both natural and man-made hazard events on people, buildings,
infrastructure, and the community, as appropriate. Each hazard is discussed in terms of its
potential impact on individual communities, including the types of structures that may be at risk.
This assessment allows the County and its municipalities to focus on and prioritize local
mitigation efforts on areas that are most likely to be damaged or require early response to a
hazard event. A vulnerability analysis was performed which identifies structures, critical
facilities, and/or populations that may be impacted during hazard events and describes what
events can do to physical, social, and economic assets. Depending upon data availability,
assessment results consist of an inventory of vulnerable structures or populations.
27
4.2.
Hazard Identification
4.2.1.
Table of Presidential Disaster Declarations
Presidential Disaster and Emergency Declarations are issued when it has been determined that
state and local governments need assistance in responding to a disaster event. Table 4.2-1
identifies Presidential Disaster and Emergency Declarations issued between 1972 through 2010
that have affected Clinton County. Additional declarations beyond 2010 can be found on the
FEMA website at: http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters_state.fema?id=42. Presidential actions
provide preliminary information on previous hazard events.
Table 4.2-1: Presidential Disaster and Emergency Declarations affecting Clinton County.
DECLARATION NUMBER
DATE
EVENT
3235*
September 2005
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
1557
September 2004
Tropical Depression Ivan
3180*
March 2003
Snowstorm
1093
January 1996
Flooding
1085
January 1996
Blizzard
1015
March 1994
Winter Storm, Severe Storm
3105*
March 1993
Severe Snowfall and Winter Storm
485
September 1975
Severe Storms, Heavy Rains, Flooding
340
June 1972
Tropical Storm Agnes
* Presidential Emergency Declaration
Since 1955, declarations have been issued for a variety of hazard events, including hurricanes,
tornadoes, severe winter storms, and flooding. A unique Presidential Emergency Declaration
was issued in September 2005; through Emergency Declaration 3235, President George W.
Bush declared that a state of emergency existed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
ordered federal aid to supplement Commonwealth and local response efforts to help people
evacuated from their homes due to Hurricane Katrina. All counties within Pennsylvania,
including Clinton County, were indirectly affected by Hurricane Katrina as a result of evacuee
assistance. In addition to the Presidential Disasters, there have also been Gubernatorial
Declarations and Small Business Administration Declarations. This will be shown in the next
two tables below.
28
Table 4.2-2:Clinton County Gubernatorial Disaster Declarations or Proclamations
DATE
EVENT
AFFECTED AREAS
February, 2007
Proclamation of
Emergency - Severe
Winter Storm
All 67 counties - to utilize all available resources and
personnel as is deemed necessary to cope with the
magnitude and severity of this emergency situation
February, 2007
Proclamation of
Emergency Regulations
All 67 counties - waive the regulations regarding
hours of service limitations for drivers of commercial
vehicles
April, 2007
Proclamation of
Emergency - Severe
Winter Storm
All 67 counties - to utilize all available resources and
personnel as is deemed necessary to cope with the
magnitude and severity of this emergency situation
September, 2006
Proclamation of
Emergency - Tropical
Depression Ernesto
All 67 counties - utilize all available resources and
personnel as deemed necessary to cope with the
magnitude and severity of the emergency situation
September, 2005
Proclamation of
Emergency - Hurricane
Katrina
All 67 counties - regarding waiving enforcement of
applicable state laws & regulations that govern
transport of oversized loads
July, 1999
Drought
Adams, Allegheny, Beaver, Bedford, Berks, Blair,
Bradford, Bucks, Cambria, Cameron, Carbon,
Centre, Chester, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Fayette, Franklin,
Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata,
Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lawrence, Lebanon,
Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mifflin, Monroe,
Montgomery, Montour, Northampton,
Northumberland, Perry, Philadelphia, Pike, Potter,
Schuylkill, Snyder, Somerset, Sullivan,
Susquehanna, Tioga, Union, Washington, Wayne,
Westmoreland, Wyoming and York Counties
December, 1998
Drought
Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Cameron, Clarion,
Clearfield, Clinton, Crawford, Elk, Erie, Jefferson,
Lycoming, Snyder and Somerset Counties
September, 1995
Drought
Adams, Berks, Bradford, Bucks, Cameron, Carbon,
Delaware, Lackawanna, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming,
Monroe, Montgomery, Montour, Northampton,
Northumberland, Philadelphia, Pike, Potter,
Schuylkill, Snyder, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga,
Union, Wayne, and Wyoming Counties
January, 1978
Heavy Snow
All 67 counties
February, 1978
Blizzard
All 67 counties
February, 1974
Truckers Strike
Statewide
July, 1974
Flood
Western and Northern Central Counties
29
Table 4.2-2:Clinton County Gubernatorial Disaster Declarations or Proclamations
DATE
EVENT
AFFECTED AREAS
February, 1972
Heavy Snow
Statewide
January, 1966
Heavy Snow
Statewide
March, 1963
Ice Jam
Susquehanna-Juniata Rivers
Drought
Adams, Berks, Bradford, Bucks, Cameron, Carbon,
Delaware, Lackawanna, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming,
Monroe, Montgomery, Montour, Northampton,
Northumberland, Philadelphia, Pike, Potter,
Union, Wayne and Wyoming Counties
September, 1955
*Event also received Small Business Administration Loan Assistance
Assistance
DATE
EVENT
AFFECTED AREAS
June, 2006
Proclamation of
Emergency - Flooding
Adams, Armstrong, Bedford, Berks, Blair, Bradford,
Bucks, Carbon, Centre, Chester, Clinton, Columbia,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Franklin, Fulton,
Huntingdon, Indiana, Jefferson, Juniata, Lackawanna,
Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming,
Mifflin, Monroe, Montgomery, Montour, Northampton,
Northumberland, Perry, Philadelphia, Pike, Potter,
Union, Wayne, Wyoming and York Counties
September, 2005
Proclamation of
Emergency - Hurricane
Katrina
All 67 counties - Proclamation of Emergency to Render
Mutual Aid and to Receive and House Evacuees
Tropical Depression
Ivan
AS OF 10/6/04 - Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver,
Bedford, Blair, Bradford, Bucks, Butler, Cameron,
Carbon, Centre, Chester, Clarion, Clinton, Clearfield,
Columbia, Crawford, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware,
Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana,
Jefferson, Juniata, Lackawanna, Lawrence, Lebanon,
Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mifflin, Monroe, Montour,
Montgomery, Northampton, Northumberland, Perry,
Philadelphia, Pike, Schuylkill, Snyder, Somerset,
Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, Union, Washington,
Wayne, Westmoreland, Wyoming and York Counties
Severe Winter Storm
Adams, Bedford, Berks, Blair, Cambria, Carbon,
Chester, Clinton, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin,
Delaware, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene,
Huntingdon, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh,
September, 2004
February, 2003
30
Assistance
DATE
EVENT
AFFECTED AREAS
Lycoming, Mifflin, Montour, Montgomery, Northampton,
Northumberland, Perry, Philadelphia, Schuylkill,
Snyder, Somerset, Union, Washington, Westmoreland,
and York Counties
September, 2003
Hurricane Isabel/Henri
Statewide
September, 1999
Hurricane Floyd
All 67 counties
January, 1996
Severe Winter Storms
Adams, Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Bedford, Berks,
Blair, Bradford, Bucks, Cambria, Cameron, Carbon,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Elk, Fayette,
Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana,
Jefferson, Juniata, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon,
Lehigh, Lycoming, Luzerne, McKean, Mifflin, Monroe,
Montgomery, Montour, Northampton, Northumberland,
Perry, Philadelphia, Pike, Potter, Schuylkill, Snyder,
Somerset, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, Union,
Wayne, Westmoreland, Wyoming and York Counties Public Assistance; All 67 counties declared for
Individual Assistance
January, 1996
Flooding
All counties
January, 1994
Severe Winter Storms
All 67 counties (Centre County also received SBA EIDL)
March, 1993
Blizzard
All 67 counties
4.2.2.
Summary of Hazards
The HMSC was provided the Pennsylvania Standard List of Hazards to be considered for
evaluation in the 2011 HMP. Following a review of the hazards considered in the existing HMP
and the Standard List of Hazards, the HMSC decided that the 2011 plan should identify, profile,
and analyze eleven hazards. These eleven hazards include all hazards profiled in the 2006 plan
as well as 5 additional hazards of concern. Table 4.2-2 contains a complete list of the eleven
hazards that have the potential to impact Clinton County as identified through previous risk
assessments, the County Hazards Vulnerability Analysis, and input from those that participated
in the 2011 HMP update. Hazard profiles are included in Section 4.3 for each of these hazards.
Although identified and profiled in the State of Pennsylvania’s All-Hazard Mitigation Plan, radon
was not profiled in the Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Radon is a noble
gas that originates by the natural radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. Like other noble
gases (e.g., helium, neon, and argon), radon forms essentially no chemical compounds and
tends to exist as a gas or as a dissolved atomic constituent in groundwater. Two isotopes of
radon are significant in nature, 222Rn and 220Rn, formed in the radioactive decay series of
238U and 232Th, respectively. The isotope thoron (i.e. 220Rn) has a half-life (time for decay of
31
half of a given group of atoms) of 55 seconds, barely long enough for it to migrate from its
source to the air inside a house and pose a health risk.
The distribution of radon is correlated with the distribution of radium (i.e. 226Ra), its immediate
radioactive parent, and with uranium, its original ancestor. Due to the short half-life of radon,
the distance that radon atoms can travel from their parent before decay is generally limited to
distances of feet or tens of feet.
Three sources of radon in houses are now recognized:
• Radon in soil air that flows into the house;
• Radon dissolved in water from private wells and exsolved during water usage; this is rarely a
problem in Pennsylvania; and
• Radon emanating from uranium-rich building materials (e.g. concrete blocks or gypsum
wallboard); this is not known to be a problem in Pennsylvania.
The committee felt that radon did not significantly impact the county. The county and
jurisdictional participants wanted to focus on hazards that could potentially impact a large
geographic area and associated mitigation projects selected would benefit a larger segment of
the population. Those attending the kick-off meetings felt that the hazard, radon, was more a
problem that needed to be dealt with by the individual home owner themselves.
respective definitions.
Hazard Name
Hazard Description
Hurricane, Tropical Storm,
Nor'easter
Hurricanes, tropical storms, and nor'easters are classified as cyclones and
are any closed circulation developing around a low-pressure center in
which the winds rotate counter-clockwise (in the Northern Hemisphere)
and whose diameter averages 10-30 miles across. While most of
Pennsylvania is not directly affected by the devastating impacts cyclonic
systems can have on coastal regions, many areas in the state are subject
to the primary damaging forces associated with these storms including
high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation, and tornadoes. Areas in
southeastern Pennsylvania could be susceptible to storm surge and tidal
flooding. The majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico during the official
Atlantic hurricane season (June through November). (FEMA, 1997).
Drought
Drought is a natural climatic condition which occurs in virtually all climates,
the consequence of a natural reduction in the amount of precipitation
experienced over a long period of time, usually a season or more in
length. High temperatures, prolonged winds, and low relative humidity can
exacerbate the severity of drought. This hazard is of particular concern in
Pennsylvania due to the presence of farms as well as water-dependent
industries and recreation areas across the Commonwealth. A prolonged
drought could severely impact these sectors of the local economy, as well
as residents who depend on wells for drinking water and other personal
uses. (National Drought Mitigation Center, 2006).
32
Hazard Name
Hazard Description
Flood, Flash Flood, Ice
Jam
Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on
normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in
Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive
precipitation. General flooding is typically experienced when precipitation
occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash
flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short
time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in
urban areas where much of the ground is covered by impervious surfaces.
The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of stream
and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and
weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of
vegetative clearing as well as the presence of impervious surfaces in and
around flood-prone areas (NOAA, 2009). Winter flooding can include ice
jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to
melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen
rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer
often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in
narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams.
All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure (USACE, 2007).
Landslide
A landslide is the downward and outward movement of slope-forming soil,
rock, and vegetation reacting to the force of gravity. Landslides may be
triggered by both natural and human-caused changes in the environment,
including heavy rain, rapid snow melt, steepening of slopes due to
construction or erosion, earthquakes, and changes in groundwater levels.
Mudflows, mudslides, rockfalls, rockslides, and rock topples are all forms
of a landslide. Areas that are generally prone to landslide hazards include
previous landslide areas, the bases of steep slopes, the bases of drainage
channels, developed hillsides, and areas recently burned by forest and
brush fires. (Delano & Wilshusen, 2001).
33
Hazard Name
Hazard Description
Tornado, Windstorm
A wind storm can occur during severe thunderstorms, winter storms,
coastal storms, or tornadoes. Straight-line winds such as a downburst
have the potential to cause wind gusts that exceed 100 miles per hour.
Based on 40 years of tornado history and over 100 years of hurricane
history, FEMA identifies western and central Pennsylvania as being more
susceptible to higher winds than eastern Pennsylvania. (FEMA, 1997). A
tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped
cloud extending to the ground. Tornadoes are most often generated by
thunderstorm activity (but sometimes result from hurricanes or tropical
storms) when cool, dry air intersects and overrides a layer of warm, moist
air forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage caused by a tornado
is a result of high wind velocities and wind-blown debris. According to the
National Weather Service, tornado wind speeds can range between 30 to
more than 300 miles per hour. They are more likely to occur during the
spring and early summer months of March through June and are most
likely to form in the late afternoon and early evening. Most tornadoes are
a few dozen yards wide and touch down briefly, but even small, short-lived
tornadoes can inflict tremendous damage. Destruction ranges from minor
to catastrophic depending on the intensity, size, and duration of the storm.
Structures made of light materials such as mobile homes are most
susceptible to damage. Waterspouts are weak tornadoes that form over
warm water and are relatively uncommon in Pennsylvania. Each year, an
average of over 800 tornadoes is reported nationwide, resulting in an
average of 80 deaths and 1,500 injuries (NOAA, 2002). Based on NOAA
Storm Prediction Center Statistics, the number of recorded F3, F4, & F5
tornadoes between 1950-1998 ranges from <1 to 15 per 3,700 square
mile area across Pennsylvania (FEMA, 2009). A water spout is a tornado
over a body of water (American Meteorological Society, 2009).
Wildfire
A wildfire is a raging, uncontrolled fire that spreads rapidly through
vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures. Wildfires
often begin unnoticed and can spread quickly, creating dense smoke that
can be seen for miles. Wildfires can occur at any time of the year, but
mostly occur during long, dry hot spells. Any small fire in a wooded area,
if not quickly detected and suppressed, can get out of control. Most
wildfires are caused by human carelessness, negligence, and ignorance.
However, some are precipitated by lightning strikes and in rare instances,
spontaneous combustion. Wildfires in Pennsylvania can occur in fields,
grass, brush, and forests. 98% of wildfires in Pennsylvania are a direct
result of people, often caused by debris burns (DCNR-BOF, 2009).
Winter Storm
Winter storms may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of these
wintry forms of precipitation. A winter storm can range from a moderate
snowfall or ice event over a period of a few hours to blizzard conditions
with wind-driven snow that lasts for several days. Many winter storms are
accompanied by low temperatures and heavy and/or blowing snow, which
can severely impair visibility and disrupt transportation. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a long history of severe winter
weather. (NOAA, 2009).
34
Hazard Name
Hazard Description
Levee Failure
A levee is a human-made structure, usually an earthen embankment,
designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices
to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection
from temporary flooding (Interagency Levee Policy Review Committee,
2006). Levee failures or breaches occur when a levee fails to contain the
floodwaters for which it is designed to control or floodwaters exceed the
height of the constructed levee. 51 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties have
been identified as having at least one levee (FEMA Region III, 2009).
Dam Failure
A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows
down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power
generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these
structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures
are relatively rare, but immense damage and loss of life is possible in
downstream communities when such events occur. Aging infrastructure,
hydrologic, hydraulic and geologic characteristics, population growth, and
design and maintenance practices should be considered when assessing
dam failure hazards. The failure of the South Fork Dam, located in
Johnstown, PA, was the deadliest dam failure ever experienced in the
United States. It took place in 1889 and resulted in the Johnstown Flood
which claimed 2,209 lives (FEMA, 1997). Today there are approximately
3,200 dams and reservoirs throughout Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, 2009).
Environmental Hazards
Environmental hazards are hazards that pose threats to the natural
environment, the built environment, and public safety through the diffusion
of harmful substances, materials, or products. Environmental hazards
include the following:
Hazardous material releases; at fixed facilities or as such materials are
in transit and including toxic chemicals, infectious substances,
biohazardous waste, and any materials that are explosive, corrosive,
flammable, or radioactive (PL 1990-165, § 207(e)).
Air or Water Pollution; the release of harmful chemical and waste
materials into water bodies or the atmosphere, for example (National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, July 2009; EPA, Natural
Disaster PSAs, 2009).
Superfund Facilities; hazards originating from abandoned hazardous
waste sites listed on the National Priorities List (EPA, National Priorities
List, 2009).
Manure Spills; involving the release of stored or transported agricultural
waste, for example (EPA, Environmental Impacts of…, 1998).
Product Defect or Contamination; highly flammable or otherwise unsafe
consumer products and dangerous foods (Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 2003).
35
Hazard Name
Hazard Description
Transportation Accident
Transportation accidents can result from any form of air, rail, water, or
road travel. It is unlikely that small accidents would significantly impact
the larger community. However, certain accidents could have secondary
regional impacts such as a hazardous materials release or disruption in
critical supply/access routes, especially if vital transportation corridors or
junctions are present. (US DOT, 2009). Traffic congestion in certain
circumstances can also be hazardous. Traffic congestion is a condition
that occurs when traffic demand approaches or exceeds the available
capacity of the road network. This hazard should be carefully evaluated
during emergency planning since it is a key factor in timely disaster or
hazard response, especially in areas with high population density.
(Federal Highway Administration, 2009).
4.3.
Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability Analysis
NATURAL HAZARDS
4.3.1.
4.3.1.1.
Drought
Location and Extent
Droughts are regional climatic events, so when these events occur in Clinton County, impacts
are felt across the County as well as in areas outside the County boundaries. The spatial extent
for areas of impact can range from localized areas in Pennsylvania to the entire Mid-Atlantic
region. Areas with extensive agricultural land uses are most vulnerable to drought; as shown in
Figure 4.3.1-1, these uses are largely found in the northeastern portion of the County. Utilizing
the Risk Factor Methodology, the planning team, municipalities, and stakeholders determined
that a drought event would pose a negligible (less than 1% of the area affected) risk spatially
and would have a minor impact (few injuries, and minimal property damage and disruption on
quality of life) to the County. When comparing the Countywide Risk Factor to their individual
jurisdiction Leidy Township and West Keating Township felt that their impact would be greater.
36
Figure 4.3.1-1: Land cover map of Clinton County from Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2005.
37
4.3.1.2.
Range of Magnitude
Hydrologic drought events result in a reduction of stream flows, reduction of lake/reservoir
storage, and a lowering of groundwater levels. These events have adverse impacts on public
water supplies for human consumption, rural water supplies for livestock consumption and
agricultural operations, water quality, natural soil water or irrigation water for agriculture, soil
moisture, conditions conducive to wildfire events, and water for navigation and recreation.
The Commonwealth uses five parameters to assess drought conditions:
1. Stream flows (compared to benchmark records)
2. Precipitation (measured as the departure from normal, 30 year average precipitation)
3. Reservoir storage levels in a variety of locations (especially three New York City reservoirs
in upper Delaware River Basin)
4. Groundwater elevations in a number of counties (comparing to past month, past year and
historic record)
5. The Palmer Drought Severity Index – a soil moisture algorithm calibrated for relatively
homogeneous regions which measures dryness based on recent precipitation and
temperature (see Table 4.3.1-1).
Table 4.3.1-1: Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI) classifications (NDMC, 2009).
SEVERITY CATEGORY
PSDI VALUE
Extremely wet
4.0 or more
Very wet
3.0 to 3.99
Moderately wet
2.0 to 2.99
Slightly wet
1.0 to 1.99
Incipient wet spell
0.5 to 0.99
Near normal
0.49 to -0.49
Incipient dry spell
-0.5 to -0.99
Mild drought
-1.0 to -1.99
Moderate drought
-2.0 to -2.99
Severe drought
-3.0 to -3.99
Extreme drought
-4.0 or less
Phases of drought preparedness in Pennsylvania in order of increasing severity are:
• Drought Watch: A period to alert government agencies, public water suppliers, water
users and the public regarding the potential for future drought-related problems. The
focus is on increased monitoring, awareness and preparation for response if conditions
worsen. A request for voluntary water conservation is made. The objective of voluntary
water conservation measures during a drought watch is to reduce water uses by 5
percent in the affected areas. Due to varying conditions, individual water suppliers or
municipalities may be asking for more stringent conservation actions.
• Drought Warning: This phase involves a coordinated response to imminent drought
conditions and potential water supply shortages through concerted voluntary
38
•
•
conservation measures to avoid or reduce shortages, relieve stressed sources, develop
new sources, and if possible forestall the need to impose mandatory water use
restrictions. The objective of voluntary water conservation measures during a drought
warning is to reduce overall water uses by 10-15 percent in the affected areas. Due to
varying conditions, individual water suppliers or municipalities may be asking for more
stringent conservation actions.
Drought Emergency: This stage is a phase of concerted management operations to
marshal all available resources to respond to actual emergency conditions, to avoid
depletion of water sources, to assure at least minimum water supplies to protect public
health and safety, to support essential and high priority water uses and to avoid
unnecessary economic dislocations. It is possible during this phase to impose
mandatory restrictions on non-essential water uses that are provided in the
Pennsylvania Code (Chapter 119), if deemed necessary and if ordered by the Governor
of Pennsylvania. The objective of water use restrictions (mandatory or voluntary) and
other conservation measures during this phase is to reduce consumptive water use in
the affected area by fifteen percent, and to reduce total use to the extent necessary to
preserve public water system supplies, to avoid or mitigate local or area shortages, and
to assure equitable sharing of limited supplies.
Local Water Rationing: Although not a drought phase, local municipalities may, with the
approval of the PA Emergency Management Council, implement local water rationing to
share a rapidly dwindling or severely depleted water supply in designated water supply
service areas. These individual water rationing plans, authorized through provisions of
the Pennsylvania Code (Chapter 120), will require specific limits on individual water
consumption to achieve significant reductions in use. Under both mandatory restrictions
imposed by the Commonwealth and local water rationing, procedures are provided for
granting of variances to consider individual hardships and economic dislocations.
Precipitation Deficits
The earliest indicators of a potential drought are precipitation deficits (measured as the
departure from normal, 30 year average precipitation), because it is rainfall that provides the
basis for both our ground and surface water resources. The National Weather Service has longterm monthly averages of precipitation for each county. These averages are updated at the end
of each decade, based upon the most recent 30 years, and are considered “normal” monthly
precipitation. Each month, the total cumulative precipitation values in each county, for periods
ranging from three to 12 months, are compared against the normal values for the same periods.
39
Totals that are less than the normal values represent deficits, which are then converted to
percentages of the normal values. Table 4.3.1-2 lists the drought conditions that are indicated
by various precipitation deficit percentages.
Table 4.3.1-2 Precipitation deficit drought indicators for Pennsylvania (DEP, 2007).
DURATION OF
DROUGHT WATCH
DEFICIT
(deficit
as percent of normal
ACCUMULATION
precipitation)
(months)
DROUGHT WARNING
(deficit as percent of normal
precipitation)
DROUGHT
EMERGENCY
(deficit as percent of
normal precipitation)
3
25
35
45
4
20
30
40
5
20
30
40
6
20
30
40
7
18.5
28.5
38.5
8
17.5
27.5
37.5
9
16.5
26.5
36.5
10
15
25
35
11
15
25
35
12
15
25
35
Stream Flows
After precipitation, stream flows provide the next earliest indication of a developing drought.
Stream flows typically lag one to two months behind precipitation in signaling a drought. The
U.S. Geological Survey maintains a network of stream gages across the state. The DEP
currently uses 73 of these gages, equipped with satellite communication transmitters, as its
drought monitoring network. Similar to precipitation, long-term 30-day average stream flow
values have been computed for each of the stream gages, but rather than using only the
past 30 years, the entire period of record for each gage is used. For example, the
Susquehanna River gage at Harrisburg has more than 110 years of record from which the
long-term 30-day average, or normal, flows are now determined.
Drought status is determined from stream flows based on exceedances, rather than
percentages, as are used for precipitation. Exceedances are similar to percentiles; a 75percent exceedance flow value means that the current 30-day average flow is exceeded in
the stream 75-percent of the time; in other words, the 30-day average flow in the stream is
less than that value only 25-percent of the time. Similarly, with a 90-percent exceedance
flow value, the 30-day average flows in the stream would be less than that value only 10percent of the time, and only 5-percent of the time for a 95-percent exceedance. For stream
40
flows, the 75-, 90-, and 95-percent exceedance 30-day average flows are used as indicators
for drought watch, warning, and emergency.
Groundwater Levels
Groundwater is usually the third indicator of a developing drought. Groundwater typically lags
two to three months behind precipitation, largely because of the storage effect. According to
DEP Water Management, about 80 trillion gallons of groundwater is stored throughout
Pennsylvania, enough to cover the entire state with more than eight feet of water. Therefore,
precipitation deficits can accumulate for several months before the resultant lack of groundwater
recharge becomes clearly evident in groundwater levels.
The USGS also maintains a network of groundwater monitoring wells, just recently upgraded to
at least one well in each county. Groundwater is used to indicate drought status in a manner
similar to stream flows. Groundwater level exceedances of 75, 90, and 95 percent are used to
indicate watch, warning, and emergency status. In this case, it is the 30-day average depth to
groundwater that is measured and monitored, again in relation to long-term 30-day averages
based on the period of record for each county well. An example of the monitoring performed by
other agencies and utilized by the Commonwealth is shown for a monitoring site in Clinton
County (West Branch Susquehanna River in Renovo) at:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?01545500.
Soil Moisture
Soil moisture information is provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
the form of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). The PDSI is a soil moisture algorithm
calibrated for relatively homogeneous regions which measures dryness based on recent
precipitation and temperature (see Table 4.3.2-1). Based on a number of meteorological and
hydrological factors, it is compiled weekly by the Climate Prediction Center of the National
Weather Service.
Reservoir storage levels
Water level storage in several large public water supply reservoirs (especially three New York
City reservoirs in the Upper Delaware River Basin) is the fifth indicator that the DEP uses for
drought monitoring. Depending on the total quantity of storage and the length of the refill period
for the various reservoirs, DEP uses varying percentages of storage draw down to indicate the
three drought stages for each of the reservoirs.
The worst drought event on record occurred in 1963, when precipitation statewide averaged
below normal for ten of twelve months. Drought emergency status led to widespread water use
restrictions, and reservoirs dipped to record low levels. Corn, hay, and other agricultural
products shriveled in parched field, causing economic losses. Governor William Scranton
sought drought aid for Pennsylvania in the face of mounting agricultural losses, and the event
became a presidentially declared disaster in September 1963.
41
Another worst case scenario example occurred in July 1999. Governor Ridge declared a
drought emergency in 55 of the 67 counties of Pennsylvania following extended dry weather
through much of the summer. Water usage was restricted. Precipitation deficits for many
counties for the months of May through July averaged between 5 and 7 inches. Precipitation
departures for the 365 day period ending in mid-July were over 1 foot below normal in many
places. This is about one-third of total annual normal precipitation in most areas. Streams were
empty, wells dried up, and the Susquehanna River hit record low flows. Hot sunny days
combined with the dry weather to take a large toll on crops. Preliminary estimates by the
Department of Agriculture indicated possible multi-county crop losses in excess of $500 million.
The figure did not include a 20% decrease in milk production due to the drought that would also
result in million dollar losses. There were some counties that experienced 70 to 100% crop loss.
At least 30% losses are needed for a drought disaster declaration (PA HMP, 2010).
Environmental impacts of drought include:
• Hydrologic effects – lower water levels in reservoirs, lakes, and ponds; reduced
streamflow; loss of wetlands; estuarine impacts; groundwater depletion and land
subsidence; effects on water quality such as increases in salt concentration and water
temperature
• Damage to animal species – lack of feed and drinking water; disease; loss of
biodiversity; migration or concentration; and reduction and degradation of fish and
wildlife habitat
• Damage to plant communities – loss of biodiversity; loss of trees from urban landscapes
and wooded conservation areas
• Increased number and severity of fires
• Reduced soil quality
• Air quality effects – dust and pollutants
• Loss of quality in landscape
4.3.1.3.
Past Occurrence
Table 4.3.1-3 lists the history of drought with corresponding crop damage in Clinton County,
according to NOAA National Climatic Data Center and SHELDUS records. SHELDUS in a
database developed by The Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute Department of
Geography University of South Carolina.
Table 4.3.1-3 History of drought in Clinton County
Location
Date
Crop Damage
Southern Portion
3/1/1995
0
Southern Portion
5/1/1995
0
Southern Portion
6/1/1995
0
Northern Portion
8/1/1995
0
42
Table 4.3.1-3 History of drought in Clinton County
Location
Date
Crop Damage
Northern Portion
9/1/1995
0
Southern Portion
9/1/1995
0
Northern and Southern Portion
10/31/1997
0
12/15/1998
0
7/1/1999
500.0M
Clinton County had 23 drought watches, 14 drought warnings, and 9 drought emergencies from
November 1980-Early 2011, although none of these were declared Presidential disasters.
Descriptions for drought status categories (i.e. watch, warning, and emergency) are included in
Section 4.3.1.2. The Department of Environmental Protection is the agency responsible for
collecting drought information. Data for all counties in the Commonwealth is available for the
past 30 years.
Tables 4.3.1-4 and 4.3.1-5 show the history of declared drought status in Clinton County over
the last thirty years (DEP, 2011).
Table 4.3.1-4 Declared drought status history 1980-1993 in Clinton County
DATE
STATUS
Nov 6, 1980 - Nov 7, 1980
Normal
Nov 7, 1980 - Nov 14, 1980
Normal
Nov 14, 1980 - Nov 18, 1980
Normal
Nov 18, 1980 - Apr 20, 1982
Emergency
Nov 8, 1982 - Nov 10, 1982
Normal
Nov 10, 1982 - Feb 8, 1983
Normal
Feb 8, 1983 - March 28, 1983
Normal
Jan 23, 1985 - Apr 26, 1985
Normal
Apr 26, 1985 - Jul 29, 1985
Watch
Jul 29, 1985 - Oct 22, 1985
Watch
Oct 22, 1985 - Oct 29, 1985
Watch
Oct 29, 1985 - Dec 19, 1985
Watch
Jul 7, 1988 - Aug 24, 1988
Watch
Aug 24, 1988 - Dec 12, 1988
Warning
Mar 3, 1989 - May 15, 1989
Watch
Jun 28, 1991 - Jul 24, 1991
Warning
Jul 24, 1991 - Aug 16, 1991
Emergency
Aug 16, 1991 - Sep 13, 1991
Emergency
43
DATE
STATUS
Sep 13, 1991 - Oct 21, 1991
Emergency
Oct 21, 1991 - Jan 16, 1992
Emergency
Jan 17, 1992 - Apr 20, 1992
Emergency
Apr 20, 1992 - Jun 23, 1992
Warning
Jun 23, 1992 - Sep 11, 1992
Watch
Sep 11, 1992 - Jan 15, 1993
Normal
DATE
STATUS
Sep 1, 1995 - Sep 20, 1995
Warning
Sep 20, 1995 - Nov 8, 1995
Emergency
Nov 8, 1995 - Dec 18, 1995
Warning
Jul 17, 1997 - Oct 27, 1997
Watch
Oct 27, 1997 - Nov 13, 1997
Watch
Nov 13, 1997 - Jan 16, 1998
Normal
Jan 16, 1998 - Feb 19, 1998
Normal
Feb 19, 1998 - Spring 1998
Normal
Dec 3, 1998 - Dec 8, 1998
Warning
Dec 8, 1998 - Dec 14, 1998
Warning
Dec 14, 1998 - Dec 16, 1998
Warning
Dec 16, 1998 - Jan 15, 1999
Warning
Jan 15, 1999 - Mar 15, 1999
Emergency
Mar 15, 1999 - Jun 10, 1999
Watch
Jun 10, 1999 - Jun 18, 1999
Warning
Jun 18, 1999 - Jul 20, 1999
Warning
Jul 20, 1999 - Sep 30,1999
Emergency
Sep 30, 1999 - Dec 16, 1999
Warning
Dec 16, 1999 - Feb 25,2000
Warning
Feb 25, 2000 - May 5, 2000
Watch
Aug 8, 2001 - Aug 24, 2001
Watch
Aug 24, 2001 - Nov 6, 2001
Watch
Nov 6, 2001 - Dec 5, 2001
Watch
Dec 5, 2001 - Feb 12, 2002
Watch
Feb 12, 2002 - May 13, 2002
Watch
May 13, 2002 - Jun 14, 2002
Normal
Jun 14, 2002 - Aug 9, 2002
Normal
Aug 9, 2002 - Sep 5, 2002
Normal
44
DATE
STATUS
Sep 5, 2002 - Nov 7, 2002
Watch
Nov 7, 2002 - Dec 19, 2002
Normal
Dec 19, 2002 - Jan 8, 2003
Normal
Jan 8, 2003 - Jun 18, 2003
Normal
Apr 11, 2006 - Jun 30, 2006
Watch
Aug 8, 2007 - Sep 5, 2007
Watch
Sep 5, 2007 - Oct 5, 2007
Watch
Oct 5, 2007 - Jan 11, 2008
Warning
Jan 11, 2008 - Feb 15, 2008
Watch
Nov 7, 2008 - Jan 26, 2009
Watch
Sep 16, 2010 - Nov 10, 2010
Watch
Nov 10, 2010 - Dec 17, 2010
Normal
Dec 17, 2010 - February 21, 2011
Normal
Table 4.3.1-6 provides a summary of PDSI values for the Central Mountains climate division,
which includes Clinton County, for severe or extreme drought events experienced between
September 1895 and August 2001. Periods of dry soil moisture conditions vary by region;
however, several widespread (i.e. low PDSI values for multiple climate divisions) events have
occurred. For example, between 1930 and 1932, most divisions reported extremely low PDSI
values.
drought in the Central Mountains Climate Division (NCDC, 2006).
DROUGHT PERIOD
DURATION (months)
LOWEST PDSI
9/1895-10/1896
14
-5.51 in 1/1896
12/1896-1/1897
2
-3.47 in 1/1897
3/1897-4/1897
2
-3.14 in 4/1897
10/1897-11/1897
2
-3.56 in 10/1897
5/1900-1/1902
21
-6.01 in 12/1900
5/1905-7/1905
3
-3.08 in 5/1905
10/1908-3/1909
6
-5.66 in 12/1908
5/1909-7/1911
27
-6.37 in 12/1909
9/1914-1/1915
5
-4.79 in 11/1914
3/1915-6/1915
4
-4.06 in 4/1915
45
drought in the Central Mountains Climate Division (NCDC, 2006).
DROUGHT PERIOD
DURATION (months)
LOWEST PDSI
4/1917-5/1917
2
-3.08 in 5/1917
4/1921-11/1921
8
-4.35 in 7/1921
1/1922-2/1922
2
-3.21 in 2/1922
5/1922-11/1923
19
-6.64 in 12/1922
8/1925-9/1925
2
-3.83 in 9/1925
4/1926-7/1926
4
-4.03 in 7/1926
7/1930-6/1931
12
-7.57 in 12/1930
11/1931-12/1931
2
-3.73 in 11/1931
8/1939-9/1939
2
-3.53 in 8/1939
11/1939-2/1940
4
-3.84 in 1/1940
11/1949-12/1949
2
-3.26 in 11/1949
6/1963-8/1963
3
-3.08 in 7/1963
10/1963-12/1963
3
-3.79 in 10/1963
10/1964-2/1965
5
-4.55 in 12/1964
6/1965-9/1965
4
-3.61 in 7/1965
7/1966-8/1966
2
-3.64 in 8/1966
7/1991-6/1992
12
-4.40 in 12/1991
8/1995-9/1995
2
-3.83 in 9/1995
11/1998-12/1998
2
-4.28 in 12/1998
6/1999-1/2000
8
-4.22 in 8/1999
7/2001-8/2001
2
-3.41 in 8/2001
Instrumental records of drought for the United States extend back approximately 100 years.
These records capture the major 20th century droughts but are too short to assess the
reoccurrence of major droughts such as those of the 1930s and 1950s. As droughts continue to
have increasingly costly and devastating impacts on our society, economy, and environment, it
is becoming even more important to put the severe droughts of the 20th-century into a long-term
perspective. This perspective can be gained through the use of paleoclimatic records of
drought.
46
Data from a variety of paleoclimate sources document drought conditions across North America
over the last 10,000 years. These records, with decade to century resolution, document
extended periods of extremely dry conditions in different regions of North America. This
paleoclimatic record of past droughts is considered by scientists as a better guide than what is
provided by the instrumental record alone of what we should expect in terms of the magnitude
and duration of future droughts. For example, paleoclimatic data suggest that droughts as
severe at the 1950s drought have occurred in central North America several times a century
over the past 300-400 years, and thus we should expect (and plan for) similar droughts in the
future. The paleoclimatic record also indicates that droughts of a much greater duration than
any in 20th century have occurred in parts of North American as recently as 500 years ago.
These data indicate that we should be aware of the possibility of such droughts occurring in the
future as well. The occurrence of such sustained drought conditions today would be a natural
disaster of a magnitude unprecedented in the 20th century. Although severe droughts have
occurred in the 20th century, a more long-term look at past droughts, when climate conditions
appear to have been similar to today, indicates that 20th century droughts do not represent the
possible range of drought variability.
4.3.1.4.
Future Occurrence
It is difficult to forecast the severity and frequency of future drought events in Clinton County.
Based on national data from 1895 to 1995, Clinton County is in a severe or extreme drought
approximately 5-10 percent of the time. Please refer to the figure below. This is equivalent to a
PSDI value less than or equal to -3. Therefore, the future occurrence of drought can be
considered possible.
47
Figure 4.3.1-2: Percent of time areas of the United States have PSDI values </= -3 (NIDS, 2010)
48
4.3.1.5.
Vulnerability Assessment
As a hazard, droughts primarily impact water supply and agricultural land. Areas of Clinton
County that rely on private wells are more impacted by water supply reductions than areas of
the County on public water supply. Jurisdictions with large amounts of farmland and high
agricultural yields are more likely to be affected by drought hazards. According to the 2007 U.S.
Department of Agriculture Agricultural Census, Clinton County is not one of the top ten
jurisdictions for agricultural production in Pennsylvania.
Clinton County does rank 35th out of the 67 Commonwealth counties in agricultural production
totaling $43,661,000. Livestock sales are the majority at 82 percent. The overall production
has increased by 63% from 2002 to 2007. The total in acreage of agricultural land is 56,626
acres. The average farm size is 105 acres. This is a decrease of 17 percent in size since 2002.
As stated previously, residents that use private domestic wells are more vulnerable to droughts
because their drinking water can dry up. Table 4.3.1-7 shows the number of domestic wells per
municipality. It is important to note that the well data was obtained from the Pennsylvania
Groundwater Information System (PaGWIS). PaGWIS relies on voluntary submissions of
well record data by well drillers; as a result, it is not a complete database of all domestic
wells in the County. This is the most complete dataset of domestic wells available.
Table 4.3.1-7: Number of domestic wells per municipality in Clinton County (PAGWIS, 2011).
MUNICIPALITY
DOMESTIC WELLS
Allison Twp.
