Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTompkins County All Hazard Mitigation Plan 01-16-14 MM" MOOMMMW IrO PKINS COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN : 2013 UPDATE u( � ,�✓ r U � S5!. VIII III '"' i �ti yq i pu�ll�Y�� , r 1 f « r r w ® r T mIp loinso York ui � f This Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update has been completed by Barton & Loguidice, P.C., under the direction and support of the Tompkins County Planning Department. All jurisdictions within the County participated in this update process. A special thanks to the representatives and various project team members, whose countless time and effort on this project was instrumental in putting together a concise and meaningful document. Tompkins County Planning Department 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response Emergency Response Center 92 Brown Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents Section Page ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................3 1.1 Background..............................................................................................................3 1.2 Plan Purpose.............................................................................................................4 1.3 Planning Participants ...............................................................................................6 1.4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process........................................................................8 2.0 Tompkins County Profile..................................................................................................9 2.1 Geographic Location................................................................................................9 2.2 Climate Change in Tompkins County....................................................................10 2.3 Historical Overview...............................................................................................12 2.4 Demographics ........................................................................................................13 2.5 Land Use................................................................................................................15 2.6 Economic Characteristics and Employment..........................................................18 2.7 Transportation........................................................................................................19 2.8 Critical Community Facilities................................................................................21 2.9 Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response.......................................21 3.0 Planning Process ..............................................................................................................22 3.1 Resources and Information Collection...................................................................22 3.1.1 Planning Mechanisms and Capabilities .....................................................22 3.2 Planning Team and Technical Committee.............................................................25 3.3 Jurisdiction Participation .......................................................................................25 3.4 Public Participation................................................................................................26 3.5 Coordination with Agencies ..................................................................................26 4.0 Risk Assessment...............................................................................................................28 4.1 Framing the Risk Assessment Using HIRA-NY ...................................................29 4.2 Hazard Identibcation .............................................................................................32 4.3 Results of the Tompkins County HIRA-NY..........................................................38 4.4 Presidential Disaster Declaration...........................................................................41 4.5 Natural Gas Drilling...............................................................................................42 5.0 Hazard Histories and Future Potential .........................................................................44 5.1 Natural Hazard Profiles..........................................................................................45 5.1.1 Severe Storms and Hurricane.....................................................................45 5.1.2 Flash Flood.................................................................................................48 5.1.3 Earthquake .................................................................................................52 5.1.4 Lake Flood.................................................................................................55 5.1.5 Severe Winter Storm and Ice Storm ..........................................................56 560.018.001/12.13 -1- Barton&Loguidice,P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents — Continued Section Page 5.1.6 Ice Jams......................................................................................................57 5.1.7 Landslides ..................................................................................................59 5.1.8 Drought......................................................................................................60 5.1.9 Infestation ..................................................................................................61 5.1.10 Extreme Temperatures...............................................................................66 5.1.11 Epidemic ....................................................................................................68 5.1.12 Tornado......................................................................................................69 5.2 Technological and Human-caused Hazard Profiles...............................................71 5.2.1 Transportation Accident.............................................................................71 5.2.2 Fuel Shortage .............................................................................................73 5.2.3 Fire (Urban) ...............................................................................................74 5.2.4 Utility Failure.............................................................................................75 5.2.5 Water Supply Contamination.....................................................................76 5.2.6 Hazardous Materials in Transit..................................................................78 5.2.7 Terrorism....................................................................................................79 5.2.8 Civil Unrest................................................................................................80 6.0 Hazard Vulnerability.......................................................................................................82 6.1 Identify Assets .......................................................................................................82 6.2 Damage Potential...................................................................................................82 6.3 Development Trends..............................................................................................87 6.3.1 Affordable Housing ...................................................................................88 6.3.2 Development Focus Areas.........................................................................88 7.0 Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation................................................................................89 7.1 Mitigation and Adaptation Goals...........................................................................89 7.2 Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy.......................................................................89 7.2.1 Mitigation and Adaptation Actions............................................................89 7.2.2 2006 Plan Implementation.........................................................................91 7.2.3 Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy...........................................................91 7.2.4 Mitigation and Adaptation Action Prioritization.......................................98 8.0 National Flood Insurance Program..............................................................................103 8.1 Tompkins County Flood Mapping.......................................................................103 8.2 Tompkins County NFIP Policy and Loss Statistics.............................................104 8.3 NFIP Mitigation Actions......................................................................................106 560.018.001/12.13 -ii- Barton&Loguidice,P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents - Continued Page 9.0 Plan Maintenance Process.............................................................................................108 9.1 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................................108 9.2 Plan Updating.......................................................................................................109 9.3 Local Planning Considerations ............................................................................109 9.4 Public Involvement..............................................................................................112 10.0 Works Cited....................................................................................................................113 Figures Figure 1.1 The Phases of Emergency Management..................................................................3 Figure 1.2 Participating Jurisdictions........................................................................................7 Figure 2.1 Average Annual Precipitation for New York State ...............................Appendix A Figure 2.2 Average January Temperatures for New York State.............................Appendix A Figure 2.3 Average July Temperatures for New York State...................................Appendix A Figure 2.4 Population Diversity Graph ...................................................................Appendix A Figure 2.5 Changes in Land Cover- 1969, 1995, and 2007 ..................................Appendix A Figure 2.6 Mapped Agricultural Districts within Tompkins County......................Appendix A Figure 2.7 Natural Feature and Agricultural Resources Focus Areas.....................................17 Figure 2.8 Transportation Facilities in Tompkins County......................................................20 Figure 2.9 Critical Facilities in Tompkins County..................................................Appendix A Figure 4.1 Three Phases of Risk Assessment..........................................................................28 Figure 4.2 The Risk Assessment Process................................................................................29 Figure 4.3 Tompkins County Critical Facilities......................................................Appendix A Figure 5.1 Probability for Severe Hail to Occur in the United States.....................Appendix A Figure 5.2 Wind Zones within the United States ....................................................Appendix A Figure 5.3 Number of Wind Events for Tompkins County, 1960-2012 .................................46 Figure 5.4 Shows the FEMA Floodplain Mapping for Tompkins County .............................49 Figure 5.5 Agricultural Properties that Intersect Flood Zones................................Appendix A Figure 5.6 Seismic Activity within the Northeastern U.S. and Eastern Canada, October 1975 -March 2010 ..................................................................Appendix A Figure 5.7 Peak Ground Acceleration Values for New York State.........................Appendix A Figure 5.8 Special acceleration Data for Tompkins County ...................................................53 Figure 5.9 Estimated Annual Earthquake Loss by County.....................................................54 Figure 5.10 Number of Ice Jam Incidents on New York State Rivers......................Appendix A Figure 5.11 Landslide Susceptibility within New York State...................................................60 Figure 5.12 Percentage of Ash per Total Basal per County in New York State.......................63 Figure 5.13 Emerald Ash Borer Infestation, Detection, and Quarantine Locations withinNew York State...........................................................................................64 Figure 5.14 Asian Longhorn Beetle Susceptible Areas in United States..................Appendix A Figure 5.15 Hydrilla: 2012 Herbicide Application Plan ...........................................Appendix A 560.018.001/12.13 -iii- Barton&Loguidice,P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents — Continued Figures (continued) Page Figure 5.16 Percent of Populations Most Vulnerable to Extreme Temperature Events ...........67 Figure 5.17 Tornado Activity in United States, 1950-1998......................................Appendix A Figure 5.18 Tornado Risk Areas in the Continental Unites States............................Appendix A Figure 5.19 Tornado Tracks within New York State, 1950-2005.............................................70 Figure 5.20 State Route Transportation Network in Tompkins County ...................................72 Tables Table 1 Approximate Areas for Jurisdictions Within Tompkins County.............................9 Table 2 Annual Temperature, Precipitation, and Snowfall Data Recorded Between 1951 and 2011 and Displayed as Decade Averages ..............................................11 Table 3 Tompkins County Population Data........................................................................14 Table 4 Percentage of Acreage per Jurisdiction by Land Use Categories..........................15 Table 5 Land Use and Land Cover Change in Tompkins County......................................16 Table 6 Protected Natural Areas .........................................................................................17 Table 7 Change Observed in Total Number of Jobs in Different Industries Between June 2011 and June 2012—Ithaca Metropolitan Statistical Area...........18 Table 8 Top Major Employers for Tompkins County—2006 ............................................18 Table 9 Economic Characteristics of Tompkins County, 2006-2010.................Appendix A Table 10 Airport Facilities Located Within Tompkins County............................Appendix A Table 11 Planning Mechanisms and Capabilities for Each Participating Jurisdiction .........23 Table 12 Tompkins County Risk Assessment Hazard Rankings..........................................39 Table 13 HIRA-NY Risk Assessment Rating Characteristics..............................................40 Table 14 Primary Hazards Determined to Affect Tompkins County ...................................44 Table 15 Hazards Identified as Having the Potential to be Impacted by Climate Change...45 Table 16 NOAA NCDC Query Results: Severe Storm Events ............................Appendix A Table 17 Tompkins County Flash Flood Events between October 2005 and October2012..........................................................................................................50 Table 18 NFIP Flood Damage Data for Tompkins County..................................Appendix A Table 19 Richter Magnitude Scale and Mercalli Intensity Scale Ratings.............................52 Table 20 NOAA NCDC Query Results: Severe Winter Storms...........................Appendix A Table 21 Ice Jam Database Events in Tompkins County......................................Appendix A Table 22 Enhanced F-scale System to Rate Tornado Events................................Appendix A Table 23 Historic Tornado Events for Tompkins County.....................................................69 Table24 Housing Types .......................................................................................................83 Table25 Age of Structures ...................................................................................................84 Table26 Housing Values......................................................................................................84 Table 27 Natural Hazards: Range of Potential Damages ($)to Vulnerable Structures in Tompkins County.............................................................................86 560.018.001/12.13 -iv- Barton&Loguidice,P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents — Continued Tables (continued) Page Table 28 Estimated Property Values of Lands within Tompkins County ............Appendix A Table 29 Individual Municipality Mitigation Action Strategies...........................................92 Table 30 Status and Details of 2006 HMP Mitigation Actions ............................Appendix A Table 31 Benefit and Cost Prioritization Rankings ..............................................................98 Table 32 HIGH PRIORITY Multi-Jurisdictional Action Strategies...................................100 Table 33 Additional Mitigation Action Strategies —Lower Priority....................Appendix A Table 34 Total Parcels Mapped in 100- and 500-Year Floodplains by Jurisdiction...........104 Table 35 NFIP Policy Statistics, Snapshot as of August 31, 2012 .....................................105 Table 36 NFIP Loss Statistics, as of August 31, 2012 for Losses Incurred Since January1, 1978....................................................................................................106 Table 37 Planning Mechanism Incorporation.....................................................................111 Appendices Appendix A Additional Figures and Tables Appendix B Tompkins County Historical Information Appendix C Hazard Mitigation Plan Implementation Committee meeting notes —2007 & 2008 Appendix D Website Links to Tompkins County Planning Resources Appendix E Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Process Meeting Timeline and Attendees Appendix F Plan Adoption Resolution and Sample Resolution Appendix G Tompkins County Critical Facilities List Appendix H Tompkins County Transportation Infrastructure with Reoccurring Flooding Issues Appendix I Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Process Checklist 560.018.001/12.13 -v- Barton&Loguidice,P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Executive Summary To collectively reduce Tompkins County's hazard risk, each of the 17 jurisdictions in the County worked together in producing this update to the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All- Hazard Mitigation Plan. The initial mitigation plan was finalized and approved by FEMA in 2006. Having a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan allows communities to be eligible for federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazard mitigation is broadly defined as a method for reducing or alleviating losses prior to a hazard event. Mitigation should not be confused with the other distinctly different phases of emergency management which include preparedness, response, and recovery. This Plan includes aspects of each of these other phases, though its focus is on mitigation. There are several aspects of the update which differ from the 2006 Plan. For one, the previous Plan involved just a little over half of the County's jurisdictions, whereas the update includes all 17 jurisdictions. Also, the 2006 Plan analyzed risks associated with just 12 hazards; the Plan update examines 22. The most significant new aspect of the Plan update includes the examination of future hazard risks, specifically as related to climate change and future potential of horizontal hydraulic fractured gas drilling. The 22 hazards identified were examined based on scope, cascading effect, frequency of occurrence, time of onset, duration and recovery time. A group of community stakeholders utilized these criteria in examining the hazard's relative risk to Tompkins County. Those hazards identified by the group as highest risk were transportation accidents, severe storms, flash floods, and infestations. Infestations are events characterized as an excessive population of plants, insects, rodents, or other animals requiring control measures due to their potential to carry diseases, destroy crops, or harm the environment. The recent regional issues surrounding invasive forest pests and the aquatic invasive, hydrilla, have elevated this hazard risk. In further examining these hazards, both history and future potential for occurrence were examined. As an example, flash floods, which were distinguished from lake floods, have occurred 24 times over the last 19 years. This flooding has largely occurred within the nearly 10,000 acres of mapped floodplain. The total reported countywide annual losses associated with flash floods are nearly $47,000. