Olive Flood Advisory Committee Meeting Notes

November 29, 2016

Olive Town Meeting Hall, Shokan, NY

6:00pm-9:00pm

In attendance,

Sylvia Rozzelle, Town of Olive Supervisor

Scott Kelder, Olive Town Board member

George Fowler, Woidt Engineering and Consulting

Aaron Bennett, Ulster County Department of the Environment

Phil Eskeli, NYC Department of Environmental Protection

Adam Doan, Ulster County Soil and Water Conservation District

Leslie Zucker, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Ulster County

Brent Gotsch, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Ulster County

John Mathiesen, Catskill Watershed Corporation

Wally John, Olive FAC Member

Jody Hoyt, Olive FAC Member

Heather Gierloff, Olive FAC Member

Drew Boggess, Olive FAC Member & Olive Town Board Member

Nicholas Burgher, Olive FAC Member

Judy Coutinho, Olive FAC Member

Ed Kahil, Olive FAC Member

Andrew Emrich, Olive FAC Member

John Ingram, Town of Olive Building Department

Dom Covello, Town of Olive Building Department

May McNamara, Lower Esopus Watershed Partnership

Mike Bernholz, Resident

1 George Fowler of Woidt Engineering and Consulting (WEC) attended the meeting to answer questions about the draft plan that members of the Olive Flood Advisory Committee (Olive FAC) had.

George F. reported that the LFA process for the Town was nearing completion and that depending on how many comments/extra items the Town required a final report should be completed by early 2017.

Sylvia R. requested that the next iteration of the document contain page numbers as it is difficult to find and reference information without them.

Table 5 Priority Metrics for Mitigation Solutions Discussion:

George F. explained how the various proposed mitigation solutions (or plans) in the LFA document were measured given six priority metrics (BCR, Water Quality, Community Cohesion Preservation, Ease of Permitting, Economic Impact, Ease to Acquire Funding). The metrics were each scored either a 1 (low), 3 (moderate), or 5 (high), therefore a maximum score for a potential mitigation solution would be a 30.

Some members of the Olive FAC were concerned about one of the metrics that included “community support and agreement” language. They wondered if this was the appropriate place to bring up this information. Sylvia R explained that the Olive FAC would provide recommendations to the Olive Town Board but ultimately it would be a Town Board decision on what projects to pursue.

It was suggested that in the “Water Quality” metric a reference be made to include private wells too.

Sylvia R recommended that consideration should be given to the need to acquire easements, possibly adding it to the “Ease of Obtaining Permits” metric. She also suggested that consideration be given, perhaps under the “Economic Impact” metric, to account for the negative economic impact to resident taxpayers, if for example, property tax increases would be a likely source of funding for a proposed mitigation solution. Because of the amount of time and effort associated with obtaining permits, easements, and other work, it was suggested a row for “Town Effort” be added to the priority metrics.

There was discussion about the “Ease of Obtaining Permits” metric and questions about how easy it truly was to obtain various permits. These of course all depend on the size and scale of the project, the disturbance area, and where the work is being done (such as in the stream bed or up on the floodplain). A discussion on the various types of permits likely needed for several of the proposed mitigation solutions occurred.

Detailed Discussion and Review of Costs/Benefits/Feasibility

Plan #9—Flood Levee Protection System

Sylvia R. reported that at the last Town Board meeting, which included property and business owners from Boiceville, most, if not all expressed interest in participating in a straight buyout, and not a relocation. Many of the business owners are at or nearing retirement age and no longer want to operate their businesses. Those that are currently for sale are having a difficult time selling because of their location in the flood zone and the rising flood insurance rates.

2 George F clarified that both purchasing the property and the demolition of the structures was included in the cost calculations, however the FAC pointed out several instances of inconsistencies, such as where the mitigation solution only included one building (B14) when the cost/benefits should have included a second building (B15) as well. Cost of purchasing, razing and removal of these two buildings should be included. It was requested that a specific line item for design and engineering be added to the BCA for each of the proposed mitigation solutions, as appropriate, particularly Plan 9.

There was a question and then a discussion about the cost of the earthen berm (Plan 9) that is proposed as a mitigation solution in the LFA. George F. stated that the cost figure he included is a standard linear foot estimate for these types of berms, which is a FEMA provided figure. He noted there are also compaction standards and other FEMA regulations that need to be adhered to when building a certified berm/levee.

It was determined, as noted in the LFA document, that it is not feasible to build a berm to the 500-year flood standard in this location. Plan 9, as proposed, is built to the 100-year, plus 3 feet of freeboard, elevation. Sylvia R. stated due to climate extremes State reps have stated the 100 yr. flood event is becoming the 50 yr. and the 500 yr. is becoming the 100yr. If a levee is built to 100 yr. nothing prevents ten years from now it be considered obsolete.