15
Avis Borough
8
Bald Eagle Township
113
Beech Creek Borough
64
55
Castanea Township
4
Chapman Township
127
City of Lock Haven
26
Colebrook Township
76
Crawford Township
108
Dunnstable Township
13
1
Flemington Borough
171
Gallagher Township
235
Greene Township
13
Grugan Township
140
Lamar Township
173
Leidy Township
30
49
Table 4.3.1-7: Number of domestic wells per municipality in Clinton County (PAGWIS, 2011).
MUNICIPALITY
DOMESTIC WELLS
Logan Township
47
Loganton Borough
6
Mill Hall Borough
8
Noyes Township
66
Pine Creek Township
134
Porter Township
86
Renovo Borough
9
0
Wayne Township
43
14
Woodward Township
100
Total
1,885
In addition, public water suppliers are also vulnerable to periods of drought, particularly if they
rely on groundwater wells and do not have backup water storage.
4.3.2.
4.3.2.1.
Flood, Flash Flood and Ice Jam
Location and Extent
Like communities along the Susquehanna River, Clinton County is susceptible to the problems
and hazards associated with flooding. Within Clinton County, most flooding typically occurs
when a channel (i.e., a river, creek, stream, or ditch) receives too much water and the excess
flows over its banks onto the adjacent floodplain. This type of flooding is known as riverine (or
over bank) flooding and is generally a problem only where there has been development in the
floodplain. Riverine flooding in an undisturbed floodplain is a natural process that has been
occurring for millennia with little or no adverse consequences. It is only in recent history that
natural floodplains have been altered by human encroachment, giving rise to flooding as a
potentially devastating natural hazard. Within Clinton County, there are numerous places where
homes, businesses, and even industries have been constructed in a floodplain. As such,
flooding is arguably the most geographically/topographically influenced and potentially
devastating natural hazard that Clinton County may face.
In addition to basic riverine and over bank flooding (such as occurs on the Susquehanna River,
Bald Eagle Creek, and Fishing Creek), Clinton County is also susceptible to a modified form of
riverine over bank flooding known as flash flooding. Unlike the Susquehanna River, which may
take up to two or more days to rise and crest, many of the County’s inland streams and
watercourses are subject to flash flooding. Flash floods occur in hilly and mountainous areas
where surface water runoff enters a drainage channel during and/or immediately following a
significant storm event or in urban areas where pavement and drainage improvements speed
runoff to a stream. As such, flash flooding is characterized by a rapid rise in water levels and
50
higher velocity flows. Within Clinton County, flash floods occur in rural areas on such streams as
Bald Eagle Creek and Fishing Creek, while recently there has also been a noticeable increase
in the occurrence of flash flooding in the more urbanized area around Clinton County.
Floods caused by ice jams are of little or no concern in Clinton County. Ice jam flooding is
comparable to flash flooding in that the formation of an ice jam causes water upstream to rise
rapidly. When the jam releases, sudden flooding occurs downstream. Ice jams can occur during
fall freeze-up when ice begins to form, during midwinter when channels freeze solid and form
anchor ice, and during spring melt when the breakup of surface ice results in large, floating
masses of ice. The force of impact from ice carried by floodwaters typically causes more
damage to buildings, bridges, and other structures than open-water flooding.
The figure below indicates that Clinton County has a well-developed drainage network
consisting of numerous first-, second-, and third-order streams. Several larger watercourses
(e.g., Young Woman’s Creek, Beech Creek, Fishing Creek, Bald Eagle Creek, Pine Creek,
Kettle Creek and the West Branch Susquehanna River) also traverse the County. As evidenced
by figure 4.3.2-1, most of these watercourses have delineated floodplains established by FEMA
through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These delineated floodplains show the
estimated area of inundation associated with the 1-percent-annual-chance storm event.
51
Figure 4.3.2-1: Map showing the location of watercourses and flood zones throughout Clinton County.
52
The size of the floodplain is described by the recurrence interval of a given flood. Flood
recurrence intervals are explained in more detail in Section 4.3.3.4. However, in assessing the
potential spatial extent of flooding it is important to know that a floodplain associated with a flood
that has a 10 percent chance of occurring in a given year is smaller than the floodplain
associated with a flood that has a 0.2% annual chance of occurring.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), for which Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
are published, identifies the 1% annual chance flood. This 1% annual chance flood event is
used to delineate the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and identify Base Flood Elevations.
Figure 4.3.2-2 illustrates these terms. The SFHA serves as the primary regulatory boundary
used by FEMA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Clinton County local governments.
Figure 4.3.2-2: Diagram identifying Special Flood Hazard Area, 1% annual chance (100Year) floodplain, floodway and flood fringe.
The Special Flood Hazard Area serves as the primary regulatory boundary used by FEMA and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. DFIRMs, paper Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), and
other flood hazard information for counties throughout Pennsylvania can be obtained from the
FEMA Map Service Center (http://www.msc.fema.gov).
53
These maps can be used to identify the expected spatial extent of flooding from a 1%- and
0.2%-annual-chance event. Figure 4.3.2-3 shows the location of Special Flood Hazard Areas for
the City of Lock Haven, Clinton County. Note that there is typically higher uncertainty in the
delineation of flood hazard areas in broad, flat floodplains in comparison to areas of steeper
topography.
Figure 4.3.2-3: FIRM Panel 42035C0389D, effective September 2008, showing flood
hazard areas near the City of Lock Haven.
The FEMA effective September 26, 2008, Flood Insurance Study (FIS) lists these flood sources
as problem areas for the County and some of its municipalities. They are as follows:
The chief flooding concern for parts of Clinton County is the West Branch Susquehanna River.
Backwater effects of the flooding West Branch compound flooding problems of many of the
tributaries. A second major concern is Bald Eagle Creek. Floods on Bald Eagle Creek are
usually the result of high flows on Bald Eagle Creek and backwater effects of the West Branch
Susquehanna River. The floods along the West Branch Susquehanna River and Bald Eagle
Creek have long durations.
In the Borough of Avis, the primary flooding concern is Oak Grove Run. During Tropical Storm
Agnes in 1972, Oak Grove Run eroded topsoil, entered basements, and undermined road beds
54
but water did not raise enough to enter the first floors of any structures. Pine Creek also causes
problems in the eastern section of the borough due to ponding behind the embankments of the
U.S. Route 220 Bridge.
In the Township of Chapman, the chief flooding concerns lie along the West Branch
Susquehanna River, Young Womans Creek, and Hyner Run. During the floods resulting from
Tropical Storm Agnes damages were greatest in the towns of North Bend, Pennsylvania near
the mouth of Young Womans Creek and Hyner, Pennsylvania at the mouth of Hyner Run. Water
entered the basement and first floor of many residential and commercial structures. Bank
erosion was a common problem and the channels had to be cleared of debris following the
storm. Whole sections of undermined roads had to be replaced. When Tropical Storm Eloise
struck in 1975 there was a repetition of the damage caused in 1972 but not as severe.
Farrandsville in the Township of Colebrook has been subjected to flash flooding along Lick Run
and Whiskey Run. As mentioned above, Tropical Storm Eloise caused more damage to the
Township of Colebrook than the earlier Tropical Storm Agnes. In 1975, a breached levee, which
had failed during the Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972 and had never been repaired, allowed flood
waters from Lick Run into the basements of nearby structures. In addition, Whiskey Run, which
filled with sediment from the 1972 flood, overran its banks and damaged previously untouched
properties.
Flood flows in the West Branch Susquehanna River exceeding 90,000 cubic feet per second
(cfs) at Jay Street Bridge in the City of Lock Haven have occurred 18 times since 1847. The
greatest flood on record occurred in 1936 and had a discharge of 238,000 cfs at the Jay Street
Bridge. The flood of June 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes, had an estimated discharge of 190,000
cfs at Jay Street after a reduction of approximately 60,000 cfs by upstream flood control
reservoirs. Total damage is this region resulting from the 1972 flood was approximately
$50,000,000 (Reference 22).
Based on historical data, the principle sources of flooding within the Township of Pine Creek are
the West Branch Susquehanna River and Pine Creek. Chatham Run, a tributary of the West
Branch also has a history of past flooding. Chatham Run overflowed during the 1972 flood
inundating homes on both sides of Park Avenue for most of the distance up to Gravel Hill Road.
The Township of Pine Creek has experienced damage from periodic floods occurring in 1889,
1936, 1951, 1959, and 1972. The 1972 flood was the most severe of these flooding events and
had an estimated frequency of occurrence of 130-years.
4.3.2.2.
Range of Magnitude
Floods are considered hazards when people and property are affected. Most injuries and
deaths from flooding happen when people are swept away by flood currents and most property
damage results from inundation by sediment-filled water. A large amount of rainfall over a short
time span can result in flash flood conditions. Small amounts of rain can result in floods in
locations where the soil is frozen or saturated from a previous wet period or if the rain is
concentrated in an area of impermeable surfaces such as large parking lots, paved roadways,
or other impervious developed areas.
55
Several factors determine the severity of floods, including rainfall intensity and duration,
topography, ground cover and rate of snowmelt. Water runoff is greater in areas with steep
slopes and little to no vegetative ground cover. Since the County has mountainous terrain, this
can contribute to more severe floods as runoff reaches receiving water bodies more rapidly over
steep terrain. Also, urbanization typically results in the replacement of vegetative ground cover
with asphalt and concrete, increasing the volume of surface runoff and stormwater, particularly
in areas with poorly planned stormwater drainage systems.
In Clinton County there are seasonal differences in how floods are caused. In the winter and
early spring (February to April), major flooding has occurred as a result of heavy rainfall on
dense snowpack throughout contributing watersheds. Summer floods have occurred from
intense rainfall on previously saturated soils. Summer thunderstorms deposit large quantities of
rainfall over a short period of time that can result in flash flood events, when the velocity of
floodwaters has the potential to amplify the impacts of a flood event.
Winter floods also have resulted from runoff of intense rainfall on frozen ground, such as the
flood of January 20th 1996. On rare occasions, local flooding has been exacerbated by ice
jams in rivers. Ice jam floods occur on rivers that are totally or partially frozen. A rise in stream
stage will break up a totally frozen river and create ice flows that can pile up on channel
obstructions such as shallow riffles, log jams, or bridge piers. The jammed ice creates a dam
across the channel over which the water and ice mixture continues to flow, allowing for more
jamming to occur. In 1964, an ice jam did cause flooding. A picture of the flooding was located,
but details of size, magnitude, and damage could not be found.
56
Figure 4.3.2-4 Flooding as a result of an ice jam, Clinton County 1964.
Clinton County has experienced its worst flooding as a result of tropical storms/hurricanes and
snowmelt events. Tropical storms and hurricanes occur between the months of June and
November, with the peak season being September to October. These storms bring torrential
rains and high winds and often cause flash flooding as well as over bank flooding of inland
streams and rivers. Some of the most notable floods (e.g., June 1972 and September 2004)
were the result of tropical storms (Agnes and Ivan, respectively). Photographs are shown below.
57
Figure 4.3.2-5: Flooding as a result of the heavy rain associated with Tropical
Depression Ivan 2004.
Figure 4.3.2-6: Cars being swept away in the Borough of Renovo during the heavy rain
associated with Tropical Depression Ivan in 2004.
58
Figure 4.3.2-7 Rescuers pulling flood victims to safety during Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.
Although the St. Patrick’s Day flood of 1936 actually caused a higher crest at Lock Haven than
the flood of 1972 that is associated with Hurricane Agnes, Clinton County uses the flood of 1972
as their worse storm on record. Tropical Storm Agnes occurred in June 1972 just after an
earlier rainfall event had saturated the ground in much of Pennsylvania. Agnes brought as much
as 18 inches of rain to some places in Pennsylvania, with Clinton County receiving 10 to 12
inches. This event produced severe surface water runoff conditions which caused abnormally
high flows in local streams and tributaries. Most communities along the Susquehanna River,
including Clinton County experienced severe flooding. The U.S.G.S. gage at Lock Haven
recorded a peak river stage of 31.3 feet. Numerous other streams in Clinton County reached
historical crests causing flooding in nearly all communities within the county. It was estimated
that Pennsylvania incurred over $2 billion (1972) in damages and was so severely impacted that
President Richard Nixon declared the entire state a disaster area (Miller, 1974; Gannett
Fleming, 1974).
59
Figure 4.3.2-8 Flooding from Hurricane Agnes in 1972 in Clinton County.
Figure 4.3.2-9: Flooding in the downtown of Lock Haven during Hurricane Agnes.
60
Utilizing the Risk Factor Methodology, Clinton County, municipalities, and other stakeholders
calculated a Countywide Risk Factor of 3.3 for Flood, Flash Flood, and Ice Jam. They
determined that impact for an event could be critical, which could result in possible death and/or
injuries, more than 25% of property being affected in an area, and possible complete shutdown
of critical facilities. It was also determined that during an event the spatial extent could be
moderately impacted, which would result in between 11 and 25% of County being affected.
4.3.2.3.
Past Occurrence
Clinton County has a long history of flood events. Flash flooding is the most common type of
flooding that occurs in the County. The table below lists flood information from 1970 to 2010.
This data was obtained from NCDC and SHELDUS records. Please note that those incidents
stating, “Clinton County,” came from the SHELDUS database, which did not list a specific
located just indicated that they occurred within the County limits. Also, please note that The
Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute Department of Geography University of South
Carolina, aggregates their data for death, injuries, and estimated damage. For example if 40
injuries were to occur and 55 counties were affected, they would take the average, which would
be 0.8 and apply that as the number of Injuries. As result, where numbers were indicated, a N/A
has been provided.
Table 4.3.2-1: History of flooding in Clinton County
Location
Date
Type
Death
Injury
Property
Damage
Clinton County
4/2/1970
Rain, Flooding
0
0
19,000
Clinton County
4/2/1970
Rain, Flooding
0
0.12
2,000
Countywide
6/21/1972
Rain, Flooding
0.75
0
7,500,000
Clinton County
6/28/1973
Heavy Rain,
Flooding
0.24
0.6
15,000
Clinton County
9/23/1975
Flooding, Heavy
Rain
0.12
0
1,500,00
Clinton County
1/26/1976
Flooding, Snow
0
0
0
Clinton County
1/24/1979
Rain, Flooding
0
0
15,000
Clinton County
2/23/1979
Rain, Flooding
0
0
15,000
61
Location
Date
Type
Death
Injury
Property
Damage
Clinton County
2/2/1982
Flood
0
0
2,000
Clinton County
6/28/1983
Flood
0
0
25,000
Clinton County
2/14/1984
Flood
0
0
1,700,000
Clinton County
3/14/1986
Small Stream Flood
0
0
15,000
Countywide
3/29/1993
Flood
0
0
0
Clinton County
4/10/1993
Flood
0
0
4,000
Countywide
11/28/1993
Flood/flash Flood
0
0
0
Several Counties
11/28/1993
Flood/flash Flood
0
0
0
Beech Creek
3/25/1994
Flood
0
0
0
Clinton County
8/18/1994
Flash Flood
0
2
50,000
Countywide
8/18/1994
Flood/flash Flood
0
2
0
Countywide
8/18/1994
Flash Flood
0
2
500,000
Countywide
8/25/1994
Flood/flash Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
8/25/1994
Flood/flash Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
8/25/1994
Flood/flash Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
8/25/1994
Flood/flash Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
1/20/1995
Small Stream Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
10/21/1995
Flood/flash Flood
0
0
0
1/19/1996
Flood
0
0
0
1/19/1996
Flash Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
62
Location
Date
Type
Death
Injury
Property
Damage
Countywide
11/8/1996
Flash Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
12/1/1996
Flash Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
1/8/1998
Flash Flood
0
0
0
Mill Hall
8/2/2000
Flash Flood
0
0
20,000
Several Counties
3/26/2002
Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
5/13/2002
Flood
0
0
0
Mill Hall
5/30/2002
Flash Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
11/19/2003
Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
12/11/2003
Flood
0
0
0
Southern and
Northern Portions
7/27/2004
Flood
0
0
0
Several Counties
9/8/2004
Flood
0
0
0
Southern Portion
9/9/2004
Flood
0
0
0
Countywide
9/17/2004
Flood
0
0
1,500,000
Several Counties
9/17/2004
Flood
2
0
50,000,000
Southern Portion
9/17/2004
Flood
0
0
0
Northern Portion
9/18/2004
Flood
0
0
0
Southern Portion
9/18/2004
Flood
0
0
0
Southern Portion
9/28/2004
Flood
0
0
0
Southern and
Northern portions
11/29/2005
Flood
0
0
0
Lock Haven
11/16/2006
Flash Flood
0
0
0
Cooks Run
3/5/2008
Flood
0
0
0
63
Location
Date
Type
Death
Injury
Property
Damage
Swissdale
7/23/2009
Flash Flood
0
0
40,000
Swissdale
7/23/2009
Flood
0
0
0
Total
$61,422,000
64
In addition to the aforementioned past flood events, the National Flood Insurance Program identifies properties that frequently
experience flooding. Repetitive loss properties are structures insured under the NFIP which have had at least two paid flood losses
of more than $1,000 over any ten year period since 1978. A property is considered a severe repetitive loss property either when
there are at least four losses each exceeding $5,000 or when there are two or more losses where the building payments exceed the
property value. As of March 4, 2010, there was one repetitive loss properties in Clinton County (PEMA, 2010).
Table 4.3.2-2: Summary of the number and type of Repetitive Loss properties by municipality (PEMA, 2010).
TYPE
MUNICIPALITY
NONRESIDENTIAL
SINGLE
FAMILY
2-4 FAMILY
OTHER
RESIDENT
CONDO
SUM OF
REPETITIVE
LOSS
PROPERTIES
Allison Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avis Borough
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bald Eagle Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Beech Creek Borough
0
0
0
0
0
0
Castanea Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chapman Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Colebrook Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Crawford Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dunnstable Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Flemington Borough
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gallagher Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Greene Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grugan Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lamar Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Leidy Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lock Haven City
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
Table 4.3.2-2: Summary of the number and type of Repetitive Loss properties by municipality (PEMA, 2010).
SUM OF
REPETITIVE
LOSS
PROPERTIES
TYPE
MUNICIPALITY
NONRESIDENTIAL
SINGLE
FAMILY
2-4 FAMILY
OTHER
RESIDENT
CONDO
Logan Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loganton Borough
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mill Hall Borough
0
0
0
0
0
0
Noyes Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pine Creek Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Porter Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
Renovo Borough
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wayne Township
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Woodward Township
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
Floods are the most common and costly natural catastrophe in the United States. In terms of economic disruption, property damage,
and loss of life, floods are “nature’s number-one disaster.” For that reason, flood insurance is almost never available under industrystandard homeowner’s and renter’s policies. The best way for citizens to protect their property against flood losses is to purchase
flood insurance through the NFIP.
Congress established the NFIP in 1968 to help control the growing cost of federal disaster relief. The NFIP is administered by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The NFIP offers federallybacked flood insurance in communities that adopt and enforce effective floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood
losses.
66
Since 1983, the chief means of providing flood insurance coverage has been a cooperative venture of FEMA and the private
insurance industry known as the Write Your Own (WYO) Program. This partnership allows qualified property and casualty insurance
companies to “write” (that is, issue) and service the NFIP’s Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) under their own names.
67
Today, nearly 90 WYO insurance companies issue and service the SFIP under their own
names. More than 4.4 million federal flood insurance policies are in force. These policies
represent $650 billion in flood insurance coverage for homeowners, renters, and business
owners throughout the United States and its territories.The NFIP provides flood insurance to
individuals in communities that are members of the program. Membership in the program is
contingent on the community adopting and enforcing floodplain management and development
regulations.
The NFIP is based on the voluntary participation of communities of all sizes. In the context of
this program, a “community” is a political entity – whether an incorporated city, town, township,
borough, or village, or an unincorporated area of a county or parish – that has legal authority to
adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances for the area under its jurisdiction.
National Flood Insurance is available only in communities that apply for participation in the NFIP
and agree to implement prescribed flood mitigation measures. Newly participating communities
are admitted to the NFIP’s Emergency Program. Most of these communities quickly earn
“promotion” to the Regular Program.
The Emergency Program is the initial phase of a community’s participation in the NFIP. In
return for the local government’s agreeing to adopt basic floodplain management standards, the
NFIP allows local property owners to buy modest amounts of flood insurance coverage.
In return for agreeing to adopt more comprehensive floodplain management measures, an
Emergency Program community can be “promoted” to the Regular Program. Local
policyholders immediately become eligible to buy greater amounts of flood insurance coverage.
All participating municipalities in Clinton County are in the Regular Program.
The minimum floodplain management requirements include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Review and permit all development in the SFHA;
Elevate new and substantially improved residential structures above the Base Flood
Elevation;
Elevate or dry floodproof new and substantially improved non-residential structures;
Limit development in floodways;
Locate or construct all public utilities and facilities so as to minimize or eliminate flood
damage; and
Anchor foundation or structure to resist floatation, collapse, or lateral movement.
In addition, Regular Program communities are eligible to participate in the NFIP’s Community
Rating System (CRS). Under the CRS, policyholders can receive premium discounts of 5 to 45
percent as their cities and towns adopt more comprehensive flood mitigation measures.
Currently, no municipalities in Clinton County participate in CRS.
Table 4.3.2-3 lists the Clinton County municipalities participating in the NFIP along with the date
of the initial FIRM and the current effective map date. Clinton County has 100% participation in
the National Flood Insurance Program. Their maps were last updated on September 26, 2008.
68
Table 4.3.2-3: Communities within Clinton County participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program
COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION
STATUS
CID
INITIAL
FIRM
IDENTIFIED
CURRENT
EFFECTIVE MAP
DATE
ALLISON TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
421534
09/03/80
09/26/08
AVIS BOROUGH
PARTICIPATING
420318
01/16/80
09/26/08
BALD EAGLE TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420319
02/04/81
09/26/08
BEECH CREEK BOROUGH
PARTICIPATING
420320
08/02/90
09/26/08
BEECH CREEK TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420321
09/05/90
09/26/08
CASTANEA TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420322
02/02/77
09/26/08
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420323
12/18/79
09/26/08
COLEBROOK TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420324
01/02/80
09/26/08
CRAWFORD TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
421535
09/01/86
09/26/08(M)
DUNNSTABLE TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420325
03/01/77
09/26/08
EAST KEATING TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
421536
10/01/86
09/26/08(M)
FLEMINGTON BOROUGH
PARTICIPATING
420326
02/02/77
09/26/08
GALLAGHER TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
421537
09/01/86
09/26/08(M)
GREENE TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
421538
09/01/86
09/26/08(M)
GRUGAN TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
421539
12/01/86
09/26/08(M)
LAMAR TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420327
03/16/88
09/26/08
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
421540
09/01/86
09/26/08(M)
LOCK HAVEN CITY
PARTICIPATING
420328
02/02/77
09/26/08
LOGAN TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
421541
05/01/86
09/26/08(M)
LOGANTON CITY
PARTICIPATING
421533
09/01/86
09/26/08(M)
MILL HALL BOROUGH
PARTICIPATING
420330
02/16/77
09/26/08
NOYES TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420331
11/05/80
09/26/08
PINE CREEK TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420332
04/01/77
09/26/08
PORTER TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420333
07/15/88
09/26/08
RENOVO BOROUGH
PARTICIPATING
420334
12/28/76
09/26/08
SOUTH RENOVO BOROUGH
PARTICIPATING
420335
02/02/77
09/26/08
WAYNE TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420336
11/01/79
09/26/08
WEST KEATING TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
421542
10/01/86
09/26/08(M)
WOODWARD TOWNSHIP
PARTICIPATING
420337
01/16/80
09/26/08
69
4.3.2.4.
Future Occurrence
In Clinton County, flooding occurs commonly and can occur during any season of the year.
Therefore the future occurrence of floods in Clinton County can be characterized as highly
likely. Floods are described in terms of their extent (including the horizontal area affected and
the vertical depth of floodwaters) and the related probability of occurrence. The NFIP uses
historical records to determine the probability of occurrence for different extents of flooding. The
probability of occurrence is expressed in percentages as the chance of a flood of a specific
extent occurring in any given year.
The NFIP recognizes the 1%-annual-chance flood, also known as the base flood, as the
standard for identifying properties subject to federal flood insurance purchase requirements. A
1%-annual-chance flood is a flood which has a 1% chance of occurring over a given year. The
DFIRMs, once effective, will be able to be used to identify areas subject to the 1- and 0.2%annual-chance flooding. Areas subject to 2% and 10% annual chance events are not shown on
maps; however, water surface elevations associated with these events are included in the flood
source profiles contained in the Flood Insurance Study Report.
Table 4.3.2-4 shows a range of flood recurrence intervals and associated probabilities of
occurrence.
Table 4.3.2-4: Recurrence intervals and associated probabilities of occurrence (FEMA, 2001).
RECURRENCE
INTERVAL
CHANCE OF OCCURRENCE IN ANY GIVEN YEAR (%)
10 year
10
50 year
2
100 year
1
500 year
0.2
4.3.2.5.
Clinton County is vulnerable to flooding that causes loss of lives, property damage, and road
closures. For purposes of assessing vulnerability, the County focused on community assets
that are located in the 1%-annual-chance floodplain. While greater and smaller floods are
possible, information about the extent and depths for this floodplain is available for all
municipalities countywide, thus providing a consistent basis for analysis. Flood vulnerability
maps for each applicable local municipality, showing the 1%-annual-chance flood hazard area
and addressable structures, critical facilities and transportation routes within it, are included in
Appendix D. These maps were created using FEMA Countywide Preliminary digital data.
70
Table 4.3.2-5 displays the number of addressable structures and populations intersecting the SFHA along with the total number of addressable structures, structures in mobile home parcels, and population in each
municipality. The number of vulnerable addressable structures was calculated by overlaying the addressable structures with the SFHA. Similarly, the estimated population in the SFHA was calculated by overlaying the
centroids of Census blocks with the SFHA; while clearly an estimate, using the block centroid helps to minimize overestimation of floodprone populations. Pine Creek Township has the most addressable structures and
population located in the SFHA. The City of Lock Haven has the second most addressable structures located in the SFHA. And for percentage of structures located in the SFHA, Mill Hall Borough and Bald Eagle Township
have the largest percent of structures in the floodplain. The number of parcels in the SFHA has change since the 2006 Plan. The 2006 Plan indicated there were 3,216 structures where as the 2011 plan update indicates
8,778. This is due to updates in County GIS data and Updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps that went effective in 2008.
Table 4.3.2-5: Structure and population vulnerability to floods in Clinton County.
Total Assessed
Parcel Value
# of Parcels
in SFHA
% of Total
Parcels in
SFHA
Total Assessed Parcel
Value in SFHA
Total
Addressable
Structures
Total
Addressable
Structures in
SFHA
% of Total
Addressable
Structures in
SFHA
Total Population
(2000)
Estimated 2000
Population in
SFHA
% Population in
SFHA
Municipality
Total Parcels
Allison Township
254
$
18,070,350
46
18.1%
$
2,898,300
96
6
6.3%
198
69
34.8%
Avis Borough
1,337
$
137,152,740
293
21.9%
$
37,617,100
620
68
11.0%
1,492
178
11.9%
Bald Eagle Township
1,358
$
281,056,017
480
35.3%
$
167,477,417
1,126
371
32.9%
1,898
893
47.0%
Beech Creek Borough
417
$
36,392,700
95
22.8%
$
6,328,400
314
21
6.7%
717
66
9.2%
1,134
$
319,283,850
297
26.2%
$
148,830,200
774
76
9.8%
1,010
134
13.3%
Castanea Township
989
$
193,587,900
243
24.6%
$
104,695,100
582
52
8.9%
1,233
312
25.3%
Chapman Township
1,558
$
1,424,210,040
430
27.6%
$
790,288,580
914
186
20.4%
993
182
18.3%
Colebrook Township
323
$
195,146,400
206
63.8%
$
86,151,300
111
30
27.0%
179
39
21.8%
Crawford Township
596
$
204,186,200
92
15.4%
$
63,143,600
427
27
6.3%
848
89
10.5%
Dunnstable Township
708
$
72,332,100
143
20.2%
$
12,987,700
455
50
11.0%
945
106
11.2%
340
$
922,981,480
143
42.1%
$
499,921,000
197
18
9.1%
24
8
33.3%
Flemington Borough
958
$
112,621,300
80
8.4%
$
5,871,300
604
10
1.7%
1,319
126
9.6%
Gallagher Township
711
$
191,771,400
49
6.9%
$
75,951,200
452
2
0.4%
340
-
0.0%
Greene Township
1,271
$
366,961,900
124
9.8%
$
84,143,000
880
10
1.1%
1,464
4
0.3%
Grugan Township
266
$
851,984,300
147
55.3%
$
413,966,200
164
38
23.2%
52
36
69.2%
Lamar Township
1,644
$
378,679,445
532
32.4%
$
125,735,600
1,184
193
16.3%
2,450
532
21.7%
Leidy Township
1,413
$
1,332,942,672
521
36.9%
$
784,644,312
899
180
20.0%
229
42
18.3%
Lock Haven City
4,775
$
1,747,206,930
782
16.4%
$
276,032,560
2,565
189
7.4%
9,149
631
6.9%
Logan Township
674
$
138,724,100
156
23.1%
$
59,595,700
403
42
10.4%
773
37
4.8%
Loganton Borough
294
$
28,795,900
28
9.5%
$
2,483,600
220
4
1.8%
435
4
0.9%
Mill Hall Borough
1,090
$
133,864,680
501
46.0%
$
56,829,780
707
254
35.9%
1,568
660
42.1%
Noyes Township
1,217
$
1,237,152,500
557
45.8%
$
769,892,300
430
91
21.2%
419
51
12.2%
Pine Creek Township
2,880
$
315,464,250
1,145
39.8%
$
119,795,550
1,580
319
20.2%
3,184
1,080
33.9%
Porter Township
1,052
$
249,247,100
392
37.3%
$
109,304,200
772
179
23.2%
1,419
464
32.7%
Renovo Borough
1,499
$
352,653,900
496
33.1%
$
34,131,700
610
187
30.7%
1,318
474
36.0%
685
$
20,999,500
24
3.5%
$
4,872,100
231
-
0.0%
557
-
0.0%
71
Table 4.3.2-5: Structure and population vulnerability to floods in Clinton County.
Total Assessed
Parcel Value
# of Parcels
in SFHA
% of Total
Parcels in
SFHA
Total Assessed Parcel
Value in SFHA
Total
Addressable
Structures
Total
Addressable
Structures in
SFHA
% of Total
Addressable
Structures in
SFHA
Total Population
(2000)
Estimated 2000
Population in
SFHA
% Population in
SFHA
Municipality
Total Parcels
Wayne Township
907
$
266,390,420
216
23.8%
$
40,277,100
669
54
8.1%
1,363
106
7.8%
351
$
211,141,600
100
28.5%
$
50,741,200
187
6
3.2%
42
-
0.0%
Woodward Township
1,857
$
192,284,000
460
24.8%
$
36,614,000
1,220
152
12.5%
2,296
164
7.1%
TOTAL
32,558
8,778
27.0%
19,393
2,815
14.5%
37,914
6,487
17.1%
11,933,285,674
$
4,971,220,099
72
Table 4.3.2-6 indicates critical facility by type in the SFHA for each municipality. Municipalities
with no critical in the SFHA are not listed. Mill Hall Borough has five critical facilities in the
SFHA and Bald Eagle Township, City of Lock Haven, and Renovo Borough each have 3
facilities. More detailed information about critical facilities can be found in Appendix E-Critical
Facilities.
Table 4.3.2-6: Critical Facilities for Clinton County by Type in SFHA..
Municipality
Church
AVIS
BOROUGH
1
BALD EAGLE
TOWNSHIP
1
CASTANEA
TOWNSHIP
1
Electric
Substations
Fire &
Rescue
Municipal
Building
Police
Sanitary
Treatment
Facility
School
Total
1
1
1
3
1
CHAPMAN
TOWNSHIP
1
1
COLEBROOK
TOWNSHIP
1
1
CRAWFORD
TOWNSHIP
1
1
DUNNSTABLE
TOWNSHIP
1
1
LAMAR
TOWNSHIP
2
2
LEIDY
TOWNSHIP
1
1
LOCK HAVEN
CITY
2
MILL HALL
BOROUGH
3
1
3
1
1
PINE CREEK
TOWNSHIP
RENOVO
BOROUGH
1
Total
13
1
1
3
3
1
5
1
1
1
3
2
1
24
73
4.3.3.
4.3.3.1.
Hurricane, Tropical Storm, Nor’ easter
Location and Extent
Clinton County as well as the rest of Pennsylvania does not have any open-ocean coastline.
However, the impacts of coastal storm systems such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and
nor’easters can extend well inland. Tropical storm systems (i.e. hurricanes, tropical storms,
tropical depressions) that could impact Clinton County develop in tropical or sub-tropical waters
of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or Caribbean Sea. Nor’easters are extra-tropical storms
which typically develop from low-pressure centers off the Atlantic Coast north of North Carolina
during the winter months. Extra-tropical is a term used to describe a hurricane or tropical storm
that’s cyclone has lost its “tropical” characteristics. While an extra-tropical storm denotes a
change in weather pattern and how the storm is gathering energy, it may still have winds that
are tropical storm or hurricane force.
In some cases, the center of circulation for these storm systems where wind and precipitation
effects are often most intense can track inland and move directly through Clinton County as well
as the rest of Pennsylvania. However, due to the size of these storms, Clinton County as well as
the rest of the Commonwealth can be affected even when circulation centers pass at a distance
of several hundred miles. In either case, these storms are regional events that can impact very
large areas hundreds to thousands of miles across over the life of the storm. In general, coastal
storm systems affect communities in the eastern portion of Pennsylvania more often than
western communities. However, these storms have the potential to impact all communities
across Commonwealth including Clinton County.
Tropical storms impacting Clinton County develop in the tropical or sub-tropical waters found in
the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or Caribbean Sea. Cyclones with a maximum sustained
wind of less than 39 miles per hour (mph) are called tropical depressions. Tropical storm is a
cyclone with maximum sustained winds between 39-74 mph. These storms sometimes develop
into hurricanes with wind speeds in excess of 74 mph.
Figure 4.3.3-1 shows wind speed zones developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers
based on information including 40 years of tornado history and over 100 years of hurricane
history. It identifies wind speeds that could occur across the United States to be used as the
basis for design and evaluation of the structural integrity of shelters and critical facilities.
Clinton County falls within Zone III, meaning design wind speeds for shelters and critical
facilities should be able to withstand a 3-second gust of up to 200 mph, regardless of whether
the gust is the result of a tornado, hurricane, tropical storm, or windstorm event.
During the update process Clinton County, the municipalities, and other stakeholders calculated
a Countywide Risk Factor utilizing the criteria in Section 4.4 of this plan. They determined that
overall it was a low hazard risk for the County with a Risk Factor of 1.9. If the event were to
occur utilizing the RF methodology the impact would be limited with minor injuries and less than
10% of the property would be affected. Critical facilities could possibly be shut down for more
than one day. The spatial extant for an event would be small and would result in between 1 and
10.9 % of the County being affected. When the municipalities compared their own jurisdictional
risk to the County’s, Chapman Township, Leidy Township, Loganton Borough, and West
74
Keating Township felt that their risk was greater than the Countywide calculated Risk Factor.
Noyes Township indicated that their risk was less than the County’s calculated Risk Factor. All
other municipalities indicated that their risk was equal to the County’s calculated Risk Factor.
75
Figure 4.3.3-1: Design wind speed zones for Clinton County (FEMA, 2009).
76
4.3.3.2.
Range of Magnitude
The impacts associated with hurricanes and tropical storms are primarily wind damage and
flooding. It is not uncommon for tornadoes to develop during these events. Historical tropical
storm and hurricane events have brought intense rainfall, sometimes leading to damaging
floods, northeast winds, which combined with waterlogged soils, caused trees and utility poles
to fall.
The impact tropical storm or hurricane events have on an area is typically measured in terms of
wind speed. Expected damage from hurricane force winds is measured using the SaffirSimpson Scale. The Saffir-Simpson Scale categorizes hurricane intensity linearly based upon
maximum sustained winds, barometric pressure and storm surge potential (a characteristic of
tropical storms and hurricanes, but not a threat to Clinton County), which are combined to
estimate potential damage. Table 4.3.3-1 lists Saffir-Simpson Scale categories with associated
wind speeds and expected damages. Categories 3, 4 and 5 are classified as “major” hurricanes.
While major hurricanes comprise only 20% of all tropical cyclones making landfall, they account
for over 70% of the damage in the United States. The likelihood of these damages occurring in
Clinton County is assessed in Section 4.3.3.4, Future Occurrence.
Table 4.3.3-1: Saffir-Simpson Scale categories with associated wind speeds and damages (NHC,
2009).
STORM
CATEGORY
WIND
SPEED
(mph)
DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGES
1
74-95
MINIMAL: Damage is limited primarily to shrubbery and trees,
unanchored mobile homes and signs. No significant structural damage.
2
96-110
MODERATE: Some trees are toppled, some roof coverings are damaged
and major damage occurs to mobile homes. Some roofing material, door
and window damage.
3
111-130
EXTENSIVE: Some structural damage to small residences and utility
buildings, with a minor amount of curtain wall failures. Mobile homes are
destroyed. Large trees are toppled. Terrain may be flooded well inland.
4
131-155
EXTREME: Extensive damage to roofs, windows and doors; roof systems
on small buildings completely fail. More extensive curtain wall failures.
Terrain may be flooded well inland.
>155
CATASTROPHIC: Complete roof failure on many residences and
industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility
buildings blown over or away. Massive evacuation of residential areas
may be required.
5
It is important to recognize the potential for flooding events during hurricanes and tropical
storms; the risk assessment and associated impact for flooding events is included in Section
4.3.2. Wind impacts for Clinton County generally include downed trees and utility poles, which
can spark widespread utility interruptions. Wind impacts can be particularly damaging to mobile
77
homes and other manufactured housing; these structures are often not well-anchored and are
highly susceptible to wind damage in a hurricane, tropical storm, or Nor’easter.
At minimum hurricane force winds can cause limited damage by impacting carports, signs,
shrubs, and loose objects. No structural damage occurs and there is little or no discernable
threat to life. Of the previous occurrences identified in Section 4.3.3.3, Tropical Storm Agnes
was the most severe coastal storm event recorded in Pennsylvania and is considered a worstcase scenario. After making first landfall as a minimal hurricane near Panama City, FL, Agnes
weakened and exited back into the Atlantic off the North Carolina coast. However, the storm
skirted along the coast, made a second landfall near New York City as a tropical storm and
merged with an extra-tropical low pressure system over northern Pennsylvania. This brought
extremely heavy rains to Pennsylvania, with particular concentrations of rain in the
Susquehanna River Basin. The major impact of this storm was its lingering economic damage,
when Pennsylvania incurred $2.1 billion in damage and 48 deaths statewide. Fire and flood
destroyed 68,000 homes and 3,000 businesses, leaving 220,000 Pennsylvanians homeless.
4.3.3.3.
Past Occurrence
Two Presidential Disaster Declarations have been made for Clinton County since 1972 due to
coastal storm events (Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972 and Tropical Depression Ivan in 2004).
Damage estimates from the 2004 Tropical Storm Ivan event were reported at $2,550,304 for
Clinton County. This amount includes residential, commercial, and infrastructure damages. As
of 2/10/2005 Federal Assistance to Clinton County totaled $339,807.50. The Ivan event
produced flooding somewhat less than 100 year event crests, and as such produced lower
damage totals than we indicate in this document for a 100 year flooding event. This event will be
used for estimating losses, as it is probably an average or greater storm event and can be
expected on a higher rate of occurrence than a storm of the magnitude of Hurricane Agnes of
1972 (PA HMP, 2010). The economic and social impacts of storms such as Tropical Storm
Agnes are included in Section 4.3.3.2.
78
4.3.3.4.