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)'s C1imAid technical report projects that average annual precipitation is projected to increase by up to 5%by the 2020s, 10%by the 2050s and up to 15 percent by the 2080s. These increases would surely affect the frequency and severity of flash flooding events in Tompkins County. Recognizing that hazard risk does not respect political boundaries, every Town, City and Village, along with Tompkins County,participated in the Plan update. To assist in guiding the update, a Project Team was established and represented by at least one municipal representative from each participating jurisdiction. The team was responsible for assisting in data collection, document review, and coordination efforts. Additionally, a Technical Committee was established. The Technical Committee includes researchers,practitioners, and others, whose task is to aid in guiding and revising the plan based on their various interests and areas of expertise. 560.018.001/12.13 -1 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan The Plan's Project Team identified a number of actions designed to reduce community risk associated with the identified hazards. The proposed actions are varied, but can be grouped into the following six broad categories: prevention,property protection,public education and awareness, natural resource protection, emergency services, and structural projects. Each jurisdiction identified actions pertinent to their specific communities' as well multi jurisdictional actions. Actions were evaluated based on an initial evaluation of costs and benefits. Of the multi jurisdictional actions, 15 were noted as high priority requiring implementation over the next five years. High priority actions that were identified include developing a countywide debris management plan, updating the County's flood insurance rate maps, and conducting annual climate science outreach to municipalities and large institutions. The Plan is designed to be easily updated and implementable. As identified in the Plan Maintenance Section (Section 9.0), the Plan will be evaluated annually by an Implementation Committee which is made up of the participating jurisdictions. The Committee will evaluate a number of aspects related to the Plan, including any issues associated with the implementation of the priority actions. The Plan update provides the jurisdictions of Tompkins County a path toward a future in which the risks associated with natural, technological and man-made hazards can be collectively reduced. 560.018.001/12.13 -2- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background What is a Hazard? A hazard is defined as a situation which poses a level of threat to life, health,property, and/or the environment. A hazard can be natural, technological or human-caused. What is Hazard Mitigation? Hazard mitigation is broadly defined as a method for reducing or alleviating property loss, reducing damage to the environment, and reducing the number and severity of injuries that occur from hazard events through long and short-term strategies. Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures runs community wide from individuals to industries,private business and all levels of government. Hazard Mitigation and the Other Phases of Emergency Management Hazard mitigation is often considered just one of four phases of emergency management. The other phases include preparedness, response and recovery. Each of these phases relate to and rely upon each other, as illustrated by Figure L L Figure 1.1 —The Phases of Emergency Management Emerqerf.y int,N, _pt. 157. �.. '� til i uuuuum ulll I i i uuuuuVlll I�I I � ISI ISI ISI ol` The overarching goal of all of these emergency management activities is the prevention or minimizing of loss of life and property in disaster situations. The Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response (DOER) serves as the lead local agency in promoting this goal. DOER's responsibilities include: • Provision of public preparedness information, including sharing of such information with citizens, the private sector, municipalities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 560.018.001/12.13 -3- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan • Participate in planning activities of many types and at many levels (keeper of the County's Comprehensive Emergency Plan)in partnership with other agencies involved in emergency responses ... authoring After Action Reports/Improvement Plans that identify best practices as well as areas for improvement. • Coordination of fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)responses within the County • 911 Center Operations (Public Safety); communications systems • Liaison to State and Federal resources in times of disasters • Operation of the County's Emergency Operations Center during the time of a disaster/emergency; and • Coordination of recovery efforts after a disaster and liaison with State and Federal agencies involved in this process. It is important to note that this plan relates to several of these emergency management phases, though its focus is mitigation. FEMA and Hazard Mitigation The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)provides assistance through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to local governments that are recovering from a hazard event. The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000)recognized the importance and cost-effectiveness of mitigation in specifying that local governments must have a FEMA approved natural hazard mitigation plan in order to be eligible for mitigation project funding. DMA 2000 encourages and rewards local and state pre-disaster planning,promotes conservation and sustainability, and seeks to integrate state and local planning with an overall goal of strengthening statewide hazard mitigation planning. As of November 1, 2004, all local governments were required to have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan to receive funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for specified mitigation projects. Tompkins County was awarded a pre-disaster mitigation grant to update their 2006 Multi- Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan in order to maintain this eligibility. 1.2 Plan Purpose Why Develop a Hazard Mitigation Plan? The purpose of this Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is to effectively reduce future disaster damages,public expenditure,private losses, and community hazard vulnerability. This plan update provides an opportunity for Tompkins County and its municipalities to develop a comprehensive risk assessment and to outline proposed mitigation actions to minimize the costs and impacts of future disaster events. The intention of this plan update is to meet the New York State and federal hazard mitigation planning requirements established and managed by the New York State Office of Emergency 560.018.001/12.13 -4- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Management(NYS OEM) and FEMA. Jurisdictions that are participating in this plan update will benefit from the planning and implementation of the mitigation actions proposed and included within. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) continue to require communities to have an active FEMA-approved multi-hazard mitigation plan in-place prior to requesting project implementation funds. Participating jurisdictions that are granted funds are able to implement and complete positive mitigation actions to minimize impacts to their communities from hazard events. The following resources are key documents which authorize and provided guidance for the preparation of this plan update: • Section 404 of Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended by Public Law 100-707; • Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000; • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-disaster Mitigation Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, Repetitive Floodplain Claims Program (RFC), Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL); • Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—44 Part 201; • Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993; • FEMA—44 CFR Part 9 —Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands and 44 CFR Part 10 —Environmental Considerations; • New York State Executive Law, Article 2-B, Sections 23 and 28-a; and • New York State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011). The Tompkins County Planning Department(TCPD) organized the effort to update the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan that was originally adopted in 2006. The efforts made to update the original plan were made possible by a grant from FEMA that was administered by the Tompkins County Planning Department. The five year plan maintenance period has lapsed and Tompkins County contracted with Barton & Loguidice, P.C., hired through a formal request for qualifications (RFQ)process, to assist in the update effort. In addition to the basic requirements of updating the plan, Tompkins County is seeking the integration of three new features: the involvement of all 17 jurisdictions in Tompkins County, the impacts and risks associated with anticipated climate change, and the impacts and risks associated with anticipated widespread shale gas drilling. The continued monitoring and evaluation of this updated HMP will be provided by the TCPD. The development of a HMP update for Tompkins County provides the following benefits: • eligibility for federal funds to complete pre-disaster mitigation actions; • development of more sustainable and disaster-resistant communities; • formation of partnerships that support planning and mitigation efforts; • reduction in long-term impacts to structures and human-health associated with extreme hazard events which are in some cases exacerbated by changing climactic conditions; and 560.018.001/12.13 -S- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan • increased understanding of the hazards that could potentially impact the County and its municipalities. Comments or questions about this plan should be addressed to the Tompkins County Planning Department, 121 East Court Street, Ithaca, NY 14850. This office can also be reached by phone at(607) 274-5560 and by email from their website http://www.tompkins- co.or�z/Tannin staff/contact.htm. 1.3 Planning Participants The 2013 HMP Update for Tompkins County includes all 17 jurisdictions located within Tompkins County: Tompkins County, nine towns (Caroline, Danby, Dryden, Enfield, Groton, Ithaca, Lansing, Newfield, and Ulysses), six villages (Cayuga Heights, Dryden, Freeville, Groton, Lansing, Trumansburg), and one city (Ithaca). Figure 1.2 shows the locations of these municipalities within the County limits and the position of Tompkins County within New York State. The participation of all jurisdictions in the HMP Update process fulfills one of the main goals that Tompkins County had for this effort, and greatly improves the quality and completeness of this planning effort. The original 2006 HMP included only seven participating jurisdictions: Tompkins County and the Towns of Caroline, Danby, Enfield, Groton, Ithaca, Lansing, and Ulysses. The City of Ithaca and Dryden independently fulfilled DMA 2000 requirements through the implementation of single jurisdiction mitigation plans. The historic documentation and risk assessment data included in these single jurisdiction plans will be incorporated into this Multi-Jurisdictional HMP Update. All municipalities within Tompkins County were contacted by the TCPD to participate in the plan update and were invited to attend a variety of meetings held throughout the planning process. Each participating jurisdiction provided updated information about the hazards that have historically occurred within their boundaries, with a focus on post-2006 events. Repair costs and damage estimates associated with such hazard events were also provided. All jurisdictions reviewed the critical facilities within their boundaries and the risk assessment and vulnerability information provided within this Plan Update. TCPD coordinated data collection and information review with jurisdictions and agencies unable to attend scheduled meetings. A wide variety of additional resources were utilized to gather information concerning historic and recent occurrences of hazard events within Tompkins County, vulnerabilities within the County related to future hazard events, and costs and damages likely to occur as a result of a hazard event. The goals and objectives included in the County's 2006 HMP were reviewed and updated, as appropriate. Goals are created to assist in the formulation of potential mitigation actions that could be implemented to minimize the damage in Tompkins County that could occur to life,property, and/or the environment as a result of hazard events. Representatives from the participating jurisdictions made up the Project Team. A Technical Committee was also assembled by the TCPD; this committee consisted of representatives from the following agencies, groups, and entities: Town of Ulysses, Cornell University, Tompkins County Department of Health, Tompkins County Soil and Water District, Bolton Point Water 560.018.001/12.13 -6- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Treatment Plant, City of Ithaca, New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG), Town of Lansing Highway Department, Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response, and United States Geological Survey (USGS). Technical Committee members were selected and invited to participate in this update process based upon their specialties and fields of interest. Further detail about the Project Team and the Technical Committee are provided in Section 3.0. Figure 1.2— Participating Jurisdictions Gratan Lansing Groton imans Grp I Ulysses " �f naval cp Lansing L7rydam CO 9a Hsl tiia Dryden Enfield Ithaca Caroline Newfield Danby i L Cayuga Lake Village 9 city Tompkins County �� Town 560.018.001/12.13 - 7- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process As with Tompkins County's original HMP, all participating jurisdictions accomplished the following objectives to support the plan update process: • Established a knowledgeable planning group to represent all participating jurisdictions; • Assessed numerous natural, technological, and human-caused hazards to determine those that have the greatest possibility of impacting the County; • Analyzed and profiled all selected hazards; • Incorporated recent planning efforts and new updated scientific information into hazard profiles and mitigation activities; • Updated critical facility mapping within the County; • Estimated damages and impacts that could occur as a result of various hazard events; • Developed pre-disaster mitigation strategies and actions for the various types of hazards detailed in this document; and • Reviewed and revised the plan maintenance procedures associated with this Plan. DMA 2000 only requires that communities evaluate the impact of natural hazards. Though 14 natural hazards are the focus of this Plan Update, Tompkins County and other participants also chose to assess the County's vulnerability to six technological hazards and two human-caused hazards. All of these hazards are further described and profiled in Section 5 of this Plan Update. 560.018.001/12.13 -8- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.0 Tompkins County Profile This section details the existing environmental features, transportation networks, demographics, history, and available facilities within Tompkins County. A profile of Tompkins County and its existing features and facilities was not included in the original 2006 HMP. Section 2.0 is a new section that has been added to help detail and identify the existing conditions, capabilities, and vulnerabilities of Tompkins County and its 16 participating jurisdictions. 2.1 Geographic Location Tompkins County is located in Upstate New York, northwest of the City of Binghamton and southwest of the City of Syracuse. Tompkins County is located in the Finger Lakes Region and is geographically positioned near the southern end of Cayuga Lake. Cayuga Lake is approximately 40 miles long, 3.5 miles wide at its widest point, and approximately 435 feet deep at its deepest point. Tompkins County shares government boundaries with six adjacent New York State counties: Cayuga(north), Cortland (east), Tioga(south), Chemung (southwest), Schuyler(west), and Seneca(northwest). The City of Ithaca serves as the county seat for Tompkins County. The County includes one City, nine Towns, six Villages, and 31 Hamlets. Tompkins County consists of a total land area of 474.6 square miles and a total water area of 16.9 square miles (2010 Census Gazetteer files, 2012). In terms of total area, the Town of Dryden is the largest jurisdiction within Tompkins County, totaling 94.2 square miles. This equates to almost 20 percent(20%) of the total area of the County. The Town of Ithaca is the smallest Town in Tompkins County, totaling 30.3 square miles in area, which represents only six percent of the total area of Tompkins County. Table 1 provides the total areas (in square miles) for each jurisdiction included within Tompkins County. Table 1 -Approximate Areas for Jurisdictions Within Tompkins County (City-Data,2011 Total Area Total Land Total Water %of Total Area Jurisdiction (square miles) (square miles) (square miles) in Count Tompkins County 491.6 474.6 16.9 100.00% Caroline(Town) 55.1 55.0 0.1 11.2% Danby(Town) 53.7 53.5 0.2 10.9% Dryden(Town) 94.2 93.9 0.3 19.2% Enfield(Town) 36.9 36.9 0.0 7.5% Groton(Town) 49.6 49.5 0.1 10.0% Ithaca(Town) 30.3 29.1 1.2 6.2% Ithaca(City) 6.1 5.5 0.6 1.2% Lansing(Town) 69.9 60.7 9.2 14.2% Newfield(Town) 59.0 58.9 0.1 12.0% Ulysses(Town) 36.8 33.0 3.9 7.5% 560.018.001/12.13 -9- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 1 —Approximate Areas for Jurisdictions Within Tompkins County (City-Data,2011 Total Area Total Land Total Water %of Total Area Jurisdiction (square miles) (square miles) (square miles) in Count Cayuga Heights(Village) 1.8 1.8 0.0 Dryden(Village) 1.7 1.7 0.0 - Freeville(Village) 1.1 1.1 0.0 - Groton(Village) 1.7 1.7 0.0 1 - Lansing(Village) 4.6 4.6 0.0 - Trumansburg(Village) 1.2 1.2 0.0 - The northern portion of the County consists of more gentle terrain associated with moderate to high elevation areas, whereas the southern portion of the County is dominated by the highest elevations and the greatest topographic relief. Overall topography in the County ranges from approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (msl)to greater than 2,000 feet above msl. The highest topographic point in the County, Connecticut Hill, is located in the Town of Newfield at an elevation of 2,200 feet above msl. The lowest elevation within the County is noted as the surface water level of Cayuga Lake, recorded at 382 feet above msl. 2.2 Climate Change in Tompkins County The climate of Tompkins County is of the humid continental type, typical of the interior northeastern United States (NYS Climate Office, 2010). Humid continental climates are known for their variable weather conditions, due to their location between the polar and tropic air masses. Polar air masses collide with tropical air masses, causing uplift of the moist tropical air and resulting in precipitation. Since Tompkins County is far removed from the moderating effects of the ocean, the climate experiences great swings in seasonal temperature (Ritter, 2006). Temperatures average 70°F in July with lows of about 24°F in January, and the year-round average temperature is about 47°F. The average monthly rainfall increases from January (2.0 inches)to July (4.1 inches) and decreases from July (4.1 inches) to December(2.4 inches). Rainfall averages 35.9 inches annually, while annual snowfall exceeds 70.0 inches and provides snow cover for the majority of winter(Weatherbase, 2012). Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, included in Appendix A, illustrate Tompkins County's climate compared to the rest of New York State. The location of Tompkins County on these figures is indicated by the purple star symbol. Table 2 also shows the average temperatures,precipitation, and seasonal snowfall that have been recorded at the regional National Weather Service Forecast Office in Binghamton between 1951 and 2011. 