Hazard Mitigation Plan for the
Bennington Region, Vermont
(Multi-Jurisdictional)
Prepared by:
The Bennington County Regional Commission
2004-2005
Acknowledgements
This project was funded through a grant program known as Pre-Disaster Mitigation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), administered by Vermont Emergency Management. The Bennington County Regional Commission applied for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation funds to develop this Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Bennington Region.
A special “thank you” to Town and Village staff and officials, Addison County Regional Planning Commission, National Weather Service, Vermont State Climatologist, Vermont Emergency Management, Vermont State Police, Vermont State Fire Marshal, Vermont Agency of Transportation, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Vermont Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Local Emergency Planning Committee District #7, Bennington County Regional Commission staff, as well as others that were instrumental in supplying information needed for this plan.
Table of Contents
Introduction & Purpose 5
State Hazard Mitigation Goals 7
Bennington County Hazard Mitigation Goals 23
List of Participants 27
Community Questionnaire & Hazard Inventory 29
Vermont’s Natural Hazards: History 31
Vermont Hazard Inventory & Risk Assessment 47
Bennington County Hazard Inventory & Risk Assessment 50
Significant Hazards 53
Flood/Flash Flood 54
Hazardous Materials 58
Structure Fire 60
Winter Storm 62
High Winds 64
Earthquake 66
Landslide/Erosion/Avalanche 67
Terrorism 68
Drought/Wildfire 70
Significant Hazards Maps 71
Vulnerability Analysis 76
HAZUS Assessment for Bennington County (See Insert) 77
County Level Maps Critical Facilities Map (See Insert) 78
Flooding Summary Map (See Insert) 79
Bridge & Dam Location Map (See Insert) 80
Land Use Map (See Insert) 81
Watersheds Map (See Insert) 82
Traffic Flow Map (See Insert) 83
Mitigation Initiatives 84
BCRC Policies Supporting Hazard Mitigation 93
Mitigation Strategies 94
Mitigation Measures by Hazard Type 103
Landslide and Fluvial Erosion Hazards 115
Potential Funding Sources by Hazard 119
Plan Approval Maintenance Procedures 136
Community Hazard Mitigation Project Application Process 138
Project Application Form (Non-Electronic) 139
Community Annexes 143
Annex A (Arlington) 144
Annex B (Bennington) 149
Annex C (Dorset) 154
Annex D (Landgrove) 159
Annex E (Manchester) 163
Annex F (North Bennington) 168
Annex G (Peru) 173
Annex H (Pownal) 177
Annex I (Rupert) 182
Annex J (Sandgate) 187
Annex K (Shaftsbury) 191
Glossary of Terms 197
Library 210
Acronyms and Abbreviations 218
Introduction
Background
This plan is an All-Hazards Mitigation Plan for the Bennington region with annexes for each community within the jurisdiction of the Bennington County Regional Commission (BCRC).
The impact of expected yet unpredictable natural and human-caused events can be reduced through community planning. The goal of this plan is to provide an all-hazards local mitigation plan to be used to make the communities of the Bennington region more disaster resistant.
Hazard Mitigation is any sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from natural and human-caused hazards and their effects. Based on the results of previous efforts, FEMA and state agencies have come to recognize that it is less expensive to prevent disasters than to repeatedly repair damage after a disaster has struck. This plan recognizes that communities have opportunities to identify mitigation strategies and measures during all of the other phases of Emergency Management – Preparedness, Response and Recovery. Hazards cannot be eliminated, but it is possible to determine what the hazards are, where the hazards are most severe and identify local actions that can be taken to avoid exposure to or otherwise reduce the severity of the hazard.
Additionally, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) establishes a national program for Pre-Disaster Mitigation which includes mitigation planning and eligibility requirements for state and local governments. The Act is aimed at reducing loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption and disaster costs. High priority should be given to mitigation of hazards at the local level with increased emphasis on assessment and avoidance of identified risks, implementing loss reduction measures for existing exposures and ensuring critical services/facilities survive a disaster.