Future Occurrence
Although hurricanes and tropical storms can cause flood events with 1 percent and 2 percent
level frequency, their probability of occurrence is measured relative to wind speed. Table 4.3.32 shows the probability of winds that reach the strength of tropical storms and hurricane
conditions in Clinton County and surrounding areas based on a statistical sample region of more
than 30,000 square miles over a period of 46 years.
Clinton County (FEMA, 2000).
(FEMA, 2000).
WIND SPEED (mph)
CORRESPONDING SAFFIR-SIMPSON
TROPICAL STORM/HURRICANE CATEGORIES
ANNUAL
PROBABILITY OF
OCCURRENCE (%)
45-77
Tropical Storms and Category 1 Hurricanes
91.59
78-118
Category 1 to 2 Hurricanes
8.32
119-138
0.0766
139-163
0.0086
164-194
Category 5 Hurricanes
0.00054
195+
Category 5 Hurricanes
0.00001
Table 4.3.3-1 includes wind speeds for all types of storms and is not specific to cyclonic winds.
In Clinton County and surrounding areas, the annual probability for winds that equal the strength
of tropical storms (over 39 mph) is over 90 percent. The probability for winds at category 1 or 2
hurricane strength (78-118 mph) is greater than 8 percent in any given year. Using Table 4.3.31, these wind speeds correspond to minimal or moderate expected damages. The annual
probability of winds exceeding 118 mph is less than 0.1.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Hurricane Research Division published
the map included as Figure 4.3.3-3 showing the chance that a tropical storm or hurricane will
affect a given area during the entire Atlantic hurricane season spanning from June to
November. Note that this figure does not provide information on the probability of various storm
intensities. However, based on historical data between 1944 and 1999, this map shows that
areas of Pennsylvania have a wide range of probabilities of experiencing a tropical storm or
hurricane event between June and November of any given year (NOAA HRD, 2009).
Note that these probabilities are the result of only a single study and may differ from other
seasonal probability estimates not identified in this report. Outlier storms may also have a large
impact on Pennsylvania even though their probability is low. For instance, western and
northwestern Pennsylvania’s calculated risk is less than 6% annually. This is not to say that
west and northwest Pennsylvania will not experience coastal storms, but indicates this area of
Pennsylvania has comparatively the lowest probability of future events in the Commonwealth.
This area is still subject to being impacted by a hurricane or tropical storm in a given year as
shown in the storm tracks mapped in Figure 4.3.3-2. The vast majority of Clinton County has
79
less than 6% risk, but the southeast portion of the County is in the 6% risk zone. Studies
investigating the probability of future occurrence of nor’easters have not been identified.
However, based on historical events and input from the SPT, the annual occurrence of
nor’easter events is considered highly likely (PA HMP, 2010).
80
Figure 4.3.3-2: Seasonal probability of a hurricane or tropical storm affecting Clinton County (NOAA HRD, 2009).
81
4.3.3.5.
A vulnerability assessment for hurricanes and tropical storms focuses on the impacts of flooding
and severe wind. Therefore, the assessment for flood related vulnerability is addressed in
Section 4.3.2.5.
FEMA’s HAZUS-MH version MR-4 loss estimation model was used to explore the potential
damage of hurricane wind hazards in the Commonwealth using a Level 1 analysis. This level of
analysis is a rough estimate of damage to buildings, essential facilities, transportation systems,
utility systems, and high potential loss facilities based on national data and historical and
probabilistic damage curves and storm tracks included in the HAZUS software. Total economic
loss estimates are the sum of building-related damages and business interruption losses, which
are the losses associated with the inability to operate a business because of damage sustained
in the scenario. All of the census tracts in Clinton County could be expected to incur $1,000$171,200 in losses each. Total building losses in Clinton County from the 100-year hurricane
event could total $569,442 (PA HMP 2010).
4.3.4.
4.3.4.1.
Landslide
Location and Extent
As defined by FEMA, a landslide is the downward and outward movement of earth materials
reacting under the force of gravity. As such, “landslide” can be used to describe a number of
different types of events displaying different movement characteristics and involving different
materials. Rockslides, rock falls, mudflows, mudslides, debris flows, and debris avalanches are
all types of landslide events that involve different materials moving in a different manner.
Landslides typically occur when some factor (e.g., increased water content or change in load)
causes the force of gravity to outweigh the forces working to hold material in place, resulting in
the downslope movement of the subject material. Rockfalls and other slope failures occur in
areas of Pennsylvania with moderate to steep slopes. Many slope failures are associated with
precipitation events – periods of sustained above-average precipitation, specific rainstorms, or
snowmelt events. Areas experiencing erosion, decline in vegetation cover, and earthquakes are
also susceptible to landslides. Landslides can also occur on manmade slopes such as along
highways or through development that contributes to slope failure by altering the natural slope
gradient, increasing soil water content, or removing vegetation cover. During the update
process a Countywide Risk Factor of 2.0 was calculated. It was determined using the
methodology that the impact from a landslide event would be minor resulting in a few injuries,
minor property damage, and minimal disruption. The spatial extent to being affected would be
moderate resulting in between 11 and 25% affected. Figure 4.3.4-1 shows the municipalities
and their risk to landslide. The municipalities with a combo-high risk are West Keating, Porter,
Lamar, Crawford, Logan, Loganton, and Greene Townships.
82
Figure 4.3.4-1: Landslide susceptibility and incidence in Clinton County.
83
4.3.4.2.
Range of Magnitude
Landslides can have potentially devastating consequences in very localized areas. Landslides
cause damage to transportation routes, utilities, and buildings and create travel delays and
other side effects. Structures or infrastructure built on susceptible land will likely collapse as
their footings slide downhill. Structures below the landslide can be crushed. Landslides next to
roads and highways have the potential to fall on and damage vehicles or cause accidents.
According to the DCNR website, deaths and injuries due to landslides are rare in Pennsylvania.
Most Pennsylvania landslides are moderate to slow moving and damage property rather than
people. Almost all of the known deaths due to landslides have occurred when rockfalls or other
slides along highways involved vehicles. If residential and recreational development increases
on and near steep mountain slopes, the hazard from these rapid events will also increase.
Storm-induced debris flows are the only other type of landslide likely to cause death and injuries
in Clinton County.
Property losses due to landslides and associated effects are more common than injuries and
deaths. An example of a worst case scenario is a small landslide in 1990 that involved a broken
petroleum pipeline. Spilled petroleum products entered a major river, causing city water systems
to shut down. The identified costs of repair of this landslide damage, clean-up of the spill,
technical investigations, legal and court costs and environmental fines were approximately $12
million. The incalculable costs include lost productivity while people stayed at home because
their businesses were closed or to care for children normally in schools that were closed due to
lack of water supply, costs for the National Guard to deliver water to neighborhoods, and costs
to the pipeline company and its customers due to business loss for several months. Although
this example is extreme, associated damages such as this occur with many landslides.
Most damages are less expensive, but significant. "Backyard" landslides are usually repaired
incompletely or not at all. Cost estimates of several hundred thousand dollars for stabilization
and repair of a landslide affecting two or three properties are typical. With repair estimates
exceeding the value of the properties, abandonment is a frequent "solution." Sometimes local
governments assist with relocation costs or "buy out" homeowners. Insurance covers landslide
damage only for some business situations (PA DCNR 2011).
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and large municipalities incur substantial costs
due to landslide damage and to extra construction costs for new roads in known landslide-prone
areas. A 1991 estimate showed an average of $10 million per year is spent on landslide repair
contracts across the Commonwealth and a similar amount is spent on mitigation costs for
grading projects (PADCNR, 2009).
A study done by the USGS found that the total public and private costs of landslides in
Allegheny County averaged at least $4 million per year from 1970 to 1976. Similar accounting
for a more recent period is not available (PA DCNR 2011).
84
The impact of landslides on the environment depends on the size and specific location of the
event. In general, impacts include:
•
•
•
•
Changes to topography
Damage or destruction of vegetation
Potential diversion or blockage of water in the vicinity of streams, rivers, etc.
Increased sediment runoff both during and after event
Figure 4.3.4-2: Photos showing damage to a private home (left) and PA Route 51 (right)
due to landslide incidents.
4.3.4.3.
Past Occurrence
According to the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), no
one really knows how many landslides occur each year in Pennsylvania or how much damage
they cause, although there have been a few efforts to determine totals. Landslide inventory
maps were created in the late 1970s and early 1980s by the U.S. Geological Survey for areas of
central and western Pennsylvania as part of an Appalachians-wide study of landslides. These
maps show landslides that were identified mainly from aerial photographs for most areas of
Pennsylvania where landslides commonly occur. These maps are available at:
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/hazards/landslides/slidepubs.aspx (PADCNR, 2011).
Past occurrence landslide data was limited for Clinton County. The County Department of
Emergency Services identified Route 120 from the City of Lock Haven to Renovo Township as
having past occurrences. There have been numerous occurrences of debris on the roadway.
More recent events that have occurred and were documented by The Express, Clinton County’s
local newspaper, were Kettle Creek Road in Leidy Township where small rockslides have the
85
potential for a road closure, a mudslide along Route 44 about 5 miles north of Route 220 on July
24, 2009, and a mudslide along Route 120 on April 12, 2011.
An example of landslides in Clinton County is one site which has been the subject of a
mitigation project implemented by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. This site is
located in a steep cut of the Susquehanna River above SR 120 known as the Ice Mine Cut. The
Ice Mine Cut project was performed in 1997 to move a potential hazard back away from SR 120
in Bald Eagle Township. This site had for years deposited debris onto SR 120. The mitigation
project cut the hillside back a reasonably safe distance from the roadway and deposited all the
material excavated from the site up and out of the potential slide area. While this area continues
to deposit material down slope, a buffer was created back from the roadway, drastically
reducing the risk to motorists. This site is also significant due to the fact that it is the primary
maintained roadway access to the western portion of Clinton County. A population of nearly
10,000 people resides north of the site, so a road closure at this location would effectively
isolate the Renovo area from State Police and Advanced Life Support coverage.
4.3.4.4.
Future Occurrence
Since the exact number of previous landslides over a definite time interval is not known, it is not
possible to determine a quantitative probability of future occurrence for landslides in Clinton
County. With many landslide events in the past, the presence of areas susceptible to landslides,
and increasing human development near hillsides, landslides causing varying levels of damage
are likely to continue to occur every year in the absence of mitigation activities.
4.3.4.5.
Jurisdictional and state critical facility vulnerability assessments were completed by spatially
overlaying hazards with census tracts and state critical facility layers in GIS. When spatial
analysis determined that the hazard would impact a census tracts within a county or the location
of state critical facilities these locations where deemed vulnerable to the hazard. Loss estimates
were prepared based on the value of the facilities impacted by census tract and by state critical
facility. Each hazard uses a methodology that is specific to the type of risk it may cause;
Much of Pennsylvania has landslide susceptible areas in the form of loose soil and both natural
and human-made steep slopes. Most highways have sections cut in rock or soil that can fail.
Vulnerable areas are primarily located in the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province spanning
central Pennsylvania and encroaching into the northeastern section of the state. This landslide
susceptibility area, characterized as Combo-High landslide hazard zone with high susceptibility
and moderate instance of landslides by the USGS, was used to identify vulnerable jurisdictions
and critical facilities. The exact vulnerability of a jurisdiction will depend on the geology and
topography.
There are 9 state critical facilities vulnerable to landslides in Clinton County (PA HMP 2010). In
terms of estimated jurisdictional losses, there are approximately 3,141 buildings in Clinton
County vulnerable to landslides and $634,726,000 in dollar value of exposure (building and
contents) (PA HMP 2010).
86
The table below lists the municipalities and addressable structures and critical facilities that are
located in the combo-high landslide areas. For a complete list of critical facilities and their
vulnerability to landslide hazards, please see Appendix E. It is important to note that the
vulnerability of each individual structure and critical facility will depend on a number of factors
including slope, topography, and underlying geology and soil. For more information on the data
sources, limitations, and methodology employed in estimating losses,
Table 4.3.4-1 Addressable structure and critical facilities in combo-high landslide areas.
Municipality
Allison Township
Avis Borough
Bald Eagle Township
Beech Creek Borough
Castanea Township
Chapman Township
Colebrook t Township
Crawford Township
Dunnstable Township
Flemington Borough
Gallagher Township
Greene Township
Grugan Township
Lamar Township
Leidy Township
Total
Addressable
Structures
96
620
1,126
314
774
582
914
111
427
455
197
604
452
880
164
1,184
899
Total
Critical
Facilities
0
5
7
6
2
6
8
1
2
2
0
9
3
5
2
13
4
Number Of
Addressable
Structures In ComboHigh Landslide
Incidence Areas
Number Of
Critical Facilities
In Combo-High
Landslide
Incidence Areas
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
425
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
879
626
-
5
7
-
87
Table 4.3.4-1 Addressable structure and critical facilities in combo-high landslide areas.
Municipality
Lock Haven City
Logan Township
Loganton Borough
Mill Hall Borough
Noyes Township
Pine Creek Township
Porter Township
Renovo Borough
South Renovo
Borough
Wayne Township
West Keating
Township
Woodward Township
TOTAL
Total
Addressable
Structures
2,565
403
220
707
430
1,580
772
610
231
669
187
1,220
19,393
Total
Critical
Facilities
32
5
5
8
1
9
6
12
4
7
1
6
171
Number Of
Addressable
Structures In ComboHigh Landslide
Incidence Areas
Number Of
Critical Facilities
In Combo-High
Landslide
Incidence Areas
-
-
402
220
5
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
639
6
-
-
-
-
7
-
174
1
-
-
3,372
31
Some municipalities in Pennsylvania have grading codes and ordinances intended to ensure
appropriate geological and engineering investigation, design, and construction of excavated
slopes and fill slopes. However, in many cases, the objectives of these codes are not met
because of limited or non-existent capability for knowledgeable review and follow-up inspection
and enforcement of their provisions.
88
4.3.5.
4.3.5.1.
Tornado, Windstorm
Location and Extent
Both tornado and windstorm events can occur throughout Clinton County. Tornado events are
usually localized. However, severe thunderstorms may result in conditions favorable to the
formation of numerous or long-lived tornadoes. Tornadoes can occur at any time during the day
or night but are most frequent during late afternoon into early evening, the warmest hours of the
day and are most likely to occur during the spring and early summer months of March through
June. Tornado movement is characterized in two ways: direction and speed of spinning winds
and forward movement of the tornado, also known as the storm track. Most tornadoes have
wind speeds of 110 mph (175 km/h) or less, are approximately 250 feet (75 m) across, and
travel a few miles (several kilometers) before dissipating. Some attain wind speeds of more than
300 mph (480 km/h), stretch more than a mile (1.6 km) across, and stay on the ground for
dozens of miles (more than 100 km). Some tornadoes never touch the ground and are shortlived, while others may touch the ground several times.
Straight-line winds and windstorms are experienced on a region-wide scale. While such winds
usually accompany tornadoes, straight-lined winds are caused by the movement of air from
areas of higher pressure to areas of lower pressure. Stronger winds are the result of greater
differences in pressure. Windstorms are generally defined with sustained wind speeds of 40
mph or greater lasting for one hour or longer, or winds of 58 mph or greater for any duration.
Wind events can vary in spatial size from small microscale events, which take place over only a
few hundred meters, to large-scale synoptic wind events often associated with warm or cold
fronts.
Utilizing the Risk Factor Methodology discussed in Section 4.4 of this plan, the County,
municipalities, and other stakeholders calculated a Countywide risk factor of 2.9. For the county
the impact from a tornado could be critical resulting in multiple deaths/injuries possible, more
than 25% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed and shutdown of critical facilities
for possibly more than one week. It was also determined for the county that the spatial extent
that could be impacted would be moderate with between 11 and 25% of the County affected.
Most municipalities compared their own jurisdictional risk to the County either indicated equal to
the County’s Risk Factor. Only two municipalities, Lamar and Chapman Township, indicated
that their risk factor should be greater than the County’s. Grugan Township, Noyes Township,
Bald Eagle Township, and Flemington Borough indicated that their jurisdictional risk was less
than the County’s calculated Risk Factor.
4.3.5.2.
Range of Magnitude
Each year, tornadoes account for $1.1 billion in damages and cause over 80 deaths nationally
(NCAR, 2001). While the extent of tornado damage is usually localized, the vortex of extreme
wind associated with a tornado can result in some of the most destructive forces on Earth.
Rotational wind speeds can range from 100 mph to more than 250 mph. In addition, the speed
of forward motion can range from 0 to 50 mph. Therefore, some estimates place the maximum
velocity (combination of ground speed, wind speed, and upper winds) of tornadoes at about 300
mph. The damage caused by a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown
89
debris, also accompanied by lightning or large hail. The most violent tornadoes have rotating
winds of 250 miles per hour or more and are capable of causing extreme destruction and
turning normally harmless objects into deadly missiles.
Damages and deaths can be especially significant when tornadoes move through populated,
developed areas. The destruction caused by tornadoes ranges from minor to extreme damage
depending on the intensity, size and duration of the storm. Typically, tornadoes cause the
greatest damages to structures of light construction such as mobile homes. The Enhanced
Fujita Scale, also known as the “EF-Scale,” measures tornado strength and associated
damages. The EF-Scale is an update to the earlier Fujita Scale, also known as the “F-Scale,”
which was published in 1971. The EF-Scale provides engineered wind estimates and better
damage descriptions. It classifies United States tornadoes into six intensity categories, as
shown in Table 4.3.5-1, based upon the estimated maximum winds occurring within the wind
vortex. Since its implementation by the National Weather Service in 2007, the EF-Scale has
become the definitive metric for estimating wind speeds within tornadoes based upon damage
to buildings and structures. F-Scale categories with corresponding EF-Scale wind speeds are
provided in Table 4.3.5-1, since previous tornado occurrences are described based on the FScale.
Table 4.3.5-1: Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale) categories with associated wind speeds and
description of damages.
EF-SCALE
NUMBER
WIND
SPEED
(mph)
F-SCALE
NUMBER
TYPE OF DAMAGE POSSIBLE
EF0
65-85
F0-F1
Minor damage: Peels surface off some roofs; some damage to
gutters or siding; branches broken off trees; shallow-rooted trees
pushed over. Confirmed tornadoes with no reported damage (i.e.,
those that remain in open fields) are always rated EF0.
EF1
86-110
F1
Moderate damage: Roofs severely stripped; mobile homes
overturned or badly damaged; loss of exterior doors; windows and
other glass broken.
F1-F2
Considerable damage: Roofs torn off well-constructed houses;
foundations of frame homes shifted; mobile homes completely
destroyed; large trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles
generated; cars lifted off ground.
EF2
111-135
EF3
136-165
F2-F3
Severe damage: Entire stories of well-constructed houses destroyed;
severe damage to large buildings such as shopping malls; trains
overturned; trees debarked; heavy cars lifted off the ground and
thrown; structures with weak foundations blown away some distance.
EF4
166-200
F3
Devastating damage: Well-constructed houses and whole frame
houses completely leveled; cars thrown and small missiles generated.
F3-F6
Extreme damage: Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and
swept away; automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of
100 m (300 ft); steel reinforced concrete structure badly damaged;
high-rise buildings have significant structural deformation.
EF5
>200
90
The impact of tornado hazards is ultimately dependent on the amount of population or property
(i.e. buildings, infrastructure, agricultural land, etc…) present in the area in which the tornado
occurs. Tornado events are often so severe that property loss or human fatality is typically
inevitable if evacuation or proper construction standards are not implemented.
Figure 4.3.3-1 shows wind speed zones developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers
based on information including 40 years of tornado history and over 100 years of hurricane
history. It identifies wind speeds that could occur across the United States to be used as the
basis for design and evaluation of the structural integrity of shelters and critical facilities. Central
and parts of western Pennsylvania fall within Zone III, meaning design wind speeds for shelters
and critical facilities should be able to withstand a 3-second gust of up to 200 mph, regardless of
whether the gust is the result of a tornado, hurricane, tropical storm, or windstorm event.
Extreme western and northwestern Pennsylvania are located in Zone IV; design wind speeds
for shelters and critical facilities should be able to withstand a 3-second gust of up to 250 mph.
The wind zones identified in Figure 4.3.3-1 represent the strongest wind speeds anticipated
throughout Pennsylvania. The May 31, 1985 events discussed in Section 4.3.5.3 mark the worst
documented tornado outbreak in Pennsylvania.
The worst tornado event on record, an example of the worst case scenario, occurred on July 15,
2004 in Campbelltown, Lebanon County. This F3 tornado, which had estimated wind speeds of
175-200 miles per hour, leveled 32 houses, severely damaged 37 homes, and an additional 50
homes suffered more minor damage. Two people were hospitalized from the tornado, one
critically injured. While only on the ground for 10-15 minutes, the NCDC estimates that the
tornado caused $18 million in property damage.
Since tornado events are typically localized, environmental impacts are rarely widespread. The
impacts of windstorms on the environment typically take place over a larger area. In either case,
where these events occur, severe damage to plant species is likely. This includes uprooting or
total destruction of trees and an increased threat of wildfire in areas where dead trees are not
removed. Hazardous material facilities should meet design requirements for the wind zones
identified in Figure 4.3.3-1 in order to prevent release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
4.3.5.3.
Past Occurrence
Tornadoes have occurred in Clinton County and throughout neighboring counties. Western and
southeastern sections of the Commonwealth have been struck more frequently. On May 31,
1985 a very rare outbreak of 21 tornadoes tracked across northeast Ohio and northwest
Pennsylvania, 76 people. Of the tornadoes that occurred, 2 F4s were in Clinton County. NCDC
had limited county-specific data. NCDC did estimate the damage was $25,000,000 from each of
those two F4s. This is another example of a worst-case scenario.
Figure 4.3.5-1 shows tornado activity in the Commonwealth from 1950-1998. The southern
portion of Clinton County experienced <1 tornado, while the majority of the County experienced
6-15 tornadoes during this time period. Figure 4.3.5-2 shows tornado activity in the County from
1950-2004.
91
Figure 4.3.5-1: Tornado activity from 1950-1998.
92
Figure 4.3.5-2: Tornado activity in Clinton County from 1950-2004. As shown on the map, there were nine tornadoes which
originated in or just outside of Clinton County during this time period.
93
Table 4.3.5-2: History of Tornadoes in Clinton County (NCDC and SHELDUS 2010)
Date
5/13/1954
F-Scale
F0
6/28/1973
Death
Injury
Property Damage, $
0
0
3,000
N/A
N/A
15,000
5/31/1985
F4
0
0
25,000,000
5/31/1985
F1
0
0
5,000,000
5/31/1985
F1
0
0
167,000
7/15/1992
F1
0
0
25,000
11/8/1996
F1
0
0
100,000
5/19/1997
F1
0
0
0
7/18/1997
F1
0
0
0
5/31/1998
F1
0
0
0
7/10/2001
F0
0
0
0
Total
$30,310,000
Total windstorm events reported for each county in Pennsylvania between 1950 and 2009 are
provided in Figure 4.3.5-3. Events are those which cause damage with wind speeds in excess
of 50 knots; they may be the result of thunderstorms, hurricanes, tropical storms, winter storms,
or nor’easters. As Clinton County experienced 170 wind events during this time period,
individual events are not reported here. Information on specific events can be found at the
National Climatic Data Center website http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
94
Figure 4.3.5-3: Graph showing the number of tornado events across Pennsylvania by county between 1950 and November
30, 2009 (NCDC, 2009).
95
4.3.5.4.
Future Occurrence
Analysis of events between 1950 and 2000 showed that approximately 72% of tornadoes in
Pennsylvania occurred between the months of May and August. Approximately 79% of historical
tornadoes occurred between noon and 9PM (PEMA, 2007).
Using events collected between 1950 and 2000, Figure 4.3.5-4 shows the number of total
tornado events per square mile across Pennsylvania. It is clear that the southeast and western
sections of the Commonwealth experience a higher frequency of events compared to other
areas of Pennsylvania. Clinton County is located in this higher frequency area.
Figure 4.3.5-4: Total tornado events per square mile in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania State
Climatologist).
Similarly to tornadoes, an investigation of the time of year and time of day when windstorm
events most often occur was performed in the 2007 PA HMP. Using historical events between
1950 and 2000, the analysis showed that approximately 73% of windstorms in Pennsylvania
occurred between the months of May and August. Approximately 74% of windstorms occurred
96
between 2PM and 9PM (PEMA, 2007). These results are expected, since severe wind events
are most often associated with thunderstorm events which are usually experienced during the
late afternoon or evening in the late spring and summer months. Using events collected
between 1950 and 2002, Figure 4.3.5-5 shows the number of wind events per square mile
across Pennsylvania. It is clear that the southeast and extreme western sections of the
Commonwealth which includes Clinton County experience a higher frequency of events
compared to other areas of Pennsylvania.
Figure 4.3.5-5: Wind events per square mile in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania State
Climatologist).
4.3.5.5.
Vulnerability for tornados was classified by generating a 5-mile buffer around all historic
locations where tornados touched down. To refine the analysis, only tornados with a Fujita
Scale of F1 or greater was chosen for analysis. Approximately 78% of all Pennsylvania tornados
had a scale of F1 or above. Five miles was chosen as a buffer size based on the available
historic tornado path averages in Pennsylvania. Using this analysis method, there are
approximately 27 critical facilities in Clinton County which are vulnerable to tornados.
97
Because tornadoes disproportionately affect mobile homes, it is important to note the number of
mobile homes located in Census tracts falling within five miles of a historic F1 or stronger
tornado event. The number of impacted mobile homes was extracted from HAZUS-MH. Clinton
County has 1,272 impacted mobile homes with 8,372 total impacted buildings, for a building and
contents dollar value of exposure of $1,617,075,000 (PA HMP, 2010).
4.3.6.
4.3.6.1.
Wildfire
Location and Extent
Wildfires take place in less developed or completely undeveloped areas, spreading rapidly
through vegetative fuels. They can occur any time of the year, but mostly occur during long,
dry, hot spells. Any small fire, if not quickly detected and suppressed, can get out of control.
Most wildfires are caused by human carelessness, negligence, and ignorance. However, some
are precipitated by lightning strikes and in rare instances, spontaneous combustion. Wildfires in
Pennsylvania can occur in open fields, grass, dense brush, and forests.
Because a majority of Clinton County’s land cover is forest, (see Figure 2.4-1) for land cover
illustration), the potential geographic extent of wildfires is quite large. The Countywide
calculated Risk Factor is 2.7. Of the municipalities that compared their jurisdictional
vulnerability to the County’s, Beech Creek Township, Grugan Township, Logan Township,
Loganton Borough, and Noyes Township indicated their risk factor should be greater than the
County’s. All other municipalities indicated that there risk factor was equal to the County’s.
Under dry conditions or droughts, wildfires have the potential to burn forests as well as
croplands. The greatest potential for wildfires is in the spring months of March, April, and May,
and the autumn months of October and November; 83% of all Pennsylvania wildfires occur in
these two time periods. In the spring, bare trees allow sunlight to reach the forest floor, drying
fallen leaves and other ground debris. In the fall, dried leaves are also fuel for fires. Most fires
are caused by human carelessness or negligence, especially debris burning. However, some
are precipitated by lightning strikes and, in rare instances, spontaneous combustion. The next
two figures show the origins of wildfires for Clinton County and geographically which areas of
the County are more susceptible to wildfire.
98
Figure 4.3.6-1: Wildfire origins throughout Clinton County.
99
Figure 4.3.6-2: Map of municipalities within Clinton County and their risk to wildfire.
100
4.3.6.2.
Range of Magnitude
Wildfire events can range from small fires that can be managed by local firefighters to large fires
impacting many acres of land. Large events may require evacuation from one or more
communities and necessitate regional or national firefighting support. The impact of a severe
wildfire can be devastating. As an example of the worst-case scenario, the largest wildfire in
Pennsylvania in recent years burned 10,000 acres in the north-central area of the
Commonwealth. This fire was controlled within a week. It destroyed five cabins, but there was
no loss of life. Several other fires have burned over 2,000 acres each and again have been
controlled within a week of the reported start. One of the worse fires in Clinton County was in
the Renovo Borough on May 8, 2006. The forest fire blaze burned on for four days. It took local
firefighters and some 150-170 volunteers, and a bucket quipped helicopter, and spotter aircraft
dumping water to extinguish it. The fire destroyed approximately 1,400 acres.
In addition to the risk wildfires pose to the general public and property owners, the safety of
firefighters is also a concern. Although loss of life among firefighters does not occur often in
Pennsylvania, it is always a risk. More common firefighting injuries include falls, sprains,
abrasions or heat-related injuries such as dehydration. Response to wildfires also exposes
emergency responders to the risk of motor vehicle accidents and can place them in remote
areas away from the communities that they are chartered to protect.
The impact of a severe wildfire can be devastating. While some fires are not human-caused
and are part of natural succession processes, a wildfire can kill people, livestock, fish and
wildlife. They often destroy property, valuable timber, forage and recreational and scenic
values. The most significant environmental impact is the potential for severe erosion, silting of
stream beds and reservoirs, and flooding due to ground-cover loss following a fire event.
Wildfire can also have a positive environmental impact in that they burn dead trees, leaves, and
grasses to allow more open spaces for new vegetation to grow and receive sunlight. Another
positive effect is that it stimulates the growth of new shoots on trees and shrubs and its heat can
open pine cones and other seed pods.
4.3.6.3.
Past Occurrence
The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation of Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry (BOF),
maintains an inventory of wildfire events. The Bureau estimates that their reported events may
only be approximately 15% of the total number of events that have actually occurred over that
time. Information on wildfire events occurring on private land is not available. Many wildfires
occur every year and are suppressed by volunteer fire departments without any response or
assistance from the Bureau of Forestry.
As shown in Figure 4.3.6-3, Clinton County is located in the Sproul District or District 10. Clinton
County had 70 wildfires, with almost 3,000 acres burned between 2002 and 2008 (PADCNR,
2010). This amount of burned acreage ranks third in the state.
PEMA’s PEIRS database, which is a voluntary reporting system, as a result it does not provide
a comprehensive list of events. The DNCNR data and PEIRS data from 2002-2009 are shown
in the table below.
101
PEIRS, 2011)
YEAR
MUNICIPALITY
TOTAL ACRES BURNED
2002
GREENE TOWNSHIP
1.00
2002
LAMAR TOWNSHIP
0.50
2002
CRAWFORD TOWNSHIP
6.80
2002
2.00
2002
GRUGAN TOWNSHIP
5.00
2002
NOYES TOWNSHIP
1.00
2002
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
1.00
2002
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP
1.00
2003
COLEBROOK TOWNSHIP
0.10
2003
NOYES TOWNSHIP
1.50
2003
RENOVO BOROUGH
1.00
2003
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP
4.00
2004
CRAWFORD TOWNSHIP
3.00
2004
COLEBROOK TOWNSHIP
2.50
2004
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
1.72
2005
LOGAN TOWNSHIP
4.50
2005
LAMAR TOWNSHIP
3.50
2005
LOGAN TOWNSHIP
1.50
2005
LOGAN TOWNSHIP
1.50
2005
LOGAN TOWNSHIP
1.50
2005
LOGAN TOWNSHIP
0.50
2005
LOGAN TOWNSHIP
0.01
2005
LOGAN TOWNSHIP
0.01
2005
LAMAR TOWNSHIP
1.50
2005
LAMAR TOWNSHIP
0.10
2005
MILL HALL BOROUGH
2.10
2005
LAMAR TOWNSHIP
2.50
2005
CRAWFORD TOWNSHIP
50.00
2005
BALD EAGLE TOWNSHIP
12.80
2005
30.90
2005
DUNNSTABLE TOWNSHIP
0.80
2005
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP
0.10
2005
GALLAGHER TOWNSHIP
0.40
2005*
GREENE TOWNSHIP
UNKNOWN
2005
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
0.10
2006
PORTER TOWNSHIP
1.50
102
PEIRS, 2011)
YEAR
MUNICIPALITY
TOTAL ACRES BURNED
2006*
LOCK HAVEN CITY
UNKNOWN
2006*
COLEBROOK TOWNSHIP
UNKNOWN
2006
LAMAR TOWNSHIP
11.00
2006
LAMAR TOWNSHIP
2.10
2006
GREENE TOWNSHIP
65.00
2006
LAMAR TOWNSHIP
11.10
2006
CRAWFORD TOWNSHIP
0.25
2006
WOODWARD TOWNSHIP
0.40
2006
2.20
2006
GALLAGHER TOWNSHIP
5.70
2006
NOYES TOWNSHIP
8.00
2006
NOYES TOWNSHIP
0.70
2006
NOYES TOWNSHIP
348.00
2006
NOYES TOWNSHIP
1329.00
2006
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
5.00
2006
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
917.80
2006
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
15.00
2007
WAYNE TOWNSHIP
0.10
2007
WAYNE TOWNSHIP
2.00
2007
EAST KEATING TOWNSHIP
0.10
2007
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP
1.00
2007
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP
4.50
2007
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
0.10
2008
CRAWFORD TOWNSHIP
5.00
2008
BALD EAGLE TOWNSHIP
10.00
2008
LOCK HAVEN CITY
0.20
2008*
COUNTYWIDE
UNKNOWN
2008
GALLAGHER TOWNSHIP
4.00
2008
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP
2.00
2008
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
56.40
2009*
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP
UNKNOWN
2009*
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP
UNKNOWN
*Events only reported in PEIRS data.
103
Figure 4.3.6-3: Breakdown of Pennsylvania State Forest Districts, Department of Natural
Resources.
4.3.6.4.
Future Occurrence
Over the five year period between 2003 and 2007, 18,132 acres of state forest have burned in
Pennsylvania and almost 3,000 acres of land have burned in Clinton County from 2002 to 2008.
Previous events indicate that wildfire events will continue to occur annually. Weather conditions
like drought can increase the likelihood of wildfires occurring. Any fire, without the quick
response or attention of fire-fighters, forestry personnel, or visitors to the forest, has the
potential to become a wildfire.
The probability of a wildfire occurring in Clinton County is highly likely in any given year.
However, the likelihood of one of those fires attaining significant size and intensity is
unpredictable and highly dependent on environmental conditions and firefighting response.
104
4.3.6.5.
Individual municipal vulnerability can be seen in Figure 4.3.6-2. Eight municipalities were
considered high risk, thirteen medium risk, seven low risk, and 1 unknown. This assessment
was determined by The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation of Natural Resources, BOF
jurisdictional assessments of wildfire hazard throughout the Commonwealth. Hazard is defined
by fuel, topography, and local weather that impact wildfire ignition and/or behavior.
Another component of jurisdictional vulnerability involves examining the number of past wildfire
occurrences and their respective acres burned. Clinton County had 70 wildfires, with almost
3,000 acres burned between 2002 and 2008 (PADCNR, 2010). This amount of burned acreage
ranks third in the state.
Statewide, the jurisdictions vulnerable to wildfire hazards are home to 3,151 state critical
facilities. The average vulnerable county hosts about 50 vulnerable critical facilities. Clinton
County has nine state critical facilities which could be impacted by wildfire. Additionally, based
on information from the 2010 State HMP, Clinton County has 7,708 buildings in wildfire high
hazard areas, with over $1.4 billion in building and content value. Loss estimates were
prepared based on the sum of the number and value of buildings located within wildfire highhazard jurisdictions, aggregated to the county level (PA HMP, 2010).
4.3.7.
4.3.7.1.
Winter Storm
Location and Extent
Winter storms are regional events. An event most often impacts a large swath or all of
Pennsylvania, including Clinton County. In many cases, surrounding states and even the larger
northeastern U.S. region are affected.
4.3.7.2.
Range of Magnitude
Winter storms consist of cold temperatures, heavy snow or ice and sometimes strong winds.
They begin as low-pressure systems that move through Pennsylvania either following the jet
stream or developing as extra-tropical cyclonic weather systems over the Atlantic Ocean called
nor’easters. Due to their regular occurrence, these storms are considered hazards only when
they result in damage to specific structures or cause disruption to traffic, communications,
electric power, or other utilities.
A winter storm can adversely affect roadways, utilities, business activities, and can cause
frostbite or loss of life. These storms may include one or more of the following weather events:
•
Heavy Snowstorm: Accumulations of four inches or more in a six-hour period, or six
inches or more in a twelve-hour period.
•
Sleet Storm: Significant accumulations of solid pellets which form from the freezing of
raindrops or partially melted snowflakes causing slippery surfaces posing hazards to
pedestrians and motorists.
•
Ice Storm: Significant accumulations of rain or drizzle freezing on objects (trees, power
lines, roadways, etc.) as it strikes them, causing slippery surfaces and damage from the
sheer weight of ice accumulation.
105
•
Blizzard: Wind velocity of 35 miles per hour or more, temperatures below freezing,
considerable blowing snow with visibility frequently below one-quarter mile prevailing over
an extended period of time.
•
Severe Blizzard: Wind velocity of 45 miles per hour, temperatures of 10 degrees
Fahrenheit or lower, a high density of blowing snow with visibility frequently measured in
feet prevailing over an extended period time.
Any of the above events can result in the closing of major or secondary roads, particularly in
rural locations, stranded motorists, transportation accidents, loss of utility services, and
depletion of oil heating supplies. Environmental impacts often include damage to shrubbery and
trees due to heavy snow loading, ice build-up and/or high winds which can break limbs or even
bring down large trees. Gradual melting of snow and ice provides excellent groundwater
recharge. However, high temperatures following a heavy snowfall can cause rapid surface
water runoff and severe flooding.
Average annual snowfall across Pennsylvania ranges from 23 inches in the southeast to over
100+ inches in the northwest (see Figure 4.3.7-1). Storms tracking up the east coast tap into
Atlantic moisture, whereas the Great Lakes supply the moisture and instability for heavy snow
squalls in the northwest. Orographic lift enhances snowfall over higher elevations. The snowfall
season is November through April, and amounts are generally below one inch during October
and May. The greatest monthly snowfalls occur in March as moisture supply begins to increase
with rising temperatures.
During the update process the County, municipalities, and other stakeholders calculated a Risk
Factor utilizing the methodology discussed in Section 4.4 of this plan. The Countywide Risk
Factor is 3.0. The impact Countywide is limited resulting in only potential minor injuries, minor
property damage, and minimal disruption. The spatial extent is large affected over 25% of the
County. Those municipalities that compared their jurisdictional risk to the County’s either
indicated that their risk factor should be greater than or equal to the county’s. Only Chapman
Township indicated that their risk factor should be less than the County’s.
106
Figure 4.3.7-1: Mean annual snowfall for Pennsylvania and Clinton County (NOAA-NWSFO).
107
The worst winter storm on record occurred on March 12-13, 1993. This blizzard, often called
"the Storm of the Century," stretched from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico but was worst in the
Eastern United States, including all of Pennsylvania. This storm caused widespread blackout
conditions; snowfall totals ranged from twelve inches in Philadelphia to 20 inches in Harrisburg
and Scranton to 24 inches in the Pittsburgh area. This event garnered a Presidential Emergency
Declaration; the overall damage estimate for all states in this event was $6.6 billion.
Environmental impacts often include damaged shrubbery and trees due to heavy snow loading,
ice build-up and/or high winds which can break limbs or even bring down large trees. An indirect
affect of winter storms is the treatment of roadway surfaces with salt, chemicals, and other deicing materials which can impair adjacent surface and ground waters. This is particularly a
concern in highly urban areas such as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg. Another
important secondary impact for winter storms is building or structure collapses; if there is a
heavy snowfall or a significant accumulation over time, the weight of the snow may cause
building damage or even collapse.
Winter storms have a positive environmental impact as well; gradual melting of snow and ice
provides excellent groundwater recharge. However, abrupt high temperatures following a heavy
snowfall can cause rapid surface water runoff and severe flooding.
4.3.7.3.
Past Occurrence
Clinton County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have a long history of severe winter
weather. Significant winter storm events that have affected Clinton County since 1993 are listed
in Table 4.3.7-1. The National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) data on past occurrence for
winter storm events since 1993 is the only comprehensive list of data available for the county
aside from information from past disaster declarations.