560.018.001/12.13 _ 10- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 2—Annual Temperature,Precipitation, and Snowfall Data Recorded Between 1951 and 2011 and Displayed as Decade Averages (NWS, 2012) Average Temperature Average Precipitation Average Seasonal Years (°F) (inches) Snowfall(inches) 2001-2011 46.9 40.97 89.00 1991-2001 46.2 38.90 92.06 1981-1991 46.7 37.84 72.10 1971-1981 45.6 39.23 78.52 1961-1971 45.2 33.93 84.63 1951-1961 46.8 37.28 89.78 Overall Average 1 46.23 1 38.03 L 84.35 The best, most recent, climate science indicates a future of increased temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns for Tompkins County and New York State. Rates are projected to increase much faster than historic natural rates over the coming century, and as a result extreme hazard events may increase in frequency and intensity. The NYSERDA-commissioned report, ClimAID: the Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in New York State, released in November 2011, was written by scientists from Cornell University, Columbia University, and the City University of New York. The report and adaptation guidance focus exclusively on climate change adaptation strategies specific to New York State, and is geared to assist local decision-makers in developing and adopting adaptation strategies. The ClimAID report highlights the need for Tompkins County to prepare for the following impacts: • Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing heat-related illness and death and posing new challenges to the energy system, air quality, and agriculture. • Summer drought is projected to increase, affecting water supply, agriculture, ecosystems, and energy production. • Heavy downpours are increasing and are projected to increase further. These can lead to flooding and related impacts on water quality, infrastructure, and agriculture. • Major changes to ecosystems including species range shifts,population crashes, and other sudden transformations could have wide-ranging impacts, not only for natural systems but also for health, agriculture, and other sectors. The ClimAID report predicts that temperatures will rise across the state, by 1.5 to 3°F by the 2020s, 3 to 5.5°F by the 2050s, and 4 to 9°F by the 2080s, with the lower ends of these ranges expected under lower greenhouse gas emissions and the higher ends for higher emissions scenarios. The report notes that these are not the best and worst cases,just the most likely; sharp cuts in global emissions could result in temperature increases lower than the bottom ends of these ranges, while a continuation of business-as-usual could result in increases higher than the high ends. The ClimAID report also projects that annual average precipitation will increase by up to 5 percent by the 2020s, up to 10 percent by the 2050s, and up to 15 percent by the 2080s. This will 560.018.001/12.13 - 1] - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan not be distributed evenly over the course of the year. Much of this additional precipitation is likely to occur during the winter months as rain, with the possibility of slightly reduced precipitation projected for the late summer and early fall. Continuing the observed trend, more precipitation is expected to fall in heavy downpours and less in light rains. Vulnerabilities specific to Tompkins County that are identified in the ClimAID report are potential flooding increases, milk production losses in a region dominated by dairy, and location at the front line for the state as invasive insects, weeds and other pests move north. In addition, the report highlights that some areas, including Tompkins County, are vulnerable in other ways: rural areas are more vulnerable to, and have less capacity to cope with, extreme events such as floods, droughts, ice storms, and other climate-related stressors; regions that depend on agriculture and tourism (such as fishing, skiing, and snowmobiling) may be especially in need of adaptation assistance; and low-income urban neighborhoods, especially those within flood zones, are less able to cope with climate impacts such as heat waves and flooding. New York State's 2100 Commission's Recommendations to Improve the Strength and Resilience of the Empire State's Infrastructure (2013) identified a need to reduce inland vulnerability to extreme weather events. It is important that the community promote mitigation and adaptation strategies that enable incremental adaptations across sectors and communities over time. Mitigation and Adaptation strategies are described later in this report, specifically in Table 32 and Appendix A — Table 33. Specific groups of people that are identified in the ClimAID report as being particularly vulnerable include elderly, disabled, and health compromised individuals who are more vulnerable to climate hazards, including floods and heat waves; low-income groups that have limited ability to meet higher energy costs; farm workers who may be exposed to more chemicals if pesticide use increases in response to climate change; asthma sufferers who will be more vulnerable to the decline in air quality during heat waves; and people who depend on public transportation and lack private cars for evacuating during emergencies. Small businesses are also identified as being particularly vulnerable, as they are typically less able to cope with costly climate related interruptions and stresses, such as power and communication service disruptions, than larger businesses. Climate Change projects by hazard are further detailed in the natural hazard profiles included in Section 5.0. 2.3 Historical Overview The earliest inhabitants of Tompkins County were the Cayugas, one of the five nations of the Iroquois Confederacy. Settlement in the Tompkins County area began in 1792. Early settlers consisted of squatters and others cashing in their Military Tract land allocations. In 1817, Tompkins County was formally established through an act of the New York State Legislature. Soon after, Cornell University was established(1865), bringing solidity to the County's economy by attracting students, faculty, and many new residents. Ithaca College opened almost thirty years later in 1892 in downtown Ithaca. For more historic context, reference Appendix B. 560.018.001/12.13 - 12- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4 Demographics According to the U.S. Census, the population of Tompkins County totaled 101,564 in 2010, reflecting a growth of 5,063 people when compared to the 2000 U.S. Census data(96,501 people). This increase in population over the past decade reflects steady growth within the County. Table 3 provides population data for the County and its Cities and Towns (including respective Villages) over the past decade (2000-2010). Within that time period, City of Ithaca and all Towns within the County have seen positive population growth(2.0% or greater), while growth within Tompkins County is documented at 5.29 percent. Population age data indicated that 16,659 people were estimated to be under 18 years (16.4%) and 10,929 people were estimated to be over the age of 65 (10.8%) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010(2)). Overall, Tompkins County has a greater population of individual's between the ages of 18 and 65 than New York State. The 2010 Census indicates that 82.6 percent(%) of Tompkins County's population was White, 4.0% of the population was Black or African American, 9.0% Asian, 0.4% American Indian and Alaska Native, 1.2% some other race, and 3.2%two or more races. In addition, 4.2% of Tompkins County residents reported themselves as being Hispanic or Latino (of any race) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010(2)). Figure 2.4 in Appendix A graphs the population diversity of Tompkins County using a pie chart format. 560.018.001/12.13 - 13- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. o � � O ,-. � '� � m O o0 0o O v, �o 00 � o � c °. Ui � � � � c�i �o � � c�i m � �� C� o N � O N � 00 '� � � N °o v'� m N S� p b o1 O � M l � � � l °� O N � N M ti M Vl � � Vl � � "� N � � ,� � O � � oo m � m � N � O N � � � � � � 00 v'� � � l U � N M ti M Vl � � Vl � N � � � O 00 � 01 V'1 � � �--� 01 � 00 M N O �--� 01 ,:. O M � O � � oo � v'� � l 00 N � N M ti M Vl � � Vl � N C� rl O N 01 � � � � � � N N �,,, O o� O � oo ,—� o0 � N N � N m ^, m vi � � vi � N A � C." � � �n N m � � V N O O � oo ,—� 00 ^� T^ � M M ti M Vl � � Vl � N awl Vl S.i QI � eC � � ,—� m ,� m O N � � � � � w O b O � op O N op � � oo � �I N O � v'� oo � 00 Li C� � p� M M ti M Vl � � Vl � N n� � i O A � vi N p � o � � � m � � vNi � � � � O ,—� v'� oo � � �^^ � N � M M ti M Vl � � Vl � N awl � MM � YWI r ti 01 01 � O N N � � �--i � E'� Vi O Ch O V � l m � � l � � O � O � v'� oo � � � N O m m � m vi O O ,�.� � � M � � n C� � 00 O � ti � � � � � � � pNp O O N � � oo N � N 01 � O N O m m � m �n � � v� � � ti a O� � 01 '—' � O � p � 'n l ,M—, p ti O N �`' V 01 �`' � N O O N O m m � m v'� O � v'� v'� O ti �n O m �_ O �O N 01 N O 01 O ,� � oo N � '—' � � O � O O O ,y N m v'� � � � N O M M � M Vl � ti Vl � ti � � � 0 O O O O O Dp+ 0 �O+ O 5 5 '� � � � � � O � � O � �° � F" H H H F" [� � [o U o Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5 Land Use Land use within Tompkins County is mixed, with the majority of tax parcel use reflected in the following land use categories: agriculture, residential, commercial, and vacant land. Table 4 displays the percent of acreage for each jurisdiction in Tompkins County by land use category. Table 4—Percentage of Acreage per Jurisdiction by Land Use Categories (Tompkins County Planning Department) 44 C Ithaca 0% 1% 12% 0% 3% 8% 10% 35% 1% 19% 10% 1% (T)Caroline 14% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 73% 0% 3% (T)Danby 8% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 78% 1% 3% (V)Dryden 7% 1% 4% 4% 1% 4% 2% 31% 0% 35% 0% 11% (V)Freeville 25% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% 1% 15% 0% 40% 3% 10% (T)Dryden 18% 0% 0% 5% 1% 0% 0% 8% 0% 60% 1% 6% T Enfield 31% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 1% 8% 0% 51% 1% 2% (V)Groton 10% 0% 4% 2% 1% 6% 3% 30% 0% 40% 0% 4% T Groton 37% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 1% 7% 0% 42% 0% 5% (V)Cayuga Heights 0% 1 0% 2% 0% 1 0% 5% 1 2% 71% 1% 19% 1 0% 0% (T)Ithaca 15% 1% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% 19% 0% 49% 4% 1% V Lansing 2% 1% 11% 0% 1% 2% 1% 19% 13% 47% 0% 3% (T)Lansing 31% 0% 1% 4% 1% 0% 1% 9% 1% 36% 14% 2% T Newfield 11% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 78% 0% 1% (V)Trumansburg 7% 0% 3% 4% 0% 6% 4% 46% 0% 28% 1% 1% (T)Ulysses 34% 0% 1% 5% 0% 0% 1% 9% 0% 37% 11% 2% Figure 2.5 in Appendix A displays land use and land cover information for Tompkins County from the Tompkins County Planning Department(2007). This figure illustrates changes in land use and cover between the years 1969, 1995, and 2007. Table 5 shows the changes in land use/land cover categories between 1969, 1995, and 2007 by percentage. 560.018.001/12.13 - 15- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 5-Land Use and Land Cover Change in Tompkins County (Tompkins County Planning Department, 2007) Changes in Land Use(percent,%) Land Use Category 1969 1995 %Chane 2007 %Change Agriculture 29.67 24.25 -5.42 21.10 -3.15 Barren or Disturbed 0.26 0.36 +0.11 0.23 -0.13 Commercial 0.27 0.42 +0.15 0.52 +0.10 Inactive Agriculture 16.15 6.25 -9.89 4.42 -1.83 Industrial 0.35 0.50 +0.15 0.53 +0.02 Public/Institutional 0.71 0.57 -0.14 0.59 +0.02 Recreation 1.04 0.71 -0.33 0.78 +0.06 Residential 2.13 6.97 +4.84 8.17 +1.20 Transportation/Transmission 0.30 0.25 -0.05 0.26 0.00 Vegetative Cover 43.75 53.21 +9.47 56.68 +3.47 Water 1 3.21 3.45 +0.23 3.48 +0.03 Wetlands 1 2.17 3.05 +0.88 3.24 +0.19 According to Tompkins County's 2004 Comprehensive Plan, up to a third of the total land area in the County consists of farmland. Farming operations within the County are quite diverse, including dairy, grain, livestock, hay, tree farms, vegetables, horticulture, aquaculture,poultry, vineyards, and orchards. Approximately 100,000 acres of land in Tompkins County are owned by farming operations; with about 80,000 acres being actively farmed (Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, 2004). Over the past three decades, Tompkins County has seen a decrease in total farming operations and cultivated acreage; however, most recently, this reduction has seemed to stabilize locally. Two New York State Agricultural Districts are recognized within Tompkins County; the boundaries of these areas are shown on Figure 2.6 in Appendix A. Areas of high residential intensity are concentrated within the Villages and around the City of Ithaca. A 2006-2010 estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that Tompkins County had a vacancy rate of 7.1 percent, representing approximately 2,935 housing units out of 41,381 total units (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010). This vacancy rate is lower than the New York State rate during the same time period Aside from Cayuga Lake, Tompkins County also supports 10 major streams: Salmon Creek, Cayuga Inlet, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Fall Creek, Owasco Inlet, Owego Creek, Catatonk Creek, Cayuta Creek, and Taughannock Creek. In terms of land, Table 6 provides an estimate of the total acres of protected natural resources within Tompkins County. Figure 2.7 illustrates the locations of protected lands,perennial streams and areas the County has identified as Natural Feature Focus Areas as well as Agricultural Resource Focus Areas. 560.018.001/12.13 - 16- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 6—Protected Natural Areas (Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, 2004) Owner Size(acres) New York State 27,801 Cornell University 6,528 Finger Lakes Land Trust 2,609 City of Ithaca 1,071 Tompkins County 654 The Nature Conservancy 393 Private/other 75 Other local municipalities 30 Total 39,161 Figure 2.7— Natural Feature and Agricultural Resource Focus Areas (Tompkins County Planning Department, 2004) 0/f fro I I I I x r 0 IN %l 4 11 9 State Highways �,...... ...� ' 111 Agricultural Resources Focus Areas NaturalFeatures Focus Areas CascadilIs Creek 11111110 Fall Creek Natural Features Focus areas _ Lakeshore 4 Owasco Inlet andSalmon Creek 1 /� /� illjj Sixmile Creek Agricultural Resource Focus Areas TeUghannppkCreek IIIIII The Fens a.The Forest Lands z o s a mune n, The Gorges u Van Buskirk.Gulf itt Wetlands Complex North We:tends Complex South --,.,- 'ii1uB Wildlife Area 560.018.001/12.13 - 17- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.6 Economic Characteristics and Employment The unemployment rate in Tompkins County has increased over the past year to approximately 6.4% (NYS Dept. of Labor, 2012), though it remains lower than the New York State unemployment rate of 7.9%. The increase or decrease in numbers of jobs within different industries between June 2011 and June 2012 is shown in Table 7. The data reported in this table represents the Ithaca Metropolitan Statistical Area(IMSA), which includes all of Tompkins County. Table 7— Change Observed in Total Number of Jobs in Different Industries Between June 2011 and June 2012— Ithaca Metropolitan Statistical Area (NYSDOL, 2012(2)) Change Observed Industr (#of'obs) Education&Health Service -500 Manufacturing 0 Trade,Transportation,Utilities 0 Professional&Business Services +100 Financial Activities 0 Information -100 Natural Resources,Mining, Construction 0 Leisure&Hospitality +200 Other Services 0 The top 21 major employers for 2006 (most recent data available) in Tompkins County are listed in Table 8. Table 8—Top Major Employers for Tompkins County-2006 Cornell University,2006 Company Name #of Employees Cornell University 9,480 Ithaca College 1,525 Borg-Warner Automotive 1,500 Ithaca City School District 1,200 Cayuga Medical Center 1,000 County of Tompkins 750 Wegman's Food Markets 570 Emerson Power Transmission 450 Franziska Racker Center 420 Tompkins/Seneca/Tioga BOCES 380 560.018.001/12.13 - 18- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 8—Top Major Employers for Tompkins County-2006 Cornell University,2006 Company Name #of Employees Dryden Central School District 375 The CBORD Group 250 Therm,Inc. 225 Tompkins County Trust Co. 223 Tompkins Cortland Community College 200 Tops Friendly Markets 170 Thomas Group Architects and Engineers,PC 160 Boyce Thompson Institute 150 -Hi-Speed Checkwei her 117 The Ithaca Journal 116 Holiday Inn Executive Towers 100-150 seasonal Additional economic characteristics for Tompkins County are included as Table 9 in Appendix A. 2.7 Transportation In Tompkins County, roadway, rail, and air transportation options are available. Tompkins County contains 15 State Routes that are maintained by the NYS Department of Transportation. No Interstate Routes or U.S. Routes are located within Tompkins County. The County highway system is comprised of approximately 88 routes (NYSDOT, 2011). Many of the County Routes overlap with portions of State Routes. The locations of the major roadways in Tompkins County are shown on Figure 2.8. The Tompkins County Department of Public Works maintains more than 300 miles of County roads and more than 100 bridges and is responsible for snow removal, maintaining County buildings and parks, and maintaining the County's vehicle fleet. The Department of Public Works also operates the Tompkins County Regional Airport. Only one active railroad remains in Tompkins County, the Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Norfolk Southern operates a freight-only line that runs from the mainline of the former Lehigh Valley track at the VanEtten Junction to just south of the former Ithaca station, and then along the east shore of Cayuga Lake to Lake Ridge (HC Lee, 2008). The remaining historic railroad segments have been abandoned and the tracks removed. Locations of active and abandoned railroad segments are depicted on Figure 2.8. In addition to the County's Highway Department, there are nine Town Highway Departments, one NYSDOT Barn, six Village Highway Departments and one City of Ithaca Department of Streets and Facilities. The locations of these transportation maintenance facilities are denoted on Figure 2.8. 560.018.001/12.13 _ 19- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan In terms of air transportation, there are six public and private airports in Tompkins County. The Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport is the sole publicly owned airport in the County (Global Aviation Navigator, 2012). The Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport is owned and operated by Tompkins County and is a division of the Department of Public Works. The airport has been operated by Tompkins County since 1956. The Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport recently developed a Sustainable Master Plan and is the first airport to integrate sustainability into its master plan. Table 10 in Appendix A details the active airport facilities within the County, and Figure 2.8 depicts the locations of these airport facilities. Figure 2.8-Transportation Facilities in Tompkins County f 9r - P 3R- r " m f 3 �•` fill „#,_5 "I aI r� 7fJ f i 1 t 796. ,4 1 ..## ## � µ k' l Highway Lep�aitu7 mill `-\—e State Highways Tompkins County +Q N + Tarnpakms CaunlyAirparl Cou.unt+fand Lcxal Rriads Transportation sportation + Private Air Strip Abandoned Rawllped 9060 1 4 ov9i�sPerennial aMP'e rVti'4S ""�„„ Mt u.atltl-V,4'.S2TGuI€ J 560.018.001/12.13 -20- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.8 Critical Community Facilities Many of the critical facilities, including hospitals, medical facilities, and educational facilities, identified for each participating jurisdiction, are clustered around the City of Ithaca, and the Villages and Hamlets within the County. Critical facilities identified for hazard planning have been updated significantly since the 2006 Plan. Such facilities include utility infrastructure (water tanks, electric substations, cell towers, etc.) , banks, senior housing, mobile home complexes, boatyards, bus terminals, municipal buildings, community centers, correctional facilities, courthouses, dams, day care centers, schools, emergency operations, fire and police departments, highway facilities, human services, major industrial locations, medical facilities and hospitals,post offices, sports complexes and facilities, and locations of other public facilities. Figure 2.9, included in Appendix A of this document, shows the locations of critical facilities within Tompkins County. The locations of critical facilities were considered during the risk assessment and hazard vulnerability components of this HMP process. 2.9 Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response The Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response is responsible for the following County-wide services: • Oversees emergency dispatch and communications system that allows residents to dial 911 to receive emergency medical, fire,police, or other emergency help from any phone in the County; • Implements County Mutual Aid and Disaster Plans, which provide fire, emergency medical, and other agency assistance when local services have exceeded their local equipment and personnel resources; and • Provides emergency medical personnel training in coordination with Tompkins-Cortland Community College and fire training with the NYS Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Tompkins County emergency information is posted on the TompkinsREADY website (www.tompkinsready.org). Disaster and emergency information is also broadcast from local radio stations: 870AM WHCU, 97.317M WYXL, 1470 AM, WQNY 103.7 FM, 93.5 FM WVBR and 91.717M WICB. Tompkins County also participates in NY-Alert, NYS's All-Hazards Alert and Notification System. Participants can elect to receive emergency information such as road closures and weather alerts through their cell phones (call or text message), E-mail, fax, or really simple syndication (RSS) message. 560.018.001/12.13 -21 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 3.0 Planning Process This planning process section of the plan describes who was involved in the development of this document, what steps were taken to complete all phases of the process, and how public involvement was considered throughout plan development. Throughout the plan development process, information was gathered from participating jurisdictions, as well as state, federal and local agencies and groups, citizens and business owners in the community, and other stakeholders. Project Team and Technical Committee representatives were also tasked with collecting data and information from their respective jurisdictions or areas of expertise. The information included in this plan represents the results of an extensive planning process that involved the input of many jurisdictions and community members. 