Lancaster HMP Mit Sol Wkshp 030718...

MEETING NOTES

PAGE 1 OF 3

Meeting Lancaster County Hazard Mitigation Plan – Mitigation Solutions Workshop

Date March 20, 2018 Time 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.

Location Lancaster County Public Safety Training Center

Attendees

Randy Gockley, Lancaster County Emergency Management Agency (LEMA)

Philip Colvin, LEMA

Ben Herskowitz, LEMA

Eric Bachman, LEMA

Curtis Thompson, LEMA

Dean Johnson, Adamstown Borough

William Shirk, East Earl Township and Terre Hill Borough

Diane Garber, East Hempfield Township and East Petersburg Borough

Sara Schmidt, Exelon

Laura Kratz, Tetra Tech (not shown on sign-in sheet)

Tony Subbio, Tetra Tech

Discussion Points This section summarizes each discussion point addressed during the meeting. This meeting was rescheduled

from March 7, 2018, due to winter weather.

Welcome Mr. Gockley welcomed attendees to the meeting. Mr. Subbio also welcomed attendees and described the

purpose of the meeting.

Worksheet Completion Status Mr. Subbio reviewed the completed municipal worksheets submitted to Planning Team representatives and

identified the number of municipalities remaining. As of March 2, 2018, 32 municipalities still need to provide

completed worksheets, though some of those 32 municipalities had provided one or two completed worksheets.

Municipal Risk Factor Analysis Attendees completed a worksheet to compare the risk from each hazard in their respective municipalities to the

risk from each hazard to the County as a whole.

Review Existing Mitigation Strategy Mr. Subbio reviewed the goals and objectives from the 2014 HMP. He explained that the goals and objectives

will be updated to consider the Pennsylvania HMP goals and objectives, Lancaster County capabilities and

vulnerabilities based on the risk analysis and capabilities assessment, and feedback received via worksheets

and e-mails from representatives of municipalities within Lancaster County. He also noted that suggested

MEETING NOTES

PAGE 2 OF 3

updates to the goals and objectives have already been developed and would be discussed later in the

presentation.

After reviewing the existing goals and objectives, Mr. Subbio gave attendees a few minutes to review the

summary of the status of the mitigation actions from the 2014 HMP. He explained that actions marked as

“Completed” or “Discontinued” will be removed from the plan and that actions marked as “In Progress/Not Yet

Complete,” or “No Progress/Unknown” will likely be included in the updated HMP. Actions marked as

“Continuous,” and thus reflecting that these actions should be considered ongoing capabilities, will likely be

removed from the list of actions in the HMP. He also reiterated that many municipalities had not yet contributed

information regarding the 2014 HMP’s mitigation actions.

Develop the Updated Mitigation Strategy Mr. Subbio asked attendees to review the suggested goals and objectives on the handout provided. Mr. Subbio

asked the attendees for their feedback on the goals and objectives. Attendees agreed that the suggested set was

appropriate. Mr. Subbio informed them that the set would be reviewed and ultimately changed or approved by

the Steering Committee.

Mr. Subbio then reviewed the categories of mitigation actions: Local Plans and Regulations; Structure and

Infrastructure; Natural Systems Protection; and Education and Awareness Programs. He provided several

examples of mitigation actions that fall under each category to give attendees an idea of the types of mitigation

actions they could select. Mr. Subbio also went over a series of question prompts to help guide participants in

generating project ideas.

Attendees discussed that the plan should include the mitigation action of residents establishing a baseline of

contamination of soil and water on their properties, given that pipelines are being installed throughout the

County.

Mayor Johnson from Adamstown Borough suggested including at least one action for addressing the problem

caused by the spotted lanternfly.

Mr. Subbio reviewed a handout containing pages from the “Flood, Flash Flood, and Ice Jam” hazard profile that

listed (1) flooding problem areas identified in the County’s Flood Insurance Study, (2) the water resources

element of the Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan, or (3) conversations with municipal emergency

management coordinators. After reviewing the handout, attendees discussed problem areas related to other

hazards, including:

• Subsidence and Sinkholes

• Wildfires

• Environmental Hazards (Hazardous Materials)

• Transportation Accidents

Mr. Subbio discussed how mitigation actions to address each of the problem areas could be identified.