In the winter of 1993-1994, the state was hit by a series of protracted winter storms. The
severity and nature of these storms combined with accompanying record-breaking frigid
temperatures posed a major threat to the lives, safety and well-being of Commonwealth
residents and caused major disruptions to the activities of schools, businesses, hospitals and
nursing homes.
One of these devastating winter storms occurred in early January 1994 with record snowfall
depths in many areas of the Commonwealth, strong winds, and sleet/freezing rains. Numerous
storm-related power outages were reported and as many as 600,000 residents were without
electricity, in some cases for several days at a time. A ravaging ice storm followed which closed
major arterial roads and downed trees and power lines. Utility crews from a five-state area were
called to assist in power restoration repairs. Officials from PPL Corporation stated that this was
the worst winter storm in the history of the company; related damage-repair costs exceeded
$5,000,000.
Serious power supply shortages continued through mid-January because of record cold
temperatures at many places, causing sporadic power generation outages across the
108
Commonwealth. The entire Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland grid and its partners in the
District of Columbia, New York and Virginia experienced 15-30 minute rolling blackouts,
threatening the lives of people and the safety of the facilities in which they resided. Power and
fuel shortages affecting Pennsylvania and the East Coast power grid system required the
Governor to recommend power conservation measures be taken by all commercial, residential
and industrial power consumers.
The record cold conditions resulted in numerous water-main breaks and interruptions of service
to thousands of municipal and city water customers throughout the Commonwealth.
Additionally, the extreme cold in conjunction with accumulations of frozen precipitation resulted
in acute shortages of road salt. As a result, trucks were dispatched to haul salt from New York
to expedite deliveries to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation storage sites.
In addition to the events described above, other winter storm events are listed in Table 4.3.7-1. ,
please note that The Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute Department of Geography
University of South Carolina, (SHELDUS) aggregates their data for death, injuries, and
estimated damage. For example if 40 injuries were to occur and 55 counties were affected, they
would take the average, which would be 0.8 and apply that as the number of Injuries. As result,
where numbers were indicated, a N/A has been provided. Please also note, that due to the
aggregation of data property damage values may be higher.
Table 4.3.7-1: History of winter storms in Clinton County (NCDC and SHELDUS, 2011)
Date
Type
Death
Injury
Property Damage ($)
February 13, 1960
Snow
N/A
N/A
0
February 18, 1960
Snow, Wind
N/A
N/A
0
March 3, 1960
Snow
N/A
N/A
0
December 1, 1960
Snowstorm
N/A
N/A
0
February 3, 1961
Snowstorm
N/A
N/A
1,000
March 6, 1962
Snow, Wind, Rain
0
0
1,000
December 6, 1962
Snow, Wind
0
0
1,000
December 10, 1962
Snow
0
0
0
December 29, 1962
Snow, Wind
0
0
75,000
January 12, 1964
Snowstorm
0
0
0
March 10, 1964
Ice
0
0
0
March 5, 1965
Snow
0
0
16,000
January 30, 1966
Blizzard
N/A
N/A
7,000
January 14, 1968
Wind, Sleet
0
0
0
November 12, 1968
Snow, Wind
N/A
0
1,000
December 5, 1968
Wind, Snow
0
N/A
1,000
December 25, 1969
Snow
0
0
1,000
March 12, 1970
Snowstorm
0
N/A
0
January 26, 1971
Wind, Snow, Lightning
0
N/A
2,000
109
Date
Type
Death
Injury
Property Damage ($)
January 26, 1971
Blizzard, Wind
0
N/A
29,000
January 27, 1971
Snowstorm, Wind
0
0
1,000
February 13, 1971
Wind, Snow, Ice
0
0
3,000
February 17, 1971
Lightning, Ice
0
0
0
March 4, 1971
Wind, Snowstorm
0
0
0
April 6, 1971
Snow, Wind
0
0
0
November 25, 1971
Snow
0
0
0
February 18, 1972
Snow, Wind
0
0
1,000
December 16, 1973
Snow
N/A
N/A
0
December 20, 1973
Ice, Snow, Rain
N/A
N/A
2,000
January 2, 1974
Glaze, Snow
0
N/A
0
January 9, 1974
Snow, Glaze
0
N/A
0
January 18, 1974
Glaze
0
0
0
February 8, 1974
Snowstorm
0
N/A
0
March 29, 1974
Heavy Snow, Frozen Rain
0
N/A
2,000
January 6, 1975
Snowstorm
0
0
0
January 12, 1975
Snowstorm
0
0
0
January 18, 1975
Snowstorm
0
0
0
January 19, 1975
Snowstorm
0
0
February 12, 1975
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
April 3, 1975
Wind, Snow
0
0
15,000
January 7, 1976
Freezing Rain, Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 11, 1976
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 20, 1976
Snow
0
0
0
January 26, 1976
Flooding, Snow
0
0
0
February 2, 1976
Frozen Rain, Wind, Snow
0
0
2,000
February 5, 1976
Freezing Rain, Snow
0
0
0
March 9, 1976
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 6, 1977
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 9, 1977
Heavy Snow, Wind
0
0
0
March 22, 1977
Heavy Snow, Rain, Wind
0
0
2,000
October 16, 1977
Heavy Snow, Rain
0
0
15,000
December 17, 1977
Ice Storm, Sleet
0
0
15,000
January 3, 1978
Snow, Ice
0
0
15,000
January 16, 1978
Heavy Snow, Rain
0
0
2,000
January 19, 1978
Heavy Snow, Wind
0
N/A
15,000
February 5, 1978
Heavy Snow, Wind
0
0
2,000
110
Date
Type
Death
Injury
Property Damage ($)
February 13, 1978
Snow
0
0
0
March 25, 1978
Heavy Rain, Ice Storm
0
0
2,000
December 20, 1978
Glaze
0
0
0
December 10, 1992
February 21, 1993
Heavy Snow
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
0
75,000
0
March 13, 1993
Heavy Snow, Blizzard
N/A
0
56,000
March 13, 1993
Heavy Snow
0
0
50,000,000
January 1, 1994
Extreme Cold, Snow
N/A
0
0
January 4, 1994
Heavy Snow
0
N/A
7,000
January 4, 1994
Heavy Snow
0
N/A
5,000,000
January 14, 1994
Extreme Cold
0
N/A
7,000
January 17, 1994
Heavy Snow
0
0
500,000
March 2, 1994
Heavy Snow, Blizzard,
Avalanche
0
0
7,000
March 2, 1994
Heavy
Snow/blizzard/avalanche
0
N/A
5,000,000
March 10, 1994
Ice
0
0
500,000
April 19, 1994
Extreme Cold
N/A
0
0
November 27, 1994
Freezing Rain And Sleet
0
0
0
December 9, 1994
Freezing Rain
0
0
0
December 31, 1994
Freezing Rain
0
0
0
January 4, 1995
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 6, 1995
Winter Storm
0
0
0
January 7, 1995
Ice
0
0
0
January 11, 1995
Freezing Rain
0
0
0
January 31, 1995
Freezing Rain
0
0
0
February 3, 1995
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
February 15, 1995
Ice, Freezing Rain
0
0
0
February 26, 1995
Freezing Rain Sleet And Light
0
0
0
February 27, 1995
Freezing Rain
0
0
0
March 8, 1995
Snow
0
0
0
June 1, 1995
Snow Drought
0
0
0
November 14, 1995
Winter Storm
0
0
0
December 19, 1995
Winter Storm
0
0
0
January 2, 1996
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
March 7, 1996
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
November 28, 1996
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
February 13, 1997
Winter Storm
0
0
0
111
Date
Type
Death
Injury
Property Damage ($)
March 14, 1997
Ice Storm
0
0
0
November 14, 1997
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
December 29, 1997
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 15, 1998
Ice Storm
0
0
0
January 22, 1998
Ice Storm
0
0
0
February 23, 1998
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 2, 1999
Winter Storm
0
0
0
January 8, 1999
Winter Storm
0
0
0
January 14, 1999
Winter Storm
0
0
0
March 6, 1999
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 30, 2000
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
February 13, 2000
Ice Storm
0
0
0
February 18, 2000
Winter Storm
0
0
0
December 13, 2000
Winter Storm
0
0
0
March 4, 2001
Heavy Snow
0
0
150,000
March 4, 2001
Winter Weather
0
0
5,000
January 6, 2002
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
December 5, 2002
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
December 10, 2002
Ice Storm
0
0
0
December 25, 2002
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 1, 2003
Ice Storm
0
0
0
January 2, 2003
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
February 16, 2003
Heavy Snow
0
N/A
0
December 14, 2003
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 6, 2004
Winter Weather
N/A
N/A
750,000
January 6, 2004
Winter Weather/mix
N/A
N/A
1,500,000
February 3, 2004
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
March 16, 2004
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
January 5, 2005
Winter Storm
0
0
0
January 8, 2005
Ice Storm
0
0
0
January 22, 2005
Winter Storm
0
0
0
February 21, 2005
Winter Storm
0
0
0
March 1, 2005
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
October 25, 2005
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
December 9, 2005
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
December 16, 2005
Winter Storm
0
0
0
February 13, 2007
Winter Storm
0
0
0
112
Date
Type
Death
Injury
Property Damage ($)
March 16, 2007
Heavy Snow
0
0
0
December 2, 2007
Ice Storm
0
0
0
December 9, 2007
Ice Storm
0
0
0
December 13, 2007
Winter Storm
0
N/A
0
February 1, 2008
Winter Storm
0
0
0
December 11, 2008
Winter Storm
0
0
0
December 19, 2008
Winter Storm
0
0
0
December 23, 2008
Ice Storm
0
0
0
January 6, 2009
Ice Storm
0
0
0
January 10, 2009
Winter Storm
0
0
0
January 27, 2009
Winter Storm
0
0
0
October 15, 2009
Winter Storm
0
0
0
Total
4.3.7.4.
$63,786,000
Future Occurrence
Winter storms are a regular, annual occurrence in Pennsylvania and should be considered
highly likely. Extreme snowfall totals for 10%-, 4%-, 2%-, and 1%-annual probabilities vary by
location and can be obtained by weather station or county from the NOAA National Climatic
Data Center at: http://vlb.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USSCAppController?action=options&state=36.
4.3.7.5.
The most obvious threat of winter weather is snow. Extreme snow is the most potentially
disruptive to the public, for it can bring down power lines, trees, lead to roof collapses, and
cause extremely hazardous driving conditions. Ice, cold temperatures, and high winds are also
common and can be very dangerous. Severe winter storms could potentially produce an
accumulation of snow and ice on trees and utility lines resulting in loss of electricity and blocked
transportation routes. Frequently, especially in rural areas, loss of electric power means loss of
heat for residential customers, which poses an immediate threat to human life.
Similar to the vulnerability assessment discussion for tornadoes, vulnerability to the effects of
winter storms on buildings is dependent on the age of the building type, construction material
used, and condition of the structure. Clinton County lacks a comprehensive database of this
information; therefore a full analysis is not possible. This information and data on construction
type and building codes enforced at time of construction would allow a more thorough
assessment of the vulnerability of structures to winter storm impacts such as severe wind and
heavy snow loading. Utilizing the Risk Factor Methodology all municipalities indicated that they
had the same vulnerability as the County to winter storms with the exception of Chapman
Township which indicated theirs should be less than the County’s.
113
HUMAN-MADE HAZARDS
4.3.8.
4.3.8.1.
Dam Failure
Location and Extent
See Appendix G
4.3.8.2.
Range of Magnitude
See Appendix G
4.3.8.3.
Past Occurrence
See Appendix G
4.3.8.4.
Future Occurrence
See Appendix G
4.3.8.5.
See Appendix G
4.3.9.
4.3.9.1.
Environmental Hazard
Location and Extent
Environmental hazards in Pennsylvania and within Clinton County focus mainly on hazardous
material release, coal mining, and oil and gas well drilling. These hazards result from human
activities and industries and can result in injury and death to humans and damage to property.
Municipalities that may be more prone to environmental hazards due to housing hazardous
material facilities, mining activities, and oil and gas wells are listed below.
Municipalities with Hazardous Material Facilities are Beech Creek Township, Mill Hall Borough,
Bald Eagle Township, Castanea Township, Lock Haven City, Wayne Township, Avis Borough,
Pine Creek Township, Chapman Township, and Leidy Township
Municipalities with active and abandoned mine sites are West Keating Township, Bald Eagle
Township, Noyes Township, and Beech Creek Township.
Municipalities with active and abandoned oil and gas wells are Leidy Township, East Keating
Township, West Keating Township, Chapman Township, Renovo Borough, South Renovo
Borough, Noyes Township, Grugan Township, Gallagher Township, Beech Creek Township,
and Bald Eagle Township.
Additional environmental hazards include superfund facilities, manure spills, and product defect
or contamination. These are included in the definition of environmental hazards, but were not
profiled in the HMP. Superfund sites are hazards originating from abandoned hazardous waste
sites listed on the National Priorities List. The EPA maintains superfund site information which
includes hazardous waste sites, potentially hazardous waste sites and remedial activities across
the nation, including sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for
the NPL. There are 554 superfund sites in Pennsylvania. Manure spills involve the release of
114
stored or transported agricultural waste. Product defect or contamination includes highly
flammable or otherwise unsafe consumer products and dangerous foods.
No information on deaths, serious injury, or property damage could be found for superfund sites,
manure spills, or product defect or contamination; therefore these types of environmental
hazards were not profiled in this plan.
During the update process the County, municipalities, and other stakeholders calculated a Risk
Factor utilizing the Risk Factor Methodology discussed in Section 4.4 of this plan. It was
determined that Clinton County had a Risk Factor of 2.5, which indicates that this hazard is of
moderate risk. The area to be impacted would be limited with minor injuries only, more than
10% of property could be damage or destroyed, and critical facilities could be potentially
shutdown for more than one day. The spatial extent would be small resulting in between 1 and
10.9% of the County affected. When the municipalities compared their jurisdictional risk to the
County’s, Bald Eagle Township, East Keating Township, Flemington Borough, Loganton
Borough, and Renovo Borough indicated their risk factor should be greater than the countywide
risk factor. Grugan Township, Lamar Township, City of Lock Haven, Noyes Township, South
Renovo Borough, and Chapman Township indicated that their jurisdictional risk should be less
than the County’s calculated Risk Factor.
Hazardous Materials Release
Hazardous material releases pose threats to the natural environment, the built environment, and
public safety through the diffusion of harmful substances, materials, or products. Hazardous
materials can include toxic chemicals, infectious substances, biohazardous waste, and any
materials that are explosive, corrosive, flammable, or radioactive (PL 1990-165, §207(e)).
Hazardous material releases can occur wherever hazardous materials are manufactured, used,
stored, or transported. Such releases can occur along transportation routes or at fixed-site
facilities. Hazardous material releases can result in human and wildlife injury, property damage,
and contamination of air, water, and soils.
Transportation of hazardous materials on highways involves tanker trucks or trailers, which are
responsible for the greatest number of hazard material release incidents. There are over
120,000 miles of highway in the state and many of those are used to transport hazardous
materials (Center for Rural Pennsylvania, 2008). These roads also cross rivers and streams at
many points and have the potential to pollute watersheds that serve as domestic water supplies
for parts of the state.
Potential also exists for hazardous material releases to occur along rail lines as collisions and
derailments of train cars can result in large spills. A number of severe rail events have
reportedly occurred in Pennsylvania.
Pipelines can also transport hazardous liquids and flammable substances such as natural gas.
Incidents can occur when pipes corrode, when they are damaged during excavation, incorrectly
operated, or damaged by other forces. Pipelines exist in all but three counties in Pennsylvania.
Pipelines transporting natural gas compose the most miles of the total miles of pipeline in the
115
Commonwealth (10,033 of 12,908 miles). Pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids make up the
third highest amount of total pipeline miles (559 miles). In addition, hazardous materials can be
transported by aircraft or by watercraft. Crashes, spills of materials, and fires on these vessels
can pose a hazard.
Fixed-site facilities that use, manufacture, or store hazardous materials in Pennsylvania pose
risk and must comply with both Title III of the federal Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), also known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA), and the Commonwealth’s reporting requirements under the Hazardous
Materials Emergency Planning and Response Act (1990-165), as amended. These legislations
require that all owners or operators of facilities that manufacture, produce, use, import, export,
store, supply, or distribute any extremely hazardous substance, as defined by the EPA, at or
above the threshold planning quantity, as established by EPA, shall report to the county where
the facility is located and to the Commonwealth that the facility is subject to the requirement to
assist the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) in the development of an Off-site
Emergency Response Plan. The community right-to-know reporting requirements keep
communities abreast of the presence and release of chemicals at individual facilities. As of
2008, there are 3,301 SARA Title III facilities in Pennsylvania (PEMA, 2008). Twenty-two of
these facilities are in Clinton County (PA HMP, 2010).
The list of SARA Title III facilities is not an exhaustive, fully-comprehensive inventory of all
hazardous material locations within the State. The EPA tracks key information about the
chemicals handled by manufacturing or processing facilities through its Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) database. Facilities which employ ten or more full-time employees and which manufacture
or process 25,000 pounds or more, or otherwise use 10,000 pounds or more, of any SARA
Section 313-listed toxic chemical in the course of a calendar year are required to report TRI
information to the EPA, the federal enforcement agency for SARA Title III, and PEMA.
Additional hazardous materials are contained at the military installations within Pennsylvania
(PA HMP, 2010).
Coal Mining
Mining, including surface, underground, and open-pit operations, was conducted in
Pennsylvania before the 1680s and was instrumental in the development of the Commonwealth.
Coal mining, bituminous in the west and anthracite in the northeast, was probably the most
important of Pennsylvania’s mining activities and continues to be a major industry.
While mining has been used in Pennsylvania to extract substances other than coal such as
metal ores (copper, iron, and zinc), clay and shale, and limestone, most of these deposits are of
limited extent so that only small areas have been undermined. However, coal has been mined
under large areas of the state. Counties underlain by coal deposits are at highest risk of
environmental hazards resulting from coal mining activities. This area includes the majority of
southwest Pennsylvania, situated over the Commonwealth’s main bituminous field, as well as
the jurisdictions in northeast Pennsylvania located over the anthracite fields, particularly in
Lackawanna, Luzerne, and Schuylkill Counties. Figure 4.3.9-1 shows the distribution of
116
Pennsylvania coals. Figure 4.3.9-2 shows the locations of Active and Abandoned Coal Mining
Operations within Clinton County.
Pennsylvania was one of the first states to initiate, promulgate, and enforce environmental
regulations related to mining, including mine reclamation; however, there remains a legacy of
abandoned mines, waste piles, and degraded groundwater and surface water in the
Commonwealth. The EPA estimates that over 3,000 miles of streams in Pennsylvania have
been contaminated by acid mine drainage which occurs when metal sulfides in rock oxidize and
generate acidity in water that comes in contact with them (PA HMP, 2010).
A slurry pond is an impoundment used to store waste created during coal preparation also
known as washing. The waste contained in the impoundment consists of silt, dust, water, coal
fines, and washing/treatment chemicals. Coal slurry impoundments are considered dams and
are classified accordingly by the DEP.
The greatest hazard associated with coal slurry ponds is impoundment failure due to seepage,
embankment weakness, and undermining, resulting in flooding. Breakthroughs associated with
deep mining have also led to flooding of underground mine operations. The slurry holding
capacity of impoundments in the Commonwealth ranges from tens of millions to billions of
gallons. According to the Coal Impoundment Location & Information System, there are 41 coal
slurry impoundments in Pennsylvania but none are located in Clinton County (PA HMP, 2010).
117
Figure 4.3.9-1: Distribution of Pennsylvania coals (PADCNR-BTGS, 2008).
118
Figure 4.3.9-2: Active and Abandoned Coal Mine Sites for Clinton County, PA (PADEP, 2011).
119
Oil and Gas
More than 350,000 oil and gas wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania since the first
commercial oil well was developed in 1859 (DEP-BOGM 2010a). Active and abandoned oil and
gas wells exist in 52 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties with the majority of activity occurring western
portion of the Commonwealth including Clinton County.
Forty-three percent of existing oil and gas wells are located in just four counties; Armstrong,
Indiana, McKean and Warren, with more than 9,000 wells within the political boundaries of each
county. Clinton County has 471 active oil and gas wells, 0 inactive oil and gas wells, and 128
plugged oil and gas wells.
Private water supplies such as domestic drinking water wells in the vicinity of oil and gas wells
are at risk of contamination from brine and other pollutants including methane which can pose a
fire hazard. Private drinking water is largely unregulated, and therefore the existing data is
largely incomplete and/or inaccurate. Some information is submitted to the Pennsylvania
Topographic and Geologic Survey by water well drillers, but a comprehensive list of private well
locations is not available.
The Marcellus Shale formation underlies more than 75 percent of Pennsylvania. There is a
great potential for Marcellus Shale related natural gas extraction to become widespread
throughout the Commonwealth. In recent years, the advancement in drilling technology and
capability has allowed for natural gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale formation, which
exists at a depth of 5,000 to 8,000 feet (DEP-BOGM, 2010a). This type of extraction presents
new and unique challenges and hazards in the Commonwealth. The DEP issued 6,598 well
drilling permits throughout the Commonwealth in 2010, and 3,314 of these were in Marcellus
Shale. Of those permits issued in 2010, 48 were for locations in Clinton County (all in Marcellus
Shale). Zero non-Marcellus and 33 Marcellus wells were actually drilled in Clinton County in
2010. It should be noted that the number of Marcellus Shale well permits issued in 2010 has no
correlation to the number of Marcellus Shale wells drilled during the same time period, as wells
drilled must be permitted a minimum of several months prior to construction(PA HMP, 2010).
120
Figure 4.3.9-3: Active and abandoned oil and gas well locations throughout Clinton County (PA DEP, 2011)
121
4.3.9.2.
Range of Magnitude
Hazardous material releases can contaminate air, water, and soils, possibly resulting in death
and/or injuries. Dispersion can take place rapidly when transported by water and wind. While
often accidental, releases can occur as a result of human carelessness, intentional acts, or
natural hazards. When caused by natural hazards, these incidents are known as secondary
events. Hazardous materials can include toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, infectious
substances, and hazardous wastes. Such releases can affect nearby populations and
contaminate critical or sensitive environmental areas.
With a hazardous material release, whether accidental or intentional, there are several
potentially exacerbating or mitigating circumstances that will affect its severity or impact.
Mitigating conditions are precautionary measures taken in advance to reduce the impact of a
release on the surrounding environment. Primary and secondary containment or shielding by
sheltering-in-place protects people and property from the harmful effects of a hazardous
material release. Exacerbating conditions, characteristics that can enhance or magnify the
effects of a hazardous material release include:
•
•
•
Weather conditions: affects how the hazard occurs and develops
Micro-meteorological effects of buildings and terrain: alters dispersion of hazardous
materials
Non-compliance with applicable codes (e.g. building or fire codes) and maintenance
failures (e.g. fire protection and containment features): can substantially increase the
damage to the facility itself and to surrounding buildings
The severity of the incident is dependent not only on the circumstances described above, but
also on the type of material released and the distance and related response time for emergency
response teams. The areas within closest proximity to the releases are generally at greatest
risk, yet depending on the agent, a release can travel great distances or remain present in the
environment for a long period of time (e.g. centuries to millennia for radioactive materials),
resulting in extensive impacts on people and the environment.
A worst case scenario event of a hazardous material release occurred in March 2009 when a
tractor trailer overturned, spilling 33,000 pounds of toxic hydrofluoric acid near Wind Gap,
Pennsylvania, resulting in the evacuation of 5,000 people (USA Today, 2009). Residents were
evacuated, because contact with concentrated solutions of the acid can cause severe burns and
inhaling the gas can cause respiratory irritation, severe eye damage, and pulmonary edema.
122
Coal Mining
Major impacts from mining include surface-elevation changes and subsidence, modification of
vegetation, the chemical degradation and flow redistribution of surface water and groundwater,
the creation of mine voids and entry openings, adverse aesthetic impacts, and changes in land
use.
In addition, active and abandoned mines can also result in injury and loss of human life. This
can occur in active mines where workers are injured or killed by mine collapse, entrapment,
poisonous gases, inundation, explosions, fires, equipment malfunction, and improper ventilation.
Injuries and death, such as All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) accidents and drowning, can also occur in
abandoned mines.
The mineral-waste disposal from coal mining also is a hazard. Past disposal practices have
dotted Pennsylvania’s landscape with unsightly refuse piles. Many of the refuse piles contain
combustible materials that cause long-term air-quality problems if ignited. Burning refuse piles
have also been linked to major underground coal fires, such as those at Centralia and
Shamokin in the Anthracite region of Pennsylvania.
Also potentially dangerous are slurry ponds or tailings dams. Mineral byproducts from coal
mining are pumped to slurry or tailings dams for removal by sedimentation. If the dams or
structures supporting the slurry ponds fail, they pose hazards similar to dam failure.
Reject wastes from coal mining that contain sulfide minerals can also degrade groundwater and
surface water that comes into contact with them. Coal refuse piles have historically been prolific
sources of acid mine drainage, which has impaired many streams in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania has a long history of mining, and there have been numerous mining accidents.
The worst case scenario event in Pennsylvania mining history occurred in 1962 in Centralia,
Pennsylvania when an underground fire began in the coal mines underneath the town. The
federal government offered buyouts of homes of residents so that they could relocate from
Centralia, resulting in a cost of over $40 million to carry this out and demolish homes. In 1992
Pennsylvania claimed eminent domain on all properties in the town and condemned all the
buildings. In 1981 the town had over 1,000 residents, but today only a few remain. Although
there were no fatalities in the Centralia incident, one of the worst mining accidents in the United
States since 1950 occurred in nearby West Virginia. On April 5, 2010 twenty-nine miners were
killed at the Upper Big Branch Mine by an explosion (PA HMP, 2010).
123
Oil and Gas
As is the case with all natural resource extraction, a variety of potential hazards exist with oil
and gas extraction. Abandoned oil and gas wells that are not properly plugged can contaminate
groundwater and consequently domestic drinking water wells. Surface waters and soil are
sometimes polluted by brine, a salty wastewater product of oil and gas well drilling, and from oil
spills occurring at the drilling site or from a pipeline breach. This can spoil public drinking water
supplies and be particularly detrimental to vegetation and aquatic animals.
Methane can leak into domestic drinking wells and pose fire and explosion hazards (Figure
4.3.9-4). In addition, natural gas well fires can occur when natural gas is ignited at the well site.
Often, these fires erupt during drilling when a spark from machinery or equipment ignites the
gas. The initial explosion and resulting flames have the potential to seriously injure or kill
individuals in the immediate area. These fires are often difficult to extinguish due to the intensity
of the flame and the abundant fuel source. When methane gas from unplugged gas wells seeps
into underground coal mines, miners are at risk of asphyxiation and are subject to impacts of
explosion.
Figure 4.3.9-4: Natural gas fire in Hopewell Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania.
Photo from Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 17, 2010.
Marcellus Shale play drilling has introduced a new set of hazards to the oil and gas industry in
addition to the normal risks associated with the industry. The Marcellus Shale formation exists
at a depth normally between 5,000 and 8,000 feet and holds trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.
Extraction from this depth was previously not feasible, but as drilling technology has improved
over the years, recovering natural gas from Marcellus Shale is now possible (DEP-BOGM,
2010a).
This extraction process is different from traditional natural gas extraction in that it often requires
horizontal drilling. Horizontal drilling is accomplished by hydraulic fracturing which involves
pumping one to eight million gallons of water, mixed with sand and other additives, including
hydrochloric or muriatic acid, into the shale formation. The fluid or “frac fluid” that is recovered
from this process must be properly treated, as the water quality is very poor.
124
Frac fluid is extremely saline and can be three to six times as salty as sea water. Other
contaminants can include barium, bromine, lithium strontium, sulfate, ammonium, and very high
concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS). There is also some concern about normally
occurring radioactive materials (NORMS) present in shale and potentially present in recovered
drilling fluid, but there is very little data available on the radioactivity of frac fluid in Pennsylvania
(Kirby, 2010).
Currently there is no known technology to treat water with this level of salinity (Vidic, 2010).
High levels of TDSs, though not harmful to humans, can be extremely harmful to aquatic life and
can damage industrial equipment. Often, recovered frac fluid is stored in earthen impoundments
and after treatment is taken to a sewage treatment facility. There is concern surrounding the
toxic solid waste that remains after frac fluid is treated.
In addition to the traditional hazards associated with oil and gas well drilling, potential impacts
from Marcellus Shale gas well drilling include:
•
•
•
Surface water depletion from high consumptive use with low return rates, affecting
drinking water supplies and aquatic ecosystems and organisms.
Contaminated surface and groundwater resulting from hydraulic fracturing and the
recovery of contaminated hydraulic fracturing fluid.
Mishandling of solid toxic waste.
Recently, the worst environmental disaster in United States history was realized and can be
attributed to oil well drilling and extraction. British Petroleum’s (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig,
located in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, began leaking millions of gallons of oil
into the ocean after an explosion occurred at the site on April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers. The
resulting environmental and economic impacts were devastating to the region with almost five
million barrels of oil released into the ocean at a cost of $6.0 billion (estimated) in cleanup and
lost wages(PA HMP, 2010).
Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts of hazardous material releases include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hydrologic effects – surface and groundwater contamination
Other effects on water quality such as changes in water temperature
Damage to streams, lakes, ponds, estuaries, and wetland ecosystems
Air quality effects – pollutants, smoke, and dust
Loss of quality in landscape
Reduced soil quality
Damage to plant communities – loss of biodiversity; damage to vegetation
Damage to animal species – animal fatalities; degradation of wildlife and aquatic habitat;
pollution of drinking water for wildlife; loss of biodiversity; disease
125
Coal Mining
The environmental impacts of coal mining are many. Mining activities and acid mine drainage
can contaminate surface and groundwater, create acid mine drainage, cause changes in water
temperature and damage to streams, lakes, ponds, estuaries, and wetland ecosystems. Mine
explosions or burning refuse piles can cause air quality problems. Although mine reclamation is
required for much surface mining activity, there is still a loss of quality in landscape, damage to
vegetation, and habitat.
Oil and Gas
Though injury and death have resulted from oil and gas well drilling and extraction, the majority
of impacts from this human-made hazard are environmental in nature. Wells that are improperly
drilled or plugged can contaminate groundwater, resulting in water well contamination or
eventually surface water contamination. Drilling additives stored on site can leak and
contaminate soil, surface water and groundwater. Oil leaks at the well site from oil pipelines
contaminate soil and surface water and damage aquatic ecosystems.
Additional potential environmental impacts of Marcellus Shale play drilling include surface water
depletion and the accompanying damage to aquatic ecosystems; and contaminated surface,
groundwater, and soil resulting from hydraulic fracturing, the recovery of contaminated hydraulic
fracturing fluid and solid toxic waste produced from treatment.
On a much larger scale, American Rivers, a leading national river conservation organization,
placed two of Pennsylvania’s rivers on the top ten list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers.
Number one on the list is the Upper Delaware River, and number seven on the list is the
Monongahela River. Both rivers are listed as threatened by natural gas extraction, specifically
related to Marcellus Shale. Combined, these water bodies supply drinking water to more than
17 million people.
4.3.9.3.
Past Occurrence
SARA Title III requires facilities which produce, use, or store hazardous chemicals to notify
PEMA and the public through their county’s emergency dispatch center if an accidental release
of a hazardous substance meets or exceeds a designated reportable quantity and affects or has
the potential to affect persons and/or the environment outside the plant. SARA Title III and
Pennsylvania Hazardous Material Emergency Planning and Response Act (Act 165) also
require a written follow-up report to PEMA and the county. These written follow-up reports
include any known or anticipated health risks associated with the release and actions to be
taken to mitigate potential future incidents. In addition, Section 204(a)(10) of Act 165 requires
PEMA to staff and operate a 24-hour State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to provide
effective emergency response coordination.
126
PEMA Pennsylvania Hazardous Material Emergency Planning and Response Act Annual
Reports include data on the number of hazardous material release incidents by county for the
years 2006-2008. Data prior to 2006 is not available. The data contained in the reports in nonspecific to incidents. According to the reports, the number of hazardous material release
incidents in Pennsylvania has increased from 665 incidents in 2006 to 950 incidents in 2008.
There were five reported accidents in Clinton County in 2006, four incidents in 2007, and five
incidents in 2008.
The EPA Toxic Release Inventory reports that over 3.5 trillion pounds of chemicals were
released from facilities located in Pennsylvania between 1987 and 2008. A reported 18,345,727
pounds of chemicals were released in Clinton County from 1987-2008. Many of the companies
responsible for releases have previously been or are currently federally listed SARA Title III
facilities.
Transportation-related hazardous material release incidents are also tracked by the federal
government. The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) maintains information on highway-related hazardous material release
incidents. The PHMSA reports that between 1998 and 2009, there were over 11,000 highwayrelated incidents resulting in almost 100 injuries, three fatalities, and over $25 million in
damages (Table 4.3.9-1).
Table 4.3.9-1 Highway-related hazardous material release incident statistics (PHMSA).
YEAR
NO. OF
INCIDENTS
MAJOR
INCIDENTS
MINOR
INCIDENTS
FATALITIES
DAMAGES
2009
738
1
9
0
$926,492
2008
868
1
6
0
$1,537,665
2007
1,010
2
5
0
$1,647,508
2006
967
0
0
0
$1,099,858
2005
807
0
1
1
$2,239,128
2004
930
2
5
0
$2,709,110
2003
954
2
5
0
$3,288,340
2002
912
0
4
0
$1,906,095
2001
1,012
1
6
0
$1,387,098
2000
1,065
0
11
0
$2,436,090
1999
880
2
15
0
$1,483,702
1998
864
0
14
2
$4,995,143
Total
11,007
11
81
3
$25,656,229
A number of severe rail events involving the release of hazardous materials have also occurred
in Pennsylvania including a derailment of a Norfolk Southern Railway Company train in October
of 2006 which resulted in the release of hazardous materials and caused a fire in New Brighton,
Pennsylvania (NTSB, 2010). The PHMSA also tracks rail incidents that result in the release of
127
hazardous materials. Between 1998 and 2009, there were approximately 300 rail-related
incidents resulting in three injuries, one fatality, and over $6.8 million in damages (Table 4.3.92).
Table 4.3.9-2 Rail-related hazardous material release incident statistics (PHMSA).
YEAR
NO. OF
INCIDENTS
MAJOR
INCIDENTS
MINOR
INCIDENTS
FATALITIES
DAMAGES
2009
17
0
0
0
$19,500
2008
29
1
0
1
$88,270
2007
36
0
1
0
$79,132
2006
17
0
0
0
$2,265,786
2005
33
0
1
0
$1,316,900
2004
18
0
0
0
$20,712
2003
16
0
0
0
$5,508
2002
15
0
0
0
$1,500,250
2001
21
0
0
0
$10,000
2000
35
0
0
0
$502,193
1999
37
0
0
0
$9,005
1998
31
0
0
0
$1,065,535
Total
305
1
2
1
$6,882,791
There have been 249 air-related incidents resulting in two injuries, one fatality, and almost
$100,000 in damages (Table 4.3.9-3). There has only been one water-related incident since
1998 and it occurred in 2005. It resulted in no injuries, fatalities or damages.
Table 4.3.9-3 Air-related hazardous material release incident statistics (PHMSA).
NO. OF
INCIDENTS
YEAR
MAJOR
INCIDENTS
MINOR
INCIDENTS
FATAILITIES
DAMAGES
2009
33
0
0
0
$0
2008
29
1
0
1
$88,270
2007
40
0
1
0
$1,500
2006
28
0
0
0
$0
2005
21
0
0
0
$7,280
2004
7
0
0
0
$1,287
2003
not available
not available
not available
not available
not available
2002
12
0
0
0
$0
2001
18
0
0
0
$50
2000
15
0
0
0
$0
128
Table 4.3.9-3 Air-related hazardous material release incident statistics (PHMSA).
YEAR
NO. OF
INCIDENTS
MAJOR
INCIDENTS
MINOR
INCIDENTS
FATAILITIES
DAMAGES
1999
29
0
0
0
$1,000
1998
17
0
0
0
$0
Total
249
1
1
1
$99,387
Pipeline releases can also result in fatality, injury, damage, the release highly volatile liquids, or
liquid releases that result in unintentional fire or explosion.
Coal Mining
Although state and federal (U.S. Department of Labor, EPA, and the Office of Surface Mining
and Reclamation) laws require occupational health, safety, and environmental protection in all
mining activities, mining accidents still occur. The U.S. Department of Labor Mine Safety and
Health Administration tracks mining accidents and injuries. From 2006 to 2008, there were
1,173 injuries (including 5 deaths) reported in Pennsylvania resulting from surface and
underground coal mining activities (MSHA, 2010). Although there have been many mining
accidents in Pennsylvania early mining history from the 1800’s, there is no comprehensive
database that tracks the data.
The U.S. Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration also tracks non-mining
related fatalities at active and abandoned mines. From 1999 to 2009, there were 33 non-mining
related fatalities and thirteen “near miss” accidents at mines (MSHA, 2010). Many of these
incidents were a result of falls, drowning, electrocution, and ATV crashes.
The DEP Bureau of Mine Safety is required by law to investigate all fatal and serious accidents
that occur at underground Commonwealth mines. According to the Bureau, there have been
four major mine emergencies in Pennsylvania coal mines. They define a mine emergency as a
serious situation or occurrence that happens unexpectedly and demands immediate action or a
condition of urgent need for action or assistance such as a state of emergency. Two of these
were mine fires and two were inundations (DEP, 2010).
Mine subsidence incidences have not been well documented in Clinton County. However, the
worse mine subsidence on record was on November 3, 1888, a disaster occurred at the Kettle
Creek Mine at Cook's Run, Clinton County, PA killing 17 people. The explosion was caused by
a drill post giving way, falling on a supply of dynamite and caps that had just been brought into
the mine. The explosion was propagated by coal dust throughout most of the mine and up the
airshaft. Five of the victims working in the vicinity of the dynamite explosion were killed by
violence. Twelve others died from suffocation and "afterdamp". Just recently this mining area
has undergone a mitigation project. The Kettle Creek mine has been sufficiently altered to
prevent a mine "blowout" that could've wreaked havoc on Kettle Creek and the West Branch of
the Susquehanna River. According to The Express, Clinton County’s local newspaper, the
project was completed in early of 2010. The mine pool stabilization project was overseen by
Trout Unlimited and the Kettle Creek Watershed Association at an abandoned deep mine on
129
state forest land in Noyes Township. It prevented acid mine drainage that could have entered
Kettle Creek and then ultimately the Susquehanna River.
Oil and Gas
Pennsylvania has a long history of oil and gas well drilling and though relatively infrequent,
many accidents and incidents have occurred related to the extraction of these natural
resources. No comprehensive list of oil and gas related incidents exist for the Commonwealth.
Recent oil and gas incidents that occurred in Pennsylvania were found through search of news
reports, but none of the incidents found occurred in Clinton County.
One incident documented was related to the The South Renovo Borough Water System
(SRBWS). It provides drinking water to approximately 540 people in Clinton County. South
Renovo receives its water from two sources: a surface water reservoir and a groundwater well
that supplements the reservoir during droughts. Recently, the system began experiencing
operational problems due to the presence of methane discovered in the water drawn from the
groundwater well. The water system brought this contamination problem to the attention of the
PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). The DCNR identified a gas
well, located 2,500 feet north of the groundwater well, as a possible source of the methane
migration. According to the DCNR, the old gas well was drilled in 1953, and was plugged and
abandoned that same year. The materials and techniques used to seal the gas well are over 50
years old and may be of questionable integrity. The DCNR theorized that the methane leaking
from this old well is migrating from the gas-bearing rock, up through the compromised top hole
and into the fresh water aquifer feeding the SRBWS groundwater well.