3.1 Resources and Information Collection The planning process followed for the development of the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is consistent with the guidelines provided in the State and Local Mitigation Planning, how-to guides (FEMA Report 386-2) and the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (FEMA, July 1, 2008). In addition to these references and the original Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006), the following County and municipal documents were also reviewed and considered during the development of this document: Tompkins County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (2003), Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (2004), Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan—Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Element(2008), City of Ithaca Mitigation Plan (2002), Hazard Analysis Report (County and Specified Towns) (2003), and the Town of Dryden —Hazard Analysis Report (1999), Tompkins County Conservation Plan Part 1: A Strategic Approach to Natural Resource Stewardship (2007), Tompkins County Conservation Plan Part 11: A Strategic Approach to Agricultural Resource Stewardship (2010), and Tompkins County Conservation Strategy (2012) . Much of the event-specific information and details came from the members of the Planning Team and Technical Committee. The public and other interested parties were provided numerous opportunities throughout the planning process to provide input and comments. After the approval of Tompkins County's original HMP in 2006, a Tompkins County Multi- Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Implementation Committee was formed. This group initially met on an annual basis to review the HMP and discuss implementation efforts, mitigation activity updates, and information distribution and resource updates. Though notes from only 2007 and 2008 were available for review (Appendix C), these details provided important information during the HMP Update process. 3.1.1 Planning Mechanisms and Capabilities Another important objective of updating the HMP is to incorporate the document into existing and future planning efforts and initiatives throughout the County. Elements of the plan will be considered during municipal and County development and comprehensive planning efforts. The approved HMP will also serve as an important resource for developing and updating emergency 560.018.001/12.13 -22- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan operations plans and procedures throughout Tompkins County. This updated HMP will be incorporated into, considered during, and referenced by future updates and efforts at the County and municipal levels concerning the plans,policies, ordinances,programs, studies, reports, and staff included in Table 11. The following is a list of local planning efforts and regulations which were reviewed for the Plan Update. These resources were seen as critical to refining the key aspects of the Plan. Conversely,pertinent aspects of the Plan Update will be integrated into these resources as they are updated by each associated jurisdiction. Table 11 —Planning Mechanisms and Capabilities for Each Participating Jurisdiction Jurisdiction 21 A C T -gyp y 32 >y C N w N E y p T -p N ` O ` V V W LL C7 tL J J Z ~ w O O O O w O O C O y Y3 O y O O y y O ._-� Oy O O y O 'y 3 3 3 E Plans Comprehensive/Land '06 '03 '06 05" '02 '02" '05 '05 '71" '93" 05 '06 09 09 '04 Use Plan Economic No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Development Plan Post-disaster No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Recovery Plan Flood Mitigation Plan No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Local Waterfront No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Revitalization Plan College Campus Plan NA CU No No TC3 No No No No CU IC No No No No No NA CU CU Emergency No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Response/Evac Plan Open Space Plan No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Watershed Protection No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Plan Capital Improvement No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Plan Redevelopment Plan No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Floodplain Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Management Plan Comprehensive Emer. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mgmt.Plan Policies/Ordinances Building Codes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Zoning/Land Use No 99 05 90 95" No '86 '03 11 '03 '03 09 '04 No '12" '07 No Codes/Restriction Subdivision 00 '92 '07 '96 '12" '06 '86 '86 '70 '89 '96 '75 '04 No 90 '07 No Regulations Property Set-back No I No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No Ordinance Flood Regulations YestN Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Steep Slope No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Ordinance 560.018.001/12.13 -23- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 11 —Planning Mechanisms and Capabilities for Each Participating Jurisdiction Jurisdiction E, d N C A '00 d 'O d O O t0 N N E N C N C f'` ` O �p V C N ` N O 0 V � � � W LL � 0 WL J J Z ~ � N O y w O y O O y y O ._-� O y O O O- O N O O O O O O O O O O Plans i— 5; x i— '> i— i— '> '> i— v i— '> i— i— '> i— i— Stormwater Ordinance Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Site Plan Review No 92 '05 '06 '96 '96* '86 '94 '97 99 00 Yes '04 No '06 '07 No Requirements Agricultural Plan No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Gas Drilling Prohibition Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Programs NFIP Participant Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NFIP CRS Participating No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Community Property Acquisition No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Program Public Education/Awareness Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Prog. Stream Maintenance Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Program Storm Drainage Maint. No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Program Studies/Reports Hazard Analysis/Risk Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Assessment Floodplain Maps/Insurance Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Studies Staff/Development Development Planner No No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Building Code Official Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GIS and/or HAZUS No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Specialist Engineer/Public Works No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Official Local Floodplain Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Administrator Environmental Cons. No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Specialist Public Information No No No No No No No No No No No No No No rNo No Yes Official *= Draft, in progress += Moratorium in place CU=Cornell University IC= Ithaca College TC3=Tompkins County Community College 560.018.001/12.13 -24- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Links and web addresses to many of the Tompkins County resources listed above are located in Appendix D for easy access. 3.2 Planning Team and Technical Committee Three groups were created to assist in various facets of information collection and document preparation and review: Project Team, Technical Committee, and Key Stakeholders. The Project Team is represented by at least one municipal representative from each participating jurisdiction or agency, and is responsible for assisting in data collection, document review, and coordination efforts. The Technical Committee includes interest group representatives, researchers, educators, and others, whose task is to aid in guiding and revising the plan based on their various interests and areas of expertise. This committee consisted of representatives from the following agencies, groups, and entities: Town of Ulysses, Cornell University, Tompkins County Department of Health, Tompkins County Soil and Water District, Bolton Point Water Treatment Plant, City of Ithaca, New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG), Town of Lansing Highway Department, Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response, and United States Geological Survey (USGS). The Key Stakeholders group includes various members of the community such as local elected officials, municipal employees, school officials, fire and emergency response personnel, and other interested community members. Meetings with these three groups of selected and interested individuals were held at strategic points throughout the HMP development process. A County-wide risk assessment review was also held to kick-off the HMP Update process. This event, which many different stakeholders and agency representatives attended, helped set the stage for the remainder of the hazard mitigation planning process. All meetings that were held during the development of the HMP are located in Appendix E, including the notable accomplishments or objectives of each. Participants and representatives that attended every meeting are also listed in Appendix E, along with their affiliation, as it relates to the project. 3.3 Jurisdiction Participation To be included in the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan, all interested jurisdictions needed to express their willingness to be a part of the process and needed to remain an active participant throughout all stages of plan development. Active participation for each jurisdiction was gauged based on the following factors: meeting attendance, information collection and research,plan review and comment, mitigation action submission,public review assistance, and final resolution to adopt the HMP. A jurisdiction did not have to meet all criteria listed to be considered a participating member(for example, meeting attendance), but each jurisdiction did have to show an effort to participate and provide relevant information (for example, email follow-up after a missed meeting to discuss what was missed). Details regarding meetings that were held to support the update of this Plan are included in Appendix E—Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Process Meeting Timeline and Attendees. When municipal partners were unable to attend an important meeting, the Tompkins County Planning Department made a concerted effort to follow-up with each missing entity. In order to warrant participation in the HMP update process, each municipality was required to share information,provide input on the document and during meetings, and show a commitment to intermunicipal hazard mitigation planning. Overall, it was determined that all jurisdictions within Tompkins County met the 560.018.001/12.13 -25- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan participation requirements and are therefore included and considered in this document. All participating jurisdictions have agreed to pass a resolution to adopt the HMP after NYSOEM and FEMA review and approval. These resolutions will be added to Appendix F, as they are adopted. For now, a sample resolution is provided. 3.4 Public Participation During the Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update process,public involvement was included at two levels. At the local level, community input was sought during the hazard vulnerability and assessment phase of the project. Each participating jurisdiction was responsible for making sure their hazard history and vulnerabilities were accurately portrayed in the draft HMP. The collection of this information often times involved individuals aside from those on the Project Team. The second level of public involvement for the County HMP was provided through two formal public meetings, held at the Dryden Town Hall and Tompkins County Public Library on April 22, 2013, and the solicitation of comments during a publicly requested review of the Draft HMP. Many announcements regarding the issuance of the HMP Update for public review and the scheduling of a County-wide public meeting were included in area newspapers. The public was invited to review the draft document and to provide comments and input on hazards, hazard response, and hazard mitigation during the public meeting and for 30-days afterwards. This meeting also provided a favorable forum in which to answer any questions from the public. Aside from being available for review in hard copy form during the public meeting and at the Tompkins County Planning Department in the City of Ithaca, the Draft Tompkins County Multi- Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan was also available for review electronically on the website of TCPD at www.tompkins-co.org//planning/haz_mit.htm. Comments received during this public review process included items like the Soil & Water District's concern that the vulnerabilities of creek pipeline crossings were not adequately addressed and the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council's concern over the plan's under emphasis of climate adaption. All comments received as part of the public review were considered and incorporated into the HMP, as appropriate. In the case of the two specific comments detailed above, the vulnerabilities of utility crossings at streams was emphasized in the water contamination hazard profile section and identified as a specific mitigation action item, and further integration of climate adaptation activities were included in the HMP and were also carried over to the County's Comprehensive Plan update process. A summary of the public meeting participation and plan feedback is included in Appendix E. 3.5 Coordination with Agencies County, regional, state, and federal agencies were consulted for relevant information and recommendations with regard to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update effort. The contributions from agencies and organizations that supported the update planning process include participation in the HIRA-NY risk assessment, review and comment on portions of the Draft HMP, and the collection and/or dissemination of information or data to be used in the planning process. These agencies that provided the most assistance throughout this process include: FEMA, Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response, NOAA, Tompkins County Planning Department, 560.018.001/12.13 -26- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Tompkins County Emergency Management Program, National Weather Service, NYSOEM, Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District, NYS Electric and Gas Corporation (NYSEG), and the U.S. Geological Survey. 560.018.001/12.13 -27- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.0 Risk Assessment Risk Assessments consist of three phases of analysis: hazard identification, vulnerability assessment and risk analysis. Figure 4.1 —Three Phases of Risk Assessment Risk Assessments should generally be conducted in the order identified in Figure 4.1 as each phase utilizes information from previous phases. The first phase, hazard identification, calls on the community to identify all potential hazards, document their geographic extent,probability of occurrence and anticipated intensity. This phase will also incorporate the best available data on anticipated climate projections and states the intended impacts as they relate to each hazard. The next phase, vulnerability assessment, utilizes the information obtained through the first phase and analyzes it with local information of properties and populations exposed to that hazard. As a part of this phase both current and future development potentials will be analyzed. The last phase, risk analysis, estimates the damage, injuries, and costs likely to occur as a result of that hazard in the community. The picture of risk is broken down into both magnitude and probability of harm occurring. For many hazards this phase of risk assessment will not be realized. Figure 4.2 was established by the Oregon Partners for Disaster Resilience, an applied research firm which works toward the mission of creating a disaster-resilient and sustainable state, and the United States Geological Society (USGS). This figure depicts the risk assessment process and points out that the goal of hazard mitigation is to "reduce the area where hazards and vulnerable systems overlap." 560.018.001/12.13 -28- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 4.2—The Risk Assessment Process (Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration and USGS, 2006) USGS Understanding Risk �R„ REait l[NC F Natural Hazard ,f ,Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic �� Exposure,Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events l (Risk and Resilience of: •Past Recurrence Intervals4 Population •Future Probability I I • Econornk Generation •Speed ofOnset I I • Built,Environment •Magnitude q Disaster, Academic and Research Function •(Duration t / • Cultural Assets •Spatial Extent • Infrastructure t s Ability,Resources and Willingness to *Mitigate•Respond • Prepare *Recover Source.USGS-Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration,2006 Tompkins County is vulnerable to numerous natural, technological, and human-caused hazards. The historic documentation associated with past hazard events that was included in the County's 2006 HMP has been expanded as part of the risk assessment to include the most recent data available, as well as analysis of identified potential impacts from a changing climate and widespread natural gas drilling in the region. Some of the key revisions that are included in this section of the plan update include: results of Tompkins County's 2012 risk assessment, profiles of new hazards, and the establishment of updated hazard rankings and hazard mitigation planning goals. 4.1 Framing the Risk Assessment Using HIRA-NY All applicable hazards were evaluated, reviewed, and ranked during a risk assessment session moderated by the New York State Office of Emergency Management(NYSOEM)using the automated Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment(HIRA-NY)program. The selections made in HIRA-NY are based on information entered into preformatted Microsoft Excel spreadsheets recommended by FEMA and NYSOEM. The HIRA-NY risk assessment process helps participating jurisdictions and agencies focus on the hazards that may potentially impact the County and assists in detailing the most prevalent and highest ranking hazards. In order to complete the risk assessment, consideration was given to details such as location or geographic area that could be affected by a given hazard, extent or magnitude of each hazard event,previous hazard occurrences, and probability of future occurrences. Within the HIRA-NY program, there are five factors in which the answers provided during the risk assessment process directly impact the ultimate hazard rankings. These five factors are denoted and detailed below. 560.018.001/12.13 -29- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan HIRA-NY Factor l: Scope This factor looks at two aspects of the overall scope of a hazard: what area or areas in the jurisdiction could be impacted by the hazard, and what are the chances of the hazard triggering another hazard and causing a cascade effect. Once the potential area of impact is determined, the program requires the selection of one of the following impact area options: A single location Several hazards can impact a single location Several individual locations Many hazards are capable of impacting several individual locations. This does not mean that the hazards occur simultaneously, but that they could occur at one or several locations at the same time. Throughout a small region Where a single location or several individual locations comprise a significant area. Throughout a large region A larger region would extend for miles and comprise a significant portion of the community being assessed. The next part of the scope factor is to determine whether the hazard could potentially trigger another hazard. When assessing this factor, the group evaluates various severity levels, including a credible worst-case scenario. The options for the cascading effect potential of a hazard are as follows: no, highly unlikely;yes, some potential; or yes, highly likely. HIRA-NY Factor 2: Frequency Frequency indicates how often a hazard results in an emergency situation or disaster event. Frequency includes both historic occurrences and the likelihood that it will happen in the future. The frequency of a hazard is not based on the worst-case scenario, but rather how often an event would cause various types of damage within the community that would require activation of emergency response forces. The program provides the following options when deciding the frequency of a hazard event: A rare event Occurs less than once every 50 years. An infrequent event Occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive). A regular event Occurs between once a year and once every 7 years (inclusive). A re uent event Occurs more than once a year. HIRA-NY Factor 3: Impact The impact of a hazard is assessed on various severity levels, including a credible worst-case scenario. There are three types of impacts that are included in the HIRA-NY program: impacts on the population, impacts on private property, and impacts on community infrastructure. 