Plan 9 uses the fill on which the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located as part of the berm/levee. Town Board members and the engineer who designed the WWTP are concerned about erosion and request a geotechnical engineer be utilized to determine ways to protect the fill on which the plant is constructed. George F. offered alternate placement of the berm on the Route 28 side of the WWTP. There was a lengthy discussion about the precise footprint that the berm would take around the WWTP. The FAC also discussed how the water surface elevations might vary at certain locations depending on where the berm would ultimately be located in this study.

There were several specific questions about how a berm/levee becomes accredited. George F. explained that there are design standards that need to be met, operations and maintenance agreements that need to be signed, HEC-RAS files that need to be reviewed, and a host of other items that need to be verified. Inspections would need to take place annually, as well as after “significant” rain events. FEMA has a new set of standards for accrediting levees and this is new territory for many. Therefore, it remains unknown precisely how difficult or time consuming the process can be; however the FAC requested George F. continue to compile this additional information and include in the BCA so as to provide the Town with as much accurate information as possible.

At the meeting, it was determined that part of the proposed berm would likely have to be constructed on NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) property. Phil E. stated that would be a question for DEP’s Land Acquisition and Legal staff to determine. In addition, Sylvia R. reported that FEMA bought-out the Trail Motel property and will be demolishing it. Therefore, the parcel will be returned to open space. The alternate proposal for the berm as introduced by George F. would have to be placed on that property. FEMA easements typically preclude such structures being built in the future.

Plan #12—Comprehensive Planning to Identity New Developable Land and Zoning Changes

Sylvia R. stated that the idea of a Town-wide comprehensive plan is controversial and requested that different wording other than “comprehensive” be used. Sylvia R also reported that once the LFA is

3 completed, the Town is expecting to get approval for a $20,000 grant they submitted to the Catskill Watershed Corporation in September. The grant is aimed at hiring a consultant to begin some of the zoning re-districting that the Town has been talking about for some time, and has been identified as a proposed mitigation solution in this LFA. Heather G suggested that the $20,000 cost and a narrative talking about the Plan, be separated out a bit in the LFA document from the planned relocations, which are the real proposed mitigation solutions that have a BCA associated with the activity.

Sylvia R also stated that she was having conservations with DEP about doing a potential land swap with them (exchanging upland DEP property for the current DEP land leased to the Olive Fire Department which is in the floodplain). However, since Jeff Graf (the individual at DEP she was having discussions with) retired those conversations have come to a halt. Phil E. responded that there may be some possibilities for land swaps; however, there are a lot of players and moving pieces associated with this. Several State and Federal agencies, such as NYS Department of Health, in addition to environmental groups also would be involved, as they are signatories to the Watershed MOA and issue the City’s Filtration Avoidance Determination.

Several of the FAC members identified the need to have George F conduct further benefit-cost analysis work on this proposed plan as well. Andrew E gave an example of how the costs for extending wastewater infrastructure east or west from Boiceville to accommodate new or relocated businesses, for example, should be included in the BCA. Additionally the purchase price of vacant parcels would also have to be included.

Plan #13—Structural Improvements of Qualified Buildings

It was suggested that the building (old Singer Denman) across from the Boiceville Supermarket could be wet flood-proofed. This would essentially make the bottom portion of the building usable only for parking but would lower flood insurance premiums on the structure overall and the upper portion of the building could still be utilized for business relocations, perhaps.

A question was raised whether or not the cost (or lack thereof) of having flood insurance could be used in the BCA. George F indicated unfortunately it is not an allowable cost/benefit. It was reported that the Upper Boiceville Road box culvert received funding from AWSMP for design and engineering. Ultimately it will be upgraded and replaced. This is a high priority as Upper Boiceville Road is the only detour around the Boiceville area if Route 28 floods.

Next Steps

George F. said that he would incorporate comments from tonight’s meeting into the next iteration of the LFA. He would update the report and redistribute. It should be completed by the end of December 2016.

Aaron B indicated he would share the FAC’s comments on Appendix A and Appendix B via Dropbox. These are primarily spelling errors, mis-labeling, etc. The most substantive comment that may need to be addressed in both Boiceville and West Shokan pertains to the extent of the 10% annual risk flood.

The outcome of the report and its priority projects and recommendations would need to be presented to the Olive Town Board. Sylvia R. proposed that the Olive FAC meet with the Olive Town Board after the

4 FAC has had time to review the revised LFA document. George F indicated that a final LFA and town flood hazard mitigation plan could be completed by April 2017.

Sylvia R. also stated that the Olive FAC is invited to hear a presentation from Barton and Loguidice (a consulting firm) to hear a final report on the Maltby Hollow Stream Feature Inventory and Bank Erosion Assessment conducted in 2016. This presentation is scheduled for December 19, 2016 at 6pm in the Town Meeting Hall.