4.3.9.4.
Future Occurrence
While many hazardous material release incidents have occurred in Pennsylvania in the past,
they are generally considered difficult to predict. An occurrence is largely dependent upon the
accidental or intentional actions of a person or group. Intentional acts are addressed under
Section 4.3.22. Risk associated with hazardous materials release is expected to remain
moderate. Hazardous materials release incidents occur annually in Pennsylvania, so a 100
percent annual probability is anticipated.
Coal Mining
It is difficult to forecast the severity and frequency of coal mining accidents and environmental
damage in Pennsylvania. Although throughout time, the government has strengthened mining
and reclamation operation and environmental regulations, permitting, and inspection criteria,
this has not prevented mining accidents and environmental damage from occurring.
Surface subsidence resulting from underground mining continues to be a major concern of
those impacted by the mining industry. Despite the use of deepmine roof-support methods,
some subsidence will eventually occur.
130
It is likely that Pennsylvania will continue to modify its laws to reflect additional environmental
awareness. Stricter controls on reclamation, perhaps specifically addressing the disposal of
mining residuals, are likely. State and federal laws and programs have historically placed an
emphasis on environmental preservation and reclamation. As in the past, it seems likely that
Pennsylvania will be at the forefront of these programs, and future occurrence will decrease.
However, until then a 100 percent annual probability is anticipated for coal mining hazards as
incidents occur annually in the Commonwealth.
Oil and Gas
It is difficult to predict when and where environmental hazards will arise, as they are often
related to equipment failure and human error. Adequate monitoring through the DEP will reduce
the likelihood of potential impacts to the community and to the environment. Risk associated
with oil and gas drilling is expected to remain moderate, though based on the short history of
past occurrence, Pennsylvania should expect multiple incidences to occur annually, or a 100
percent annual probability. As the number of oil and gas wells increases each year, the
probability of occurrence is likely to increase as well.
4.3.9.5.
The vulnerability of the community and environment to a spill or release of an extremely
hazardous substance at a facility or from a transportation accident is a factor of many variables.
These include: the specific chemical, the amount subject to a spill or release, the proximity of
waterways, and the number of people residing in a radius from the facility or accident location
which can reasonably be expected to be adversely affected.
Furthermore, the vulnerability of the community and environment to a hazardous material
release from a transportation incident is directly related to several specific variables; namely the
mode and class of transportation. Each mode is further subject to several categories of hazard.
Each mode of transportation (truck, aircraft, rail, watercraft, or pipeline) has separate and
distinct factors affecting the vulnerability. Transportation carriers must have response plans in
place to address accidents, otherwise the local emergency response team will step in to secure
and restore the area. Quick response minimizes the volume and concentration of hazardous
materials that disperse through air, water, and soil.
All types of population are evaluated in determining the population at risk within the radius of
vulnerability including hospitals, schools, homes for the elderly, and critical infrastructure
facilities. Since there are more than 3,300 SARA Title III facilities in Pennsylvania that store
extremely hazardous substances, populations in communities that contain these facilities are
more vulnerable to facility releases, particularly those within 1.5 miles of a given facility.
Jurisdictions within one-quarter mile of major highways and railways are considered more
131
vulnerable in the event of a transportation incident involving hazardous materials. Note that
there is some overlap among these vulnerable jurisdictions. For example, an individual that lives
within 1.5 miles of a hazardous materials site may also live within one-quarter mile of a major
road.
In order to determine jurisdictional vulnerability for hazardous materials releases, GIS analysis
was conducted to isolate jurisdictions located within one-quarter mile of highways and rail lines
as well as within 1.5 miles of hazardous materials sites identified in FEMA’s Comprehensive
Data Management System. Using these measures, 34 jurisdictions are vulnerable to hazardous
materials releases. These jurisdictions are home to 7,468 vulnerable critical facilities. Clinton
County has 43 critical facilities potentially impacted by hazardous materials releases.
In addition to individual jurisdictions being vulnerable, water supply facilities can be vulnerable
to hazardous materials in the event of an incident. There are 66,057 public water supply
facilities in Pennsylvania. While a thorough assessment has not been completed to identify
which facilities would be impacted by a given spill, information is available on the streams from
which these facilities withdraw water.
PEMA assigns chemical facility ratings and transportation threat ratings for counties in
Pennsylvania in its annual Hazardous Material Emergency Response Preparedness Reports. In
addition, PEMA maintains a list of how many emergency response teams are in each county in
Pennsylvania. Clinton County has a “significant threat” rating for chemical facilities and
transportation but has only one emergency response team, which could result in increased
vulnerability due to reduced response capabilities.
Coal Mining
Jurisdictional vulnerability to coal mining incidents is defined as jurisdictions that are located
within 1.5 miles of an active or abandoned coalmine. These vulnerable jurisdictions are home to
1,688 state critical facilities throughout the Commonwealth. However, Clinton County does not
have any critical facilities within 1.5 miles of an active or abandoned coalmine (PA HMP, 2010).
Oil and Gas
Jurisdictional vulnerability to oil and gas well incidents is defined as jurisdictions located within
1.5 miles of an oil or gas well. With the oil deposits in western Pennsylvania and with the
Marcellus Shale formation covering the vast majority of Pennsylvania, it is unsurprising that 66
of 67 counties are vulnerable to oil and gas hazards in some way. Clinton County has six critical
facilities within 1.5 miles of an oil or gas well (PA HMP, 2010).
The following is a list of legislation and programs which, when administered appropriately, can
reduce Pennsylvania’s vulnerability to oil and gas well hazards:
•
Oil and Gas Act of 1984 – includes provisions for well permits, groundwater protection,
water supply protection, well plugging, reporting and safety.
132
•
•
DEP Orphan Oil and Gas Wells and the Orphan Well Plugging Fund – provides funding
to locate and properly plug orphan wells which were abandoned prior to the Oil and Gas
Act of 1984.
Solid Waste Management Act – regulations for pollution prevention pertaining to solid
waste disposal including solid waste generated from hydraulic fracturing and treatment.
Additional requirements exist within the drainage area of Special Protection Waters in the
Delaware River Basin, as the DRBC requires that natural gas extraction projects including
exploratory wells must be approved by the commission.
Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Board recently approved regulations to protect the state’s
waters from negative impacts of natural gas drilling on May 17, 2010. The regulations limit TDS
concentrations in drilling wastewater (DEP, 2010a).
On June 9, 2010, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act) bill
which would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act, was introduced to the Senate and House. If
passed, the legislation would require the oil and gas industry to disclose hydraulic fracturing
chemicals and additives used during the process (Casey, 2010).
The Upper Delaware River and the Monongahela River have been placed on American River’s
2010 top ten list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers due to threats from natural gas
extraction. Combined, these water bodies supply drinking water to more than 17 million people.
Roughly three-fourths of all identified state critical facilities are vulnerable to hazardous
materials releases. Notably, all 20 of the state-owned facilities and 29 federal government
facilities are considered vulnerable to hazardous material releases, because they are proximate
to either major highways or known hazardous materials sites. Additionally water treatment
facilities and water suppliers are vulnerable to hazardous material releases. If a hazardous
materials release impacted one of the twelve water treatment facilities and water suppliers, the
effects could be widespread, depending on the service area of each entity. Thousands of
schools, fire departments, and police departments throughout the state are also vulnerable to
hazardous materials releases (PA HMP, 2010).
Coal Mining
State critical facility vulnerability assessment is defined as state critical facilities located within
1.5 miles of an active or abandoned coal mine. In examining the types of critical facilities
vulnerable to coal-related hazards, 1,583 of the 1,686 vulnerable facilities statewide are fire
departments, schools, and police stations (PA HMP, 2010).
Oil and Gas
There are a total of 3,416 state facilities statewide vulnerable to oil and gas well incidents at the
current time, but this may change rapidly as more and more Marcellus Shale wells are drilled. In
133
the case of an explosion or other catastrophic incident at an oil or gas well, these facilities,
mostly schools, fire departments, and police departments, are all somewhat vulnerable.
Because the impacts of oil and gas incidents are largely on water quality and water supply,
though, the three vulnerable wastewater treatment plants and the two water companies may be
disproportionately vulnerable to oil and gas well incidents(PA HMP, 2010).
Jurisdictional losses from hazardous materials releases come from damage to buildings and
infrastructure as well as the cost of cleanup. Estimated losses due to hazardous materials
releases in Clinton County include 2,981 impacted buildings worth almost $1.17 billion (PA
HMP, 2010).
134
Coal Mining
Estimated jurisdictional losses due to coal mine incidents in Clinton County are 2,711 buildings
with a value of over $532.18 million (PA HMP, 2010).
Oil and Gas
Estimated jurisdictional losses due to oil and gas well incidents in Clinton County are 4,772
buildings with a value of almost $959.74 million (PA HMP, 2010).
Not all state facilities will experience equal losses in the case of a hazardous materials release.
Losses will depend upon the magnitude of the spill and the type of facility; for example, losses
may be higher for a water supply facility where multiple municipalities depend on a
contaminated source. Nonetheless, the estimated replacement cost of all State Critical Facilities
located in hazardous materials release hazards zones is $59.85 billion.
The table 4.3.9-4 lists EPA Hazardous Material facilities within Clinton County. The table also
indicates if the structure is located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Table 4.3.9-5
lists addressable structures located by hazardous material facilities. The buffer used was 1.5
miles. The City of Lock Haven has the most addressable structures within 1.5 miles of
hazardous materials at approximately 2,555.
135
Table 4.3.9-4 EPA hazardous material facilities within Clinton County, (www.EPA.gov 2011).
Facility Name
Address
City
State
Zip
Municipality
In SFHA
ARMSTRONG WORLD IND
325 EAGLE VALLEY ROAD
ROUTE 150
BEECH
CREEK
PA
16822
BEECH CREEK
TOWNSHIP
No
CHAMPION PARTS INCORPORATED
279 INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD
BEECH
CREEK
PA
16822
BEECH CREEK
TOWNSHIP
No
WEBBS SUPER-GRO PRODUCTS
INC
DEWEY STREET
MILL HALL
PA
17751
MILL HALL
BOROUGH
Yes
WEBB'S SUPER-GRO PRODUCTS,
INC.
30 PENNSYLVANIA AVE
MILL HALL
PA
17751
MILL HALL
BOROUGH
Yes
CRODA MFG SITE
8 CRODA WAY
MILL HALL
PA
17751
BALD EAGLE
TOWNSHIP
No
MILL HALL PLT
171 DRAKETOWN RD.
MILL HALL
PA
17751
BALD EAGLE
TOWNSHIP
Yes
MONTOUR MILL HALL TERMINAL
200 HOGAN BLVD.
MILL HALL
PA
17751
BALD EAGLE
TOWNSHIP
Yes
FIRST QUALITY TISSUE LOCK
HAVEN PLT
599 SOUTH HIGHLAND
STREET
LOCK
HAVEN
PA
17745
CASTANEA
TOWNSHIP
Yes
INTL PAPER CO/LOCK HAVEN MILL
599 S HIGHLAND ST
LOCK
HAVEN
PA
17745
LOCK HAVEN CITY
No
AMER COLOR & CHEM LOCK
HAVEN PLT
MOUNT VERNON ST
CASTANEA
PA
17726
LOCK HAVEN CITY
No
SPECIALTY MINERALS I/LOCK
HAVEN PLT
WOODS AVE & PEARL ST
LOCK
HAVEN
PA
17745
LOCK HAVEN CITY
No
LOCK HAVEN CITY WATER DEPT
20 E CHURCH ST
LOCK
HAVEN
PA
17745
CASTANEA
TOWNSHIP
Yes
DRAKE CHEM
180 MYRTLE STREET
LOCK
HAVEN
PA
17745
CASTANEA
TOWNSHIP
No
CHAMPION PARTS INCORPORATED
921 3RD AVENUE
LOCK
HAVEN
PA
17745
LOCK HAVEN CITY
No
136
Table 4.3.9-4 EPA hazardous material facilities within Clinton County, (www.EPA.gov 2011).
Facility Name
Address
City
State
Zip
Municipality
In SFHA
CLINTON CNTY SOLID W/WAYNE
TWP LDFL
SR 18302
MCELHATTA
N
PA
17748
WAYNE
TOWNSHIP
No
PINE CREEK MUNICIPAL
AUTHORITY STP
985 RAILROAD STREET
AVIS
PA
17721
AVIS BOROUGH
No
WOOLRICH PLT
MILL ST
WOOLRICH
PA
17779
PINE CREEK
TOWNSHIP
No
COLUMBIA GAS TRANS
CORP/RENOVO STA
SR 4005
CHAPMAN
TWP
PA
17764
CHAPMAN
TOWNSHIP
Yes
DOMINION TRANS
INC/FINNEFROCK STA
SR 0144
LEIDY
PA
17764
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
No
DOMINION TRANS - LEIDY STA
STATE ROUTE 144 AT
TAMARACK
RENOVO
PA
17764
LEIDY TOWNSHIP
No
137
Table 4.3.9-5: Addressable and Critical Facilities within 1.5 miles of hazardous material sites.
Municipality
Number of
Hazardous
Material Sites
Allison Township
Total Addressable
Structures within 1.5
mile buffer of
Hazardous Material
Sites
Total Critical Facilities
within 1.5 mile buffer of
Hazardous Material Sites
34
Avis Borough
1
620
5
Bald Eagle Township
3
611
6
306
6
Beech Creek Borough
2
251
2
Castanea Township
3
575
6
Chapman Township
1
232
2
Colebrook Township
Crawford Township
Dunnstable Township
171
Flemington Borough
604
9
105
1
Gallagher Township
Greene Township
Grugan Township
Lamar Township
Leidy Township
2
187
1
Lock Haven City
4
2555
32
2
707
8
1
1247
8
Logan Township
Loganton Borough
Mill Hall Borough
Noyes Township
Pine Creek Township
Porter Township
1
Renovo Borough
Wayne Township
1
610
7
556
6
9,372
99
Woodward Township
TOTAL
20
138
Coal Mining
Coal mining hazards can cause state facility losses in the form of mine subsidence or explosion,
water supply contamination, or mine fires. Overall, the estimated replacement cost of all State
Critical Facilities located in coal hazard areas is $15.64 billion (PA HMP, 2010).
Oil and Gas
The magnitude of loss for Clinton facilities impacted by oil and gas wells has a wide range
based upon the type and size of each individual incident. For instance, water pollution
associated with drilling affects natural landscapes and drinking water supplies, while a well
explosion could cause structural damage or fire in surrounding buildings. Table 4.3.9-6 provides
information on addressable structures and critical facilities within 1.5 mile buffer Marcellus Shale
Areas. There are a total of 13,960 addressable structures in Clinton County. The City of Lock
Haven has the most addressable structures at 2,551.
Table 4.3.9-6: Addressable and Critical Facilities within 1.5 miles of Marcellus Shale Areas.
Total Addressable
Structures
Total Addressable
Structures in
Marcellus Shale Areas
in Marcellus Shale
Areas
Allison Township
96
96
-
Avis Borough
620
620
5
Bald Eagle Township
1,126
899
7
Beech Creek Borough
314
314
6
774
774
2
Castanea Township
582
27
-
Chapman Township
914
914
8
Colebrook Township
111
111
1
Crawford Township
427
-
-
Dunnstable Township
455
455
2
197
197
-
Flemington Borough
604
604
9
Gallagher Township
452
452
3
Greene Township
880
1
-
Grugan Township
164
164
2
Lamar Township
1,184
-
-
Leidy Township
899
898
4
Lock Haven City
2,565
2,551
31
Logan Township
403
-
-
Loganton Borough
220
-
-
Mill Hall Borough
707
239
5
Noyes Township
430
430
1
Municipality
139
Table 4.3.9-6: Addressable and Critical Facilities within 1.5 miles of Marcellus Shale Areas.
Total Addressable
Structures
Total Addressable
Structures in
Marcellus Shale Areas
in Marcellus Shale
Areas
1,580
1,577
9
Porter Township
772
-
-
Renovo Borough
610
610
12
231
231
4
Wayne Township
669
389
4
187
187
1
Woodward Township
1,220
1,220
6
TOTAL
19,393
13,960
122
Municipality
Pine Creek Township
4.3.10. Levee Failure
4.3.10.1. Location and Extent
FEMA completed an inventory of all known levees across Pennsylvania in 2009. A total of 186
levees have been identified throughout Pennsylvania, with at least one levee in 51 of 67
counties (FEMA-Region III, 2009). FEMA’s inventory was compiled using all effective Flood
Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Insurance Study reports in Pennsylvania, the USACE levee
inventory, the DEP’s Flood Control Project summaries, information from local governments,
aerial photography, and additional information such as news articles and websites. Figure
4.3.20-1 shows the point locations of these levee systems, many of which are not certified to
protect against the 1%-annual-chance flood and therefore are not accredited on their respective
community’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The distribution of these systems is relatively
scattered throughout the Commonwealth with most having been constructed in more populated
areas to protect property and structures from flood events. Particularly extensive levee systems
have been built in the Scranton-Wilkes Barre area in Luzerne and Lackawanna Counties.
In the event of a levee failure, flood waters will ultimately inundate the protected area landward
of the levee. The extent of inundation is dependent on the flooding intensity. Failure of a levee
during a 1% annual chance flood will inundate the approximate 1-percent-annual-chance flood
plain previously protected by the levee. Residential and commercial buildings located nearest
the levee overtopping or breach location will suffer the most damage from the initial
embankment failure flood wave. Landward buildings will be damaged by inundation.
Levees require maintenance to continue to provide the level of protection they were designed
and built to protect. Maintenance responsibility belongs to a variety of entities including local,
state, and federal government and private land owners. Well maintained levees may obtain
certification through independent inspections. Levees may not be certified for maintaining flood
protection when the levee owner does not maintain the levee and or pay for an independent
inspection. The impacts of an un-certified levee include insurance rate increases because
FEMA indentifies great flood risk on Flood Insurance Rate Maps for levee failure.
140
Clinton County has three levee systems protecting Colebrook, Lock Haven, and Mill Hall. The
City of Lock Haven owns the Lock Haven Levee System. The City maintains approximately 6.5
miles of earth levee that consists of 38 drainage structures, 1 sanitary pumping station, 5
ponding areas, 5 closure structures, and several recreation areas. The construction of the levee
system was completed in October of 1994 at a cost of $84.4 million. Inundation mapping is
housed at the City of Lock Haven Building Complex located at 20 East Church Street, Lock
Haven, PA 17745-2599. The owner of the Colebrook and Mill Hall levee systems is unknown,
though information regarding the other levee systems can be obtained by the Lock Haven Area
Flood Protection Authority.
141
Figure 4.3.10-1: Levee locations throughout Clinton County.
142
4.3.10.2. Range of Magnitude
A levee failure causes flooding in landward areas adjacent to the levee system. The failure of a
levee or other flood protection structure could be devastating depending on the level of flooding
for which the structure is designed and the amount of landward development present. In some
instances, the magnitude of flooding could be more severe under a levee failure event
compared to a normal flooding event. If an abrupt failure occurs, the rushing waters of a flood
wave could result in catastrophic losses.
Properties located in the area of reduced-risk landward of a levee system are not subject to the
mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Thus, regardless of whether a levee is accredited, there is concern that property in these areas
lack flood insurance. In the event of a failure, it is likely that inundated properties will not be
insured.
The worst-case levee failure is one which occurs abruptly with little warning and results in deep,
fast-moving flood waters through a highly-developed or highly-populated area. Based on
currently available information, it is not known which levee in the Commonwealth best
represents a potential worst-case failure scenario. However, given the worst case scenario, any
levee may ultimately be overtopped and fail.
The environmental impacts of a levee failure result in significant water quality and debris
disposal issues. Flood waters will back up sanitary sewer systems and inundate waste water
treatment plants, causing raw sewage to contaminate residential and commercial buildings and
the flooding waterway. The contents of unsecured containers of oil, fertilizers, pesticides, and
other chemicals contaminate flood waters. Water supplies and waste water treatment could be
off-line for weeks. After the flood waters subside, contaminated and flood damaged building
materials and contents must be properly disposed. Contaminated sediment must be removed
from buildings, yards, and properties.
Utilizing the Risk Factor Methodology in Section 4.4, the County, municipalities, and other
stakeholders calculated a countywide risk factor of 1.9 for Clinton County in regards to levee
failure. They also indicated that during an event the impact would be limited resulting in
potentially only minor injuries, more than 10% of the affected area damaged or destroyed and
critical facilities shutdown for than one day. The spatial extent would also be small with only
between 1 and 10 percent of the County affected.
4.3.10.3. Past Occurrence
There are no known significant historic levee failures in Clinton County and in remaining parts of
Pennsylvania.
4.3.10.4. Future Occurrence
Similarly to dam failures, given certain circumstances, a levee failure can occur at any time.
However, the probability of future occurrence can be reduced through proper design,
construction, and maintenance measures. The age of the levee can increase the potential for
143
failures if not maintained. Most levees are designed to operate safely at specified levels of
flooding. While FEMA focuses on mapping levees that will reduce the risk of a 1%-annualchance flood, other levees may be designed to protect against smaller or larger floods. Design
specifications provide information on the percent-annual-chance flood a structure is expected to
withstand, provided that it has been adequately constructed and maintained.
4.3.10.5. Vulnerability Assessment
As of September 2009, 186 levees exist within 51 of the 67 Pennsylvania counties. Ninety state
critical facilities have been identified that fall within the known 102 Levee Protected Areas
statewide. The Levee Protected Areas were obtained from FEMA Region III’s Midterm Levee
Inventory database (as of July 2009). However, not all levees have Levee Protected Areas
identified, leaving a gap in the analysis. To accommodate for the non-existent protected areas,
a secondary vulnerability analysis was performed on all levees in the Commonwealth, seeking
out critical facilities that fall within 2,000 feet of the levee system. The 2,000 foot measurement
was selected based on a review of the Levee Protected Areas; this review found that 2,000 feet
was approximately the typical size of the identified Levee Protected Areas. Both the Levee
Protected Areas and the 2,000 foot analysis is approximate analysis, based on the best
available data. Clinton County has three levee systems, with 46 critical facilities in either levee
protected areas or within 2,000 feet of a levee. Although many counties in the Commonwealth
have more levees than Clinton County, very few have as many potentially affected critical
facilities.
Via the State 2010 HMP, jurisdictional loss estimates were identified at the tract level and
aggregated at the county level to show the possible losses per county. Due to the fragmentation
of the levees, GIS was used to buffer 2,000 feet from the levees for a better representation of
losses. It was identified that the Commonwealth has a total of 236,320 potentially impacted
buildings with over $85 billion in exposure in 37 counties. Clinton County has nearly 3,000
potentially impacted buildings, worth over $1.16 billion. It should be noted that only the GIS
buffer exposure value was presented in jurisdictional loss estimates, since the Levee Protected
Areas do not exist for all levees. The GIS buffer method considers all existing levees.
Jurisdictional loss estimates were identified at the tract level and aggregated at the county level
to show the possible losses per county. Table 4.3.10-1 provides information about the levee
and the location and the number of structures that could be impacted should the levee
system(s) fail.
144
Table 4.3.10-1: Clinton County Levee Systems, Locations, and Proximity to Critical Facilities and
Addressable Structures.
Levee
Colebrook Lick Run
Levee
Lock Haven
Levee - Bald
Eagle Creek
and West
Branch
Susquehanna
River
Mill Hall Fishing Creek
Levee
Flood Source
River Basin
Municipality
Critical
Facilities
within 2000
Foot Levee
Buffer or
Levee
Protected
Area
No. of
Addressable
Structures
within 2000
Foot Levee
Buffer
Lick Run
West Branch
Susquehanna
Colebrook
1
47
Bald Eagle
Creek- West
Segment
West Branch
Susquehanna
Lock Haven
7
471
Bald Eagle
Creek- Central
Segment
West Branch
Susquehanna
Lock Haven
6
215
Bald Eagle
Creek- East
Segment
West Branch
Susquehanna
Lock Haven
1
157
West Branch
Susquehanna
River Segment
West Branch
Susquehanna
Lock Haven
26
1,247
Fishing Creek
West Branch
Susquehanna
Mill Hall
5
427
145
4.3.11. Transportation Accidents
4.3.11.1. Location and Extent
For the purposes of this plan, transportation accidents are defined as incidents involving
highway, air and rail travel. The major transportation systems in Clinton County, including the
US and State highways, railroads and airports, are shown in Figure 4.3.11-1. Interstate 80 Situated along the southern portion of the County, it provides connections to major cities to the
east and west. Completion of the proposed I-99 will eventually provide Interstate connections to
the north and south as well.
•
•
•
•
U.S. 220 - A major arterial corridor that provides a connection to I-80 to the south and
U.S. 15 to the east.
State Route 44 - A major arterial road in the north eastern part of the County that
connects with destinations in Potter County.
State Route 150 – A major arterial road running east and west through the middle of the
County. It connects Lock Haven City to Avis Borough to the east and Milesburg and I-80
to the west.
State Route 120 - A minor arterial road that connects Lock Haven to Renovo Borough in
northern Clinton County and continues further north into Cameron County.
During the plan update process a Countywide Risk Factor of 2.2 was calculated. This hazard
was added after the municipalities completed their Risk Factor review. Areas that are more
vulnerable to traffic accidents than others were determined by past occurrence data, the
County’s Comprehensive plan, additional municipal input, and newspaper archives. Figure
4.3.10-2 shows the traffic volume along the major roadways of Clinton County. Interstate 80
carries the most traffic. Other roadways carrying significant amounts of traffic are U.S. Route
220 and Pennsylvania Routes 150 and 64. Most of the heavy traffic is situated in the southern
portion of the County. The heaviest traffic flows on these highways pass through the City of
Lock Haven, the Townships of Pine Creek, Dunnstable, Woodward, Allison, Bald Eagle, Wayne,
Castnea, Porter, Lamar, and Greene, and the Boroughs of Flemington, Mill Hall, Beech Creek,
and Loganton.
146
Figure 4.3.11-1 Basemap showing Clinton County’s transportation network.
147
Figure 4.3.11-2: Traffic volume along Clinton County roadways (PennDOT, 2010)
148
4.3.11.2. Range of Magnitude
Significant transportation accidents can result in death or serious injury as well as extensive
property loss or damage. Road and railway accidents in particular have the potential to result in
hazardous materials release as well if the accident involves a vehicle carrying hazardous
materials. A worst case scenario for transportation accidents in Clinton County was a traffic
incident along Interstate 80. Details are listed below.
December 28, 2001, two massive accidents occurred due to treacherous conditions caused by
winter weather. The first happened late that day at Exit 185 for Loganton. At least 63 vehicles:
a dozen cars and two tractor-trailers, with one carrying flammable material, exploded into flames
after the impact. Captain Coleman McDonough of
the Pennsylvania State Police Troop F stated that
police estimated at least 45 cars and six tractortrailers in the westbound lanes and about twelve in
the eastbound lanes were involved.
This section of Interstate was closed, causing traffic
to back up for six miles on the westbound side and
three miles on the eastbound side. At least 45
people were taken to local hospitals, but police did
not know if any had sustained life-threatening
injuries. The cause of the accident was a sudden
snowstorm that created "white-out" conditions and
left highways icy. One of the people involved in the
accident, Joe Czapski of Dearborn, Michigan who
was driving home from Boston with his wife said,
"We were going west when this snow squall kicked
up. It was so white out, it was impossible to see."
He went on to say that they were directly behind the
car that started the accident. "Suddenly this car in
Figures 4.3.11-3 and 4: Photos
front of me started swerving. Then I tried to avoid
showing the wreckage from the
him and I got hit in the back and the side. Another
“whiteout,” along Interstate 80.
Photos were taken from Daily
car hit us into the railing. It was like a chain
Item, a newspaper in Sunbury,
reaction," said wife Pat Czapski. Kristen Wells of
Pennsylvania.
Hartford, Connecticut described the accident as this,
"It was like, ‘Boom! Boom!’ Every few seconds you could hear another car exploding."
As cars collided with each other and the guardrails, some vehicles ended in the ravine between
the two sides of the highway. By 8 PM, all the fires had been extinguished according to Kevin
Fanning, director of the Clinton County Emergency Management Agency. Wayne Hoover, Fire
Chief for White Deer Township said, "I've never seen anything like it." White Deer units were
finishing up at another accident on I-80 at mile marker 202 when the call for the Clinton County
accidents came over the radio. Fire departments from White Deer, Warrior Run, Milton,
149
Watsontown and Lewisburg provided assistance to Clinton County firefighters. "There were two
or three cars down at the bottom of that 125-foot bank. We saw state troopers dragging people
out of them," said Hoover. He went on to say, "I counted 15 cars and five tractor-trailers in one
big neap and they were all burning. There may have been more cars underneath." The
accident claimed eight lives. The highway reopened on Saturday, December 29.
Another area of concern along Clinton County is Route 220 in Lamar Township. This area has
seen a huge jump in growth and it is expected to continue. The Clinton County Planning
Department anticipates major development at the nearby Lamar Township Business Park. To
relieve congestion and reduce accidents the County is seeking to raise Route 220 so that it
goes over the intersection, with on-off ramps in both directions to go under a new overpass to
access both the Fairgrounds and Auctions Roads. The most recent accident listed by The
Express occurred on March 1, 2011 where a 64-year-old man was injured. Previously along the
same stretch of Route 220 in December of 2010, a teenager was killed in a vehicular accident.
Two different views of the accident scene. (The Daily Item)
4.3.11.3. Past Occurrence
The Tables below from the Clinton County Comprehensive Plan lists locations where accidents
have been known to occur.
accidents (Clinton County Comprehensive Plan, 2005).
Municipality
Street or Road
Extent of Accident Locations
Bald Eagle
Township
Hogan Boulevard (SR 64)
County Club Road to Millbrook Plaza Lane/King
Arthur Drive
Bald Eagle
Township
Hogan Boulevard (SR 64)
Millbrook Plaza Lane/King Arthur Drive to Draketown
Road
Dunnstable
Township
State Route 150
Intersection with Park Avenue (TR 568) and Mc
Elhattan Drive (SR 1005)
Flemington
Borough
High Street (SR 150)
Bressler Street to Canal Street
Flemington
Borough
Hutson Street
High Street to Woods Avenue
Greene Township
Interstate 80 (Eastbound)
A 1/2 mile section just west of the Jersey Shore Exit
Greene Township
Interstate 80 (Westbound)
A 1 mile section from the bridge over SR 880 (near
Jersey Shore exit) to the west
Lamar Township
State Route 64
SR 477 to Long Run Road
Lamar Township
State Route 65
TR 581 to Ashland Street
Lamar Township
U.S. 220
Intersection with Auction Road (SR 2008) and
Fairground Road (SR 2008)
Lock Haven City
Bellefonte Avenue (SR 150)
Church Street to Pearl Street
Lock Haven City
Bellefonte Avenue (SR 150)
Hampton Street to Allison Street
Lock Haven City
Church Street (SR 150)
Henderson Street to Bellefonte Avenue
150
accidents (Clinton County Comprehensive Plan, 2005).
Municipality
Street or Road
Extent of Accident Locations
Lock Haven City
Fairview Street
Bellefonte Avenue to Fourth Street
Lock Haven City
Henderson Street (SR 150)
Main Street to Church Street
Lock Haven City
Jay Street (SR 120)
Chruch Street to Water Street
Lock Haven City
Main Street (SR 120)
Jay Street to Vesper Street
Lock Haven City
Water Street (SR 120)
Jay Street to Grove Street
Lock Haven City
Water Street (SR 120)
West Main Street to Susquehanna Avenue
Porter Township
Interstate 80 (Eastbound)
A 1/2 mile section: 1-1/2 miles east of the SR 64
interchange
Porter Township
State Route 64
Allis Chalmers Lane to Chicks Road (TR 326)
Woodward
Township
Woodward Avenue (SR
150)
Evergreen Lane to Allegeny Street
Woodward
Township
Woodward Avenue (SR
150)
Oriole Road (TR 529) to Mill Hill Road/Church
Street/River Street Intersection
4.3.11.4. Future Occurrence
The County’s population has decreased slightly over the last decade so it can be assumed that
local traffic has declined slightly as well. However the trucking industry is expected to continue
to grow increasing the number of long haul trucks operating in the County on a daily basis.
Transportation incidents may increase slightly over the next five years without proper mitigation
strategies in place. Therefore, based on this and past occurrences, the probability of
transportation accidents is characterized as highly likely. The average rate of aviation accidents
nation-wide is 8.47 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Therefore, the likelihood of a serious
aviation incident in the County is considered low.
4.3.11.5. Vulnerability Assessment
A transportation related accident can occur on any stretch of road or railway in Clinton County.
However, severe accidents are more likely along highways such as Interstate 80 and Route
220. Municipalities more prone to traffic accidents are the City of Lock Haven, the Townships of
Pine Creek, Dunnstable, Woodward, Allison, Bald Eagle, Wayne, Castnea, Porter, Lamar, and
Greene, and the Boroughs of Flemington, Mill Hall, Beech Creek, and Loganton. The
combination of high traffic volume, severe winter weather in the County, and large numbers of
hazardous materials haulers increase the chances of traffic accidents occurring.
Everyone who travels in a vehicle (either as a driver or passenger) is vulnerable to traffic
accidents. Traffic accidents occur most when the roads are busiest and carrying the highest
volumes such as during peak commute hours (morning and evening). In addition, there is an
increase in traffic around schools at the beginning and end of the school day. Furthermore, the
151
City of Lock Haven experiences an increase in traffic during the months that Lock Haven
University students are in session (September to June).
The combination of high traffic volume, severe winter weather in the County, and large number
of hazardous materials haulers increase the chances of serious traffic accidents occurring.
Regarding transportation accident involving hazardous materials, the population and buildings
closest to major highways are most at risk in the event of the accident. There are 9,889
structures within a quarter mile of major highways (Table 4.3.11-2).
In addition, the potential for a major railroad accident in Clinton County exists but accidents are
not expected to go beyond the right-of-way, unless hazardous materials are involved. Like
highway incidents, rail incidents can impact populations living near rail lines. These include the
following municipalities that have rail lines passing through them: Allison Township, Avis
Borough, Bald Eagle Township, Beech Creek Township, Castanea Township, Chapman
Township, Colebrook Township, East Keating Township, Grugan Township, Mill Hall Borough,
Noyes Township, Pine Creek Township, Renovo Borough, South Renovo Borough, Wayne
Township, West Keating Township, and Woodward Township. Like roadway accidents, the
population and buildings closest to rail lines are most vulnerable in the event of an accident,
especially on that involved hazardous materials. There are 4,496 structures within a quarter
mile of rail lines (Table 4.3.11-2).
Clinton County is also susceptible to airplane accidents due to the William T. Piper Memorial
Airport located in the City of Lock Haven and some private air strips. The population within a
five mile radius of these facilities is the most vulnerable in the instance of crash, since most
crashes occur near takeoff or landing sites. There are 8,879 structures within a 5 miles radius
of an airport (Table 4.3.11-2). Municipalities that have structures within a 5 mile radius are
Allison Township, Bald Eagle Township, Castanea Township, Colebrook Township, Dunnstable
Township, Flemington Borough, Gallagher Township, Lamar Township, City of Lock Haven, Mill
Hall Borough, Pine Creek Township, Wayne Township, and Woodward Township.
152
Table 4.3.11-2: Structures within vulnerable radii of major highways, rail lines and airports in Clinton County, (ESRI, 2010; PEMA, 2010;
County GIS Department, 2011). (Major Highways include Interstates, US Highways and State Highways.)
Municipality
Total
Addressable
Structures
Addressable
Structures
Within 1/4
Mile of
Railroad
Critical
Facilities
Within 1/4
Mile of
Railroad
Addressable
Structures
Within 1/4 Mile
of *Major
Highways
Critical
Facilities
Within 1/4 Mile
of *Major
Highways
Addressable
Structures
Within 5 Mile
Radius of
Airport
Critical
Facilities
Within 5 Mile
Radius of
Airport
Allison Township
96
44
0
0
0
96
0
Avis Borough
620
66
0
201
2
0
0
Bald Eagle
Township
1,126
424
2
490
4
736
6
Beech Creek
Borough
314
0
0
263
6
0
0
Beech Creek
Township
774
9
0
135
1
0
0
Castanea
Township
582
420
6
64
0
582
6
Chapman
Township
914
362
6
423
7
0
0
Colebrook
Township
111
15
1
26
0
1
0
Crawford
Township
427
0
0
176
2
0
0
Dunnstable
Township
455
0
0
75
0
455
2
East Keating
Township
197
69
0
67
0
0
0
Flemington
Borough
604
0
0
417
9
604
9
Gallagher
Township
452
0
0
178
3
4
0
Greene
Township
880
0
0
452
4
0
0
153
Table 4.3.11-2: Structures within vulnerable radii of major highways, rail lines and airports in Clinton County, (ESRI, 2010; PEMA, 2010;
County GIS Department, 2011). (Major Highways include Interstates, US Highways and State Highways.)
Municipality
Total
Addressable
Structures
Addressable
Structures
Within 1/4
Mile of
Railroad
Critical
Facilities
Within 1/4
Mile of
Railroad
Addressable
Structures
Within 1/4 Mile
of *Major
Highways
Critical
Facilities
Within 1/4 Mile
of *Major
Highways
Addressable
Structures
Within 5 Mile
Radius of
Airport
Critical
Facilities
Within 5 Mile
Radius of
Airport
Grugan
Township
164
56
1
90
2
0
0
Lamar Township
1,184
0
0
695
7
801
10
Leidy Township
899
0
0
274
2
0
0
Lock Haven City
2,565
1213
21
1976
29
2565
32
Logan Township
403
0
0
113
3
0
0
Loganton
Borough
220
0
0
219
5
0
0
Mill Hall
Borough
707
450
6
572
6
707
8
Noyes Township
430
191
0
263
1
0
0
Pine Creek
Township
1,580
93
1
543
3
517
4
Porter Township
772
0
0
388
5
0
0
Renovo Borough
610
605
12
605
12
0
0
South Renovo
Borough
231
4
2
226
4
0
0
Wayne
Township
669
372
4
134
3
591
6
West Keating
Township
187
1
0
0
0
0
0
Woodward
Township
1,220
102
0
824
6
1220
6
TOTAL
19,393
4,496
62
9,889
126
8,879
89
154
4.4.
Hazard Vulnerability Summary
4.4.1.
Methodology
Ranking hazards helps communities set goals and priorities for mitigation based on their
vulnerabilities. A risk factor (RF) is a tool used to measure the degree of risk for identified
hazards in a particular planning area. The RF can also assist local community officials in
ranking and prioritizing hazards that pose the most significant threat to a planning area based
on a variety of factors deemed important by the planning team and other stakeholders involved
in the hazard mitigation planning process. The RF system relies mainly on historical data, local
knowledge, general consensus from the planning team, and information collected through
development of the hazard profiles included in Section 4.3. The RF approach produces
numerical values that allow identified hazards to be ranked against one another; the higher the
RF value, the greater the hazard risk.
RF values were obtained by assigning varying degrees of risk to five categories for each of the
hazards profiled in the HMP update. Those categories include probability, impact, spatial
extent, warning time, and duration. Each degree of risk was assigned a value ranging from one
to four. The weighting factor agreed upon by the planning team is shown in Table 4.4-1. To
calculate the RF value for a given hazard, the assigned risk value for each category was
multiplied by the weighting factor. The sum of all five categories equals the final RF value, as
demonstrated in the following example equation:
Risk Factor Value = [(Probability x .30) + (Impact x .30) +
(Spatial Extent x .20) + (Warning Time x .10) + (Duration x .10)]
Table 4.4-1 summarizes each of the five categories used for calculating a RF for each hazard.