Mr. Subbio discussed the Mitigation Action Worksheet handout and informed the group that each action in the

updated HMP would have a worksheet. He asked attendees to think of other actions to add to the HMP and

document them by filling out a Mitigation Action Worksheet.

MEETING NOTES

PAGE 3 OF 3

Next Steps Mr. Subbio reviewed the following next steps in the HMP update process with attendees:

• Identifying mitigation actions, conducting a meeting to discuss the Community Rating System (CRS)

Program, gathering additional participation, and finalizing and reviewing the updated mitigation strategy

will occur by early June 2018 (not necessarily in that order).

• The complete draft of the updated HMP should be complete in mid-June 2018.

• The plan will be available for public review for 30 days following completion.

• A public meeting to review the complete draft will be held after the public comment period, ideally in

mid-July 2018.

• The updated HMP will be submitted to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) for

review at the end of July 2018.

• The updated HMP will be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review

in mid-August 2018.

With no further questions, Mr. Gockley and Mr. Subbio thanked attendees for their time and participation. The meeting concluded at 3:00 p.m.

1

Lancaster CountyHazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Update

Mitigation Solutions Workshop

Agenda

Welcome

Worksheet Completion Status

Municipal Risk Factor Analysis

Review Existing Mitigation Strategy

Develop the Updated Mitigation Strategy

Next Steps

Questions

Welcome Worksheet Completion Status

Still need worksheets from 32 municipalities.

Worksheet completion is a participation requirement for the HMP.

– Lack of participation in this HMP planning process can prevent funding eligibility.

Municipal Risk Factor Analysis Review Existing Mitigation Strategy

Goals and Objectives Review

2


Status of 2014 Actions


Develop the Updated Mitigation Strategy Purpose of the Mitigation Strategy

– Reduce likelihood of hazard impacts

– Lessen impacts of hazards

Suggested Goals and Objectives

– See Worksheet for Suggested Updated Goals and Objectives

Categories of Mitigation Actions

– Local Plans and Regulations (LPR)

– Structure and Infrastructure Projects (SIP)

– Natural Systems Protection (NSP)

– Education and Awareness Programs (EAP)

Develop the Updated Mitigation Strategy Example Mitigation Actions

– LPR: Review and revise local regulations to minimize risk from hazards

– SIP: Acquire, elevate, relocate, or flood-proof structures

– NSP: Promote restoration of local wetlands

– EAP: Cross-train personnel to build technical capability

– EAP: Develop a hazards information page on the Township/Borough website

Develop the Updated Mitigation Strategy Identify Additional Mitigation Actions (pretending

you have all the time and money in the world!)

– What plans or regulations does your municipality need?

– What information must you provide to your residents and visitors?

– What property and products can be insured?

– What can be done about invasive species?

– What additional staff do you need?

– Where are your problem areas? What can be done about them?

– What critical facilities need backup power generators?What about traffic lights?

Develop the Updated Mitigation Strategy Problems and Problem Areas

– Flooding – see hazard profile

– Subsidence and Sinkholes Columbia Borough: The entire borough is on limestone, so

sinkholes may develop throughout the Borough.

Ephrata Borough: A sinkhole developed near Pine Street this past spring.

Lancaster City: Issues developed near a French drain along the Harrisburg Pike at North Berry Street and Pine Street.

3


– Wildfires Sparks from trains along railroad tracks

Along Chiques Creek

East Earl and Salisbury Townships: Welsh Mountain Nature Preserve

Columbia Borough: the hill leading down to the overlook

– Environmental Hazards (Hazardous Materials) Rail transports

Pipelines


– Transportation Accidents US-30 at PA-441, particularly in the afternoon rush hour

Espenshade Road and PA-230

PA-23 at PA-897 South

US-322 at PA-897

PA-72 near the Turnpike – tractor-trailers and car carriers have trouble going up the hill

US-30 at US-222

Develop the Updated Mitigation Strategy Mitigation Action Worksheet

Next Steps

Identify and Submit Mitigation Actions

Community Rating System (CRS) Program Education

Solicit Additional Participation

Conduct Mitigation Strategy Review Meeting

We have some wiggle room

Next Steps

Finalize the draft HMP – by mid-June 2018

Provide Public Comment Period– mid-June to mid-July 2018

Conduct Draft Review Meeting – mid-July 2018

Submit Plan Update to Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) – end of July 2018

Submit Plan Update to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – mid-August 2018

Questions?