560.018.001/12.13 -30- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Impacts on populations include the ability of a hazard to cause serious injury and/or death to surrounding human populations: Serious injury or death is Serious injuries require immediate medical attention, unlikely without which the injured person's life or limb is threatened. Serious injury or death is Applies when the casualties of a hazard can be adequately likely, but not in large treated through the normal operation of a community's numbers emergency medical system. Serious injury or death is Applies when the number of casualties requires a full or likely in large numbers near full activation of a community's medical facilities' disaster plans. Serious injury or death is This option denotes a catastrophe and applies when the likely in extremely large numbers of casualties overwhelms the local emergency numbers medical system, and substantial outside assistance is required. Impacts on private property includes the potential for a hazard to physically or economically damage private property, including industrial structures, homes and contents, commercial businesses, belongings, and income in a community. The HIRA-NY options to denote a hazard's impact on private property include: little or no damage; moderate damage; or severe damage. The HIRA-NY program also requires the identification of precise types and numbers of properties and structures that have the potential to be impacted. Impacts on community infrastructure is related to the potential for a hazard to specifically cause structural damage to the infrastructure that serves the community, including government buildings, roads, bridges, and public utility lines,plants, and substations. The options provided in HIRA-NY to indicate a hazard's impact on community infrastructure include: little or no structural damage; moderate structural damage; or severe structural damage. As with private property, the above classification of damage should be supported by detailed information regarding the type of public property likely to be impacted. HIRA-NY Factor 4: Onset The onset factor is related to the amount of time between the initial recognition of an approaching hazard and when the hazard begins to impact the community. For some hazards, ample warning time is available so that if plans and procedures have not been developed, there is still time to accomplish such tasks before the hazard occurs. Other hazards provide no warning, so the response to a hazard event depends on existing plans, if any. The choices for time of onset are: no warning; several hours warning; one day warning; several days warning; or a week or more of warning. 560.018.001/12.13 -31 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan For a few hazards there may be different warning times depending on location. In this case, the HIRA-NY tool suggests using the shortest warning time that is realistic and associated with a credible worst-case event. HIRA-NY Factor 5: Duration There are two types of duration analyzed in the HIRA-NY program: 1) how long the hazard remains active and 2) how long emergency operations continue after the hazard event has ended. A third duration addressed in HIRA-NY, but not included in a community's hazard analysis report, is how long it takes the community to fully recover from the hazard event. The recovery process continues until the operations of the community return to normal. The options provided for the duration of the hazard are: less than one day; one day; two to three days;four days to a week; or more than one week. The program offers the following options for recovery time of a community after a hazard event: less than one day, one to two days, three days to one week, or one week to two weeks. 4.2 Hazard Identification In order to ascertain which hazards affect Tompkins County, several resources were accessed and reviewed. Utilized sources included reviews of available reports or plans, consultation with community experts, accessing available information online, and documenting information provided by the public during public meetings. On the basis of this review, the most prevalent and potentially the most damaging hazards that could affect the County were included in the County's HIRA-NY risk assessment. The chosen hazards are mainly caused by various types of storms, especially those that create cascading effects like power outages, flooding, or structural damage. Other hazards appear to occur on a less frequent basis or normally have an insignificant impact based on the historic data collected. The following hazards are those included in the HIRA-NY program, not just the hazard selected for additional analysis during Tompkins County's recent risk assessment event. These descriptions, which include natural, technological, and human-caused hazards, summarize the types of hazards and their applicability and ability to affect Tompkins County. This section of the plan is mirrored after the step-by-step process outlined in FEMA's publication 386-2 entitled "Understanding Your Risks, identifying hazards and estimating losses." Air Contamination—Air contamination is indicative of pollution caused by atmospheric conditions such as temperature invasion induced smoggy condition sufficiently serious to create some danger to human health. Given Tompkins County's rural landscapes and a lack of large industrial areas and business parks outside of the City of Ithaca, air contamination is not a concern at this time within the County. This hazard is not profiled further in this plan update. Avalanche—An avalanche occurs when a significant amount of snow slides off mountainous terrain. Although Tompkins County is subject to significant snow storms, no avalanches were found to be an issue at this time. Therefore, this hazard is not profiled further in this mitigation plan update. 560.018.001/12.13 -32- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Civil Unrest—Civil unrest is when an individual or collective action causes serious interference with the peace, security, and/or functioning of a community. Due to the presence of two college campuses in the central portion of Tompkins County, civil unrest events are a concern. For this reason, civil unrest is further profiled in Section 5 of this plan update. Coastal Storm —Coastal storms cause increases in tidal elevations, wind speed, and erosion, caused both by extra-tropical events and tropical cyclones. Tompkins County is a mainland County in New York State; only a portion of the County borders water(Cayuga Lake). Though six (6) Tompkins County municipalities border Cayuga Lake, no portions are adjacent to any tidal waters. Therefore, coastal storms are not recognized as an issue within the County and were not included in the risk assessment. Dam Failure—Dam failures consist of flood damage specifically caused by the structural failure of a man-made water impoundment structure. Tompkins County has several significant water impoundments that are controlled by dams. This hazard is not evaluated in Section 5 due to its infrequent occurrence and limited impact on communities within the County. Drought—Drought is the loss of water supply due to the lack of rainfall. The majority of water supply in Tompkins County is obtained from groundwater wells. Groundwater levels are less susceptible to seasonal and droughty conditions than surface waters. None the less, drought events have historically impacted Tompkins County,particularly in the 1960s. No recent drought events have been recorded, though the unpredictability of weather patterns is always a concern for the farming community since they seldom have local irrigation systems. The role that climate change may have on future drought events is also of interest and concern and is further detailed in the drought hazard profile in Section 5. Earthquake—Earthquakes are described as a shaking or trembling of the earth that is volcanic or tectonic in origin. There is potential for earthquake tremors to be felt within Tompkins County, though no history of such impacts is available. The concerns surrounding this hazard are compounded by the fact that Tompkins County is located approximately 15 miles outside of the 50-mile ingestion pathway for the nuclear power plants in Oswego County. Though this hazard is not likely to cause extensive damage within Tompkins County, because of the County's location within New York State and its adjacency to the nuclear facilities' 50-mile ingestion pathway ring, it is included in the HMP Update risk assessment. Epidemic —An epidemic is the spreading of a contagious disease on a mass basis. The majority of significant epidemic history within Tompkins County focuses on agricultural epidemics and diseases. The frequency of widespread human epidemics within Tompkins County is not high, though the County's vulnerability to such an event is elevated due to the large national and international college student contingent that seasonally resides within the County. This hazard was included in the risk assessment process and is further detailed in Section 5. Explosion—Explosions included the rapid burning of material and gases yielding the violent release of energy. There is no known history of explosions within the County. Therefore, this hazard is not analyzed further in regards to its potential impacts on Tompkins County. 560.018.001/12.13 -33- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Extreme Temperatures —Extreme temperatures include extended periods of excessive hot or cold weather with a serious impact on human and/or animal populations. Cascade effects can include enhanced fire/wildfire potential and drought. In past years,periods of extreme heat have had a greater impact within Tompkins County than extreme cold. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, reside within the County, elevating the potential risk of an extreme temperature event. Though this hazard was not assessed in the County's original HMP, the effect that climate change may have on yearly temperatures is a growing concern. Therefore, this hazard was assessed and is documented in the hazard profile section. Fire—Fire is the uncontrolled burning of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or other property. As is common in many populated areas, structural fires frequently occur within Tompkins County. Because of the potential damage that a large-scale fire could cause in the City of Ithaca, for example, this hazard was included in the HIRA-NY risk analysis. Further details regarding this hazard are included in this Plan Update. Flash Flood—Flooding is the submergence of lands in the vicinity of rising waterway levels generally adjacent to water bodies and drainage areas. A distinction was made as part of this HMP Update between flash flooding, short-term, rapid flooding events, and lake flooding. Almost all of the documented damage that has occurred in Tompkins County as a result of flooding is related to flash flooding events. Such an event is normally caused by excessive rainfall or rapid thaw of snow packs. Details surrounding this hazard event and how its frequency, onset, and damage potential might change due to climate change are included in the next Section. Lake Flood—A general flood hazard was profiled in the 2006 HMP for Tompkins County. During the 2012 risk assessment process, this hazard was further broken down into flash flooding and lake flooding, which would be directly associated with Cayuga Lake. During lake flood events, the water levels rise slowly because of the larger surface area of the waterbody. Minimal damage is associated with such water level rises since there is more warning, a slower onset, and the water levels in Cayuga Lake can be altered by the Canal Corporation if they become too high. Historic occurrences and other details associated with lake flooding in Tompkins County are included in the natural hazard profile section, below. Food Shortage—A food shortage occurs when the normal distribution pattern and/or timely delivery of foodstuffs to retail establishments for normal consumer demand is interrupted for a substantial period of time. There is no historic documentation pointing to a food shortage within Tompkins County; therefore this hazard is not analyzed further in this document. Fuel Shortage— Similar to the above, a fuel shortage may occur when the normal distribution pattern and/or timely delivery of fuel to retail establishments for normal consumer demand is interrupted for a substantial period of time. The assessment of this hazard focused on potential long-range impacts that could occur as the supply of fuel continues to decrease while the demand increases. Few incidences of a fuel shortage have occurred within Tompkins County; however, these historical events coupled with the hazard assessment assumption that a fuel shortage would impact the entire County, elevated this hazard into the top five (5) highest rated hazards during the risk assessment process. This hazard, which was not included in the 2006 HMP, is further detailed in Section 5. 560.018.001/12.13 -34- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan HAZMAT—Fixed Sites —Hazardous materials at fixed site locations is defined as the discharge of hazardous materials (toxic, flammable or corrosive) into the environment from a facility located at a specific location. Generally, HAZMAT issues from fixed sites in the County are limited in nature and infrequent in occurrence. This hazard is not included in further assessments. HAZMAT—In Transit—Hazardous materials in transit is the discharge of hazardous materials (toxic, flammable or corrosive) during their transport via a variety of transportation means (motor vehicle, truck, train, boat or plane). Risk assessment discussion surrounding this hazard focused on the potential for hydraulic fracturing operations to be sited within Tompkins County in the future. High numbers of hazmat in transit events have been documented in Pennsylvania associated with hydraulic fracturing operations. Because of the potential for such activities to occur within Tompkins County, this hazard was included in the County's risk assessment and will be further detailed in Section 5. Hurricane—A hurricane is a type of tropical cyclone with winds exceeding 74 miles per hour (mph) accompanied by rain, thunder and lightning. High wind events are commonly documented within Tompkins County, but by definition are classified in this Plan Update as severe storm events. Weather patterns that begin as hurricanes are often re-classified as tropical storms or tropical depressions (two other types of tropical cyclones)by the time they reach New York State. Tropical storms are organized systems of strong thunderstorms with a defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph. Tropical depressions are organized systems of clouds and thunderstorms with a defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 38 mph or less. Despite the numerous definitions, one historic record of a hurricane that affected Tompkins County does exist. Though this hazard has a moderately low potential, it is recommended that it be reviewed as part of the mitigation planning process. Hurricane was included in the County's risk assessment process and will be further detailed below. Ice Jam —Ice jams occur when water bodies are clogged with large blocks of ice. The ice is normally formed by the freezing of the water body and becomes dislodged due to hydraulic conditions whereby the ice floats and may jam at sections of the water body that have a limited cross section (i.e., at bridges and natural channel contractions). Ice jam events have been regularly reported throughout the County and are frequently associated with flash flood events in the late winter/early spring. This is a newly added hazard to the Plan, and will receive further detail in the next section. Ice Storm —Ice storms include freezing rains which cause icing of roads, structures, and vegetation, and can cause structural damages and create hazardous slippery conditions. Ice storms have frequently occurred in the County based upon discussion during the risk assessment. These events routinely cause trees to topple due to the weight of the ice which has the potential to cause structural damage and utility failures. This hazard is profiled further in this plan. Infestation—An infestation event is characterized by an excessive population of plants, insects, rodents, or other animals requiring control measures due to their potential to carry diseases, destroy crops, or harm the environment. The County is actively dealing with multiple species of invasives, which was the driver behind the top five ranking of this hazard event. Information regarding the occurrence of this hazard and how the effects might change in response to potential 560.018.001/12.13 -35- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan climate changes will be reviewed in the next plan section. Infestation is a new hazard to the 2012 Plan Update and was not included in the original plan document. Landslide—Landslides are defined as the downward movement of a sloped land mass under the force of gravity. Based upon historic information, landslides have occurred in the County on a localized basis. The potential for this hazard was determined to be low, though the potential for cascading hazards to occur was noted. This hazard, which was not included in the 2006 Plan, is profiled further in Section 5. Mine Collapse—Mine collapse is the structural failure of an underground mine used to harvest minerals from the earth. There are no known active mines in Tompkins County. Since no historic mine collapse issues have been documented within the County, mine collapse was not included in the risk assessment process. Oil Spill — Oil spills include the discharge of oil into the environment by a fixed site or mobile site (vehicles). This hazard is similar to what has been mentioned with respect to hazardous material hazards. Historically, it is known that fuel oil spills have resulted due to the lack of maintenance of oil storage facilities or due to damage as a consequence of a cascade effect resulting in the structural damage of an oil containing vessel. Though minor spills occur, large scale oil spills are not a concern within Tompkins County and a lengthy history of such events does not exist. Concerns related to oil spills will be applied to the hazardous materials hazard analyses, as this hazard will not be detailed further in this document. Radiological —Fixed Site—Radiological materials at fixed sites is defined as the release or threat of release of radioactive material from a nuclear power generating station or research reactor or other stationary source of radioactivity. No nuclear power locations or other radiological facilities exist within Tompkins County; therefore, this hazard is not profiled in the next section of the plan. Radiological —In Transit—Radiological materials in transit constitutes a release of radioactive material into the environment while in transit due possibly to an accident or malfunction in the container which holds the material. No historical data was available to indicate the release of any radioactive material within the County. As no history of this hazard is documented within Tompkins County, this hazard is not afforded further consideration in this plan. Severe Storm —A severe storm hazard event includes hail storms, windstorms, and severe thunderstorms (with associated severe wind events such as derechos, gustnados (ground based gust vortex), and downbursts). Severe storm was included in the HIRA-NY risk assessment completed by Tompkins County, ranking second among the highest rating. This hazard frequently occurs within the County and therefore will be detailed further in the next section of this plan. Severe Thunderstorm— Severe thunderstorms can produce tornados, hail, flooding, or high winds. These three potential side effects of severe thunderstorms are fully described and included under the hazards severe storm (includes hail events and high winds) and tornado. Therefore, this additional hazard will not be analyzed as part of this plan. Severe thunderstorms will be incorporated under the severe storm hazard. 