According to the weighting scheme applied, the highest possible RF value is 4.0.
155
Table 4.4-1: Summary of Risk Factor approach used to rank hazard risk.
RISK
ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY
PROBABILITY
What is the likelihood
of a hazard event
occurring in a given
year?
IMPACT
In terms of injuries,
damage, or death,
would you anticipate
impacts to be minor,
limited, critical, or
catastrophic when a
significant hazard
event occurs?
DEGREE OF RISK
LEVEL
WARNING TIME
Is there usually some
lead time associated
with the hazard event?
Have warning
measures been
implemented?
DURATION
How long does the
hazard event usually
last?
INDEX
UNLIKELY
LESS THAN 1% ANNUAL PROBABILITY
1
POSSIBLE
BETWEEN 1% & 49.9% ANNUAL PROBABILITY
2
LIKELY
BETWEEN 50% & 90% ANNUAL PROBABILITY
3
HIGHLY LIKELY
GREATER THAN 90% ANNUAL PROBABILTY
4
MINOR
VERY FEW INJURIES, IF ANY. ONLY MINOR
PROPERTY DAMAGE & MINIMAL DISRUPTION
ON QUALITY OF LIFE. TEMPORARY
SHUTDOWN OF CRITICAL FACILITIES.
1
30%
LIMITED
CRITICAL
CATASTROPHIC
SPATIAL EXTENT
How large of an area
could be impacted by
a hazard event? Are
impacts localized or
regional?
CRITERIA
WEIGHT
VALUE
MINOR INJURIES ONLY. MORE THAN 10% OF
PROPERTY IN AFFECTED AREA DAMAGED OR
DESTROYED. COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF
CRITICAL FACILITIES FOR MORE THAN ONE
DAY.
MULTIPLE DEATHS/INJURIES POSSIBLE.
MORE THAN 25% OF PROPERTY IN AFFECTED
AREA DAMAGED OR DESTROYED. COMPLETE
SHUTDOWN OF CRITICAL FACILITIES FOR
MORE THAN ONE WEEK.
HIGH NUMBER OF DEATHS/INJURIES
POSSIBLE. MORE THAN 50% OF PROPERTY IN
AFFECTED AREA DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.
COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF CRITICAL
FACILITIES FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE.
2
30%
3
4
NEGLIGIBLE
LESS THAN 1% OF AREA AFFECTED
1
SMALL
BETWEEN 1 & 10.9% OF AREA AFFECTED
2
MODERATE
BETWEEN 11 & 25% OF AREA AFFECTED
3
LARGE
GREATER THAN 25% OF AREA AFFECTED
4
MORE THAN 24 HRS
SELF-DEFINED
1
20%
12 TO 24 HRS
SELF-DEFINED
6 TO 12 HRS
SELF-DEFINED
LESS THAN 6 HRS
SELF-DEFINED
LESS THAN 6 HRS
SELF-DEFINED
LESS THAN 24 HRS
SELF-DEFINED
LESS THAN 1 WEEK
SELF-DEFINED
MORE THAN 1 WEEK
SELF-DEFINED
(NOTE: Levels of
warning time and criteria
that define them may be
adjusted based on
hazard addressed.)
2
10%
3
4
1
(NOTE: Levels of
warning time and criteria
that define them may be
adjusted based on
hazard addressed.)
2
10%
3
4
156
4.4.2.
Ranking Results
Using the methodology described in Section 4.4.1, Table 4.4-2 lists the Risk Factor calculated
for each of the thirteen potential hazards identified in the 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.
Hazards identified as high risk have risk factors greater than 2.5. Risk Factors ranging from 2.0
to 2.4 were deemed moderate risk hazards. Hazards with Risk Factors 1.9 and less are
considered low risk.
Table 4.4-2: Ranking of hazard types based on Risk Factor methodology.
LOW
MODERATE
HIGH
HAZARD
RISK
HAZARD
NATURAL (N)
or
MAN-MADE (M)
RISK ASSESSMENT CATEGORY
PROBABILIT
IMPACT
Y
SPATIAL WARNING
DURATION
EXTENT
TIME
RISK
FACTOR
Flood, Flash Flood, Ice Jam (N)
4
3
3
3
3
3.3
Winter Storm (N)
4
2
4
1
3
3.0
Tornado, Windstorm (N)
3
3
3
4
1
2.9
Wildfire (N)
4
1
3
4
2
2.7
Environmental Hazards (M)
3
2
2
4
2
2.5
Landslides (N)
3
1
3
1
4
2.3
Transportation Accidents (M)
4
1
1
4
1
2.2
Drought (N)
3
1
1
4
2
2.0
Levee Failure (M)
1
2
2
4
2
1.9
Dam Failure (M)
1
2
2
4
2
1.9
Hurricane, Tropical Storm,
Nor’easter (N)
2
2
2
1
2
1.9
Based on these results, there are five high risk hazards, two moderate risk hazards and three
low risk hazards in Clinton County. Mitigation actions were developed for all high, moderate,
and low risk hazards (see Section 6.4). The threat posed to life and property for moderate and
high risk hazards is considered significant enough to warrant the need for establishing hazardspecific mitigation actions. Mitigation actions related to future public outreach and emergency
service activities are identified to address low risk hazard events.
157
A risk assessment result for the entire county does not mean that each municipality is at the
same amount of risk to each hazard. Table 4.4-3 shows the different municipalities in Clinton
County and whether their risk is greater than (>), less than (<), or equal to (=) the risk factor
assigned to the County as a whole.
Hurricane, Tropical
Storm, Nor’easter (N)
Dam Failure (M)
Levee Failure (M)
Landslide (N)
Transportation (M)
Drought (N)
(M)
Wildfire (N)
Winter Storm (N)
Jam (N)
JURISDICTION
IDENTIFIED HAZARD AND CORRESPONDING COUNTYWIDE RISK FACTOR
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
Allison Township
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
<
=
=
=
Avis Borough
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
<
=
=
=
Bald Eagle Township
=
=
<
=
>
=
>
<
<
<
=
Beech Creek Borough
=
=
=
>
=
>
>
<
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
=
=
>
<
=
=
=
Castanea Township
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
<
=
=
=
Chapman Township
<
<
>
<
<
=
=
>
<
<
>
Colebrook Township
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
=
=
Crawford Township
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
Dunnstable Township
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
<
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
>
=
=
=
=
>
=
Flemington Borough
=
=
<
<
>
<
=
<
=
=
=
158
Hurricane, Tropical
Dam Failure (M)
Levee Failure (M)
Landslide (N)
Transportation (M)
Drought (N)
(M)
Wildfire (N)
Winter Storm (N)
Jam (N)
JURISDICTION
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
Gallagher Township
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Greene Township
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
>
=
=
=
Grugan Township
=
=
<
>
<
<
=
<
<
=
=
Lamar Township
=
=
>
=
<
=
>
=
>
>
=
Leidy Township
=
>
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
=
>
Lock Haven City
>
=
=
<
<
=
>
<
>
>
=
Logan Township
<
>
=
>
=
=
=
<
<
<
>
Loganton Borough
<
>
=
>
>
=
>
<
<
<
>
Mill Hall Borough
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
=
Noyes Township
>
<
<
>
<
<
=
>
<
>
<
Pine Creek Township
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
<
=
=
=
Porter Township
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
>
=
=
=
Renovo Borough
=
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
=
=
=
159
Hurricane, Tropical
Dam Failure (M)
Levee Failure (M)
Landslide (N)
Transportation (M)
Drought (N)
(M)
Wildfire (N)
Winter Storm (N)
Jam (N)
JURISDICTION
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
Wayne Township
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
<
=
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
=
>
Woodward Township
>
=
=
=
=
=
>
<
=
=
=
4.4.3.
Potential Loss Estimates
Based on various kinds of available data, potential loss estimates were established for flood,
flash flood, and ice jam, tornado and windstorms, drought, nuclear incident, wildfires and winter
storms. Estimates provided in this section are based on HAZUS-MH, version MR4, geospatial
analysis, and previous events. Estimates are considered potential in that they generally
represent losses that could occur in a countywide hazard scenario. In events that are localized,
losses may be lower, while regional events could yield higher losses.
Potential loss estimates have four basic components, including:
•
•
•
•
Replacement Value: Current cost of returning an asset to its pre-damaged condition,
using present-day cost of labor and materials.
Content Loss: Value of building’s contents, typically measured as a percentage of
the building replacement value.
Functional Loss: The value of a building’s use or function that would be lost if it were
damaged or closed.
Displacement Cost: The dollar amount required for relocation of the function
(business or service) to another structure following a hazard event.
The parcel data used in this plan includes building values provided in the county tax
assessment database. These values are representative of replacement value alone; content
loss, functional loss, and displacement cost are not included. Municipalities with the greatest
parcel values are located in the Northern portion of the County. These areas heavily forested
and valued for their timber production.
160
Figure 4.4-1: Clinton County parcel assessed values (Clinton County GIS Department, 2011).
161
The full suite of potential losses was able to be calculated for flood events using HAZUS-MH
MR4, a standardized loss estimation software package available from FEMA. These studies
provided estimates of total economic loss, building damage, content damage, and other
economic impacts that can be used in local flood response and mitigation planning activity.
Using HAZUS-MH, total building-related losses for the 1% annual-chance flood event were
estimated to be $336.52 million. Approximately 75.1% of these building-related losses were
incurred by residential occupancies; a further 14.0% of building-related losses were incurred by
commercial properties. Nearly 4.9% of the building-related losses were incurred by industrial
occupancies. Figure 4.4-2 shows the spatial distribution of total economic losses at the Census
block level. These total economic losses incorporate both building-related losses and business
interruption losses. Some of the highest economic losses are expected in the City of Lock
Haven. Total economic loss, including replacement value, content loss, functional loss, and
displacement cost was estimated at $341.4 million for the entire County. The full
HAZUS results report can be found in Appendix F.
162
Figure 4.4-2: FEMA HAZUS Map for Clinton County
163
4.4.4.
Future Development and Vulnerability
Risk and vulnerability to natural and human-made hazard events are not static. Risk will
increase or decrease as counties and municipalities see changes in land use and development
as well as changes in population. Clinton County is expected to experience a variety of factors
that will, in some areas, increase vulnerability to hazards while in other areas, vulnerability may
stay static or even be reduced.
Population changes as well as the age of the population and its housing stock are main
indicators of vulnerability change in Clinton County. As discussed in Section 2.3, the total
population of Clinton County has increased since the year 2000. As a mecca for hunters and
fishermen, the County has a large stock of seasonal housing, which is vacant most of the year.
Eighty percent of the County's housing stock was built before 1979. Nearly one third of units
were built before 1940.
As stated previously in Section 2.4, the 2005 Clinton County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The future areas of growth and development are: Lamar, Loganton, Lock Haven, Beech Creek,
Flemington, Dunstown, Avis, Woolrich, Renovo and South Renovo. The population of Clinton
County as documented in the 2010 Census was 39,238. This is a 3.5% increase since the last
Census update in 2000. Figure 4.4-3 shows Clinton County population change from 2000-2010.
The County ranks 57th out of the 67 municipalities in regards to population. Only one of the 29
municipalities is considered urban. None of the municipalities in the County have populations
over 10,000, and majority of the municipalities have populations under 2,500. The following
table provides a distribution of population per municipality, per Census data. Out of all the
municipalities listed as growth areas, all are vulnerable to flooding and all with the exception of
Beech Creek have a moderate vulnerability to fire. Beach Creek has a high vulnerability to fire.
Additionally, to limit development in the floodplain the Clinton County Comprehensive Plan
identifies the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain as being an environmentally sensitive area
and is mapped as such in the future land use map as a Natural Resource Protection Area,
(Comprehensive plan page 71). The municipalities are required to be consistent with the
County Comprehensive Plans when they update their Zoning or Land Use Development Plans.
Clinton County also recently completed a County Green Way and Open Space Plan. The plan
is in the process of being adopted by the County Commissioners so that it can be approved by
DCED and DCNR. This plan will be an amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan so
when a municipality updates a land use ordinance they are required to be consistent with the
County Comprehensive Plan and any amendments.
164
Figure 4.4-3: Clinton County population change from 2000-2010, (Census 2010).
165
5.
5.1.
Capability Assessment
Clinton County has a number of resources it can access to implement hazard mitigation
initiatives including emergency response measures, local planning and regulatory tools,
administrative assistance and technical expertise, fiscal capabilities, and participation in local,
regional, state, and federal programs. The presence of these resources enables community
resiliency through actions taken before, during, and after a hazard event.
The 2006 HMP identified the suite of resources available in Clinton County to support hazard
mitigation, including human, physical, technological, informational, and financial resources. It
also indicated the presence of local plans, ordinances, and codes in applicable municipalities.
Finally, the 2006 Capability Assessment specified local, state, and federal resources available
for mitigation efforts. Through responses to the Capability Assessment Survey distributed to all
29 municipalities and input from the HMSC and the municipalities and other stakeholders, the
2011 HMPU provides an updated inventory of the most critical local planning tools available
within each municipality and a summary of the fiscal and technical capabilities available through
programs and organizations outside of the County.
To update the capability inventory for 2011, survey assessments were provided to all
municipalities. These surveys asked questions about planning mechanisms, regulations,
finances, staff, and political willingness to implement mitigation practices and community
resources and resiliency. In addition the Clinton County Conservation District, Planning
Department, and Department of Emergency Services were helpful in providing information
about plans and regulations in place.
The Capability Assessment also identifies emergency management capabilities and the
processes used for implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. In general, the
County and its municipalities have been active in growing their capability in recent years with a
2005 County Comprehensive Plan, 2 Stormwater Management Plans, a (Draft) Greenways and
Open Space Plan, and a 2008 update to County flood maps and floodplain ordinances.
While the capability assessment serves as a good instrument for identifying local capabilities
for, it also provides a means for recognizing gaps and weaknesses that can be resolved through
future mitigation actions. The results of this assessment lend critical information for developing
an effective mitigation strategy.
Within Pennsylvania, no county-level capability assessment would be complete without
considering the constituent municipalities. Local municipalities have their own governing body,
enforce their own rules and regulations, purchase their own equipment, maintain their own
infrastructure, and manage their own resources. In many ways, the County is only as good as
the capabilities of its constituent municipalities. As such, this capability assessment does not
166
consider Clinton County as a lone entity, but evaluates it in light of the various characteristics
and differences of and between its twenty-nine municipalities.
Clinton County’s twenty-nine municipalities include one city, seven boroughs, and twenty-one
townships. Each of these municipalities carries out their daily operations and provides various
community services according to their local needs and limitations. Some of these municipalities
have formed cooperative agreements and work jointly with their neighboring municipalities to
provide such services as police protection, fire and emergency response, solid waste disposal,
recreational opportunities, wastewater treatment, infrastructure maintenance, and water supply
management, while others choose to operate on their own. They vary in staff size, resource
availability, fiscal status, service provision, municipal population, overall size, and vulnerability to
the profiled hazards. As such, it is easy to see why the County’s capabilities to deal with
hazards are a reflection of the local municipalities.
Generally speaking, the municipalities in the northern part of Clinton County tend to have fewer
residents (according to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the north western planning section
consists of 8 municipalities, but only accounts for about 9.5% of the County’s total population),
less staff, and, by default, a more limited supply of available resources than those municipalities
in the more urbanized southern part of the County. This is not to say, however, that hazard
mitigation is not an important factor in the northern portion of the County. It simply may require a
more unified or coordinated approach and/or more efficient utilization of a limited supply of
available resources (e.g., financial, technical, and human). For example, West Keating
Township in the northern part of the Clinton County, with its resident population of 42 persons,
would not be expected, nor would it be appropriate, to engage in hazard mitigation activities on
a scale similar to that of the City of Lock Haven, with its resident population of approximately
9,200 persons. Rather, West Keating Township would be expected to engage in hazard
mitigation activities according to its local needs and available resources, which may prove to be
as valuable to its residents as that of another municipality’s hazard mitigation activities.
In addition to the institutional capability of the municipal government structure described above,
the County itself is capable of engaging in hazard mitigation activities. The County has its own
staff, resources, budget, equipment, and objectives, which may or may not be similar to those of
its constituent municipalities. As such, the County itself has its own capabilities to mitigate the
profiled hazards. When partnered with the local municipalities, the state, the federal
government, local COGs, watershed groups, environmental groups, or some other entity, the
results could be limitless.
5.2.
Capability Assessment Findings
5.2.1.
Emergency Management
The Clinton County Department of Emergency Services (CCDES) is a branch of county
government, which was created in January of 2005 through consolidation of the then 9-1-1
Communications Department and the Office of Emergency Management. This consolidation of
departments resulted in the creation of a dedicated team of diverse individuals who handle the
receipt of 9-1-1 emergency calls along with the dispatching of public safety agencies.
167
Furthermore the team also works to ensure the safety of our community through a quality
comprehensive emergency management program.
As a team CCDES staff coordinates and works closely with local, state, federal and private
sector groups to serve the residents of Clinton County when confronted with the potential for
natural or technological hazards. In our disaster management preparation CCDES follows an all
hazards comprehensive approach to emergency management. This comprehensive approach
follows a four (4) step cycle, which involves mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
In order to ensure the continuation of this four (4) step cycle CCDES depends on the support it
receives from a large number of volunteers and numerous volunteer groups throughout Clinton
County. These dedicated volunteers provide the county with expert knowledge as Emergency
Operations Center Staff members and as members of the CCDES Hazardous Materials
Response Team. Additionally, this group of volunteers is instrumental in providing key
information and technical assistance during times of emergency or disaster. The information
and assistance enables staff to prepare for the needs of our residents when tragedy strikes.
Without the dedication of these volunteers, valuable time in a disaster situation could be lost
when seconds could mean the difference between life and death.
9-1-1 Program
As a small rural county the CCDES Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) is one of the most
technologically advanced in the area. The PSAP is a full service 9-1-1 communications center
taking 9-1-1 emergency calls and conducting dispatching for all fire, EMS and municipal police
departments within Clinton County. The PSAP operates a state of the art telephone system for
the handling of 9-1-1 emergency calls. The 9-1-1 telephone system is linked to a computer
software mapping program, which automatically plots incoming 9-1-1 emergency call on a map.
Through the interaction of these two (2) systems the Telecommunicator in most cases is able to
visually identify the location of the party calling 9-1-1. In addition to being able to identify the
location of people dialing 9-1-1 from a fixed/ hard line telephone, our PSAP is also able to locate
certain cellular telephone users dialing 9-1-1 for emergency assistance. While this feature is not
currently available for all cellular service providers, it is available to most major cellular service
carriers operating within Clinton County. The PSAP also utilizes a Computer Aided Dispatch
(CAD) system to store and track data specific to the dispatching of fire, EMS and law
enforcement agencies. The CAD system stores data used to identify the appropriate response
of agencies based on an incident type and incident location. Furthermore the CAD system
tracks time specific to incidents and also allows the Telecommunicator to document and store
incident/situation specific information. Once all of the necessary data is captured in the CAD
system, we are then able to use the data to generate a multitude of reports.
While being state-of-the-art in our emergency call handling, the PSAP also operates a complex
microwave based radio communications system. The radio communications network operates
from seven (7) different tower sites located throughout Clinton and Centre Counties. All radio
communication for fire, EMS and police agencies in Clinton County are conducted on high band
radio frequencies.
168
Hazardous Materials Program
The Department of Emergency Services also supports a volunteer Hazardous Materials
Response Team, which came to fruition in 1992 with the hiring of the county's first Hazardous
Materials Coordinator. The hiring was a joint effort between the Local Emergency Planning
Committee and the Clinton County Board of Commissioners. During its early years the
response team grew in size through the interest shown by the response team personnel from
various industries located within Clinton County. Since the late 1990’s the team has fluctuated in
numbers of personnel. At its peak during the mid to late 90's, the response team maintained a
roster of 35 personnel. The response team currently maintains a membership roster of twenty
(20) individuals.
One of the roles of the response team is to focus on planning and education of emergency
responders at all levels, as well as education of the response team personnel. Furthermore, one
of the team’s functions is to operate as a support mechanism to a contracted or certified
hazardous materials response team. Additionally, the response team personnel are trained to
perform defensive practices and operations when on the scene of a hazardous materials
emergency.
Department of Emergency Services Vehicles
DES operates a fleet of three (3) vehicles along with a mobile decontamination unit. In 2001 the
county purchased a new 2001 Ford F-350 crew cab pick-up truck with a Royal Sport Utility
Body. The vehicle is used as a resource center and carries a wide variety of chemical reference
material as well as an assortment of air quality and solid substance metering/detection
equipment. The 2003 Chevy 6500 with a seventeen (17) foot Morgan Van Body is the primary
vehicle for carrying a large assortment of equipment used in both defensive and offensive
operations/activities.
Beginning in 2004 DES was fortunate to take advantage of its involvement with the North
Central Task Force (NCTF) by taking delivery of an ACSI Inc. mobile decontamination unit. The
fleet was further enhanced in late 2005 with the receipt of a 2006 F-350 crew cab pick-up, which
has a number of functions such as being capable of operating as a mobile command unit at
small scale incidents. The 2006 Ford also serves as the primary means of moving the mobile
decontamination unit and other assets purchased through the NCTF but owned/operated by
DES.
The CCDES staff coordinates countywide emergency management efforts. Each municipality
has a designated local emergency management coordinator who possesses a unique
knowledge of the impact hazard events have on their community. A significant amount of
information used to develop this plan was obtained from the emergency management
coordinators.
169
Emergency Operations Plan
The Emergency Management Services Code (PA Title 35) requires that all municipalities in the
Commonwealth have a Local Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) which is updated every two
years. A countywide EOP also exists. It was last updated in August of 2009. Municipalities are
not required to sign on to the County EOP, because County staff prefers to keep municipal
emergency management coordinators actively engaged at a more local level.
5.2.2.
Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
All jurisdictions in Clinton County are participants in the NFIP (see Table 5.2-1). The program is
managed by local municipalities participating in the program through ordinance adoption and
floodplain regulation. Permitting processes needed for building construction and development
in the floodplain are implemented at the municipal level through various ordinances (e.g. zoning,
subdivision/land development and floodplain ordinances), but the County Planning Department
and Conservation District can provide technical assistance and guidance upon request.
FEMA Region III makes available to communities, an ordinance review checklist which lists
required provisions for floodplain management ordinances. This checklist helps communities
develop an effective floodplain management ordinance that meets federal requirements for
participation in the NFIP.
The Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) provides
communities, based on their CFR, Title 44, Section 60.3 level of regulations, with a suggested
ordinance document to assist municipalities in meeting the minimum requirements of the NFIP
along with the Pennsylvania Flood Plain Management Act (Act 166). These suggested or model
ordinances contain provisions that are more restrictive than state and federal requirements.
Suggested provisions include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prohibiting manufactured homes in the floodway.
Prohibiting manufactured homes within the area measured 50 feet landward from the
top-of bank of any watercourse within a special flood hazard area.
Special requirements for recreational vehicles within the special flood hazard area.
Special requirement for accessory structures.
Prohibiting new construction and development within the area measured 50 feet
landward from the top-of bank of any watercourse within a special flood hazard area.
Providing the County Conservation District an opportunity to review and comment on all
applications and plans for any proposed construction or development in any identified
floodplain area.
Act 166 mandates municipal participation in and compliance with the NFIP. It also establishes
higher regulatory standards for new or substantially improved structures which are used for the
production or storage of dangerous materials (as defined by Act 166) by prohibiting them in the
floodway. Additionally, Act 166 establishes the requirement that a Special Permit be obtained
170
prior to any construction or expansion of any manufactured home park, hospital, nursing home,
jail and prison if said structure is located within a special flood hazard area.
As new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) are published, the Pennsylvania State
NFIP Coordinator housed at DCED, works with communities to ensure the timely and
successful adoption of an updated floodplain management ordinance by reviewing and
providing feedback on existing and draft ordinances. In addition, DCED provides guidance and
technical support through Community Assistance Contacts (CAC) and Community Assistance
Visits (CAV).
There are no communities in Clinton County currently participating in the NFIP Community
Rating System (FEMA CIS, 2011).
5.2.3.
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Some of the most important planning and regulatory capabilities that can be utilized for hazard
mitigation include comprehensive plans, building codes, floodplain ordinances, subdivision and
land development ordinances, and zoning ordinances. These tools provide mechanisms for the
implementation of adopted mitigation strategies. Table 5.2-1 summarizes their presence within
each municipality.
Capability Assessment Surveys, 2011; Clinton County Planning Department 2011)
X= Falls under Clinton County
COMMUNITY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BUILDING
CODE
FLOODPLAIN
ORDINANCE NFIP
PARTICIPANT
SUBDIVISION
& LAND
DEVELOPMEN
T ORDINANCE
ZONING
ORDINANCE
Allison Township
X
X
X
X
X
Avis Borough
X
X
X
X
X
Bald Eagle
Township
X
X
X
X
Beech Creek
Borough
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Beech Creek
Township
X
Castanea Township
Chapman Township
X
X
X
X
X
Colebrook
Township
X
X
X
X
X
Crawford Township
X
X
X
X
Dunnstable
Township
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
East Keating
Township
Flemington Borough
X
171
Capability Assessment Surveys, 2011; Clinton County Planning Department 2011)
X= Falls under Clinton County
COMMUNITY
Gallagher Township
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
X
Greene Township
BUILDING
CODE
FLOODPLAIN
ORDINANCE NFIP
PARTICIPANT
SUBDIVISION
& LAND
DEVELOPMEN
T ORDINANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ZONING
ORDINANCE
Grugan Township
X
X
X
X
X
Lamar Township
X
X
X
X
X
Leidy Township
X
X
X
X
X
Lock Haven City
X
X
X
X
X
Logan Township
X
X
X
X
X
Loganton Borough
X
X
X
X
X
Mill Hall Borough
X
X
X
X
X
Noyes Township
X
X
X
X
X
Pine Creek
Township
X
X
X
X
Porter Township
X
X
X
X
Renovo Borough
X
X
X
X
South Renovo
Borough
X
X
X
X
Wayne Township
X
X
X
X
X
West Keating
Township
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Woodward
Township
Comprehensive Plans promote sound land use and regional cooperation among local
governments to address planning issues. These plans serve as the official policy guide for
influencing the location, type and extent of future development by establishing the basis for
decision-making and review processes on zoning matters, subdivision and land development,
land uses, public facilities and housing needs over time. County governments are required by
law to adopt a comprehensive plan, while local municipalities may do so at their option. Future
comprehensive plan updates and improvements will consider 2011 HMP findings.
Building codes regulate construction standards for new construction and substantially renovated
buildings. Standards can be adopted that require resistant or resilient building design practices
to address hazard impacts common to a given community. In 2003, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania implemented Act 45 of 1999, the Uniform Construction Code (UCC), a
comprehensive building code that establishes minimum regulations for most new construction,
including additions and renovations to existing structures. All 29 municipalities in Clinton
172
County are required to adhere to the UCC. On December 10, 2009 the Commonwealth
adopted regulations of the 2009 International Code Council’s codes. The effective date of the
regulations is December 31, 2009. Since all municipalities in Clinton County are required to
abide by the UCC they will/ are required to enforce the 2009 building code regulations for all
building permits submitted after December 31, 2009. If a design or construction contract for
proposed work was signed between December 31, 2006 and December 30, 2009 then the 2006
International Codes must be abided.
Through administration of floodplain ordinances, municipalities can ensure that all new
construction or substantial improvements to existing structures located in the floodplain are
flood-proofed, dry-proofed, or built above anticipated flood elevations. Floodplain ordinances
may also prohibit development in certain areas altogether. The NFIP establishes minimum
ordinance requirements which must be met in order for that community to participate in the
program. However, a community is permitted and in fact, encouraged, to adopt standards
which exceed NFIP requirements.
Subdivision and land development ordinances (SALDOs) are intended to regulate the
development of housing, commercial, industrial or other uses, including associated public
infrastructure, as land is subdivided into buildable lots for sale or future development. Within
these ordinances, guidelines on how land will be divided, the placement and size of roads and
the location of infrastructure can reduce exposure of development to hazard events. All
jurisdictions within Clinton County have adopted and enforce a subdivision and land
development ordinance.
Zoning ordinances allow for local communities to regulate the use of land in order to protect the
interested and safety of the general public. Zoning ordinances can be designed to address
unique conditions or concerns within a given community. They may be used to create buffers
between structures and high-risk areas, limit the type or density of development and/or require
land development to consider specific hazard vulnerabilities. All 29 municipalities in Clinton
County have zoning regulations.
The Pennsylvania legislature enacted the Stormwater Management Act (Act 167 if 1978),
commonly called Act 167. The Act enables the regulation of development and activities that
cause accelerated runoff and encourages watershed-based planning and management of
stormwater. The Department of Environmental Protection is the public agency charged with
overseeing implementation of the Act 167 plans. Act 167 Stormwater Management Plans are
intended to improve stormwater management practices, mitigate potential negative impacts
from future land uses, and to improve the condition of impaired waterways. This type of plan will
provide local ordinances that incorporate standards and criteria to manage and maintain peak
runoff flows throughout the combined watersheds as development occurs. Also, it is not the
intent of this plan to solve existing flooding or runoff problems, but to identify them for future
correction and assure that problems do not get worse. More specifically, this plan does not
require the municipalities to correct existing drainage problems.
173
There are presently two Act 167 Stormwater Management plans that have been adopted in
Clinton County: Chatham Run and Fishing Creek. In Clinton County, the Conservation District
has been the lead agency responsible for preparing the two stormwater management plans that
are now in effect for the County; while other County government offices are participating
organizations. Specific government offices from the county participating in the planning process
are listed under the WPAC example section below for Fishing Creek's Stormwater Management
Plan.
5.2.4.
Administrative and Technical Capability
Administrative capability is described by an adequacy of departmental and personnel resources
for the implementation of mitigation-related activities. Technical capability relates to an
adequacy of knowledge and technical expertise of local government employees or the ability to
contract outside resources for this expertise in order to effectively execute mitigation activities.
Common examples of skill sets and technical personnel needed for hazard mitigation include:
planners with knowledge of land development/management practices, engineers or
professionals trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure (e.g.
building inspectors), planners or engineers with an understanding of natural and/or human
caused hazards, emergency managers, floodplain managers, land surveyors, scientists familiar
with hazards in the community, staff with the education or expertise to assess community
vulnerability to hazards, personnel skilled in geographic information systems, resource
development staff or grant writers, fiscal staff to handle complex grant application processes.
Based on assessment results, municipalities in Clinton County have low-to-moderate
administrative and technical staff needed to conduct hazard mitigation-activities. There seems
to be sufficient emergency management staff across the County and a majority of municipalities
have engineering capabilities. However, there seems to be a common lack of personnel for
land surveying and scientific work related to community hazards. This result is not necessarily
surprising since these tasks are typically contracted to outside providers. Many communities do
not have their own personnel skilled in geographic information systems.
Within Clinton County, technical capability varies widely between the municipalities. Even
neighboring municipalities may exhibit extreme variations in technical capability. Generally
speaking, the more financial resources a municipality has, the more technically capable it will be
from a resource availability perspective. This is not necessarily the case, however, when
analyzing technical capability from a knowledge/skill level perspective. As such, technical
capability must be analyzed by each individual municipality prior to implementing any hazard
mitigation activity. It is important to note however, that much like fiscal capability, shortfalls in
technical capability may be overcome by cooperative arrangements, coordinated efforts, and/or
resource efficiency.
Some local organizations that could act as partners include the Clinton County Conservation
District, the Penn State Cooperative Extension, County economic development staff,
environmental advocacy groups, and watershed associations.
174
State agencies agency which can provide technical assistance for mitigation activities include,
but are not limited:
•
•
•
Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Federal agencies which can provide technical assistance for mitigation activities include, but are
not limited to:
• Army Corp of Engineers
• Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Department of Agriculture
• Economic Development Administration
• Emergency Management Institute
• Environmental Protection Agency
• FEMA
• Small Business Administration
5.2.5.
Fiscal Capability
The decision and capacity to implement mitigation-related activities is often strongly dependent
on the presence of local financial resources. While some mitigation actions are less costly than
others, it is important that money is available locally to implement policies and projects.
Financial resources are particularly important if communities are trying to take advantage of
state or federal mitigation grant funding opportunities that require local-match contributions.
Based on survey results, most municipalities within the County perceive fiscal capability to be
limited.
State programs which may provide financial support for mitigation activities include, but are not
limited to:
• Community Conservation Partnerships Program
• Community Revitalization Program
• Floodplain Land Use Assistance Program
• Growing Greener Program
• Keystone Grant Program
• Local Government Capital Projects Loan Program
• Land Use Planning and Technical Assistance Program
• Pennsylvania Heritage Areas Program
• Pennsylvania Recreational Trails Program
• Shared Municipal Services
• Technical Assistance Program
175
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.2.6.
Federal programs which may provide financial support for mitigation activities include,
but are not limited to:
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
Disaster Housing Program
Emergency Conservation Program
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
Emergency Watershed Protection Program
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC)
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Programs
Severe Repetitive Loss Grant Program (SRL)
Weatherization Assistance Program
Political Capability
One of the most difficult capabilities to evaluate involves the political will of a jurisdiction to enact
meaningful policies and projects designed to mitigate hazard events. The adoption of hazard
mitigation measures may be seen as an impediment to growth and economic development. In
many cases, mitigation may not generate interest among local officials when compared with
competing priorities. Therefore, the local political climate must be considered when designing
mitigation strategies, as it could be the most difficult hurdle to overcome in accomplishing the
adoption or implementation of specific actions.
The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on each jurisdiction’s
political capability. Survey respondents were asked to identify examples of political capability,
such as guiding development away from hazard areas, restricting public investments or capital
improvements within hazard areas, or enforcing local development standards that go beyond
minimum state or federal requirements (i.e. building codes, floodplain management ordinances,
etc…). These examples were used to guide respondents in scoring their community on a scale
of “unwilling” (0) to “very willing” (5) to adopt policies and programs that reduce hazard
vulnerabilities. Of the 17 municipalities that responded, scores ranged from 0-5 with an average
score of 4.0. It should be noted that of the 17, 6 municipalities did not indicate their willingness.
5.2.7.
Self-Assessment
In addition to the inventory and analysis of specific local capabilities, the Capability Assessment
Survey required each local jurisdiction to conduct its own self-assessment of its capability to
effectively implement hazard mitigation activities. As part of this process, county and municipal
officials were encouraged to consider the barriers to implementing proposed mitigation
strategies in addition to the mechanisms that could enhance or further such strategies. In
response to the survey questionnaire, local officials classified each of the capabilities as either
“limited,” “moderate” or “high.” Table 5.2-2 summarizes the results of the self-assessment
survey as a percentage of responses received. For example, 79% of communities who
176
responded indicated their community had limited fiscal capabilities related to hazard mitigation
activities that reduce hazard vulnerabilities.
Table 5.2-2: Summary of self-assessment capability responses expressed as a percentage of
responses received.
CAPABILITY CATEGORY
LIMITED
MODERATE
HIGH
Planning & Regulatory
57%
36%
7%
Administrative & Technical
57%
36%
7%
Fiscal
79%
14%
7%
Political
43%
50%
7%
Community Resiliency
43%
57%
0%
5.2.8.
Existing Limitations
As mentioned, there are no communities in Clinton County participating in the NFIP Community
Rating System. Community participation in this program can provide premium reductions for
properties located outside of Special Flood Hazard Areas of up to 10 percent and reductions for
properties located in Special Flood Hazard Areas of up to 45 percent. These discounts can be
obtained by undertaking public information, mapping and regulations, flood damage reduction
and flood preparedness activities (FEMA, 2009).
Numerous roads and intersections exist in the County where flooding issues repeatedly occur.
Some of these roads and intersections are state routes. The County and local municipalities
face challenges in mitigating flood events on state routes since these roads are owned and
maintained by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Local municipalities do not have the
authority to independently carry out a mitigation project. In these situations, the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation must decide to undertake the project. Since the Department of
Transportation is often most concerned with larger, critical transportation routes, smaller state
roads and intersections which significantly affect a local community may not get the attention
they need for the Commonwealth to take on a mitigation project.
Finally, limited funding is a critical barrier to the implementation of hazard mitigation activities.
The County will need to rely on regional, state and federal partnerships for financial assistance.
177
6.
6.1.
Mitigation Strategy
Mitigation goals are general guidelines that explain what the County wants to achieve. Goals
are usually expressed as broad policy statements representing desired long-term results.
Mitigation objectives describe strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals.
Objectives are more specific statements than goals; the described steps are usually measurable
and can have a defined completion date.
Previously, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team identified and prioritized project-planning goals
following the completion of the hazard vulnerability assessment. The identification and
prioritization of project-planning goals were based on the findings of the hazard vulnerability
assessment and were specifically focused on the County’s vulnerability to the profiled natural
hazard events and the potential severity (i.e., frequency and magnitude) of those hazard events.
Clinton County’s hazard mitigation goals were prioritized based on a formula of frequency,
magnitude and cost benefit ratio. The hazard mitigation goals were ranked highest priority when
the actions had the largest impact at the lowest cost. As such, these project-planning goals
represent Clinton County’s vision for minimizing damages caused by flooding and other natural
hazards.
To prioritize the goals, the individual Hazard Mitigation Planning Team members spent time
reviewing the data collected for the hazard vulnerability assessment. This review process
resulted in the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team assigning goals to one (1) of three (3) priority
levels; High, Medium or Low. The project-planning goals identified for the County are listed
below (in random order) but are identified in a specific area of priority.
In Section 5 of the previous plan the hazard mitigation committee came up with 39 goals.
These goals were later prioritized. Of the 39 goals, 29 of them were prioritized by a high,
medium, and/or low ranking. During the update process all 39 goals were re-evaluated. During
the plan update process it was determined that a lot of the goals were repetitive although some
had different objectives associated with them. The County and municipal officials met together
during the Risk Assessment/Mitigation Solutions meeting held on March 24, 2011 to discuss to
modifying, combining or adding different goals and objectives. The results with their comments
from the review are shown in Table 6.1-1. All goals that were prioritized have been color coded
within the table. Goals highlighted in orange are high priority, goals highlighted in yellow are
medium priority, goals highlighted in green are low priority.
The strategy also included 39 objectives identified. The 39 Goals and 39 Objectives are listed
below. During the Risk Assessment and Mitigation Solutions meeting attendees reviewed the
goals and objectives. Their comments are also included. This was done because the
Department of Emergency Services and Planning Team wanted to provide the municipalities the
ability to review all goals and objects and make it more of a multi-jurisdictional plan. For the
morning session this was done on an individual basis because there were a small amount of
178
attendees. The afternoon and evening session chose to work in groups. During the review they
found that many goal and objectives were repetitive. This is because the 2006 Plan developed
goals and objectives for each of the mitigation techniques. The group chose to eliminate the
repetitive goals and merge some of the very similar ones. They also chose to make some of the
goals and objectives that were more of an action, action items. Both the Clinton County
Department of Emergency Services, the Conservation District, and Planning Department where
helpful with guiding the municipalities in the review.
Table Legend:
High Priority Goals
Medium Priority Goals
Low Priority Goals
Table 6.1-1: List and review summary of 2006 mitigation strategy goals and objectives.
Goal 1: Ensure that local building codes/ordinances are consistent with FEMA and PA DCED
guidelines and are properly enforced.
Objective A: Develop a new Comprehensive Plan or
amend an existing Comprehensive Plan to include an
assessment and associated mapping of the
municipality’s vulnerability to location-specific hazards
and appropriate recommendations for the use of these
hazard areas.
Review: All goals and objectives with stay the
same except for Objective E. This will be
removed because the municipalities have
adopted a building code.
Objective B: Develop a new Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance or revise an existing
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance to
include municipality-specific, hazard mitigation-related
development criteria and/or provisions for the
mandatory use of conservation subdivision design
principles in order to regulate the location and
construction of buildings and other infrastructure in
known hazard areas.