Thank you for your time!

4

Contacts

Ben Herskowitz

[email protected]

(717) 664-1200

Tony Subbio

[email protected]

(717) 545-3580

AGENDA

LANCASTER COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE Mitigation Solutions Workshop

Tuesday, March 20, 2018 | 1:00–3:00 p.m.

1. Welcome

2. Worksheet Completion Status

3. Municipal Risk Factor Analysis

4. Review Existing Mitigation Strategy a. Goals and Objectives Review b. Status of 2014 Mitigation Actions

5. Develop the Updated Mitigation Strategy a. Purpose of the Mitigation Strategy b. Suggested Goals and Objectives c. Categories of Mitigation Actions d. Example Mitigation Actions e. Identify Additional Mitigation Actions f. Problems and Problem Areas g. Mitigation Action Worksheet

6. Next Steps a. Identify and Submit Mitigation Actions b. Community Rating System (CRS) Program Education c. Solicit Additional Participation d. Conduct Mitigation Strategy Review Meeting e. Finalize the Draft HMP f. Provide Public Comment Period g. Conduct Draft Review Meeting h. Submit Plan Update to PEMA i. Submit Plan Update to FEMA

7. Questions

Lancaster County Planning Team


1 As of 3/2/18

Worksheet Completion Status

Municipality

Hazard Evaluation

Survey

Capability

Assessment Survey

Mitigation

Strategy Survey

Lancaster County x x x

Adamstown Borough

Akron Borough

Bart Township x x x

Brecknock Township

Caernarvon Township x x x

Christiana Borough x x x

Clay Township

Colerain Township x x x

Columbia Borough

Conestoga Township

Conoy Township

Denver Borough x x x

Drumore Township x x x

Earl Township x

East Cocalico Township x x x

East Donegal Township x x x

East Drumore Township

East Earl Township x x

East Hempfield Township x

East Lampeter Township x x x

East Petersburg Borough x x

Eden Township x x x

Elizabeth Township x x x

Elizabethtown Borough x

Ephrata Borough x

Ephrata Township x x x

Fulton Township x x x

Lancaster City

Lancaster Township



2 As of 3/2/18

Municipality

Hazard Evaluation

Survey

Capability

Assessment Survey

Mitigation

Strategy Survey

Leacock Township x x x

Lititz Borough x x x

Little Britain Township

Manheim Borough x x x

Manheim Township

Manor Township

Marietta Borough x x

Martic Township x x x

Millersville Borough x

Mount Joy Borough x

Mount Joy Township x x x

Mountville Borough x

New Holland Borough x x

Paradise Township x x x

Penn Township x x x

Pequea Township

Providence Township x x x

Quarryville Borough

Rapho Township x x x

Sadsbury Township x

Salisbury Township x x x

Strasburg Borough

Strasburg Township

Terre Hill Borough x x

Upper Leacock Township x x x

Warwick Township x x x

West Cocalico Township x x x

West Donegal Township x

West Earl Township x x x

West Hempfield Township x

West Lampeter Township x x



1

Jurisdiction Risk - ____________________________________ (Municipality)

Dro

ugh

t

Eart

hq

uak

e

Flo

od

, Fla

sh F

loo

d,

and

Ice

Jam

s

Hai

lsto

rms

Inva

sive

Sp

eci

es

Pan

de

mic

Rad

on

Exp

osu

re

Sub

sid

en

ce a

nd

Si

nkh

ole

s

Torn

ado

an

d

Win

dst

orm

Wild

fire

Win

ter

Sto

rms

Dam

Fai

lure

Envi

ron

me

nta

l H

azar

ds

Nu

cle

ar In

cid

en

ts

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

A

ccid

en

ts

Uti

lity

Inte

rru

pti

on

2.5 2.2 3.4 2.5 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.1 3.2 2.2 2.7 1.3 2.6 1.9 2.4 3.1