Hazard Mitigations Strategies and Measures avoid the hazard by stopping or limiting new exposures in known hazard areas, alter the hazard by eliminating or reducing the frequency of occurrence, avert the hazard by redirecting the impact by means of a structure or land treatment, adapt to the hazard by modifying structures or standards or and could include projects such as:
a. Flood-proofing structures
b. Purchase of development rights in hazard prone areas
c. Tying down propane/fuel tanks in flood-prone areas
d. Elevating furnaces and water heaters
e. Identifying & modifying high traffic incident locations and routes
f. Ensuring adequate water supply
g. Elevating structures or utilities above flood levels
h. Identifying & upgrading undersized culverts
i. Proactive land use planning for floodplains and other flood & erosion-prone areas
j. Proper road maintenance and construction
k. Ensuring critical facilities are safely located
l. Buyout & relocation of structures in harms way
m. Establish & enforce appropriate building codes
n. Public information
Purpose
The purpose of this Hazard Mitigation Plan is to assist local governments in identifying all hazards facing the county and their community. It also identifies and outlines strategies to begin reducing risks from those identified hazards through avoidance and other protective measures.
Planning Process
The approach followed the Hazard Mitigation protocol established by FEMA for the conduct of this study according to the following plan:
a. Gather initial available data & conduct interviews
b. Gather additional relevant data
c. Analyze interview information and all pertinent data gathered according to FEMA Hazard Analysis Protocol
d. Produce Draft report w/recommendations & supporting data
e. Obtain feedback from BCRC, Towns, and LEPC #7
f. Present Findings and Submit Final Report
During the conduct of the study, we followed these steps in the Hazards Inventory/Risk Analysis:
1. Determine past hazards
2. Determine possible future hazards
3. Determine likely hazards
- Determine community vulnerability (Human & Economic) for each hazard. Each identified hazard was analyzed with respect to the following criteria:
a. Probability of occurrence
b. Effect of the potential disaster on people and property
c. Predictability of the hazard
d. Frequency of occurrence
e. Speed of onset of the potential disaster
f. Duration of the disaster
g. Scope and intensity of the potential disaster
h. Controllability of the incident
i. Protective Action Options
- Determine any in-place or planned hazard reduction or mitigation efforts.
6. Make recommendations.
7. Protective action options
Public Involvement
During the plan development process, representatives from the 17 communities in the Bennington region were consulted. In most cases, information was obtained from the community emergency management director, Select Board Chair, Town Manager, Fire Chief, Road Foreman, or Public Works Director. The complete list of participants by position is included in this plan.
During the development process, the draft Plan was presented and reviewed by the Local Emergency Planning Committee, District #7 (LEPC) on December 16, 2003. The minutes of the meeting are available through the Emergency Management Planner at the BCRC. A list of LEPC members is included in the section titled List of Participants. Input into the Plan was obtained from the LEPC Subcommittee and Subgroups during the development process. All meetings of the LEPC and its Subcommittees are public meetings, and are adequately warned at least 15 days in advance of a meeting. All public meetings are advertised via email to over 150 recipients (including businesses and neighboring communities), and via regular mail to every town within the jurisdiction, in addition to being advertised in the local newspaper. Documentation of meetings is included in the “Participants” section of this plan. Town and Village Officials worked with the BCRC on local annexes to the Plan. Continuing public involvement in the approval, adoption and review/update of the plan is contained in Section 4.
State Hazard Mitigation Goals
Goal 1. Avoidance of Hazards
Rationale
Alternative hazard mitigation strategies can be categorized under two basic approaches: 1) avoidance, or 2) removal, retrofit, restoration or stabilization. Of these two approaches, avoidance is by far the most cost effective. Implementation mechanisms are typically relatively inexpensive in comparison to the removal, retrofit, or protection of threatened or damaged infrastructure investments.
The benefits achievable utilizing an avoidance approach are particularly significant in areas where existing planning, design, funding, or regulatory mechanisms inadequately address hazard exposure. The economic impact of future disaster losses associated with existing patterns guiding development far outweigh the mitigation gains being achieved through retrofit approaches (approach 2). In other words, if we do not set priority on avoidance/prevention (approach 1), in the long term we may face even greater repair and replacement costs.
Policy Objective 1
Integrate hazard avoidance strategies for at-risk property and infrastructures into state, local and regional development plans, land use plans, regulations and projects.
Recommended Mitigation Actions & Activities
· To the extent possible, create grant and loan priority incentives to ensure that all new construction takes place outside of designated flood plain, fluvial erosion hazard, and repetitive loss areas.
o Responsible Agencies/Dept.: ANR, VHCB, DHCA, B&GS, VTRANS
o Priority Status/Timeframe: Medium
o Current Or Potential Funding Sources: CDBG Grants, Municipal Planning Grants; Housing & Conservation Fund Grants, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, Engineering grants and Engineering Planning Advances; Vermont Watershed Grants, Emergency Relief and Assistance Fund payments, VTRANS, B&GS, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants, FMA Grants, and other sources which have yet to be finalized.