Objective C: Develop a new Zoning Ordinance or
revise an existing Zoning Ordinance to include
separate zones or districts with appropriate
development criteria for known hazard areas.
Objective D: Make available for municipal use the
digital natural hazard mapping files that were
developed as part of this hazard vulnerability
assessment and mitigation planning effort.
Objective E: Implement the minimum building
standards of the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction
Code and/or consider the potential adoption of more
stringent building standards to ensure hazard-resistant
construction.
179
Goal 2: Minimize future damage due to flooding of the Susquehanna River and its tributaries.
Objective A: Ensure municipal compliance with NFIP
and PA Act 166 floodplain development regulations
and/or encourage more restrictive requirements, as
appropriate.
Objective B: Ensure municipal compliance with local
watershed-specific Act 167 Stormwater Management
Plans and Ordinances.
Objective C: Ensure continued implementation of
appropriate operations and maintenance procedures
(routine inspections and regular maintenance) at the
Ohl, Keller, and Castenea Dams in an effort to prevent
a potential failure.
same except for Objective A. Municipalities
updated ordinances with new flood maps in
2008. This will be removed.
Also, Objective B will be merged with Goal 3.
It was also noted that Goals 2 and 14 are the
same. Need to delete one.
Goal 3: Regulate construction/development in the County to prevent increases in runoff and
subsequent increases in flood flows.
Goal 4: Ensure that new construction is resistant to natural hazards.
Objective A: Develop a technical proficiency at the
municipal level for conducting post-disaster damage
assessments and regulating reconstruction activities to
ensure compliance with NFIP substantial
damage/substantial improvement requirements.
All goals and objectives with stay the same.
Objective B: Develop a technical proficiency at the
municipal level for assisting local residents and
business owners in applying for hazard mitigation and
assistance funds and identifying cost beneficial hazard
mitigation measures to be incorporated into
reconstruction activities.
Goal 5: Reduce threats related to landslides.
Goal 6: Reduce impacts related to flash flooding and stormwater problems.
Goal 7: Provide residents with adequate warning of potential floods and other meteorological
events.
Objective A: Establish a partnering relationship with
the NWS Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center to
enhance the existing Susquehanna River Basin Flood
Forecast and Warning System via the Advanced
Hydrologic Prediction Services Program.
same except for Objective C and D should be
made Hazard Mitigation actions.
Objective B: Coordinate with the U.S.G.S., local
watershed organizations, and/or the CCCD to increase
the number of U.S.G.S. and Integrated Flood
Observing and Warning System (IFLOWS) rain and
stream gauges in the County as a potential
enhancement to the existing Susquehanna River
Basin Flood Forecast and Warning System.
Objective C: Increase the number of NOAA Weather
Alert radios in public places across the County (i.e.,
municipal buildings, public libraries, police stations, fire
stations, etc.).
Objective D: Conduct routine inspections, regular
180
maintenance, and annual tests on all emergency
communications equipment, public address systems,
and hazard alert sirens to ensure unhindered
operation during an emergency event.
Objective E: Ensure that a planned, coordinated, and
effective public warning dissemination program exists
at the local level.
Goal 8: Ensure that emergency response services and critical facilities functions are not
interrupted by natural hazards.
Objective A: Encourage those critical facilities that are
responsible for emergency response efforts to develop
and implement an emergency response plan to
mitigate potential flooding impacts.
same. Need to create a Mitigation Action for
Objective A.
Objective B: Develop and distribute a public
informational through pamphlets and the County’s web
page related to the potential health and safety
implications of various natural hazard events.
Goal 9: Provide safe and efficient evacuation routes during floods and other natural hazards.
Review: Goal will stay the same but merge with goal 9.
Goal 10: Provide adequate shelters during hazard events.
Review: Goal will stay the same but merge with goal 8.
Goal 11: Ensure that local officials are well trained regarding natural hazards and appropriate
prevention and mitigation activities.
Objective A: Adopt via resolution, and respond to
hazards with actions that are consistent with, the
Municipal-level EOP.
Review: Goal and objective will remain the
same.
Goal 12: Provide adequate communication systems for emergency management agencies and
emergency response units.
Objective A: Provide alphanumeric pagers to local
emergency management coordinators as a means of
improving the County’s warning dissemination
program.
same.
Goal 13: Reduce impacts from severe storms and/or improve response procedures.
Objective A: Conduct hazard response practice drills
and emergency management training exercises on an
annual basis.
same.
Goal 14: Ensure that property owners and potential property owners are aware of the availability
and benefits of obtaining federal flood insurance.
Review: Merge Goal 13 and 14.
Goal 15: Improve the participation rate in federal flood insurance through education.
Objective A: Encourage uninsured property owners in
known flood hazard areas to purchase flood insurance
through the NFIP.
Review: Merge Goal 13 and 14.
Review: Merge with Goal 2.
181
Review: Goal will stay the same
Goal 18: Ensure that high-risk, pre-FIRM residential structures do not get repeatedly flooded by
using retrofitting techniques to reduce the flood risk to the properties.
Objective A: Relocate and/or acquire known floodprone structures.
Review: This should be part of Goal 2 or 4.
Goal 19: Reduce the impact of flooding on commercial structures through retrofitting techniques.
Objective A: Encourage local business and industry
owners in known flood hazard areas to develop an
emergency response plan as a potential alternative to
implementing a physical property protection measure,
where otherwise not technically or fiscally appropriate.
Review: Merge Goals 18 and 19.
Goal 20: Investigate retrofitting alternatives to reduce impacts from other natural hazards.
Goal 21: Ensure that existing drainage systems (pipes, culverts, channels) are adequate and
functioning properly.
Objective A: Coordinate with the local municipality
and/or PennDOT on the potential feasibility of
replacing, removing, or enlarging those bridge and
culvert stream crossings that were identified during the
Act 167 Stormwater Management Planning process as
being unable to pass the 10-year frequency flood flow.
Review: Move Goal 20 to fall under 27 and
become objectives.
Review: Delete duplicate goal.
Review: Merge with other stormwater action.
Goal 24: Investigate structural solutions to natural hazards.
Objective A: Coordinate with PennDOT and the
CCCD to determine the feasibility of implementing
mitigation measures on a site specific basis to lessen
traffic hazards from Landslides / slumps.
Review: Merge with previous landslide goal.
Goal 26: Preserve areas where natural hazard potential is high (i.e., steeply sloping areas,
sinkhole areas, floodplains, wetlands, etc.).
Objective A: Preserve the highest priority
undeveloped steep slope areas via fee simple
acquisition and/or permanent easement and retain as
public open space for passive recreational uses in an
effort to minimize/prevent potential landslide damages
and enhance the regional environment. Less critical
steep slope areas may be preserved / protected via
local ordinance.
same.
182
Goal 29: Regulate construction/development in the County to prevent increases in runoff and
subsequent increases in floodflows.
Review: Merge with other stormwater action.
Goal 30: Protect existing natural resources and open space, including parks and wetlands, within
the floodplain.
Objective A: Conduct a detailed inventory and
prioritization of local environmental resources via the
Comprehensive Planning or similar natural resources
planning process.
Review: Goal and objectives will remain the
same.
Objective B: Preserve the highest priority
undeveloped floodplain areas via fee simple
acquisition and/or permanent easement and retain as
public open space for passive recreational uses in an
effort to minimize/prevent potential flooding damages
and enhance the regional environment. Less critical
floodplain areas may be preserved / protected via local
ordinance (see PM-2 and PM-4).
Objective C: Preserve high priority wetland areas (see
NR-1) via fee simple acquisition and/or permanent
easement and retain as public open space for passive
recreational uses in an effort to minimize potential
flooding damages and enhance the regional
environment.
Objective D: Develop and implement a wetland
protection program consisting of public education
materials that highlight the functions and values of
wetlands and local ordinance provisions that require
the identification of wetlands in accordance with
federal and state standards and minimize/eliminate
their disturbance in accordance with federal and state
laws.
Objective E: Working through the Conservation
District, the County should ensure continued
contractor compliance with approved Erosion and
Sedimentation Pollution Control Plans and should
continue to work with local farmers to implement
erosion and sedimentation control BMPs.
Goal 31: Restore degraded natural resources and open space to improve their flood-control
function.
Review: Goal will stay the same.
Goal 32: Ensure the adequacy of erosion and sedimentation control practices throughout the
County.
Review: Remove. Covered in Objective E of
Goal 30.
183
Goal 34: Ensure that all residents and business owners are aware of the potential hazards
associated with their environment and the ways they can protect themselves.
Objective A: Develop and distribute a public summary
of this hazard mitigation plan including relevant
information on hazard specific “do’s” and “don’ts”,
hazard-prone areas, and emergency contact
information.
Review: Goal will stay the same.
Goal 35: Ensure that property owners and potential property owners are aware of the availability
and benefits of obtaining federal flood insurance.
Goal 36: Ensure that local officials are well trained regarding natural hazards and appropriate
prevention and mitigation activities.
Objective A: Municipalities should store in an easily
accessible location and make available for public
inspection, their community’s Flood Insurance Rate
Mapping and associated Flood Insurance Study.
Clinton County could provide copies of these maps at
the courthouse and/or conservation district offices
and/or scan and post current maps on their website for
all communities or those unable to provide information
on their own website.
Review: Make Objective A a Mitigation Action.
Merge this goal with Goal 10.
Objective B: Post and keep current with any additions
to or updates of this planning document on Clinton
County Government’s web site
(www.clintoncountypa.com) for public review and/or
comment.
Objective C: Develop and implement a post-disaster
recovery and mitigation training program for local
officials (See ES-11 and ES-12).
Objective D: Create a website links/references
section on the Clinton County and/or CCDES website
homepage to include links to FEMA http://www.fema.gov/, PEMA http://www.pema.state.pa.us/, PA DCED http://www.inventpa.com/, and NWS http://www.nws.noaa.gov/.
Goal 37: Develop citizen information on natural, technological, and man-made disaster response.
Objective A: Maintain natural hazard risk assessment
and mitigation publications/materials at public libraries
throughout the County.
Objective B: Store in an easily accessible location
and make available for public inspection, this hazard
mitigation plan and the FEMA guidance documents
that were provided as part of the hazard mitigation
planning program.
184
Goal 38: Increase the length of stream reaches mapped on FIRM maps and/or increase accuracy
and density of flood elevation data where this future mapping would be beneficial.
Objective A: Coordinate with FEMA and the PA
DCED regarding updating Clinton County’s Flood
Insurance Rate Mapping via FEMA’s Flood Map
Modernization Program to include the expansion of
previously unmapped areas and additional Base Flood
Elevations (BFEs).
Review: Completed Objective A.
Goal 39: Improve Participation rate in the federal flood insurance program through education.
Review: Remove. Duplicate Goal with Goal 15.
The County’s 2006 HMP mitigation actions were based mitigation measures fell under the
categories of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Preventive Measures
Land Use Planning/Zoning Efforts
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances
Building Codes
Floodplain Development Regulations
Stormwater Management
Operations and Maintenance Procedures
Emergency Services
Hazard Warning
Hazard Response
Critical Facilities Protection
Health and Safety Maintenance
Post-Disaster Recovery and Mitigation
Property Protection
Relocation/Acquisition
Insurance
Emergency Response Planning
Structural Projects
Dams/Levees/Floodwalls
The majority of existing mitigation actions from the 2006 Plan are continuous actions that
various departments within the County such as Emergency Services, Conservation, and
Planning, work on annually. The County would like to continue them into the 2011 HMPU but
have them recognized as actions for the most part that they are responsible for. Although
185
municipal assistance and input are always welcomed, these are actions that various County
Departments complete year to year. A list of these actions as well as a review and summary of
their progress based on comments received from County officials involved in the HMPU process
is included in Table 6.1-2.
186
Table 6.1-2: 2006 Mitigation Actions
Status
Existing Mitigation Action
Develop a new, or amend an
existing, Comprehensive Plan to
include an assessment of hazard
vulnerability and appropriate
mitigation recommendations
No
Progress /
Unknown
In
Progress /
Not Yet
Complete
Continuous
Completed
Discontinued
Review Comments
Will be worked on to be incorporated in
the Comprehensive Plan Update in 2015.
X
Make available for municipal use
the digital natural hazard
mapping files that were
developed as part of this
planning study
X
Maps were made available once the
Hazard Mitigation Plan was approved and
adopted.
Ensure municipal compliance
with minimum NFIP and PA Act
166 floodplain development
regulations
X
This continuously being done.
with local watershed-specific Act
167 Stormwater Management
Plans
X
Ensure continued
implementation of appropriate
operations and maintenance
procedures at the Ohl, Keller and
Castanea Dams.
X
Inspections occur annually as listed in the
Emergency Action Plan (EAP).
Conduct routine inspections,
regular maintenance, and annual
tests on all emergency
communications equipment,
public address systems, and
hazard alert sirens to ensure
X
187
Status
No
Progress /
Unknown
In
Progress /
Not Yet
Complete
Continuous
Completed
Discontinued
Review Comments
unhindered operation during an
emergency event
Ensure that a planned,
coordinated, and effective public
warning dissemination program
exists at the local level
X
Adopt via resolution, and
respond to hazards with actions
that consistent with, the Countylevel EOP
X
This continuously being done. County
strives for consistency between Hazard
Mitigation Plan and Emergency
Operations Plan.
Conduct hazard response
practice drills and emergency
management training exercises
on an annual basis
X
Drills are continuously being conducted at
least on an annual basis if not bi-annually.
Encourage those facilities that
are responsible for emergency
response efforts to develop and
implement an emergency
response plan to mitigate
potential flooding impacts.
X
County continues to encourage this
activity.
Relocate and/or acquire known
flood-prone structures in
accordance with the general
guidelines of Table 5-3 (See
Figure 6.1-1 of this plan)
Encourage uninsured property
owners in known flood hazard
areas to purchase flood
insurance through the NFIP
This action is dependent on the
availability of funding and staff.
X
X
188
Status
Conduct a detailed inventory and
prioritization of local
environmental resources via the
Comprehensive Planning or
similar natural resources
planning process
Preserve the highest priority
undeveloped floodplain areas via
fee simple acquisition and/or
permanent easement and retain
as public open space for passive
recreational uses. Less critical
floodplain areas may be
preserved/protected via local
ordinance
No
Progress /
Unknown
In
Progress /
Not Yet
Complete
Continuous
Discontinued
Review Comments
The County’s Comprehensive Plan is
scheduled to be update in 2015 and will
incorporate this inventory of
environmental resources.
X
Within the Comprehensive plan the 1percent-annual chance floodplain has
been identified as an environmentally
sensitive area and is labeled as Natural
Resource Protection Area to
preserve/protect critical floodplain areas.
X
Coordinate with FEMA and the
DCED regarding updating
Clinton County’s Flood
Insurance Rate Mapping via
FEMA’s Flood Map
Modernization Program to
include the expansion of
previously unmapped areas and
additional Base Flood Elevations
Store in an easily accessible
location and make available for
public inspection, the
community’s Flood Insurance
Rate Mapping and associated
Flood Insurance Study
Completed
X
X
New maps became available in 2008. But
County will continue to get more areas
detailed studies as opportunity arises.
Maps are stored at the County
Conservation office located at 45
Cooperation Lane, Mill Hall, PA 17751.
Action is continuous because the
Conservation continues to update its
repository as new information becomes
available.
189
Status
No
Progress /
Unknown
Maintain natural hazard risk
assessment and mitigation
publications/materials at public
libraries throughout the County
In
Progress /
Not Yet
Complete
Continuous
Completed
Discontinued
Review Comments
X
Materials are always being updated.
location and make available for
public inspection, this hazard
mitigation plan and the FEMA
guidance documents that were
provided as part of the hazard
mitigation planning program
X
Hazard Mitigation plan is currently
available on line and will be reposted
online as new documents become
available or changes occur.
Develop and distribute a public
summary of this hazard
mitigation plan including
relevant information on hazardprone areas, hazard specific
“do’s” and “don’ts” and
emergency contact information
X
Develop and implement a postdisaster recovery and mitigation
training program for local
officials
Develop a new, or revise an
existing, Zoning Ordinance to
include separate zones or
districts for known hazard areas
existing, Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance to
include municipality-specific,
hazard mitigation-related
X
This project has not been completed to
due lack of funding and adequate staffing.
X
This is in the process of being update and
it is anticipated to be completed around
the same time as the Comprehensive
Plan is update in 2015.
X
This is in the process of being update and
it is anticipated to be completed around
the same time as the Comprehensive
Plan is update in 2015.
190
Status
No
Progress /
Unknown
In
Progress /
Not Yet
Complete
Continuous
Completed
Discontinued
Review Comments
development criteria and/or
provisions for the mandatory use
of conservation subdivision
design principles
Establish a partnering
relationship with the NWS MidAtlantic River Forecast Center to
enhance the existing
Susquehanna River Basin Flood
Forecast and Warning System
via the Advanced Hydrologic
Prediction Services Program
The relationship has been established but
maintaining the relationship is ongoing.
X
Provide alphanumeric pagers to
local emergency management
coordinators as a means of
improving the County’s warning
dissemination program
X
County Department of Emergency
Services provided radios to EMCs
Develop and distribute a public
informational pamphlet related to
the potential health and safety
implications of various natural
hazard events
X
Develop a technical proficiency
at the municipal level for
conducting post-disaster
damage assessments and
regulating reconstruction
activities to ensure compliance
with NFIP substantial
damage/improvement
requirements
X
Action is ongoing due to changes in
municipal staff and changes in regulations
and processes.
191
Status
No
Progress /
Unknown
In
Progress /
Not Yet
Complete
Continuous
Completed
Discontinued
Review Comments
Develop a technical proficiency
at the municipal level for
assisting local residents and
business owners in applying for
hazard mitigation/assistance
funds and identifying cost
beneficial mitigation measures to
incorporate into reconstruction
activities
X
Action is ongoing due to changes in
municipal staff and changes in regulations
and processes.
Encourage local business and
industry owners in known flood
hazard areas to develop an
emergency response plan as a
potential alternative to
implementing a physical
property protection measure,
where otherwise not technically
or fiscally appropriate
X
Action is ongoing. Businesses are always
being encouraged to do so.
undeveloped steep slope areas
via fee simple acquisition and/or
permanent easement and retain
as public open space for passive
recreational uses. Less critical
steep slope areas may be
ordinance
X
Preserving and protecting highest slope
areas is a continuous activity.
Preserve high priority wetland
areas via fee simple acquisition
and/or permanent easement and
retain as public open space for
X
Preserving wetland areas is a continuous
activity.
192
Status
No
Progress /
Unknown
In
Progress /
Not Yet
Complete
Continuous
Completed
Discontinued
Review Comments
passive recreational uses.
Create a website links/references
section on the Clinton County
website homepage to include
links to FEMA, PEMA, DCED, and
the NWS
X
This has already been completed and can
be navigated via the County website.
Implement the minimum building
standards of the PA UCC and/or
consider adopting more
stringent building standards
X
All municipalities have building codes.
Coordinate with the U.S.G.S.,
local watershed organizations,
and/or the CCCD to increase the
number of U.S.G.S. and IFLOWS
rain and stream gages in the
County
X
This is a continuous activity. The county
attempts to ensure that stream gauges
remain and continues to push for
additional gauges. Due to funding
restraints additional gauges have been
difficult to obtain.
Increase the number of NOAA
Weather Alert radios in public
places across the County
X
As radios become more available they are
distributed to public places within the
County.
Coordinate with the local
municipality and/or the PA
Department of Transportation on
the potential feasibility of
replacing, removing, or enlarging
those bridge and culvert stream
crossings that were identified
during the Act 167 Stormwater
Management Planning process
as being unable to pass the 10-
X
Clinton County continues to work with the
DOT on this matter.
193
Status
No
Progress /
Unknown
In
Progress /
Not Yet
Complete
Continuous
Completed
Discontinued
Review Comments
year frequency flood flow
Develop and implement a
wetland protection program
consisting of public education
materials that highlight the
functions and values of wetlands
and local ordinance provisions
that minimize/eliminate wetland
disturbance
Ensure continued contractor
compliance with approved
Erosion and Sedimentation
Pollution Control Plans and
continue to work with local
farmers to implement BMPs
X
X
The Conservation District offers many
environmental education opportunities for
youth and adults of our area. The
Education and Public Relations
Committee presents various awards to
recognize individuals for their efforts in
conservation. Once a year, the Education
and Public Relations Committee evaluate
their current programs and develop the
next year's programs. Once a month, the
Committee considers the month's plans
and the pending various youth and adult
conservation awards.
The Clinton County Conservation District
has Level II delegation from the PA
Department of Environmental Protection
to administer the erosion and sediment
pollution control program. Level II duties
include education, technical assistance,
site inspection, plan review, and voluntary
compliance. The Conservation District
works with the PA Department of
Environmental Protection on all
enforcement matters. The Conservation
District staff responsible for the program
in Clinton County is Brandon W. Barlow,
Resource Conservationist, and a
Resource Technician (now vacant).
194
Figure 6.1-1: Table 5.3 From Clinton County’s Previous Hazard Mitigation Plan.
195
6.2.
Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Based on results of the goals and objectives evaluation exercise and input from the HMSC, a
list of goals corresponding objectives was developed. Table 6.2-1 details the mitigation goals
and objectives established for the 2011 HMPU.
Table 6.2-1: 2011 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
GOAL 1
Ensure that local building codes/ordinances are consistent with FEMA and PA
DCED guidelines and are properly enforced.
Objective
1A
Develop a new Comprehensive Plan or amend an existing Comprehensive Plan to
include an assessment and associated mapping of the municipality’s vulnerability to
location-specific hazards and appropriate recommendations for the use of these hazard
areas.
Objective
1B
Develop a new Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance or revise an existing
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance to include municipality-specific, hazard
mitigation-related development criteria and/or provisions for the mandatory use of
conservation subdivision design principles in order to regulate the location and
construction of buildings and other infrastructure in known hazard areas.
Objective
1C
Develop a new Zoning Ordinance or revise an existing Zoning Ordinance to include
separate zones or districts with appropriate development criteria for known hazard
areas.
Objective
1D
Make available for municipal use the digital natural hazard mapping files that were
developed as part of this hazard vulnerability assessment and mitigation planning
effort.
GOAL 2
Minimize future damage due to flooding of the Susquehanna River and its
tributaries.
Objective
2A
Ensure continued implementation of appropriate operations and maintenance
procedures (routine inspections and regular maintenance) at the Ohl, Keller, and
Castenea Dams in an effort to prevent a potential failure.
GOAL 3
Regulate construction/development in the County to prevent increases in
runoff and subsequent increases in floodflows.
Objective
3A
Ensure municipal compliance with local watershed-specific Act 167 Stormwater
Management Plans and Ordinances.
Objective
3B
Regulate construction/development in the County to prevent increases in runoff and
subsequent increases in floodflows.
GOAL 4
Ensure that new construction is resistant to natural hazards.
Objective
4A
Develop a technical proficiency at the municipal level for conducting post-disaster
damage assessments and regulating reconstruction activities to ensure compliance with
NFIP substantial damage/substantial improvement requirements.
Objective
4B
Ensure that high-risk, pre-FIRM residential structures do not get repeatedly flooded by
using retrofitting techniques to reduce the flood risk to the properties.
Objective
4C
Relocate and/or acquire known flood-prone structures.
196
Objective
4D
Develop a technical proficiency at the municipal level for assisting local residents and
business owners in applying for hazard mitigation and assistance funds and identifying
cost beneficial hazard mitigation measures to be incorporated into reconstruction
activities.
GOAL 5
Provide residents with adequate warning of potential floods and other
meteorological events.
Objective
5A
Continue to work with the NWS Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center to ensure funding is
continued to maintain Susquehanna River Basin Flood Forecast and Warning System
via the Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services Program. (MODIFIED)
Objective
5B
Coordinate with the U.S.G.S., local watershed organizations, and/or the CCCD to
increase the number of U.S.G.S. and Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System
(IFLOWS) rain and stream gauges in the County as a potential enhancement to the
existing Susquehanna River Basin Flood Forecast and Warning System.
Objective
5C
Ensure that a planned, coordinated, and effective public warning dissemination
program exists at the County level. (MODIFIED)
GOAL 6
Ensure that emergency response services and critical facilities functions are
not interrupted by natural hazards.
Objective
6A
Continue to develop and distribute public informational through pamphlets and the
County’s web page related to the potential health and safety implications of various
natural hazard events. (MODIFIED)
GOAL 7
Provide adequate shelters during hazard events.
Objective
7A
Coordinate with Red Cross (NEW)
GOAL 8
Ensure that local officials are well trained regarding natural hazards and
appropriate prevention and mitigation activities.
Objective
8A
Adopt via resolution, and respond to hazards with actions that are consistent with, the
Municipal-level EOP.
Objective
8B
Post and keep current with any additions to or updates of this planning document on
Clinton County Government’s web site (www.clintoncountypa.com) for public review
and/or comment.
Objective
8C
Develop and implement a post-disaster recovery and mitigation training program for
local officials (See ES-11 and ES-12).
Objective
8D
Create a website links/references section on the Clinton County and/or CCDES website
homepage to include links to FEMA - http://www.fema.gov/, PEMA http://www.pema.state.pa.us/, PA DCED - http://www.inventpa.com/, and NWS http://www.nws.noaa.gov/.
Objective
8E
County Emergency Services Department to hold elected official training on emergency
management practices related to hazard mitigation.(NEW)
GOAL 9
Provide adequate communication systems for emergency management
agencies and emergency response units.
Objective
9A
Maintain and continue to provide pagers to local emergency management coordinators
as a means of improving the County’s warning dissemination program.(MODIFIED)
197
GOAL 10
Reduce impacts from severe storms and/or improve response procedures.
Objective
10A
County conduct hazard response practice drills and emergency management training
exercises on an annual basis. (MODIFIED)
GOAL 11
Improve the participation rate in federal flood insurance through education.
Objective
11A
Encourage uninsured property owners in known flood hazard areas to purchase flood
insurance through the NFIP.
Objective
11B
Ensure that property owners and potential property owners are aware of the
availability and benefits of obtaining federal flood insurance.
GOAL 12
Reduce impacts related to flash flooding and stormwater problems.
Objective
12A
Ensure that existing drainage systems (pipes, culverts, channels) are adequate and
functioning properly.
Objective
12B
Coordinate with the local municipality and/or PennDOT on the potential feasibility of
replacing, removing, or enlarging those bridge and culvert stream crossings that were
identified during the Act 167 Stormwater Management Planning process as being
unable to pass the 10-year frequency flood flow.
GOAL 13
Investigate retrofitting alternatives to reduce impacts from other natural
hazards.
Objective
13A
Encourage local business and industry owners in known flood hazard areas to develop
an emergency response plan as a potential alternative to implementing a physical
property protection measure, where otherwise not technically or fiscally appropriate.
Objective
13B
Reduce the impact of flooding on commercial structures through retrofitting
techniques.
GOAL 14
Investigate structural solutions to natural hazards.
GOAL 15
Reduce threats related to landslides.
Objective
15A
Coordinate with PennDOT and the CCCD to determine the feasibility of implementing
mitigation measures on a site specific basis to lessen traffic hazards from Landslides /
slumps.
Objective
15B
Obtain PennDOT studies on geomorphology (NEW)
GOAL 16
Preserve areas where natural hazard potential is high (i.e., steeply sloping
areas, sinkhole areas, floodplains, wetlands, etc.).
Objective
16A
Preserve the highest priority undeveloped steep slope areas via fee simple acquisition
and/or permanent easement and retain as public open space for passive recreational
uses in an effort to minimize/prevent potential landslide damages and enhance the
regional environment. Less critical steep slope areas may be preserved / protected via
local ordinance (see PM-2 and PM-4).
198
GOAL 17
Protect existing natural resources and open space, including parks and
wetlands, within the floodplain.
Objective
17A
Conduct a detailed inventory and prioritization of local environmental resources via the
Comprehensive Planning or similar natural resources planning process.
Objective
17B
Preserve the highest priority undeveloped floodplain areas via fee simple acquisition
and/or permanent easement and retain as public open space for passive recreational
uses in an effort to minimize/prevent potential flooding damages and enhance the
regional environment. Less critical floodplain areas may be preserved / protected via
local ordinance (see PM-2 and PM-4).
Objective
17C
Preserve high priority wetland areas (see NR-1) via fee simple acquisition and/or
permanent easement and retain as public open space for passive recreational uses in
an effort to minimize potential flooding damages and enhance the regional
environment.
Objective
17D
Develop and implement a wetland protection program consisting of public education
materials that highlight the functions and values of wetlands and local ordinance
provisions that require the identification of wetlands in accordance with federal and
state standards and minimize/eliminate their disturbance in accordance with federal
and state laws.
Objective
17E
Working through the Conservation District, the County should ensure continued
contractor compliance with approved Erosion and Sedimentation Pollution Control Plans
and should continue to work with local farmers to implement erosion and
sedimentation control BMPs.
GOAL 18
Restore degraded natural resources and open space to improve their floodcontrol function.
GOAL 19
Ensure that all residents and business owners are aware of the potential
hazards associated with their environment and the ways they can protect
themselves.
Objective
19A
Develop and distribute a public summary of this hazard mitigation plan including
relevant information on hazard specific “do’s” and “don’ts”, hazard-prone areas, and
emergency contact information.
Objective
19B
Develop citizen information on natural, technological, and man-made disaster
response.
Objective
19C
Maintain natural hazard risk assessment and mitigation publications/materials at public
libraries throughout the County.
Objective
19D
Store in an easily accessible location and make available for public inspection, this
hazard mitigation plan and the FEMA guidance documents that were provided as part
of the hazard mitigation planning program.
Objective
19E
Create a public information resource to inform residents and business owners about
hazards related to natural resource exploration and development. (NEW)
GOAL 20
Increase the length of stream reaches mapped on FIRM maps and/or increase
accuracy and density of flood elevation data where this future mapping would
be beneficial.
Objective
20A
Coordinate to see if additional funding is available via RISK MAP. (NEW)
199
6.3.
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Techniques
Appendix 7 of the SOG developed by PEMA provides a comprehensive list of hazard mitigation
ideas. Clinton County used this guide to identify mitigation techniques and develop mitigation
actions. There are six categories of mitigation actions which Clinton County considered in
developing its Mitigation Action Plan. Those categories include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prevention: Government administrative or regulatory actions or processes that
influence the way land and buildings are developed and built. These actions also include
public activities to reduce hazard losses. Examples include planning, zoning, building
codes, subdivision regulations, hazard specific regulations (such as floodplain
regulations), capital improvement programs, and open-space preservation and
stormwater regulations.
Property Protection: Actions that involve modifying or removing existing buildings or
infrastructure to protect them from a hazard. Examples include the acquisition, elevation
and relocation of structures, structural retrofits, flood-proofing, storm shutters, and
shatter-resistant glass. Most of these property protection techniques are considered to
involve “sticks and bricks;” however, this category also includes insurance.
Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected
officials, and property owners about potential risks from hazards and potential ways to
mitigate them. Such actions include hazard mapping, outreach projects, library materials
dissemination, real estate disclosures, the creation of hazard information centers, and
school age / adult education programs.
Natural Resource Protection: Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses also
preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. These actions include sediment
and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, forest and vegetation management,
wetlands restoration or preservation, slope stabilization, and historic property and
archeological site preservation.
Structural Project Implementation: Mitigation projects intended to lessen the impact of
a hazard by using structures to modify the environment. Structures include stormwater
controls (culverts); dams, dikes, and levees; and safe rooms.
Emergency Services: Actions that typically are not considered mitigation techniques
but reduce the impacts of a hazard event on people and property. These actions are
often taken prior to, during, or in response to an emergency or disaster. Examples
include warning systems, evacuation planning and management, emergency response
training and exercises, and emergency flood protection procedures.
200
Table 6.3-1 provides a matrix identifying the mitigation techniques used for the moderate and
high risk hazards in the County. The specific actions associated with these techniques are
included in Table 6.4-1.
Table 6.3-1: Mitigation techniques used for moderate and high risk hazards in Clinton County.
MITIGATION TECHNIQUE
HAZARD
PREVENTION
Flood, Flash
Flood, Ice Jam
X
PROPERTY
PROTECTION
PUBLIC
EDUCATION
AND
AWARENESS
NATURAL
RESOURCE
PROTECTION
STRUCTURAL
PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Winter Storm
X
Wildfire
X
X
X
EMERGENCY
SERVICES
X
Environmental
Hazards
X
Transportation
Accidents
X
Drought
X
X
Tornado,
Windstorm
X
X
Landslide
6.4.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mitigation Action Plan
Following the Risk Assessment stage of the HMP update process, the Risk Assessment Review
and Mitigation Solutions Workshop was held on March 24, 2011 to develop a framework for the
Mitigation Action Plan (see meeting minutes in Appendix C). Following the goals and
objectives review and evaluation during the Mitigation Workshop, the group went over Mitigation
Techniques using PEMA’s Mitigation Ideas document. Municipalities were informed that they
needed to have at least one hazard-related mitigation action for each municipality. Municipal
representatives were given Mitigation Action Forms and were encouraged to complete one for
each new action they wished to pursue in the 2011 HMPU
201
Table 6.4-1 and 6.4-2 lists all the mitigation actions for the 2011 HMPU. For the 2011 Plan
Update the County really wanted to involve the municipalities and allow them to select actions
that were appropriate for them. At least one mitigation action was established for each
moderate and high-risk hazard in Clinton County, but more than one action is identified for
several hazards. Each jurisdiction has at least one action. Each mitigation action is intended to
address one or more of the goals and objectives identified in Section 6.2. Table 6.4-2 includes
actions that are more preparedness and response orientated. Cooperation at both the County
and Municipal level is needed in order for the actions to be completed. PASTEEL Analysis was
completed for all of these actions.
2006 plan to be implemented in the 2011 Plan.
Community: Flemington
Borough
Action 1: Require Municipal officials to inspect infrastructure (sewers,
bridges, water lines, etc. to ensure stability on a routine basis.
Category:
Structural Project
Hazard(s) Addressed:
Multiple
Lead Agency/Department:
County Department of Emergency Services and Flemington Borough
Implementation Schedule:
Dependent upon funding
Funding Source:
PADEP or Conservation District
Community: Flemington
Borough
Action 2: Educate community and municipal officials on possible
chemical company and environmental disasters.
Category:
Public Education and Awareness
County Department of Emergency Services and Flemington Borough
1-2 years
Funding Source:
Municipality
Community: Leidy Township
and Grugan Township
Action 3: Identify a place where FEMA NFIP Flood Maps and Studies
can be stored for easy access to the public and zoning officials.
Category:
Prevention/Public Education and Awareness
Flood(NFIP)
Leidy Township and Grugan Township
6 months to 1 year
Funding Source:
Municipality
Community: Beech Creek
Township
Action 4: Obtain funding to improve roads within the Township.
Category:
Structural Projects
Multiple
Beech Creek Township with assistance from County
Funding Source:
PennDOT and possible grants
202
Community: Beech Creek
Township
Action 5: Educate Township officials and the community about
floodplain management.
Category:
Flood(NFIP)
6 months to 1 year
Funding Source:
Municipality
Community: Mill Hall
Borough and Wayne
Township
Action 6: Review FEMA NFIP Flood Maps and Studies to become more
aware of flood hazards within the Borough and provide information to
property owners about Flood Insurance.
Category:
Flood(NFIP)
Mill Hall Borough
1 year
Funding Source:
Municipality
Community: Mill Hall
Borough
Action 7: Obtain funding for flood gauges along Fishing Creek.
Category:
Structural Projects
Flood
Mill Hall Borough with assistance from County
Funding Source:
USGS/Conservation District
Community: Loganton
Borough and Logan Township
Action 8: Planning Department and applicable municipal offices to
review their Comprehensive Plans to ensure that designated growth
areas are not in high hazard areas identified in this plan.
Category:
Prevention
Multiple
Loganton Borough and Logan Township and County Planning
Department Assistance
1 year
Funding Source:
Loganton Borough and Logan Township
Community: Noyes
Township
Action 9: Develop a Flood Protection Plan for Dury's Run Creek.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
Noyes Township
Funding Source:
PA DEP/Army Corps/ Conservation District
203
Community: Noyes
Township
Action 10: Debris removal for Dury's Run Creek and other areas as
needed.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
Noyes Township
Funding Source:
Community: Chapman
Township
Action 11: Develop and enforce more stringent building codes for
residents and developers in flood prone areas.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
Chapman Township
1-2 years
Funding Source:
Chapman Township, DCED
Community: Chapman
Township
Action 12: Provide public awareness about hazards.
Category:
Multiple
Chapman Township
1 year
Funding Source:
Chapman Township
Community: Grugan
Township
Action 13: Provide information to individuals building in forest areas
about wildfires.
Category:
Wildfires
Grugan Township
1 year
Funding Source:
Grugan Township
Community: Avis Borough
Action 14: Review and update ordinances and planning mechanisms.
Category:
Prevention
Multiple
Avis Borough
1 year
Funding Source:
Avis Borough
204
Community: Avis Borough
Action 15: Review and update floodplain ordinances and enforce
regulations and other best practices.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding (NFIP)
Avis Borough
1-2 years
Funding Source:
Avis Borough
Community: Crawford
Township
Action 16: Assist water authority with flooding and erosion issues.
Category:
Structural Projects
Flooding
Crawford Township with County Assistance
Funding Source:
Community: Leidy Township
Action 17: Coordinate with PennDOT and township for snow removal.
Category:
Prevention
Winter Storm
Leidy Township
1 year
Funding Source:
PennDOT
Community: Crawford
Township
Action 18: Upgrade roads to prevent flooding.
Category:
Structural Projects
Flooding
Crawford Township with County Assistance
Funding Source:
PA DEP/Army Corps/ Conservation District/PennDOT
Community: Clinton County
and other County
Departments and all
municipalities
Action 19: Municipalities should store in an easily accessible location
and make available for public inspection, their community's Flood
Insurance Rate Mapping and associated Flood Insurance Study. Clinton
County could provide copies of these maps at the courthouse and/or
conservation district offices and/or scan and post current maps on their
website for all communities or those unable to provide information on
their own website.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding (NFIP)
Clinton County and all municipalities
1 year
205
Funding Source:
County
Community: West Keating
Township
Action 20: Road and stream clearing improvement.
Category:
Natural Resource Protection
Multiple
West Keating EMC
Funding Source:
Unknown
Community: Greene
Township
Action 21: Planning department and applicable municipal offices of
Greene Township to review their comprehensive plans to ensure that
growth areas are not in high hazard areas identified in 2011 Clinton
County HMP.
Category:
Prevention
Multiple
Greene Township Planning Department
1-2 years
Funding Source:
Greene Township
Community: All
municipalities in Clinton
County
Action 22: Review existing building codes to ensure anchoring
requirements for manufactured homes are adequate. If determined
inadequate for existing vulnerability, consider revising.
Category:
Prevention
Tornado, windstorm; Hurricane, Tropical Storm, & Nor’easter
Municipal EMC
Ongoing
Funding Source:
County and all municipalities
Action 23: Issue County-wide “advisory” water usage guidelines during
times of drought and supply drought information to the public (brochures,
news releases, etc.)
Category:
Prevention and Public Education and Awareness
Drought
Clinton County EMC
Within 1 year
Funding Source:
County
and West Keating, Porter,
Lamar, Crawford, Logan,
Loganton, and Greene
Townships.
Action 24: Enforce builders that want to construct large developments in
landslide prone areas to complete a geomorphologic study.
Category:
Prevention
206
Landslide
Clinton County
1-2 years
Funding Source:
Clinton County
Action 25: Develop a new, or amend an existing, Comprehensive Plan
to include an assessment of hazard vulnerability and appropriate
mitigation recommendations.