> Your municipality’s risk from this hazard is greater than the County’s risk as a whole

< Your municipality’s risk from this hazard is less than the County’s risk as a whole

= Your municipality’s risk from this hazard is about the same as the County’s risk as a whole

1 Lancaster County Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives

Existing Goals and Objectives

Goal 1: Mitigate the potential for injury/death and damage from natural and human-made hazards in Lancaster County. (Prevention)

Objective 1.1 Develop regulations limiting development in hazard-prone areas.

Objective 1.2 Direct new growth away from hazard-prone areas.

Objective 1.3 Encourage property owners in the 1-percent annual chance floodplain to purchase flood insurance.

Objective 1.4 Protect the health of County residents.

Goal 2: Protect the citizens of Lancaster County as well as public and private property from the impacts of natural and human-caused hazards. (Property Protection)

Objective 2.1 Protect existing structures from damage that can be caused by hazards.

Objective 2.2 Promote management and regulatory procedures that would reduce the impacts of hazards on public and private property.

Objective 2.3 Protect critical facilities from the impacts of natural and human-caused hazards.

Objective 2.4 Elevate or acquire flood-prone repetitive loss structures.

Goal 3: Improve emergency services and capabilities in Lancaster County to protect citizens from natural and human-caused hazards. (Emergency Services Measures)

Objective 3.1 Improve coordination and communication between departments.

Objective 3.2 Ensure adequate training and resources for those involved in emergency response, services, relief, or hazard mitigation.

Objective 3.3 Ensure adequacy of equipment and technology.

Goal 4: Maintain and/or implement flood control measures in Lancaster County. (Structural Projects)

Objective 4.1 Develop local structural projects to reduce the impacts of natural and human-caused hazards on public and private property.

Objective 4.2 Implement and/or maintain existing flood-control systems.

Goal 5: Mitigate effects of disasters and preserve the natural resources in Lancaster County. (Natural Resource Protection)

Objective 5.1 Lessen impacts on natural resources from natural and human-caused hazards.

Objective 5.2 Direct growth in designated growth areas and maintain natural hazard buffers in the County.

Goal 6: Increase public education and awareness of existing and potential hazards in Lancaster County (Public Education/Awareness Programs)

Objective 6.1 Develop public education and outreach programs on hazards and hazard mitigation.

Objective 6.2 Educate property owners in hazard-risk areas regarding their risks and the precautions they can take.

2 Lancaster County Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives

Suggested Goals and Objectives

These suggested goals and objectives are aligned with the Pennsylvania HMP goals and objectives.

Goal 1: Prevent injury/death and damage from natural and human-made hazards in Lancaster County.

Objective 1.1 Develop regulations limiting development in hazard-prone areas.

Objective 1.2 Direct growth in designated growth areas away from hazard-prone areas, and maintain natural hazard buffers in the County.

Objective 1.3 Encourage homeowners, renters, and businesses to insure their properties against all hazards, including flood coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Objective 1.4 Lessen impacts on natural resources from natural and human-caused hazards.

Goal 2: Protect the citizens of Lancaster County as well as public and private property from the impacts of natural and human-caused hazards.

Objective 2.1 Protect existing structures, including critical facilities, from damage that can be caused by hazards.

Objective 2.2 Acquire, relocate, elevate, and/or retrofit existing structures located in hazard areas.

Objective 2.3 Acquire, relocate, elevate, and/or retrofit repetitive loss properties from flood-prone areas.

Objective 2.4 Improve and maintain stormwater management systems to reduce back-up and flooding.

Objective 2.5 Protect the health of County residents from disease.

Goal 3: Improve emergency services and capabilities in Lancaster County to protect citizens from natural and human-caused hazards.

Objective 3.1 Improve coordination and communication between departments.

Objective 3.2 Ensure adequate training and resources for those involved in emergency response, services, relief, or hazard mitigation.

Objective 3.3 Ensure adequacy of equipment and technology.

Goal 4: Increase public education and awareness of existing and potential hazards in Lancaster County.