· Ensure that proposed environmental and development legislation initiatives are in accordance with the State Mitigation Plan.
o Responsible Agencies/Departments: ANR, VEM, VHCB, DHCA, B&GS, VTRANS
o Priority Status/Timeframe: Medium
o Current &/Or Potential Funding Sources: Existing FTE Resources
· Integrate state/local mitigation planning by coordinating VEM and RPC planning efforts
o Responsible Agencies/Departments: VEM, RPCs
o Priority Status/Timeframe: Medium
o Current &/Or Potential Funding Sources: EMPG Grants
Goal 2: Prioritize Public Safety
Rationale
Of all types of natural hazards experienced in Vermont, flash flooding represents the most frequent disaster mode and has resulted in by far the greatest magnitude of damage suffered by private property and public infrastructure. There is no reason to expect this to change within the foreseeable future.
Landslide failures endangering residential or commercial property or municipal infrastructure, while less common, represent another significant natural hazard to public safety that has received little attention in the past but is now becoming more prevalent as development encroaches into more unstable areas.
While inundation-related flood loss is a significant component of flood disasters, the predominant mode of damage is associated with the dynamic, and oftentimes catastrophic, physical adjustment of stream channel dimensions and location during storm events due to bed and bank erosion, debris and ice jams, structural failures, flow diversion, or flow modification by man-made structures. Channel adjustments with devastating consequences have frequently been documented wherein such adjustments are linked to historic channel management activities, flood plain encroachments, adjacent land use practices and/or changes in watershed hydrology associated with conversion of land cover and drainage activities.
The same context applies to landslide erosion hazards (which may or may not be associated with fluvial processes) in that identification of hazard areas and avoidance of incompatible investments in such areas is much more cost effective than post-development embankment stabilization or removal of threatened structures.
In the prioritization, alternatives evaluation, and implementation phase of any flood hazard mitigation project, an adequate technical understanding of the fluvial processes governing river behavior is imperative. In addition, this geomorphic information is essential to support the development and implementation of any river corridor protection, management or restoration plan, mechanism, or project. Ultimately, recognition and accommodation of fluvial and, in the case of landslide hazards, geo-technical processes will be critical to successful achievement of project objectives. This is true whether they fall within the avoidance or retrofit mode.
Policy Objective 2: Prioritize Identified High Risk/Highly Vulnerable Areas
Implement a Landslide and Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment and Mapping Program at the regional or watershed level according to assessment protocols and mapping methodologies published by the VT Department of Environmental Conservation, River Management Program and the VT Geological Survey
Other known scientific assessment tools and protocols for other hazard types, e.g. HAZUS MH, can be used to determine high risk, highly vulnerable areas or areas which have already experienced repetitive loss. HAZUS MH projections for wind and flood damage are included within this State Plan (See Appendix L).
Recommended Mitigation Actions & Activities
· Conduct technical assessments guided by the data outputs of the fluvial geomorphic and landslides assessment and mapping process.
o Responsible Agencies/Departments: ANR
o Current or Potential Funding Sources: Existing FTE’s within River Management Program and State Geologist Office, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants, Clean & Clear Water Initiative Funding (State General Fund).
o Priority Status/Timeframe: High
· Fund local or regional flood hazard mitigation planning activities, adoption of riparian corridor protection mechanisms and/or management strategies through state grant programs.
o Responsible Agencies/Departments: ANR, VEM, DHCA
o Current or Potential Funding Sources: Municipal Planning Grants; Vermont Watershed Grants, HMGP, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants
o Priority Status/Timeframe: Medium
· Utilize Regional Planning Commissions and the VT Department of Agriculture to assist in coordinating flood hazard mitigation efforts and adoption of riparian corridor protection mechanisms.
o Responsible Agencies/Departments: RPCs, VT Dept. of Agriculture, ANR
o Current or Potential Funding Sources: Municipal Planning Grants; Vermont Watershed Grants, HMGP, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grants
o Priority Status/Timeframe: Medium
· Use risk and vulnerability data as the basis for developing action plans (utilizing avoidance strategies whenever possible) and establishment of funding priorities. Incorporate these into project selection criteria and use weighted ranking for PDM and HMGP applications.