560.018.001/12.13 -36- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Structural Collapse— Structural collapse is the failure and caving in of a structure. In and of itself,potential for the structural collapse of a structure within the County was not historically found to be an issue, unless it was caused by another hazard. Generally, building code enforcement prevents flagrant issues from arising. In addition, programs for the demolition of abandoned structures have helped to remove abandoned structures before they collapse. Because programs are in place to mitigate this potential hazard, structural collapse is not analyzed in this plan. Terrorism — Terrorism is the systematic use of violence committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. Though no significant locations that may be targeted by large-scale terrorist events exist in the County, when compared to other areas across the Country, smaller scale events could potentially occur. Because of the increased threat of terrorism in the past decade this hazard will be profiled further in this plan. Tornado—Tornados are violent destructive whirling winds accompanied by a funnel-shaped cloud that progresses in a narrow path over the land. Historic tornados have been recorded within New York State. Though an infrequent event within in Tompkins County, such an event has the potential to cause a large amount of damage. This was not assessed in the 2006 HMP, but has been added to this Plan Update and will be profiled in Section 5. Tsunami-wave Action— Tsunamis are a series of enormous waves created by an underwater disturbance such as an earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, or meteorite. Due to Tompkins County's distance from the ocean, there is no potential for tsunamis to affect the County. No historic data was uncovered to show otherwise. This hazard is not included further in this plan update. Transportation Accident—A transportation accident is an unexpected happening causing loss or injury. Historically, minor traffic accidents frequently occur in Tompkins County. Some of these events are due to the cascading effects caused by other hazards such as severe winter weather or ice storms. More severe accidents are fairly common, especially within densely populated areas of the County or on main transportation routes. Transportation accident, the highest rated hazard during the County's risk assessment process, will be included in Section 5 of this plan. Utility Failure—Utility failure is defined as the loss of electric and/or natural gas supply, telephone service, or public water supply, as a result of an internal system failure and not by the effects of disaster agents. A few key historic utility failure events were documented during the HIRA-NY analysis; however, the majority of utility failures occur as a cascading effect from another hazard event. Regardless, this hazard was determined to have the potential to impact the County. Further consideration of this hazard will be provided in the next section of this document. Water Suply Contamination—Water supply contamination includes the contamination or potential contamination of surface or subsurface public water supply by chemical or biological materials that results in restricted or diminished ability to use the water source. Water supply contamination within Tompkins County is infrequently documented, as approximately 50- percent of the County's population is on public water. Concerns raised for this hazard were 560.018.001/12.13 -37- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan associated with future potential effects from hydraulic fracturing operations. This hazard was included in the County's risk assessment and is detailed further in section 5 to discuss these concerns. Wildfire—Wildfires are described as the uncontrollable combustion of trees, brush, or grass involving a substantial land area which may have the potential for threatening human life and property. Though some areas of Tompkins County are heavily forested, few historic wildfire events have been documented. Because of the low incidence and low probability of this hazard to occur within the County, it is not included in further assessments. Winter Storm (severe)—Winter storms include heavy snowfall and extreme cold and can immobilize an entire region. Major snowstorms have occurred in Tompkins County in the past, placing high demands on the Public Works Departments of the County, Towns, and Villages, and adding risks for emergency response personnel. This hazard is included in the County's risk assessment due to its frequent occurrence. 4.3 Results of the Tompkins County HIRA-NY On March 8, 2012, a group of County staff, local officials, agency/interest group representatives, and technical experts was assembled to complete a HIRA-NY risk assessment process for Tompkins County. Such a risk assessment was previously conducted as part of the County's original 2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan, and was performed again for this Plan Update. NYSOEM Region IV personnel facilitated the March 2012 risk assessment and input the results in the HIRA-NY computer program. Detailed meeting notes were recorded throughout the process by Beth Harrington with the Department of Emergency Response, and reviewed by the project team in subsequent meetings. The following individuals attended this event: NYSOEM Region IV—Ronald Raymond, Tom M°Cartney Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response—Lee Shurtleff, Beth Harrington, Jessica Verfuss Town of Caroline—Irene Weiser Town of Ithaca—Creig Hebdon Town of Dryden—David Sprout Town of Enfield—Larry Stillwell Town of Danby—Ric Dietrich, Susan Beeners Town of Newfield—Richard Driscoll City of Ithaca—Julie Holcomb Town of Ulysses —Darby Kiley Tompkins County Planning Department— Scott Doyle, Katie Borgella Cornell University Horticulture Department—Jonathan Comstock Cornell University Environmental Health and Safety—Dan Maas, Leah Stoner Bolton Point Water Treatment Plant—Jack Rueckheim U.S. Geological Society—Ed Bugliosi Tompkins County Department of Public Works —Cheryl Nelson National Weather Service—Dave Nicosia American Red Cross —Kevin Carpenter Tompkins County Public Information Office—Marcia Lynch 560.018.001/12.13 -38- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Tompkins County Sheriff's Department—Bob Lampman Tompkins County Administration—Paula Younger Tompkins County Health Department—Adam Hartwig Tompkins County Assessment Office—Al Fiorille Barton & Loguidice—John Condino, Johanna Duffy Based on the professional knowledge of those present, historical County data, hazard event definitions, history from the National Weather Service, recent scientific reports on anticipated impacts from climate change in New York and likely impacts from widespread natural gas drilling in the region, and discussions that occurred amongst the group, 22 hazards were assessed and ranked using the HIRA-NY program. The County's top three rated hazards identified using the HIRA-NY tool are: transportation accident, severe storm, and flash flood. The hazards that were assessed, their 2012 rankings, and the original 2003 hazard rankings are included in Table 12. Table 12—Tompkins County Risk Assessment Hazard Rankings Tompkins County's HIR,4NY risk assessment completed on March 8, 2012 2012 Risk 2003 Rank 2003 Risk r(HMP2012 Rank Assessment (original Assessment Hazard Update) Score HMP) Score Transportation accident 1 289 8 217 Severe storm 2 281 4 236 Flash flood 3 232 1 297 Infestation 4 231 N/A N/A Fuel shortage 5 212 N/A N/A Fire 6 210 7 223 Tornado 7 207 N/A N/A Utility failure 8 205 13 180 Ice storm 9 204 5 233 Epidemic 10 197 3 260 Water supply contamination 11 195 6 227 Hazmat in transit 12 194 12 196 Severe winter storm 12 194 10 201 Hurricane 13 193 9 215 Terrorism 14 192 2 295 Extreme temperatures 15 1 190 1 N/A N/A Ice jam 15 1 190 1 N/A N/A A total of 22 hazards were analyzed during this risk assessment process: 14 natural hazards, 6 technological hazards, and 2 human-caused hazards. Nine new hazards were assessed during the 2012 HIRA-NY analysis that were not profiled in the 2006 HMP: infestation, fuel shortage, tornado, extreme temperatures, ice j am, drought, lake flood, earthquake, and landslide. The ranks and assessment scores for some of the hazards vary greatly between the 2003 and 2012 risk 560.018.001/12.13 -39- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan assessments. This variation is attributed to that fact that risk assessment participants are more likely to rank recent events and hazards that have recently affected the community higher than others. The individuals present for the County's 2012 risk assessment process determined the severity of impacts for the 22 selected hazards based on the five factors previously discussed: scope, frequency, impact, onset, and duration. Table 13 details the selections that were made for these five factors in relation to each of the analyzed hazards. Table 13 —HIRA-NY Risk Assessment Rating Characteristics Scope,frequency, impact, onset, and duration results for the 22 hazards analyzed as part of Tompkins County's HIRA-NY risk assessment completed on March 8, 2012. Cascade Hazard Recovery Hazard Rating Scope Effects Frequency Onset Duration Time Transportation 289 Throughout a Some A frequent No One day One to two accident large region potential event warning days Severe storm 281 Throughout a Highly A frequent No Less than One to two large region likely event warning one day days Throughout a Highly A regular Several Lessthan One to two Flash flood 232 large region likely event hours one day days warning Throughout a Highly An frequent More thanMore than Less than Infestation 231 large region likely event a week one week one day warning Throughout a Some An infrequent More thanMore than More than Fuel shortage 212 a large region potential event one week two weeks warniweek n Fire 210 Throughout a Some An infrequent No Two to Three days small region potential event warning three days to one week Tornado 207 Throughout a Highly An infrequent No Less than Three days large region likely event warning I one day to one week Utility failure 205 Throughout a Some An infrequent No Less than Less than large region potential event warning one day one day Throughout a Highly An infrequent Up to oneTwo to Three days Ice storm 204 day large region likely event warning three days to one week Throughout a Some More than More than More than Epidemic 197 large region potential A rare event a week one week two weeks warning Water supply 195 Throughout a Some An infrequent No Two to Less than contamination large region potential event warning three days one day Hazmat in transit 194 Throughout a Some An infrequent No Less than One to two large region potemial event warning one day days Severe winter Throughout a Highly A regular Up to one One to two storm 194 large region likely event week One day days warning Throughout a Highly Up to one More than Hurricane 193 A rare event week One day large region likely warning two weeks Several Some No Less than More than Terrorism 192 individual potential A rare event warning one day two weeks locations 560.018.001/12.13 -40- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 13 —HIRA-NY Risk Assessment Rating Characteristics Scope,frequency, impact, onset, and duration results for the 22 hazards analyzed as part of Tompkins County's HIRA-NY risk assessment completed on March 8, 2012. Cascade Hazard Recovery Hazard Rating Scope Effects Frequency Onset Duration Time Extreme Throughout a Some A regular Up to oneTwo to Less than temperatures 190 large region potential event week three days one day warning Several Some A regular Several Two to Less than Ice jam 190 individual potential event hours three days one day locations warning Throughout a Some An infrequent More thanMore than a Three days Drought 181 large region potential event a week week to one week warning Throughout a Highly An infrequent Up to one More than Three days Lake flood 172 week small region likely event warning one week to one week Earthquake 166 Throughout a Some A rare event No Less than One to two large region potential warning one day days Several Some An infrequent No Less than Less than Civil unrest 160 individual potential event warning one day one day locations Several Highly An infrequent No Less than One to two Landslide 159 individual likely event warning one day days locations The County's three highest rated hazards, transportation accident, severe storm, and flash flood, have many factors in common, such as little warning, frequent or regular occurrences, and ability to affect a large portion of the County. It is important to understand that the rating scores serve to approximate the risks associated with each hazard. As previously mentioned, the extent of risk varies depending on the group of individuals present during such an exercise and the health and safety issues current at the time the assessment is completed. Based on the highest rated hazards identified by the County HIRA risk assessment event, objectives were suggested and a mitigation plan was formulated to minimize the potential loss and impact of these hazards. These objectives and mitigation strategies are documented later on in this document. 4.4 Presidential Disaster Declaration After a state has declared a State Disaster Area, as the result of a particular disaster event, that state and its local governments will evaluate recovery options, capabilities, and costs. If the damage from the disaster event is beyond the recovery capabilities of the state, the governor will send a letter to the President, through FEMA, detailing the situation. The president then makes the decision whether to declare a major disaster or emergency. After a presidential declaration is made, FEMA designates the impacted area eligible for assistance and announces the types of assistance available. FEMA provides supplemented assistance for the recovery of state and local governments; the federal share will always be at least 75 percent of the total eligible costs (FEMA, Presidential Disaster Declarations, 2009). According to the NYSOEM (NYSOEM GIS, 2010), damages within Tompkins County that occur from any given hazard event need to meet or exceed $315,558 for a Presidential Disaster Declaration to be issued. Appendix A - Figure 4.3 560.018.001/12.13 -41 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan shows the total number of Presidential Disaster Declarations that have occurred between 1954 and 2010 for every County in New York State. Tompkins County has had nine (9) declarations within this time period. One additional Presidential Disaster Declaration has been declared in New York State since 2010 that has included public assistance for Tompkins County. FEMA DR-4031 was issued as a result of Tropical Storm Lee on September 13, 2011. 4.5 Natural Gas Drilling The potential for natural gas drilling related to the Marcellus and Utica Shale deposits in Tompkins County and throughout the Southern Tier Region of New York State, has created a tremendous amount of concern in some communities regarding the possible environmental effects of the horizontal drilling process. Drilling for natural gas in such shale deposits uses a process termed hydraulic fracturing, also known as hydrofracking or fracking, in which the gas is extracted through a horizontal well drilling technique which is not currently permitted in New York State. Hydrofracking refers to the pumping of a mixture or water, chemical, and sand into the rock formations creating fractures in the shale that allow for the natural gas to escape to a production well where it is extracted and collected. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has finished compiling a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement(SGEIS)to review the potential environmental effects of this process. The information in the SGEIS will be used by the NYSDEC to formulate and propose a set of regulations, which the drilling companies will have to abide by to minimize the potential impacts from these drilling activities. While there are currently no horizontal natural gas wells within Tompkins County, it was estimated in 2011 that 39-percent of the land within the County was leased for potential future gas drilling operations. Tompkins County has established a Council of Governments Gas Drilling Task Force to keep abreast of the latest developments regarding this topic. Concerns within the County surrounding natural gas drilling include: site disturbance, loss of active farmland, increased water consumption, chemical mixture used during drilling process, flowback of water, increased truck traffic and access, and disposal/treatment of utilized water/chemical mixture. Nearly all of jurisdictions within the County have already passed moratorium on the process, or ordinances prohibiting the natural gas drilling within their municipal boundaries. Many of the HMP planning process participants expressed concerns regarding potential cascading effects that could result from natural gas drilling within their municipalities. While horizontal natural gas drilling is not considered a natural hazard, there was strong concern expressed among several participants that such drilling techniques present the potential to create human-caused environmental impacts such as oil spills, explosions, fire, fixed site and in-transit hazardous material spills, and water supply contamination. The NYSDEC's SGEIS indicates that, "though the potential for severe negative impacts from any one site is low, when all activities in the State are considered together, the potential for negative impacts on water quality, land use, endangered species, and sensitive habitats, increases significantly." As previously mentioned, natural gas hydrofracturing drilling is currently not permitted within New York State, and the regulations surrounding the process which may be passed one day 560.018.001/12.13 -42- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan cannot be speculated at this time with certainty. As this issue relates to the County's HMP Update, it is premature to attempt to identify and include all potential impacts that could result from the allowance of such drilling techniques, since there is little or no history available regarding such activities within New York State, but it is prudent to consider these potential impacts when evaluating hazards in this document. As this issue continues to progress, it will be tracked and discussed as part of future HMP reviews and 5-year updates. It will be imperative that this section be reviewed and expanded or removed in the future to accommodate future realities. 560.018.001/12.13 -43- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.0 Hazard Histories and Future Potential Based on the information collected during the data review and risk assessment portion of this plan, 22 hazards were determined to have the potential to affect Tompkins County. A summary of these hazards is provided below in Table 14. Table 14-Primary Hazards Determined to Affect Tompkins County Hazard Type of Hazard Severe storm Flash flood Infestation Tornado Ice storm Epidemic Severe winter storm Natural Hurricane Extreme temperatures Ice jam Drought Lake flood Earthquake Landslide Transportation accident Fuel shortage Fire Utility failure Technological Water supply contamination Hazmat in transit Terrorism Human-caused Civil unrest The analyses included in Section 4.3 eliminated the need for further discussion on the following hazards: air contamination, avalanche, coastal storm, explosion, food shortage, mine collapse, oil spill, radiological —fixed site, radiological —in transit, severe thunderstorm, hazardous materials —fixed site, dam failure, structural collapse, tsunami-wave action, water supply contamination, and wildfire. Though these hazards are not included in the 2012 HMP Update for Tompkins County, they can be incorporated into future plan updates, as needed. The remaining 22 hazards listed in Table 14 are profiled below because it was determined that they have the potential to impact Tompkins County. These hazard profiles included details of their historic occurrence within the County, County and individual jurisdiction vulnerability and susceptibility, historic 560.018.001/12.13 -44- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan cost damage estimates from previous hazard events, and future potential including their relationship to climate change. Of the 22 identified hazards, the following 15 (Table 15)were noted as having the potential to be more impacted by climate change. Table 15—Hazards Identified as Having the Potential to be Impacted by Climate Change Natural Hazards Severe Storm Flash flood Infestation Ice storm Epidemic Severe winter storm Hurricane Extreme temperatures Ice jam Drought Lake flood Landslide Technological Hazards Fire Utility failure Water supply contamination Based on each hazard's profile and associated details, a qualitative probability of occurrence (i.e., low, medium, or high)was determined for each. The level of detail included for each hazard was limited by the amount of historical data and prior cost and damage estimates available. 5.1 Natural Hazard Profiles Details associated with historical hazards occurrences were collected using National Climactic Data Center(NCDC) data, technical and project committee knowledge, Tompkins County records, information available through FEMA, and other resources, as appropriate. 5.1.1 Severe Storms and Hurricane Because of the similarities between the severe storms and hurricane hazard characteristics and definitions, they have been combined into one hazard profile. 560.018.001/12.13 -45- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan General Hazard Description Severe storms are defined as storms with a tornado and/or surface hail 3/4" or greater and wind gusts of 58 mph or greater. They include 1) hailstorms, 2)windstorms, and 3) severe thunderstorms (with associated severe wind events). 1) Hailstorms —Typically associated with severe thunderstorms, hailstorms are characterized by balls or irregularly shaped lumps of ice greater than 3/4" in diameter. The peak occurrence period for hailstorms is late spring and early summer. Hailstorms can cause extensive damage to agriculture crops,particularly those that are herbaceous and long- stemmed. Severe hailstorms can also cause damage to buildings and automobiles, but rarely cause fatalities or serious injuries. Probability for severe hail to occur in the U.S. is included as Appendix A—Figure 5.1. 