Objective 4.1 Develop public education and outreach programs on hazards and hazard mitigation.

Objective 4.2 Educate property owners in hazard-risk areas regarding their risks and the precautions they can take.

Objective 4.3 Encourage residents to implement hazard mitigation and preparedness measures on their properties.

Objective 4.4 Encourage local participation in the Community Rating System (CRS) Program.

West Hempfield Township Yes 13,388.1 1,778.8 13.3% 1,877.50 14.0%

West Lampeter Township Yes 10,626.4 576.8 5.4% 651.4 6.1%

Lancaster County - 628,801.2 53,808.8 8.6% 57,124.90 9.1%

In accordance with the 1978 Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act (Act 167), counties are required to

prepare stormwater management plans on a watershed-by-watershed basis that provide for improved

management of stormwater impacts associated with development of land. In 2013, Lancaster County developed

and implemented Blueprints An Integrated Water Resources Plan for Lancaster County, which is the water

-based planning and

management. The plan also serves . The

main five goals of the plan are as follows:

Provide water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure to accommodate 85% of future growth in Urban Growth Areas

Deliver essential infrastructure services to both urban and rural settlements in a cost effective manner.

Reduce the number of miles of impaired streams.

Institutionalize Integrated Water Resources management in Lancaster County.

Increase the use of green infrastructure in water resources management.

Figure 4.3.3-1 shows PADEP-designated watersheds with critical facilities in Lancaster County.

The 2016 FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Lancaster County also documents the major flooding problems

in the County. According to the report, flooding is not a widespread problem for the County; this may be

attributable to the physical features of the watersheds and stream channels. In addition, local residents have

limited development in low-lying stream banks and floodplains (FEMA 2016).

The following are specific problem areas in the County that were identified through municipal surveys for , or identified by municipal emergency management coordinators:

Akron Borough Heritage development along Cocalico Creek

Minor property damage, infiltration into sewer system

Brecknock Township Critical stream and street flooding, soil wash off, and stormwater pollution in every storm

Areas of major stream flooding (crops and properties under water)

Areas of flooded roads which require "High Water" and "Road Closed" signs in every storm

Areas of soil wash off and stream pollution mostly as a result of farming practices

Columbia Borough drainage problem at 10th Street and Ridge Avenue

Conestoga Township Critical street flooding; damage to private and public property in every storm

Orchard Hills Development (Supervisors have approved work to correct problem)

Kendig Road at Elm Street, low spot in the road floods

Denver Borough

Basement flooding, vehicle and road surface deterioration on the 300 and 400 blocks of Locust Street occurs more than 10 times a year due to lack of underground drainage

Basement flooding, vehicle and road surface deterioration on the North 3rd and Main Street occurs more than once a year due to lack of underground drainage

Little Cocalico Creek and Ridge Road stream flooding, soil washoff, bridge opening

Intersections of Smokestown, Miller, and Reinholds road at confluence of Little Cocalico Creek stream flooding, bridge opening

Fry's Run at Dogwood Drive stream flooding, bridge opening

Fry's Run at White Oak Road stream flooding, street flooding, bridge opening

Fry's Run at Smokestown Road stream flooding, street flooding, bridge opening

Stony Run at Hill Road street flooding, bridge opening

Cocalico Creek in vicinity of West Church Street stream flooding

Stony Run at Bunker Hill Road street flooding, bridge opening

Stony Run at West Church Street street flooding, bridge opening

Cocalico Creek at Cocalico Creek Road stream flooding

Haldemans Mobile Home Park (Justin Circle and Wabash Road) stream flooding

Earl Township

Cabin Road near Township line flooding more than once a year due to overflowing stream banks

Rt. 322, West of Martindale Road flooding more than once a year due to overflowing stream banks.

East Earl Township critical stream and street flooding, soil wash off and stormwater pollution in major events

Areas of roadway flooding

Conestoga Bridge Road, Iron Bridge Road, and Quarry Road, caused by flooding of the Conestoga River

Roadway flooding on Pa. Route 897 caused by runoff from Welsh Mountain and farm fields.