Category:
Prevention
All-Hazards
Clinton County Department of Emergency Management and Planning
Commission
Within next Comprehensive Plan Update
Funding Source:
DCED’s Land Use Planning and Technical Assistance Program
and Municipalities
Action 26: Ensure municipal compliance with minimum NFIP and PA
Act 166 floodplain development regulations.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
Clinton County Department of Emergency Management, Conservation
District and Planning Commission
Ongoing
Funding Source:
DCED’s Floodplain Land Use Assistance Program
and Municipalities
Action 27: Ensure municipal compliance with local watershed-specific
Act 167 Stormwater Management Plans.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
Clinton County Department of Emergency Management, Conservation
District and Planning Commission
Ongoing
Funding Source:
PA DEP’s Stormwater Management Planning Program
Community: City of Lock
Haven and Wayne Township
Action 28: Ensure continued implementation of appropriate operations
and maintenance procedures at the Ohl, Keller and Castanea, and
Warren Dams.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding and Dam Failure
City of Lock Haven
Ongong
Funding Source:
N/A
Community: All
Municipalities
Action 29: Relocate and/or acquire known flood-prone structures in
accordance with the general guidelines of Table 5-3 in previous
207
mitigation plan.
Category:
Structural
Flooding
Municipal Officials/Staff and local property owners
Ongoing
Funding Source:
FEMA and HUD’s Disaster Recovery Initiative
and Municipalities Township
Action 30: Encourage uninsured property owners in known flood
hazard areas to purchase flood insurance through the NFIP.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
FEMA/PEMA/DCED/ County and Municipalities
Ongoing
Funding Source:
TBD
Action 31: Conduct a detailed inventory and prioritization of local
environmental resources via the Comprehensive Planning or similar
natural resources planning process.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
Clinton County Planning Commission and Conservation District
Ongoing
Funding Source:
TBD
Action 32: Preserve the highest priority undeveloped floodplain areas
via fee simple acquisition and/or permanent easement and retain as
public open space for passive recreational uses. Less critical floodplain
areas may be preserved/protected via local ordinance.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
Clinton County Planning Commission and Conservation District
Ongoing
Funding Source:
PA DCNR’s Community Conservation Program and Pennsylvania
Greeenways Initiative
and Municipalities
Action 33: Store in an easily accessible location and make available for
public inspection, the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Mapping and
associated Flood Insurance Study.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
208
Clinton County and Municipalities
Ongoing
Funding Source:
N/A
Action 34: Maintain natural hazard risk assessment and mitigation
publications/materials at public libraries throughout the County.
Category:
Multiple
Clinton County Public Library System
Ongoing
Funding Source:
N/A
Action 35: Store in an easily accessible location and make available for
public inspection, this hazard mitigation plan and the FEMA guidance
documents that were provided as part of the hazard mitigation planning
program.
Category:
Prevention
Multiple
Clinton County Department of Emergency Services
After Plan is approved by FEMA
Funding Source:
Clinton County
Action 36: Develop and distribute a public summary of this hazard
mitigation plan including relevant information on hazard-prone areas,
hazard specific “do’s” and “don’ts” and emergency contact information.
Category:
Multiple
Clinton County Public Relations Office
Ongoing
Funding Source:
TBD
Community: Crawford
Township
Action 37: Develop a new, or revise an existing, Zoning Ordinance to
include separate zones or districts for known hazard areas.
Category:
Prevention
Multiple
Clinton Planning Commission with the support of Clinton County GIS
Ongoing
Funding Source:
DCED’s Land Use Planning and Technical Assistance Program and
Floodplain Land Use Assistance Program
Action 38: Develop a new, or revise an existing, Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance to include municipality-specific, hazard
mitigation-related development criteria and/or provisions for the
209
mandatory use of conservation subdivision design principles.
Category:
Prevention
Multiple
Clinton Planning Commission with the support of Clinton County GIS
Ongoing
Funding Source:
DCED’s Land Use Planning and Technical Assistance Program and
Floodplain Land Use Assistance Program
Action 39: Develop and distribute a public informational pamphlet
related to the potential health and safety implications of various natural
hazard events.
Category:
Multiple
Clinton County Public Relations Offices with PEMA and or FEMA
assistance
Ongoing
Funding Source:
Army Corps Floodplain Management Services Program
Action 40: Develop a technical proficiency at the municipal level for
conducting post-disaster damage assessments and regulating
reconstruction activities to ensure compliance with NFIP substantial
damage/improvement requirements.
Category:
NFIP
Flooding
Municipal Staff and Officials
Ongoing
Funding Source:
DCED’s Floodplain Land Use Assistance Program
Action 41: Develop a technical proficiency at the municipal level for
assisting local residents and business owners in applying for hazard
mitigation/assistance funds and identifying cost beneficial mitigation
measures to incorporate into reconstruction activities.
Category:
Public Education and Awareness and Structural
Multiple
Municipal Officials and Staff
Ongoing
Funding Source:
N/A
210
Action 42: Preserve the highest priority undeveloped steep slope areas
via fee simple acquisition and/or permanent easement and retain as
public open space for passive recreational uses. Less critical steep slope
areas may be preserved/protected via local ordinance.
Category:
Prevention
Landslide
County Planning Commission and Municipal Officials
TBD
Funding Source:
Action 43: Preserve high priority wetland areas via fee simple
acquisition and/or permanent easement and retain as public open space
for passive recreational uses.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
County Conservation District and Planning Commission along with
Municpalities
Ongoing
Funding Source:
Action 44: Coordinate with the local municipality and/or the PA
Department of Transportation on the potential feasibility of replacing,
removing, or enlarging those bridge and culvert stream crossings that
were identified during the Act 167 Stormwater Management Planning
process as being unable to pass the 10-year frequency flood flow.
Category:
Prevention and Structural
Flooding
Ongoing
Funding Source:
Penn DOT
Action 45: Develop and implement a wetland protection program
consisting of public education materials that highlight the functions and
values of wetlands and local ordinance provisions that
minimize/eliminate wetland disturbance.
Category:
Flooding
Clinton County Planning Commission, Conservation District, and
Municipalities
Ongoing
211
Funding Source:
Conservation District, DCED, and DCNR
Action 46: Ensure continued contractor compliance with approved
Erosion and Sedimentation Pollution Control Plans and continue to work
with local farmers to implement BMPs.
Category:
Prevention
Flooding
Conservation District and Municipalities
Ongoing
Funding Source:
Conservation District and DCNR
and Municipalities
Action 47: Obtain more detailed information at the municipal level so
that the general extent and magnitude for each municipality can be
better determined.
Category:
Prevention
All
Clinton County Department of Emergency Services, Clinton County
Planning Commission and Municipal Leaders
Within the next 5 years to be incorporated into next plan update
Funding Source:
Staff time
and Municipalities
Action 48: Identify structures, systems, and populations, or other
community assets as defined by each municipality that are susceptible to
damage and loss from hazard events.
Category:
Prevention
All
Clinton County Department of Emergency Services, Clinton County
Planning Commission and Municipal Leaders
Funding Source:
Staff time
Action 49: Identify sites of future development and identify to what
potential hazards these future growth areas may be vulnerable.
Category:
Prevention
All
Clinton County Planning Commission
Within 1-2 years
Funding Source:
Staff time
212
Action 50: Obtain potential dollar loss information for buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities when they are identified in other
hazard areas besides flooding.
Category:
Prevention
All
Clinton County Planning Commission, Clinton County GIS Department;
Tax Assessor’s Office
Funding Source:
Staff time
213
actions.
Community: Loganton
Borough and Logan Township
Action 51: Work with the Fire Association, Hospital EMS, and Sheriff's
Department to increase the number of trained Citizen Emergency
Responders by meeting with groups of potential volunteers.
Category:
Emergency Services
Multiple
Loganton Borough and Logan Township with assistance from Clinton
County Department of Emergency services
1-3 years
Funding Source:
County and Loganton Borough and Logan Township
Action 52: Increase the number of NOAA Weather Alert radios in public
places across the County (i.e., municipal buildings, public libraries, police
stations, fire stations, etc.).
Category:
Emergency Services
Multiple
County Department of Emergency Services
1-3 years
Funding Source:
Misc. Grants and County funding
Action 53: Conduct routine inspections, regular maintenance, and
annual tests on all emergency communications equipment, public
address systems, and hazard alert sirens to ensure unhindered
Category:
Emergency Services
Multiple
County Department of Emergency Services
Ongoing
Funding Source:
County
Action 54: Encourage those critical facilities that are responsible for
emergency response efforts to develop and implement an emergency
response plan to mitigate potential flooding impacts.
Category:
Emergency Services
Flooding
Over the next 5 years
Funding Source:
County and critical facility involved
Community: West Keating
Township
Action 55: Improve working relationship with PennDOT regarding snow
removal.
Category:
Emergency Services
Winter Storms
West Keating EMC
1 year
Funding Source:
West Keating Township/PennDOT
214
actions.
Community: Greene
Township
Action 56: Greene Township will work with the fire association, hospital
EMS and the sheriff’s department to increase the number of trained
citizen emergency responders by meeting with groups of potential
volunteers. All areas of Clinton County will benefit.
Category:
Emergency Services
Multiple
Greene Township EMC
2-3 years
Funding Source:
Greene Township/ County Department of Emergency Services/PEMA
and Municipalities
Action 57: Conduct routine inspections, regular maintenance, and
annual tests on all emergency communications equipment, public
address systems, and hazard alert sirens to ensure unhindered
Category:
Emergency Services
Multiple
Clinton County Department of Emergency Services and Municipal EMCs
Ongoing
Funding Source:
N/A
and Municipalities
Action 58: Ensure that a planned, coordinated, and effective public
warning dissemination program exists at the local level.
Category:
Emergency Services
Multiple
Municipal EMCs with technical assistance from the Clinton County
Department of Emergency Services
Ongoing
Funding Source:
N/A
and Municipalities
Action 59: Adopt via resolution, and respond to hazards with actions
that consistent with, the County-level EOP.
Category:
Emergency Services
Multiple
Municipal Officials and Municipal EMCs
Ongoing
Funding Source:
N/A
Action 60: Conduct hazard response practice drills and emergency
management training exercises on an annual basis.
Category:
Emergency Services
Multiple
Ongoing
Funding Source:
N/A
215
actions.
and Municipalities
Action 61: Encourage those facilities that are responsible for
emergency response efforts to develop and implement an emergency
response plan to mitigate potential flooding impacts.
Category:
Prevention and Emergency Services
Flooding
Clinton County Department of Emergency Services and Municipal Staff
Ongoing
Funding Source:
N/A
and Municipalities
Action 62: Develop and implement a post-disaster recovery and
mitigation training program for local officials.
Category:
Emergency Services
Multiple
Clinton County Department of Emergency Services and Municipal EMCs
Ongoing
Funding Source:
TBD
Action 63: Establish a partnering relationship with the NWS Mid-Atlantic
River Forecast Center to enhance the existing Susquehanna River Basin
Flood Forecast and Warning System via the Advanced Hydrologic
Prediction Services Program.
Category:
Flooding
Clinton County and SRBC
Ongoing
Funding Source:
SRBC and Army Corps Floodplain Management Services Program
Action 64: Encourage local business and industry owners in known
flood hazard areas to develop an emergency response plan as a
potential alternative to implementing a physical property protection
measure, where otherwise not technically or fiscally appropriate.
Category:
Public Education and Awareness and Structural, and Emergency
Services
Multiple
Municipal Officials and Staff
Ongoing
Funding Source:
N/A
Community: All
municipalities in Clinton
County
Action 65: Coordinate with the U.S.G.S., local watershed organizations,
and/or the CCCD to increase the number of U.S.G.S. and IFLOWS rain
and stream gages in the County.
Category:
Flooding
TBD
216
actions.
Funding Source:
USGS
Action 66: Increase the number of NOAA Weather Alert radios in public
places across the County.
Category:
Flooding
TBD
Funding Source:
NOAA
Again, Table 6.4-2 lists the 2011 mitigation actions that are more preparedness and response
related many of which will require substantial time commitments from staff at the County and
local municipalities. Those that participated in the development of the 2011 HMP believe that
these actions are attainable and can be implemented over the next five-year cycle. While all
activities will be pursued over the next five years, the reality of limited time and resources
requires the identification of high-priority mitigation actions. Prioritization allows the individuals
and organizations involved to focus their energies and ensure progress on mitigation activities.
Mitigation actions were evaluated using the seven criteria which frame the PASTEEL method.
These feasibility criteria include:
• Political: Does the action have public and political support?
• Administrative: Is there adequate staffing and funding available to implement the
action in a timely manner?
• Social: Will the action be acceptable by the community or will it cause any one segment
of the population to be treated unfairly?
• Technical: How effective will the action be in avoiding or reducing future losses?
• Economic: What are the costs and benefits of the action and does it contribute to
community economic goals?
• Environmental: Will the action provide environmental benefits and will it comply with
local, state and federal environmental regulations?
• Legal: Does the community have the authority to implement the proposed measure?
The PASTEEL method use political, administrative, social, technical, economic, environmental
and legal considerations as a basis means of evaluating which of the identified actions should
be considered most critical. Economic considerations are particularly important in weighing the
costs versus benefits of implementing one action prior to another.
FEMA mitigation planning requirements indicate that any prioritization system used shall include
a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost-benefit
review of the proposed projects. To do this in an efficient manner that is consistent with FEMA’s
guidance on using cost-benefit review in mitigation planning, the PASTEEL method was
adapted to include a higher weighting for two elements of the economic feasibility factor –
217
Benefits of Action and Costs of Action. This method incorporates concepts similar to those
described in Method C of FEMA 386-5: Using Benefit Cost Review in Mitigation Planning
(FEMA, 2007).
Those participating in the 2011 HMPU process provided comments which allowed for the
prioritization of the mitigation actions listed in Table 6.4-3 using the seven PASTEEL criteria. In
order to evaluate and prioritize the mitigation actions, favorable and less favorable factors were
identified for each action. Table 6.4-4 summarizes the evaluation methodology and provides
the results of this evaluation for all preparedness and response related actions. The first results
column includes a summary of the feasibility factors, placing equal weight on all factors.
The second results column reflects feasibility scores with benefits and costs weighted more
heavily; and therefore, given greater priority. A weighting factor of three was used for each
benefit and cost element. Therefore, a “+” benefit factor rating equals three pluses and a “-“
benefit factor rating equals three minuses in the total prioritization score.
218
Table 6.4-3: Summary of mitigation action prioritization using PASTEEL methodology for Actions Listed in Table 6.4-1.
PA STEEL CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
NAME
Effect on Segment of
Population
Technically Feasible
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Benefit of Action (x3 )
Cost of Action (x3)
Contributes to Economic
Goals
Outside Funding Required
Effect on Land / Water
State Authority
Existing Local Authority
Potential Legal Challenge
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
1
Require Municipal officials to
inspect infrastructure
(sewers, bridges, water lines,
etc. to ensure stability on a
routine basis.
+
-
+
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
N
+
-
+
-
N
N
N
N
+
-
-
+
10 (+)
9 (-)
5 (N)
12 (+)
11 (-)
5 (N)
2
Educate community and
municipal officials on possible
chemical company and
environmental disasters.
+
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
-
+
13 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
17 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
3
Identify a place where FEMA
NFIP Flood Maps and
Studies can be stored for
easy access to the public and
zoning officials.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
N
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
19 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
23 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
4
Obtain funding to improve
roads within the Township.
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
-
N
+
-
+
-
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
+
13 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
17 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
5
Educate Township officials
and the community about
floodplain management.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
N
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
19 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
23 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
6
Review FEMA NFIP Flood
Maps and Studies to become
more aware of flood hazards
and provide information to
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
N
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
19 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
23 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
Effect on Endangered
Species
Effect on HAZMAT / Waste
Site
Consistent w/ Community
Environmental Goals
Consistent w/ Federal
Laws
NO.
Community Acceptance
L
Legal
Maintenance / Operations
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
219
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
7
Obtain funding for flood
gauges along Fishing Creek.
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
-
N
+
-
+
-
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
+
13 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
17 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
8
Planning Department and
applicable municipal offices to
review their Comprehensive
Plans to ensure that
designated growth areas are
not in high hazard areas
identified in this plan.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
N
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
19 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
23 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
9
Develop a Flood Protection
Plan for Dury's Run Creek.
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
-
N
+
-
+
-
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
+
13 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
17 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
10
Debris removal for Dury's
Run Creek and other areas
as needed.
N
+
N
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
+
N
N
+
11 (+)
2 (-)
10 (N)
15 (+)
2 (-)
10 (N)
11
Develop and enforce more
stringent building codes for
residents and developers in
flood prone areas.
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
N
+
-
+
-
N
N
N
N
+
-
-
+
9(+)
10 (-)
5 (N)
11 (+)
12 (-)
5 (N)
NO.
NAME
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
property owners about Flood
Insurance.
220
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
12
Provide public awareness
about hazards.
+
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
-
+
13 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
17 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
13
Provide information to
individuals building in forest
areas about wildfires.
+
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
-
+
13 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
17 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
14
Review and update
ordinances and planning
mechanisms.
+
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
-
+
13 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
17 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
15
Review and update floodplain
ordinances and enforce
regulations and other best
practices.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
N
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
19 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
23 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
16
Assist water authority with
flooding and erosion issues.
+
-
+
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
N
+
-
+
-
N
N
N
N
+
-
-
+
10 (+)
9 (-)
5 (N)
17
Coordinate with PennDOT
and township for snow
removal.
+
-
+
-
+
N
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
10 (+)
2 (-)
12 (N)
12 (+)
11 (-)
5 (N)
14 (+)
2 (-)
12 (N)
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
4 (-)
2 (N)
20 (+)
4 (-)
2 (N)
NO.
18
NAME
Upgrade roads to prevent
flooding.
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
221
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
NAME
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
19
Municipalities should store in
an easily accessible location
and make available for public
inspection, their community's
Flood Insurance Rate
Mapping and associated
Flood Insurance Study.
Clinton County could provide
copies of these maps at the
courthouse and/or
conservation district offices
and/or scan and post current
maps on their website for all
communities or those unable
to provide information on their
own website.
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
4 (-)
2 (N)
20 (+)
4 (-)
2 (N)
20
Road and stream clearing
improvement.
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
-
N
+
-
+
-
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
+
13 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
17 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
21
Planning department and
applicable municipal offices of
Greene Township to review
their comprehensive plans to
ensure that growth areas are
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
N
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
19 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
23 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
NO.
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
222
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
22
Review existing building
codes to ensure anchoring
requirements for
manufactured homes are
adequate. If determined
inadequate for existing
vulnerability, consider
revising.
N
+
N
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
+
N
N
+
11 (+)
2 (-)
10 (N)
15 (+)
2 (-)
10 (N)
23
Issue County-wide “advisory”
water usage guidelines during
times of drought and supply
drought information to the
public (brochures, news
releases, etc.)
+
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
-
+
13 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
17 (+)
3 (-)
8 (N)
24
Enforce builders that want to
construct large developments
in landslide prone areas to
complete a geomorphologic
study.
N
+
N
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
+
N
N
+
11 (+)
2 (-)
10 (N)
15 (+)
2 (-)
10 (N)
NO.
NAME
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
not in high hazard areas
identified in 2011 Clinton
County HMP.
223
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
NAME
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
25
Develop a new, or amend an
existing, Comprehensive Plan
to include an assessment of
hazard vulnerability and
appropriate mitigation
recommendations.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
18 (+)
2 (-)
3 (N)
22 (+)
2 (-)
3 (N)
26
with minimum NFIP and PA
Act 166 floodplain
development regulations.
+
+
-
-
-
N
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
4 (-)
3 (N)
20 (+)
4 (-)
3 (N)
27
with local watershed-specific
Act 167 Stormwater
Management Plans.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
17 (+)
2 (-)
4 (N)
21 (+)
2 (-)
4 (N)
28
Ensure continued
implementation of appropriate
operations and maintenance
procedures at the Ohl, Keller
and Castanea, and Warren
Dams.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
+
+
+
-
-
16 (+)
4 (-)
3 (N)
20 (+)
4 (-)
3 (N)
29
Relocate and/or acquire
known flood-prone structures
in accordance with the
general guidelines of Table 5-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
-
N
-
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
-
12 (+)
9 (-)
2 (N)
14 (+)
11 (-)
2 (N)
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
NO.
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
224
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
30
Encourage uninsured
property owners in known
flood hazard areas to
purchase flood insurance
through the NFIP.
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
21 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
25 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
31
Conduct a detailed inventory
and prioritization of local
environmental resources via
the Comprehensive Planning
or similar natural resources
planning process.
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
21 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
25 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
32
undeveloped floodplain areas
via fee simple acquisition
and/or permanent easement
and retain as public open
space for passive recreational
uses. Less critical floodplain
areas may be
ordinance.
13 (+)
8 (-)
2 (N)
15 (+)
10 (-)
2 (N)
NO.
NAME
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
3 in previous mitigation plan.
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
225
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
NAME
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
33
location and make available
for public inspection, the
community’s Flood Insurance
Rate Mapping and associated
Flood Insurance Study.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
21 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
25 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
34
Maintain natural hazard risk
assessment and mitigation
publications/materials at
public libraries throughout the
County.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
21 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
25 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
35
location and make available
for public inspection, this
hazard mitigation plan and
the FEMA guidance
documents that were
provided as part of the hazard
mitigation planning program.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
21 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
25 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
36
Develop and distribute a
public summary of this hazard
mitigation plan including
relevant information on
hazard-prone areas, hazard
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
21 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
25 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
NO.
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
226
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
37
existing, Zoning Ordinance to
include separate zones or
districts for known hazard
areas.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
18 (+)
2 (-)
3 (N)
22 (+)
2 (-)
3 (N)
38
existing, Subdivision and
Land Development Ordinance
to include municipalityspecific, hazard mitigationrelated development criteria
and/or provisions for the
mandatory use of
conservation subdivision
design principles.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
19 (+)
2 (-)
2 (N)
23 (+)
2 (-)
2 (N)
39
Develop and distribute a
public informational pamphlet
related to the potential health
and safety implications of
various natural hazard
events.
+
+
+
+
-
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
N
N
N
N
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
1 (-)
6 (N)
20 (+)
1 (-)
6 (N)
NO.
NAME
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
specific “do’s” and “don’ts”
and emergency contact
information.
227
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
NAME
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
40
Develop a technical
proficiency at the municipal
level for conducting postdisaster damage
assessments and regulating
reconstruction activities to
ensure compliance with NFIP
substantial
damage/improvement
requirements.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
+
+
N
+
+
-
+
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
3 (-)
4 (N)
18 (+)
5 (-)
4 (N)
41
Develop a technical
proficiency at the municipal
level for assisting local
residents and business
owners in applying for hazard
mitigation/assistance funds
and identifying cost beneficial
mitigation measures to
incorporate into
reconstruction activities.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
+
+
N
+
+
-
+
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
3 (-)
4 (N)
18 (+)
5 (-)
4 (N)
42
undeveloped steep slope
areas via fee simple
acquisition and/or permanent
13 (+)
8 (-)
2 (N)
15 (+)
10 (-)
2 (N)
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
NO.
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
228
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
State Authority
L
Legal
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
E
Environmental
Goals
Cost of Action (x3)
E
Economic
Secondary Impacts
Long-Term Solution
T
Technical
Population
S
Social
Funding Allocation
A
Administrative
Public Support
Local Champion
NAME
Political Support
NO.
P
Political
Staffing
MITIGATION ACTIONS
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
14 (+)
8 (-)
1 (N)
16 (+)
10 (-)
1 (N)
19 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
23 (+)
0 (-)
4 (N)
easement and retain as
public open space for passive
recreational uses. Less
critical steep slope areas may
be preserved/protected via
local ordinance.
43
Preserve high priority wetland
areas via fee simple
acquisition and/or permanent
easement and retain as
public open space for passive
recreational uses.
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
44
Coordinate with the local
municipality and/or the PA
Department of Transportation
on the potential feasibility of
replacing, removing, or
enlarging those bridge and
culvert stream crossings that
were identified during the Act
167 Stormwater Management
Planning process as being
unable to pass the 10-year
frequency flood flow.
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
229
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
NAME
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
45
wetland protection program
consisting of public education
materials that highlight the
functions and values of
wetlands and local ordinance
provisions that
minimize/eliminate wetland
disturbance.
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
18 (+)
0 (-)
5 (N)
22 (+)
0 (-)
5 (N)
46
Ensure continued contractor
compliance with approved
Erosion and Sedimentation
Pollution Control Plans and
continue to work with local
farmers to implement BMPs.
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
17 (+)
0 (-)
6 (N)
21 (+)
0 (-)
6 (N)
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
N
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
0 (-)
7 (N)
20 (+)
0 (-)
7 (N)
47
Obtain more detailed
information at the municipal
level so that the general
extent and magnitude for
each municipality can be
better determined.
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
NO.
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
230
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
NAME
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
48
Identify structures, systems,
and populations, or other
community assets as defined
by each municipality that are
susceptible to damage and
loss from hazard events.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
-
N
-
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
14 (+)
4 (-)
5 (N)
16 (+)
6 (-)
5 (N)
49
Identify sites of future
development and identify
what potential hazards these
future growth areas may be
vulnerable to.
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
21 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
25 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
50
Obtain potential dollar loss
information for buildings,
infrastructure, and critical
facilities when they are
identified in other hazard
areas besides flooding.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
-
N
-
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
14 (+)
4 (-)
5 (N)
16 (+)
6 (-)
5 (N)
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
NO.
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
231
Table 6.4-4: Summary of mitigation action prioritization using PASTEEL methodology for those actions that are more preparedness and response
oriented.
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
N
N
+
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
+
N
N
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
+
Population
+
+
L
Legal
State Authority
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
53
regular maintenance, and
annual tests on all emergency
unhindered operation during
E
Economic
Staffing
52
Increase the number of
NOAA Weather Alert radios in
public places across the
County (i.e., municipal
buildings, public libraries,
police stations, fire stations,
etc.).
T
Technical
Public Support
51
Work with the Fire
Association, Hospital EMS,
and Sheriff's Department to
increase the number of
trained Citizen Emergency
Responders by meeting with
groups of potential
volunteers.
S
Social
Local Champion
NAME
A
Administrative
Political Support
NO.
P
Political
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
MITIGATION ACTIONS
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
16 (+)
4 (-)
2 (N)
20 (+)
4 (-)
2 (N)
13 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
13 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
232
17 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
17 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
oriented.
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
54
Encourage those critical
facilities that are responsible
for emergency response
efforts to develop and
implement an emergency
response plan to mitigate
potential flooding impacts.
N
+
N
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
N
N
N
N
N
+
N
N
+
11 (+)
2 (-)
10 (N)
15 (+)
2 (-)
10 (N)
55
Improve working relationship
with PennDOT regarding
snow removal.
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
-
N
+
-
+
-
N
N
N
N
N
+
+
+
13 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
17 (+)
5 (-)
6 (N)
56
Greene Township will work
with the fire association,
hospital EMS and the sheriff’s
department to increase the
number of trained citizen
emergency responders by
meeting with groups of
potential volunteers. All
areas of Clinton County will
benefit.
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
4 (-)
2 (N)
20 (+)
4 (-)
2 (N)
NO.
NAME
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
an emergency event.
233
oriented.
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
NAME
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
57
regular maintenance, and
annual tests on all emergency
unhindered operation during
an emergency event.
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
N
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
1 (-)
6 (N)
20 (+)
1 (-)
6 (N)
58
Ensure that a planned,
coordinated, and effective
public warning dissemination
program exists at the local
level.
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
N
N
N
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
16 (+)
0 (-)
7 (N)
20 (+)
0 (-)
7 (N)
59
Adopt via resolution, and
respond to hazards with
actions that consistent with,
the County-level EOP.
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
18 (+)
0 (-)
5 (N)
22 (+)
0 (-)
5 (N)
60
Conduct hazard response
practice drills and emergency
management training
exercises on an annual basis.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
-
N
-
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
14 (+)
4 (-)
5 (N)
16 (+)
6 (-)
5 (N)
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
NO.
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
234
oriented.
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
NAME
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
61
Encourage those facilities
that are responsible for
emergency response efforts
to develop and implement an
emergency response plan to
mitigate potential flooding
impacts.
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
21 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
25 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
62
post-disaster recovery and
mitigation training program for
local officials.
+
+
+
-
-
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
-
N
-
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
14 (+)
4 (-)
5 (N)
16 (+)
6 (-)
5 (N)
63
Establish a partnering
relationship with the NWS
Mid-Atlantic River Forecast
Center to enhance the
existing Susquehanna River
Basin Flood Forecast and
Warning System via the
Advanced Hydrologic
Prediction Services Program.
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
N
+
N
+
+
-
-
+
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
14 (+)
5 (-)
4 (N)
16 (+)
7 (-)
4 (N)
64
Encourage local business
and industry owners in known
flood hazard areas to develop
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
+
21 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
25 (+)
0 (-)
2 (N)
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
NO.
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
235
oriented.
(+) Favorable
(-) Less favorable
(N) Not Applicable
MITIGATION ACTIONS
Population
Long-Term Solution
Secondary Impacts
Cost of Action (x3)
Goals
State Authority
SUMMARY (EQUAL
WEIGHTING)
SUMMARY (BENEFITS &
COSTS PRIORITIZED)
65
Coordinate with the U.S.G.S.,
local watershed
organizations, and/or the
CCCD to increase the
number of U.S.G.S. and
IFLOWS rain and stream
gages in the County.
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
N
+
N
+
+
-
-
+
+
N
N
+
+
+
+
+
14 (+)
5 (-)
4 (N)
16 (+)
7 (-)
4 (N)
66
Increase the number of
NOAA Weather Alert radios in
public places across the
County.
+
+
+
+
-
N
+
N
+
+
+
+
+
N
+
N
N
N
N
+
+
+
N
14 (+)
1 (-)
8 (N)
18 (+)
1 (-)
8 (N)
NO.
NAME
Species
Site
Environmental Goals
Laws
L
Legal
E
Environmental
Funding Allocation
E
Economic
Staffing
T
Technical
Public Support
S
Social
Local Champion
A
Administrative
Political Support
P
Political
an emergency response plan
as a potential alternative to
implementing a physical
property protection measure,
where otherwise not
technically or fiscally
appropriate.
Most actions that scored the highest were Prevention and Education/Public Outreach actions. This is because on average these
actions do not require a lot of money to complete and the staffing needed is already in place.
236
7.
7.1.
Plan Maintenance
Monitoring, evaluating and updating this plan, is critical to maintaining its value and success in
Clinton County’s hazard mitigation efforts. Ensuring effective implementation of mitigation
activities paves the way for continued momentum in the planning process and gives direction for
the future. This section explains who will be responsible for maintenance activities and what
those responsibilities entail. It also provides a methodology and schedule of maintenance
activities including a description of how the public will be involved on a continued basis. The
plan maintenance described here differs from the 2006 maintenance procedures; for example,
the 2011 HMPU establishes a review of the plan within 30 days of a disaster event but
continues the 2006 HMP’s annual plan evaluation. This HMPU also defines the municipalities’
role in updating and evaluating the plan. Finally, the 2011 HMPU elaborates upon continued
public involvement and how this plan may be integrated into other planning mechanisms in the
County.
7.2.
Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan
The HMSC established for the 2011 HMPU is designated to administer the plan maintenance
processes of monitoring, evaluation and updating with support and representation from all 29
participating municipalities. William Frantz, Emergency Management Coordinator for Clinton
County Department of Emergency Services, will lead the HMSC in all associated plan
maintenance requirements, including annual reviews. The HMSC will coordinate maintenance
efforts, but the input needed for effective periodic evaluations will come from community
representatives, local emergency management coordinators and planners, the general public
and other important stakeholders. The HMSC will oversee the progress made on the
implementation of action items identified in the 2011 HMPU and modify actions, as needed, to
reflect changing conditions. The HMSC will meet annually on or around the anniversary of plan
adoption to discuss specific coordination efforts that may be needed with other stakeholders.
Should a significant disaster occur within the County, the HMSC will reconvene within 30 days
of the disaster to review and update the HMPU.
Each municipality will designate a community representative to monitor mitigation activities and
hazard events within their respective communities. The local emergency management
coordinator would be suitable for this role. This individual will be asked to work with the HMSC
to provide updates on applicable mitigation actions and feedback on changing hazard
vulnerabilities within their community.
Upon each HMPU evaluation, the HMSC will consider whether applications should be submitted
for existing mitigation grant programs. A decision to apply for funding will be based on
appropriate eligibility and financial need requirements. The HMSC will also support local and
county officials in applying for post-disaster mitigation funds when they are available. All state
and federal mitigation funding provided to the County or local municipalities will be reported in
237
subsequent plan updates. In addition, new plans and programs being developed within the
County will be evaluated as to the ability and necessity to incorporate the 2011 HMPU into
them.
The 2011 HMPU will be updated every five years, as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000, or following a disaster event. Future plan updates will account for any new hazard
vulnerabilities, special circumstances, or new information that becomes available. During the
five-year review process, the following questions will be considered as criteria for assessing the
effectiveness the Clinton County HMPU.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Has the nature or magnitude of hazards affecting the County changed?
Are there new hazards that have the potential to impact the County?
Do the identified goals and actions address current and expected conditions?
Have mitigation actions been implemented or completed?
Has the implementation of identified mitigation actions resulted in expected outcomes?
Are current resources adequate to implement the Plan?
Should additional local resources be committed to address identified hazards?
Issues that arise during monitoring and evaluation which require changes to the risk
assessment, mitigation strategy and other components of the plan will be incorporated during
future updates.
7.3.
Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms
Based on the comprehensive nature of this plan, the HMSC believes that this document will be
highly useful when updating and developing other planning mechanisms in the County. Specific
documents that the HMSC will actively incorporate information from the 2011 HMPU into
include:
•
•
•
Clinton County Comprehensive Plan: Section 4.4.4, Future Development and
Vulnerability, will provide information for the development of the next County
Comprehensive Plan by making available specific risk and vulnerability information for
the entire county but more specifically the potential areas of growth.
Clinton County Emergency Operations Plan: The 2011 HMPU will provide information
on risk and vulnerability that will be extremely important to consider and incorporate into
the next County EOP. Probability and vulnerability can direct emergency management
efforts and response.
Clinton County Hazard Vulnerability Analysis: The Clinton County Department of
Emergency Services’ HVA and the County HMPU are mutually beneficial plans that are
used together to better understand risk and vulnerability. Just as the existing County
HVA was used to supplement the development of this plan, the 2011 HMPU will be used
to aid in goal and objective development, hazard identification, and risk assessment in
the next County HVA.
238
•
•
7.4.
Municipality Local Land Use Regulations: The Hazard Mitigation Plan provides an
opportunity to contribute to local land use regulations to steer development away from
hazard-prone areas.
Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan: This plan is currently under development. The
results of the 2011 HMPU vulnerability analysis, particularly for flooding, will be taken
into consideration when finalizing this stormwater management plan and any new
stormwater management plans.
Continued Public Involvement
As was done during the development of the 2011 HMPU, the HMSC will involve the public
during the evaluation and update of the HMPU through various workshops and meetings. The
public will have access to an electronic copy of the current HMPU through their local municipal
office or Clinton County Department of Emergency Services. The Clinton County Department of
Emergency Services will also keep a paper copy of the plan should a citizen not have ready
electronic access. Information on upcoming events related to the HMPU or solicitation for
comments will be announced via newsletters, newspapers, mailings, and on the County website
(http://www.clintoncountypa.com/new_page_11.htm). The HMSC will incorporate all relevant
comments during the next update of the HMPU.
239
8.
Plan Adoption
The Plan was submitted to the Pennsylvania State Hazard Mitigation Officer on June 13, 2011.
It was forwarded to FEMA for final review and approval-pending-adoption on June 13, 2011.
FEMA granted approval-pending-adoption on <Month Day, Year>. Full approval from FEMA
was received on <Month Day, Year>.
This section of the plan includes copies of the local adoption resolutions passed by Clinton
County and its municipal governments as well as a completed Local Mitigation Plan Review
Crosswalk. Adoption resolution templates are provided to assist the County and municipal
governments with recommended language for future adoption of the HMP.
240
County Adoption Resolution
Resolution No. __________________
Clinton County, Pennsylvania
WHEREAS, the municipalities of Clinton County, Pennsylvania are most vulnerable to natural
and human-made hazards which may result in loss of life and property, economic hardship, and
threats to public health and safety, and
WHEREAS, Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires state and
local governments to develop and submit for approval to the President a mitigation plan that
outlines processes for identifying their respective natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities, and
WHEREAS, Clinton County acknowledges the requirements of Section 322 of DMA 2000 to
have an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan as a prerequisite to receiving post-disaster Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program funds, and
WHEREAS, the Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan has been developed by the Clinton
County Emergency Management Agency and the Clinton County Planning Commission in
cooperation with other county departments, local municipal officials, and the citizens of Clinton
County, and
WHEREAS, a public involvement process consistent with the requirements of DMA 2000 was
conducted to develop the Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan recommends mitigation activities
that will reduce losses to life and property affected by both natural and human-made hazards
that face the County and its municipal governments,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body for the County of Clinton that:
• The Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan is hereby adopted as the official Hazard
Mitigation Plan of the County, and
• The respective officials and agencies identified in the implementation strategy of the
Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan are hereby directed to implement the
recommended activities assigned to them.
ADOPTED, this _________ day of ________________, 2011
ATTEST:
CLINTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
_________________________
By ______________________________
By ______________________________
By ______________________________
241
Municipal Adoption Resolution
Resolution No. __________________
<Borough/Township of Municipality Name>, Clinton County, Pennsylvania
WHEREAS, the <Borough/Township of Municipality Name>, Clinton County, Pennsylvania is
most vulnerable to natural and human-made hazards which may result in loss of life and
property, economic hardship, and threats to public health and safety, and
WHEREAS, Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires state and
local governments to develop and submit for approval to the President a mitigation plan that
outlines processes for identifying their respective natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities, and
WHEREAS, the <Borough/Township of Municipality Name> acknowledges the requirements of
Section 322 of DMA 2000 to have an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan as a prerequisite to
receiving post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds, and
WHEREAS, the Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan has been developed by the Clinton
County Emergency Management Agency and the Clinton County Planning Commission in
cooperation with other county departments, and officials and citizens of <Borough/Township of
Municipality Name>, and
WHEREAS, a public involvement process consistent with the requirements of DMA 2000 was
conducted to develop the Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan recommends mitigation activities
that will reduce losses to life and property affected by both natural and human-made hazards
that face the County and its municipal governments,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body for the <Borough/Township of
Municipality Name>:
• The Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan is hereby adopted as the official Hazard
Mitigation Plan of the <Borough/Township>, and
• The respective officials and agencies identified in the implementation strategy of the
Clinton County 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan are hereby directed to implement the
recommended activities assigned to them.
ADOPTED, this _________ day of ________________, 2011
ATTEST:
<BOROUGH/TOWNSHIP OF MUNICIPALITY NAME>
___________________________
By ______________________________
By ______________________________
9.
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
– Bibliography
– Local Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk
– Meeting and Other Participation Documentation
– Local Municipality Flood Vulnerability Maps
– Critical Facilities
– HAZUS Reports
– Dam Failure Hazard Profile (Section 4.3.9)

Mitigation Plan - Clinton County Government

Transcription

Similar documents

94546 careerlink 3x10.crtr

cjbarymores.com - CJ Barrymore`s

Fn*d far All trarden The Rev. Stephen Hosking St. Alexis Christian

File

PDF - City of Terrell Hills

April 4 1953 TO: 11r.J. Gaynor Mr. J.Frugo ` SUB~CT: Rt. 142

The Penn Township Campus Landscaping Beautification Project

English - monitor ii

2011

(MSDS) Kukui Nut Oil RBDW