East Lampeter Township critical stream and street flooding, and stormwater pollution problems more than once a year insufficient stormwater capacity

Millcross Road; Eastwood Village; Pitney Road; Greenfield Road at railroad underpass

Ephrata Borough

Nissley Acres (Niss, Bellevue, and James Avenues) flooding occurs during major events, caused by too large an increase in uncontrolled runoff and uncontrolled runoff from upstream municipalities

600 Block of W. Main Street occurs during major events, caused by undersized drainage system and lack of maintenance of drainage ways

Walnut Street East occurs during more than 10 times per year, caused by undersized drainage system (problem is being corrected)

Ephrata Township Moderate stream and street flooding and soil wash off problems

Frysville Road/Newswanger Road intersection flooding from small stream more than once per year. Caused by drainage system that is too small and needs to be replaced

Frysville Road/Fry's Road, flooding from two small streams and Muddy Creek in major flood events

Lancaster City minor street flooding and stormwater pollution

North Plum Street at railroad underpass; Wabank Road 70' West of Hershey Avenue; New Holland Avenue at railroad overpass (East of Ross Street); Chesapeake and Broad Streets

Lititz Borough problems with stream and street flooding during heavy storms more than once a year

Lititz Springs Parks; Lititz Run

Manheim Borough the area around the Chiques Creek and Little Chiques Creek

Manheim Township Butter Road and River Road are both vulnerable to flooding from the Conestoga River

Millersville Borough moderate stream and street flooding; soil wash off problems

Oak Ridge Drive street flooding more than once per year

Barbara Street at East College Avenue street flooding and soil washoff more than once per year

Creek Drive stream flooding in major events

Mount Joy Borough erosion of soil and flooding of roadways:

Outfall pipe from Stauffer Court and erosion of the rear yard it discharges to, and the banks of the Little Chiques Creek insufficient stormwater capacity

Low drainage area from Amtrak with insufficient capacity to carry flow under Route 230 insufficient stormwater capacity

Release of water from underground drainage system to the surface insufficient stormwater capacity

Penn Township Critical stream and street flooding in certain areas; damage to private and public property, property damage, and loss of vital services

Stiegel Valley Road and White Oak Road intersection, and along White Oak Road south of Hamaker Road insufficient stormwater capacity

Fruitville Pike and Main Street (PA 72) intersection obstructions in the system

Rapho Township stream and street flooding caused by obstructions within the waterways

Upper Leacock Township critical stream and street flooding, soil wash off, and stormwater pollution problems more than once a year

Road closures Snake Rill Road at Conestoga River; Mondale Road at Conestoga River; Creek Hill and Hartman Station Roads (soil wash off)

Warwick Township stream flooding more than once a year

Lititz Run Road culvert flooding across cartway

Millport Road Bridge flooding across cartway

West Cocalico Township

Confluence of Cocalico Creek and Hickory Road flooding occurs more than 10 times per year, caused by undersized drainage system, obstructions in system, and lack of maintenance of drainage ways; road is too low in relation to the pipe under the road

Confluence of Cocalico Creek and bridge over Pineview Drive flooding occurs during major events, caused by undersized drainage system; bridge approach is low

Confluence of Trout Run Creek and Hackman Road flooding occurs during major events, caused by too large an increase in uncontrolled runoff dangerous in major events

Sportsman Road and Cocalico Creek

West Earl Township Critical stream and street flooding, and soil wash off problems more than once a year; results in loss of life, loss of vital services, private and public property damage

Cabin Road; North Farmersville Road; Turtle Road (100 Block); South State Street, Talmage;

West side of Lampeter Road between Wiker and Plymouth Avenue major flooding more

than once a year

Mitigation Strategies for Consideration

Lancaster County Hazard Mitigation Plan 1

Please provide the following information for the update of actions and initiatives for your mitigation strategy. Suggested actions have been developed based on an analysis of Lancaster County’s needs and capabilities or were carried over from the previous hazard mitigation plan (HMP) update. If questions do not apply to your municipality, please indicate with N/A.

Please provide as much detail as possible so that mitigation actions can be expanded and customized for your municipality to accurately reflect your capabilities and methods of operation.

1. Which properties in your jurisdiction are most at-risk to flood events and would have the greatest need for retrofitting or other flood hazard mitigation measures? All repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties should be included. Specific property addresses do not need to be listed, (to ensure residential privacy) but names of streets or neighborhoods can be included.

2. What public outreach and education actions would you be most interested in implementing? A. Provide general natural hazard risk preparedness and mitigation and related National

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) information in regular newsletters and mailings.

B. Provide natural hazard risk and risk reduction information through social media channels

and e-mail blast systems.

C. Post flyers and other readily available NFIP informational materials at municipal hall or

distribute at regular civic meetings.

D. Develop/maintain a natural hazard risk management webpage on the municipal website

where information and mapping can be posted.

E. Encourage regular offerings of the American Red Cross Citizen’s Disaster Course and

other relevant classes.

F. Encourage private business owners and managers of infrastructure that provide critical

services in post-disaster situations to develop Continuity of Operations Plans or Business

Continuity Plans.

G. Enhance public outreach to residents in NFIP floodplain areas to inform them of annual

grant opportunities, which may include distributing periodic articles and including

handouts in the annual newsletter.

H. Other:

3. Which critical facilities still need or would benefit from a backup generator or redundant power supply?

Mitigation Strategies for Consideration

Lancaster County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2

4. Which roads would benefit from mitigation or structural projects to reduce vulnerability to hazardous materials (HazMat) incidents? Also, please specify the types of projects that would most help a high-risk road (for example, lower speed limits), if this information is available.

5. Which roads would benefit from mitigation or structural projects to reduce vulnerability to flood or stormwater incidents? Also, please specify the types of projects that would most help a high-risk road (for example, new/expanded culvert, road elevation, repaving, etc.), if this information is available.

6. What areas in the municipality are still in need of stormwater rehabilitation and upgrades?

7. What other roads in the municipality are considered high-risk and would benefit from improved design, routing, and traffic control functions? Which hazards (if any) are these roads most vulnerable to?

Hazards being profiled in the HMP are drought, earthquake, flood, hailstorm, invasive species, pandemic disease, radon exposure, subsidence and sinkholes, tornado and windstorms, wildfires, winter storms, dam failures, environmental hazards (hazmat), nuclear incident, transportation accidents, and utility interruptions.

8. What other mitigation projects are you interested in or targeting for completion during the next 5 years? Please provide as much detail as possible.

Mitigation Action Worksheet

Municipality(ies): Action

Action Number:

Location (address, lat/long)

Mitigation Technique Category

Hazard(s) Addressed

Priority (High, Medium, Low)

Estimated Cost

Potential Funding Streams

Timeline

Lead Agency/Department

Support Agency(ies)/

Department(s)

Project Point of Contact

Name

Title

Agency/Department

Phone

E-mail

Mitigation Technique Category

• Local Plans and Regulations (LPR) – These actions include government authorities, policies, or codes that

influence the way land and buildings are being developed and built.

• Structure and Infrastructure Project (SIP) – These actions involve (1) modifying existing structures and

infrastructure to protect them from a hazard, or (2) removing them from a hazard area. This could apply to

public or private structures as well as critical facilities and infrastructure. This type of action also includes

projects to construct manmade structures to reduce the impact of hazards.

• Natural Systems Protection (NSP) – These are actions that minimize damage and losses, and preserve or

restore the functions of natural systems.

• Education and Awareness Programs (EAP) – These are actions to inform and educate citizens, elected

officials, and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. These actions may also

include participation in national programs, such as StormReady and Firewise Communities.

Costs:

If an estimated cost is known, please provide or use the following ranges:

Low = < $10,000 Medium = $10,000 to $100,000 High = > $100,000

If costs have not been estimated, please use the following categories:

Low Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of, an existing on-

going program.

Medium Could budget for under existing work plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget

or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years.

High Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee

increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the

proposed project.

Timeline: Short = 1 to 5 years Long-Term = 5 years or greater

OG = On-going program DOF = Depending on funding

Lancaster HMP Mit Sol Wkshp 030718...

Documents

Transcript of Lancaster HMP Mit Sol Wkshp 030718...