2) Windstorms —Wind is defined as the motion of air relative to the earth's surface. Extreme windstorm events are associated with hurricanes, winter cyclones, and severe thunderstorms. Tompkins County is located in wind zone 111; winds with a potential speed up to 200 mph are depicted for this zone (Appendix A —Figure 5.2). 3) Severe Thunderstorms According to the National Weather Service (NWS), thunderstorms are considered to be `severe' if they produce hail at least 3/4" in diameter, winds of at least 58 mph, or a tornado. NWS estimates that approximately 1,000 severe thunderstorms occur each year on the U.S. mainland. Severe thunderstorms can produce damaging tornadoes, hailstorms, windstorms, lightning and flash floods. Figure 5.3 indicates that Tompkins County experienced 63 to 130 high wind events between 1960 and 2012. Figure 5.3 -Number of Wind Events for Tompkins County, 1960-2012 (NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2014) --------------------------------------------- 1 Nem York Wirrcl Events by County 1960-2012 0/ i I ao Number u Lwe peuy n I x P B #Tilt'R no 1 63 IJV rJt,ehr F,$ f I'SaPoRi b 4 4tlW!i � ui{k q4!(F y, �akrim Q�4 Aa FP�mrIDral`.. 560.018.001/12.13 -46- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Hurricanes, also termed tropical cyclones, are defined as storms with wind speeds of 74 mph or greater which blow in a large spiral around an "eye" (calm center). Hurricanes are typically downgraded to tropical storms or tropical depressions by the time they reach Tompkins County. This hazard has a high potential to cause other cascading effects and extensive damage to life and property. Key Severe Storm and Hurricane Findings for Tompkins County: • Hailstorms —An average of one hailstorm occurs annually (1980-1999). • Windstorms —There is potential for winds up to 200 mph in Tompkins County (Wind Zone IH) (Appendix A —Figure 5.2). • Severe Thunderstorms —An average of four to five severe thunderstorms occur annually (1980-1999). • Hurricanes —Tompkins County is not located within a hurricane-susceptible region. Historical Hazard Occurrence Hurricane -No hurricane or tropical storm events were noted for Tompkins County, though Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee had devastating impacts to adjacent counties, which heightened awareness of these types of hazards in Tompkins County. The County's geographic location within the U.S. and New York State provides protection from full-strength hurricane events. Historically, Tompkins County has however experienced high wind events; the most severe of which are associated with remnants of hurricanes that have tracked up the Atlantic Coast. Hurricane strength and severity generally decreases as the storm continues north and inland to central New York. Therefore, the damage potential is relatively low and is mostly associated with downed trees and interruptions to utility services. A list of hurricane force wind events that have historically been reported within the County is provided below: • 1935 —high wind event(eight to ten fatalities occurred) • 1954 (October)—Remnants of Hurricane Hazel • 1970s — extreme wind gusts • 2003 —Remnants of Hurricane Isabel • 2011 —Remnants of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee Severe Storms -NCDC data was queried to obtain records of severe storm events that have occurred over the past six years (fall 2006 —fall 2012). Two reports of high wind events and 31 reports of severe thunderstorm were reported for Tompkins County. The occurrence details and storm damages, if any, are summarized in Appendix A - Table 16. The most significant severe storm event reported within the last six years occurred on April 28, 2011, in Danby, which included a tornado (detailed in Section 5.1.12). This storm consisted of a straight line of winds of nearly 100 mph that resulted from a storm system that moved east across New York State from the Great Lakes. Significant tree damage was reported as a result of this 560.018.001/12.13 -47- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan storm, as well as multiple reports of roof and siding damage to residential housing. Hail associated with the storm also struck homes and cars in the area. This storm resulted in an estimated $100,000 in damages. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Based on the NCDC's damage reports, the majority of severe storm events within Tompkins County resulted in $1,000 to $2,000 worth of damage. The total damages recorded over the previous six years amount to $208,000, the majority of which was associated with residential property damage. No fatalities or injuries have been reported over this time period. Based on the NCDC damages included in Appendix A - Table 16, an average of$35,000 in losses occurred annually between 2006 and 2012. Storms that occur between late spring and early fall have a greater probability of damage to croplands. The majority of reported severe storm events occurred within that window, during summer, from June to August. Impacts to public utilities are commonly reported as a result of severe storm events. Such impacts require an immediate response by utility company personnel and are often fixed quickly. Hail events can cause minimal damage to private property, especially vehicles, but often do not result in an increased need for County emergency services or other resources. After a severe storm event ends, the County and municipal public works departments are sometimes called upon to clean up debris or fix infrastructure damage that may have occurred. Future Potential Impacts Based on recent literature related to climate change potential within New York State, including the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority's (NYSERDA) C1imAID Report, weather patterns are projected to change and increase in severity. Annual average precipitation is predicted to increase by up to 5%by the 2020s, up to 10%by the 2050s, and up to 15% by the 2080s (NYSERDA, 2011). The greatest changes are projected to occur in northern New York; however, no area of the state will be spared from climate change effects. The majority of this additional precipitation is expected to fall as rain during winter and an increase in heavy rainfalls is expected, with less incidence of light rain. Due to the projected increase in precipitation and the increase in yearly average temperatures, severe storm events are anticipated to increase in frequency and intensity. 5.1.2 Flash Flood General Hazard Description Floods are natural events for rivers and streams where excess water from snowmelt or rainfall accumulates and overflows onto the banks and adjacent floodplains. FEMA has mapped 100- year floodplains, which designates areas that, on average, have a 1-percent chance of flooding in any given year. A large amount of rainfall over a short period of time can result in flash flood conditions. Flash flood damage tends to occur in and around floodplains. Numerous 100 and 500-year flood zones are recognized within the limits of Tompkins County. These areas, totaling approximately 10,665 acres, are more prone to impacts from flooding events due to their location. FEMA flood maps were last updated in the mid-1980s and are at this point inaccurate in many parts of the County. Direct losses from flash flood events are not 560.018.001/12.13 -48- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan frequently documented unless they occur in association with large flood events or storms with significant flooding as a cascading hazard. Key Flash Flood Findings for Tompkins County • Twenty-four(24) flash flood events have been documented over the last nineteen (19)years (National Weather Service). • Over 10,000 of a total approximate 31,000 acres in Tompkins County fall within either the 100 or 500-year FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Flood Zones. An estimated 3,977 tax parcels intersect these flood zones; these areas are classified as follows: commercial (519 parcels), community services (203 parcels), industrial (12 parcels),public services (118 parcels), recreation (61 parcels), and residential (3064 parcels — all occupied). • 100-year flash flood events have a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year. • A total of 8 Presidential Declarations for flooding events have been issued for Tompkins County between 1953 and April 2010 (NYSOEM GIS, 2010). Figure 5.4 -Shows the FEMA Floodplain Mapping for Tompkins County (FEMA, 2006) Lan bf"ig wo„ 6'enEon A. L.-mg new ma .rM Dryden Ithaca Certain.Mewffdld' , anlarp � Cayuga Lake Village city r7 Town FEMA Flood Zones 900-year j 600-year 560.018.001/12.13 -49- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Historical Hazard Occurrences Due to the topographic characteristics of Tompkins County, several municipalities are vulnerable to flash floods and associated landslides,particularly the Towns of Dryden, Groton, Caroline, the City of Ithaca, and the Villages of Freeville and Groton. Cornell University has also reported multiple landslide events on their properties, which have resulted from flash flooding. Tompkins County does not have a history of flood related deaths or serious injuries; however, flash flooding was determined to be a priority hazard event within Tompkins County due to its frequency as well as economic impacts related to property and infrastructure damage. The NWS reports that twenty-four(24) flash flood events have been documented within Tompkins County over the last nineteen (19) years. Four such occurrences have taken place since the County's initial HMP in 2006. These NCDC records are detailed in Table 17, below. Table 17—Tompkins County Flash Flood Events between October 2006 and October 2012 (NOAA, NCDC Storm Events Search, 2012) Property Crop Deaths F (4)juries Damage Damage Location Date Event (4) M M Ithaca 11/2006 Flash Flood 0 0 $25,000 0 McKinneys Point 8/2007 Flash Flood 0 0 $1,000 0 Ithaca 9/2011 Flash Flood 0 0 $20,000 0 Ellis Hollow 9/2011 Flash Flood 1 0 1 0 1 $400,000 0 Tompkins County did not sustain any significant damages associated with October 2012's Hurricane Sandy. The most significant recent flash flooding event was associated with Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Irene (September 2011). A record rainfall of six to twelve (12) inches resulted in the flash flooding of creeks in and around the Susquehanna River Basin. Damages associated with this event in New York and Pennsylvania were estimated at close to 1 billion dollars. Other historical occurrences of flash flooding in Tompkins County include Virgil Creek flooding in Dryden, flooding at the Dryden Elementary School, Groton Nursing Home & Senior Citizens building, and localized flooding along Little Egypt Creek and East Shore Drive Plaza. Historical Costs and Damage Estimates As illustrated by the NCDC property damage estimates above, a single flash flood event has resulted in $1,000 - $400,000 in damage costs. To look at the average annual losses reported for communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), flood damage data was reviewed and is included in Appendix A - Table 18. As of 2007, Tompkins County had 299 NFIP policy holders. The Village of Groton reports the highest annual losses from flooding events. The total average annual loss due to flooding in the County is reported as $46,858.85 based on the NFIP records. This number is conceivably higher during years where a significant flash flooding event occurs. It is always important to remember that not all jurisdictions within Tompkins County participate in the NFIP; therefore, additional losses are assumed to occur every year. 560.018.001/12.13 -50- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Based on the data depicted in Appendix A - Figure 5.5, approximately 7,860 acres of agricultural lands are within or immediately adjacent to 100-year or 500-year floodplains. This amount of land represents an estimated value of$16,640,635.00, based on Tompkins County Real Property records. Depending on the time of year and the type of agricultural enterprise, damages to these lands from flash flooding could range from minimal ($500)to significant($1,000,000), though no significant agricultural damages have been recorded as a result of past flash flood events. Flood events have the potential to quickly impact all structures and facilities. Large flood events often include mandatory evacuations and the establishment of emergency shelters. Residential properties are the property type most often located within mapped floodplains; therefore, impacts to private houses are anticipated to be the largest structural impact that would result from a large flood event. Tompkins County currently has twelve (12) Repetitive Loss properties. A Repetitive Loss (RL)property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the NFIP within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. The greatest number of RL properties fall within the Town of Lansing boundaries. Since 1978, a total of$290,991.02 has been paid to these residents for both building and content damages. Extensive impacts to transportation infrastructure, agricultural lands, and public utilities can also occur from flash flooding. As noted in the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Hydraulic Analysis and Impacts of Long Term Shoaling for Flood Risk Management Project, Cayuga Inlet, Ithaca, NY flooding is most pronounced in the City of Ithaca downstream of Sixmile Creek, between State Street and Cascadilla Creek. In this area flood waters often cross Meadow Street and inundate portions of Adams, Fourth and Fifth streets. Also, Cascadilla Creek water will often back up and flood parts of Lincoln and Dey streets. The report indicates that the flood risk to the residences and businesses in these areas is increased due to the lack of regular maintenance of the Flood Risk Management project on the Cayuga Inlet. Future Potential Impacts According to the climate projections noted in NYSERDA's C1imAID technical report, annual average precipitation is projected to increase by up to 5 percent by the 2020s, up to 10 percent by the 2050s, and up to 15 percent by the 2080s. Such increases are sure to affect the frequency and severity of flash flooding events within New York State. It is anticipated that these increase will not be evenly distributed throughout the year. Reports indicate that the bulk of these increases will be realized in the winter months and mainly come in the form of rain. More rain on frozen ground will most likely increase the likelihood of flash flooding. Because Tompkins County is located at the southern end of Cayuga Lake and has numerous freshwater streams within its boundaries, the County will become increasingly vulnerable to potential impacts from flash flooding events as precipitation increases in amount and frequency. Adverse flood impacts in the City of Ithaca in the area mentioned in the Army Corps of Engineers' report will continue if dredging of the Inlet does not occur. To accurately track fluctuations in flood activity to assess future potential impact, existing USGS stream gages should continue to be supported (2 in Sixmile Creek, 1 in Fall Creek, 1 in Cayuga Lake Inlet). Added gages should be considered for installation in Salmon Creek and Owasco Inlet. Due to the multiple benefits of these gages, continued funding should be sought both with and without USGS support. 560.018.001/12.13 -51 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.1.3 Earthquake General Hazard Description An earthquake is a sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated within or along the edge of Earth's tectonic plates. The effects of an earthquake can be felt at distances beyond its actual occurrence, though they are less severe as the distance increases. As Appendix A - Figure 5.6 illustrates, multiple earthquake events have been reported within New York State,primarily in the North Country/Adirondack regions. Effects like ground shaking have been frequently reported within the State even though the earthquake itself occurred outside state borders. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)produces seismic hazard maps. Earthquake probability on these maps is commonly displayed in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA). PGA measurements indicate the geographic area affected, the probability of an earthquake at different levels of severity, and the strength of ground movement(expressed in acceleration force of gravity, % g). Appendix A - Figure 5.7 shows that Tompkins County is located in an area of low peak acceleration, likely due to a low incidence rate and small maximum magnitude for nearby earthquakes. Any jurisdiction that has a peak ground acceleration value of 3% or higher is required to fully profile the earthquake hazard in order to receive FEMA plan approval. As illustrated in Appendix A—Figure 5.7, Tompkins County's PGA value is between 2% and 3% g. Table 19 shows what PGA values equate to in terms of hazard intensity, damage potential, and magnitude. Table 19—Richter Magnitude Scale and Mercalli Intensity Scale Ratings USGS,Earth wake Hazards Pro ram,2010 and NYSOEM, State HMP,2011 Acceleration Mercalli Richter PGA Intensity Magnitude Damage (% ) Scale Scale Potential Intensity Scale Details <0.17 I 1.0-3.0 None Not felt except by a few persons at rest under favorable conditions 0.17- 1.4 11-111 3.0-3.9 None Felt only by some at rest—felt noticeably indoors,especially on upper floors 1.4-9.2 IV—V 4.0-4.9 None Felt by many indoors,some/many outdoors, minor damage occurs 9.2 -34 VI—VII 5.0-5.9 Light to Felt by all,damage to inadequate structures, moderate many frightened 34- 124 VIII—IX 6.0-6.9 Moderate to Considerable damage to many types of structures, heavy I structural collapse >124 X or higher 7.0 and Very heavy Structures destroyed,bridges and rails bent, higher objects thrown,line of sight&level distorted Key Earthquake Findings for Tompkins County • There is no record of local earthquake occurrences. 560.018.001/12.13 -52- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan • Tompkins County's PGA value is 2-3% g, which indicates limited seismic activity, which typically results in minor damages. Historical Hazard Occurrence Earthquakes are designated as having a moderately low potential to impact Tompkins County. Seismic maps provide the best estimates of earthquake probability expressed in terms of PGA and also spectral acceleration (SA). SA is a measurement that describes the maximum acceleration in an earthquake on an object. Figure 5.8 shows a map produced by the New York State Geological Survey that shows the potential for lands within Tompkins County to accelerate and amplify seismic waves based on surficial geology and soil data. Figure 5.8—Spectral Acceleration Data for Tompkins County (NYSOEM, State Hazard Mitigation Plan-GIS, 2007) Tompkins County, NY -Adjusted USGS 0.2 sec Spectral Acceleration (SA) with a 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Tkns,wrap rc,fe,,I,:New York State e stOcal rdce lu3y(plat-I deffi—ts)potential to angnbf serwrni wa-s and factenuay in Vie adlaa stnrcnt of thea.taSr,,S spectral na.celcrartion iSA)prohabifii es far New York Slata� which apply to firmrook condi trams only N (http,PeartheL ake,usags deavheseardAiaznnaps The National Earthquake HazardRedaction Program(NEHIIRP,i sort site ''u`tiltater atlassific anon,A to E are associated to the slate a surtrcal gearotogi;arateriMs(1.250,000i based on shear-wave vedoorty tests conducted h the New York State Geological' .SMreasns C y ra ,a giical Survey-Adlusted SA.values by News Yurk m State Emergency Management Tice basad n r ud Janes outlwned in 2® NEHRF Recommended Provmons for New 6uOdings and Othpr Structures. .......Roads Part 1'.Provisions yFEMA,450) faWe'3.3,,V Yate sJterlal'/s Legend f M of o.o flip NJuater e:rr,to, depositsI V� � cedaa�,�� K rn a marain1140 ,x ppp j�j UN�� tl �p KTanie unr7rarana; f"11Y4n�Lacumpt ne rndNEHRPSoiILaui.aettune au9t anal aalray^5rte a;lassLruttwash same end adiavel Re cent alluviums Ih ... Vk ltr dea lel F , Till w l ��Y, S.wyupa gilersrynfer 'd Till rrxvr<airrte rr m ..Adjusted 6A ,;,, UkdiVky sSA Aa,regy uRurrP -6.6 25 w .ra 25-35 35-45 wm hk r,anal'ne i 45"X55 USGS 0,2 sec mo .-,;. 55-65 r .ttevrrlaiu $A 2%PIE p' in 50 Years rp 65-75 r r, it it.c r 75-94HIM �� UNt�lt t � �•>, j it o z_5 s 10 NYSEMO GIS Miles ., �' November 2007 SA is expressed in "g", which represents the acceleration due to Earth's gravity. The map represents the ground motion that can be reasonably expected in a 50 year period. The majority of Tompkins County, as shown in the above figure, is located in an area of less than 25% g; however a few areas are mapped within the County that exhibit 25-35% g. All of these values indicate a low potential for seismic activity within the County. There are additionally no historical records of an earthquake occurring within Tompkins County, or of a nearby earthquake event that has significantly impacted the County. Despite this history, it is recommended that 560.018.001/12.13 -53- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan projects involving new infrastructure construction strictly follow the existing New York State Building Code with respect to where and when seismic design practices should be incorporated into a facility design. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates The New York State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011) has modeled potential loss to earthquakes by County. This information, depicted by Figure 5.9, used surficial geology and soils data to estimate earthquake risk and potential loss if such a hazard event were to occur. This mapping illustrates that damages reported within Tompkins County could range from $4,215.30 to $80,000.00. Figure 5.9— Estimated Annual Earthquake Loss by County (NYSOEM, State HMP, 2011) ANNUALIZED EARTHQUAKE LOSS New Yorlk State County �4 Ewa— Annualized Loss $4.215.30 $80,000,00 $4,215,30 $80.000.01-$200,000.00 o' C I d6o yGi.N41 r >�t— $200,000.01 -$500,000.00 $500.000.01 -$'1,000,000.00ntLntt MUM. $1,000,000.01-$5,000,000,00 �31Q . ,! H 8kvm 5Y4315 $72 720 $5,000000.01 � (p�yy+��}ry��ryryryp^y��+yy ry PY f r h N+dkb 1 o] II � ,r �,"l Mtl ur,rre '�fN'8.7 e'NY9 ° � �� ✓ i �".H.m. F X1311 CY'b . II : � W b6 g4Al CflGl J, f �02.�Cfl�,1 1 1 1 45 41x. w 1 _ ,• _ 1 Ftol F +14 46 h I. 890�N I 1 ]4A2 Annualized loss estimationsenerated using FEMA's HAZUS-MH at g �$1 ue I4tIR 1{upstatei and MR3(NYC NassGra,Suffolk) Soil amplification factoring ............ rnatedais as delineated on the NYS Geological Survey's 1:250,000 ,� � M,- Surficial Geologic Map of Nero York State.Sail classifications for Manhattan � �a uM ;w mi frorn the New York City Area Consoctiuni for Earthquake Loss Mitigation wu.-tiwm................_yM w'r M (NYCEM)-Earthquake Risk and Mitigation lin the New York,New Jersey ttM 1 and Connecticut Region.1059-2003 �r- "„` 1"X8 f r Ervini April 20018 samre 01AL ©ma,M- w Additional earthquake damage potential and loss estimation data is included in the state plan. Of the 62 counties in the State, Tompkins County ranks 31 s1 in terms of exposure to earthquake hazard events. The value of facilities, infrastructure, and property within the County that is potentially vulnerable to such a hazard event is estimated at$5,887,685. 560.018.001/12.13 -54- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Future Potential Impacts Tompkins County, in its entirety, is vulnerable to an earthquake event because earthquake locations cannot be predicted; however, the potential for an earthquake to occur within the limits of Tompkins County is minimal. Future climate change projections have not focused on changes in the severity and/or frequency of earthquake events. In recent years, a greater frequency of earthquakes is occurring throughout the world which may be due to advances in seismic activity detection. If natural gas drilling moves forward in the State there may be increased potential of earthquakes in the area. 5.1.4 Lake Flood General Hazard Description Lake flooding occurs when the water level of Cayuga Lake increases along the shoreline, impacting properties along the lake and backing up water levels in the creeks that outlet to Cayuga Lake. During the risk assessment discussion for this hazard, it was determined that the water level of Cayuga Lake would have to reach an elevation of 387 feet to meet the definition of a lake flood. At this elevation, impacts to the New York State Route 13 corridor begin to occur and residential properties along the shoreline begin to flood. According to the New York State Canal Corps, the entity in charge of adjusting the lake levels, 385 feet represents the flood stage of Cayuga Lake. Key Lake Flood Findings for Tompkins County • A lake flood hazard occurs when the water level in Cayuga Lake Exceeds 387 feet. • Lake flood events occur on average of once a decade, but due to climate change projections, this rate is anticipated to increase in the future. Historical Hazard Occurrence The effects from lake flooding are amplified by the topographic characteristics of the County. A notable amount of development within the County occurs along Cayuga Lake's shoreline and the valleys along the main creeks that outlet into the lake. This is most prevalent in the City of Ithaca which is built around the southern end of the lake. Multiple jurisdictions within the County have been susceptible to chronic lake flooding events, which cause the water levels in feeder creeks to drain slowly. These jurisdictions include the towns of Ithaca, Lansing, and Ulysses, Village of Cayuga Heights and the City of Ithaca. Lake flood events that have been documented over the past 50 years include: • 1972—Hurricane Agnes • 1993 —Unspecified storm event • 2005 —Fall Creek Flooding ($100,000 in property damage) - connected with ice jam near Ithaca High School 560.018.001/12.13 -55- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan • 2011 —Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee (Lake water levels were reported at 383/384 feet) Historical Cost and Damage Estimates It was estimated that 50-60 houses would be impacted by a lake elevation of 387 feet in the Town and Village of Lansing, specifically the Myers Corners and Ladoga Park areas. The towns of Ulysses and Ithaca, and the City of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights are also located along the shoreline of Cayuga Lake though most of these structures are above this elevation. Because the Canal Corps adjusts the water elevation in the lake at 385 feet, sustained and increasing damage to shoreline and creek side properties in the County are not expected to be an issue. Immediate and short-term damage to property may occur, resulting in around $50,000 to $100,000 in damage for a lake flood hazard event. Fatalities and injuries are not anticipated to occur as a result of such events. Lake floods do not pose as high a risk to loss of life and property as flash floods, because they have greater warning times and slower rising water levels. Future Potential Impacts Should development continue along the shoreline of Cayuga Lake, lake flooding impacts to developed property will increase. Climate change projections indicate that precipitation levels in the future will increase. Such significant increases in rain and runoff levels will more often raise the water level of the lake, inundating shoreline properties and low-lying areas adjacent to the main creeks within the County. Due to these predicted changes in climate, it can be inferred that more incidents of lake flooding will occur in the future. USGS data has also noted increases in extreme water flows in recent years. To accurately track fluctuations in lake flooding to assess future potential impact, existing USGS stream gages should continue to be supported(2 in Sixmile Creek, 1 in Fall Creek, 1 in Cayuga Lake Inlet). The installation of additional gages should also be considered, including in Salmon Creek and Owasco Inlet. Due to the multiple benefits of these gages, continued funding should be sought both with and without USGS support. 5.1.5 Severe Winter Storm and Ice Storm General Hazard Description Severe winter storms are denoted by the accumulation of 12"or more of snow in a 12-hour period. Ice storms are characterized by freezing rain which accumulates in a substantial glaze layer of ice resulting in serious disruptions of normal transportation and possible downed power lines. An ice storm occurs when 1/4" of ice build-up is observed. Key Severe Winter Storm Findings for Tompkins County • A severe winter storm occurs on average 3 times a year • A severe ice storm occurs just once every 3 to 5 years. 560.018.001/12.13 -56- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Historical Hazard Occurrence Severe winter storms are annually encountered within Tompkins County. The NWS reports that the County averages 3.3 annual severe winter storms that meet the definition outlined above. Records of severe winter storm events reported by the NCDC are included in Appendix A — Table 20. Ice storms occur in the County once every 3 to 5 years. An ice storm in January 2003 left thousands of residents without power for several days. A similar event, resulting in up to 0.5 inches of ice, also occurred within Tompkins County in March 2008. According to the NWS, 8 ice storms, resulting in 1/4- 1/2" of ice, have occurred in Tompkins County over the past 19 years. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Severe winter storms result in little or no private property or public infrastructure damage. Ice storm events, or winter storms that have an ice component, can cause much more extensive damage, mostly to utility infrastructure, but moderate damage to private property has been documented. Actual damage costs can range from the thousands to millions, depending upon severity, duration, and nature of the event. Elderly and impoverished populations are typically more vulnerable during severe winter storm or ice storm events, especially if power failure results. For this reason,particular care is provided to these populations including the establishment of emergency and warming shelters during prolonged storm or power outage events. Future Potential Impacts Climate change is extremely likely to bring warmer temperatures to most of the state. Total annual precipitation is expected to increase, but mostly in the form of rain, or freezing rain, not snow. The build-up of significant amounts of snow events may be less likely to occur in the future due to the change in seasonal temperatures, however freezing rain and ice may be more frequent. In the short-term, severe winter storms, and ice storms to a lesser degree, will continue to be regular events within Tompkins County. Because of this frequency, the County must continue to provide reliable and well-tested system to keep the County functioning and the residents safe during such hazard events. The likelihood of ice storms in the future should be incorporated into planning for utility and infrastructure needs. 5.1.6 Ice Jams General Hazard Description An ice jam is described as a large accumulation of ice in rivers or streams that interrupts the normal flow of water and often leads to flooding conditions and/or damage to nearby structures. Ice jam events are often short-lived and often affect only a localized reach or area of a body of water(U.S. Army CRREL, 2004). 560.018.001/12.13 -57- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Key Ice Jam Findings for Tompkins County • Since 1926, 24 ice jam events have occurred, most frequently on Fall Creek, in the City of Ithaca. • The NWS reports that ice jam events occur twice every 10 years. • All historic ice jam events have occurred between the months of December and March. Historical Hazard Occurrence The NWS reported during the County's 2012 risk assessment exercise that an ice jam has been documented within Tompkins County twice in 10 years. Occurrences of ice jams in the County are commonly associated with flash flooding events that mobilize the ice. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Ice Jam Database reports that 24 ice jams have been documented within the City of Ithaca since 1926, the date of the first hazard report. The City of Ithaca is the only Tompkins County location included in this database. The majority of the ice jam reports involve Fall Creek. USACE database records of ice jam events that have historically occurred in Tompkins County are included in Appendix A— Table 21. Appendix A - Figure 5.10 depicts locations of frequent ice jam incidents within New York State. Fall Creek has the highest rate of ice jam frequency within Tompkins County; 21 reports of ice jam events are listed for this water resource between 1875 and 2007. Salmon Creek also has issues with ice jams that threaten a railroad trestle that is used daily. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Of the 24 historic ice jam reports, only two mentioned potential damage to infrastructure and private property. Potential damage is associated with flooding caused by the ice jam and resulting water level increases. Minor flooding to basements results in minimal damage, estimated at$1,000 - $2,000 per affected property. Though no evidence of such major damage exists, a large ice jam event could cause severe damage to highway or railroad bridges that cross the main waterways in the County. The cost to repair a damaged bridge structure is estimated at $500,000 - $1,000,000. Future Potential Impacts Recent climate change research initiatives, such as ClimAID, reports that increases in air temperature will lead to increases in water temperature over the next handful of decades. Higher water and air temperatures will likely decrease the potential for thick ice to cover water resources within Tompkins County. Even if ice forms on the water surface, an increase in air and water temperatures would quicken the melting process, thus discouraging the build-up of large blocks of ice. 560.018.001/12.13 -58- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.1.7 Landslides General Hazard Description Landslides are defined as the downward and outward movement of slope-forming materials reacting to the force of gravity. Slide materials may be composed of natural rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of these materials. Landslides are activated by storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, fires, freezing/thawing, and steepening of slopes by erosion or human modification. Key Landslide Findings for Tompkins County • Ten Landslide events have occurred locally (1837-2007). • Two locations of moderate landslide incidence are mapped within Tompkins County. Historical Hazard Occurrence Historically, landslide events within Tompkins County have been infrequent and are commonly triggered by heavy rainfall events. Multiple occurrences have been noted within the County in recent years, though these events are primarily confined to localized areas adjacent to steep slopes or waterways. Figure 5.11 shows that two locations of moderate landslide incidence are mapped within Tompkins County, while the majority of the County is identified as a low incidence area. The two moderate incidence locations correspond to lands surrounding Cayuga Lake, and lands located within the Pleasant Valley area, extending to the Village of Dryden. According to the data associated with this figure, 8.93 percent of the land area within Tompkins County is represented by the two locations of moderate incidence. According to USGS information included in the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, 10 landslide events have occurred in Tompkins County between 1837 and 2007 (USGS Open File Report 94-615). The County's most active landslide is in the Town of Ulysses on South Street Extension abutting Taughannock Creek. Small scale landslide activity among the region's many gorges has caused adverse impacts to human safety and recreation. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates A potable water pipeline that services the City of Ithaca is known to be located in a landslide susceptible slope area; no back-up service main is currently in operation. A slope failure in this area has the potential to result in infrastructure damage to the pipeline, but also to cause interruptions in water service to many households in the City. Even a short-term service interruption could cost an estimated $100,000 to repair and cost affected households the inconvenience and additional cost associated with finding a secondary water source (i.e. family member's house, bottled water, etc.). This situation is hypothetical; no damage numbers are available for documented landslide events that have occurred within Tompkins County. Significant costs have additionally been incurred over the years to safely maintain the network of gorge trail infrastructure. 560.018.001/12.13 -59- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 5.11 —Landslide Susceptibility within New York State (USGS, NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011) Land fide Susceptibility Llgh Landslide Inctdencr, H(pl.i Susctptidulity lMM d rate Incidence " } High Susceptihdlily to Landslide/Lots Incdencc I rmoctcrale L,wisco bil�f o ased Low ncincr � y tLndlIdLda � (�PNII»�lawCWuflC� I I side Inc Low Landsl d e nadencgcri c � � I it vm uu q, f°` u - ,S "�':. dusm I N�audmuomm vwumwnmu�a'uNuu+mu J,, f7.. ...aftrvuuR�MF swim ua cobra umuamu»a,1.,.,.,,?.,o � _,, w 4 emu l iwl u �.,e.,,.�u Ru oarm n��llyr 4. bem,ww0r �' 4 d..u•• -by 4.AY WAX I@�YVtlhudW�m 'oh .1 J d. If quitt Immwil'mau�l �dM�awau'�iwu �uWA�l�� y�t6°�un�mm V.�uaou�tlu tlum �l� �� a �� 'aWwwmir� �J�8 mm� abuiwmro��u P i Y" r inuA— ��"A;NremmPMtl�RWV PWb'hllubNlG 1 ✓ r T )IOW w SUNDA USGS NaiiotatrM d urrcPsfldrs diaaaaeu7s Prrrguratt2 �ut_`,,�s"�"... httfr 11WWov Us eyOW ws w �t Landslide PV7ayrOyer ��auuu p y, h up 41hdeA'm mhHas.yovlaPtua,!w9'eyu.htnii t,. wu,w warruwnrt Future Potential Impacts The majority of landslide incidents within Tompkins County are spurred by heavy rainfall events. These heavy rainfall events are expected to increase in the future, mostly in areas that have historically documented bank failures or slope subsidence. Annual average precipitation in NYS is projected to increase by 5 to 10 percent by 2080 (ClimAID, 2012). With this the frequency of landslides to occur in the County will likely increase. In addition, climate models also project that the frequency of heavy rainfall events will increase. These predicted changes in weather patterns are likely to result in an increase in the frequency of landslides,potentially with greater levels of property damage. 5.1.8 Drought General Hazard Description A drought is defined as a prolonged period of limited precipitation affecting the supply and quality of water. An absolute drought consists of a period of at least 15 consecutive days where none of the days experience 0.01 inches of rain or greater. A partial drought is a period of at least 20 consecutive days where the mean daily rainfall does not exceed 0.01 inches. A dry spell consists of a period of at least 15 consecutive days where none of the days experience 0.04 inches or more of rainfall (USGS, 2009). Agricultural drought relates to agricultural impacts that occur as a result of various meteorological characteristics, such as precipitation shortages and 560.018.001/12.13 - 60- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan soil water deficits. Hydrological drought relates to the effects that a lack or decrease in precipitation has on surface or subsurface water supplies. Key Drought Findings for Tompkins County • Tompkins County's agricultural sector is that which is most vulnerable to drought. • A 2005 drought event resulted in significant sugar maple die off. Historical Hazard Occurrence Periods of drought have had limited and localized impacts in Tompkins County. The largest vulnerability that the County has related to this hazard is its strong agricultural industry. Tompkins County agriculture was responsible for $60 million in revenue in 2011. A drought event occurred in 2005, resulting in significant sugar maple die-off around the County. That summer is reportedly the driest over the last 130 years. September 1999 was also a recorded dry month that caused major crop failures and some wells to run dry within Central New York. Corn and hay crops were most severely impacted. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Aquifer recharge could potentially be affected by absolute or partial drought events. This may result in impacts to drinking water supplies, since stream fed water systems are affected by groundwater fluctuations. The agriculture industry would experience crop damage and plant fatality as a result of a prolonged drought event. Many farms in the County do not have local irrigation systems, so a lack of water would reduce crop production and survival. Drought conditions also have the potential to impact livestock producers, through effects such as reduced milk production, decreased stock weights, and high cost for feed. Damages from the 1999 drought event were reported to be as high as $17.7 million in Cayuga County. Specific damage amounts were not available for Tompkins County, but are estimated to have ranged around $1 million. Over $60 million in agricultural products are produced annually by Tompkins County farms. Those agencies who assist with agricultural practices will continue to play a key role in mitigating impacts related to drought on farms. Future Potential Impacts The frequency and extent of drought conditions are expected to rise in the future due to climate change. Summer drought is projected to affect water supply, agriculture, ecosystems and energy production. 5.1.9 Infestation General Hazard Description Infestation is defined as an excessive population of insects,plants, rodents, or other animals requiring control measures due to their potential to carry diseases, destroy crops, or harm the environment. 560.018.001/12.13 - 61 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Key Infestation Findings for Tompkins County • An increase in property, road and infrastructure damages is anticipated with Emerald Ash Borer. • Research has indicated that the prevention and eradication of Hydrilla is far cheaper than containment or management. Historical Hazard Occurrence Plant populations: Hydrilla is a highly invasive aquatic plant that was first detected in August 2011 in the Linderman Creek area of Cayuga Inlet. Hydrilla is a very aggressive growing plant, which can grow up to a foot a day and can grow underwater of lengths up to 25 feet. It creates a thick mat of vegetation when it grows to the water surface. This mat shades out other plants and clogs waterways in a fashion that has the potential to increase lake flooding. This plant has most immediate impacts to the City of Ithaca, but has far reaching regional impacts. Since discovering Hydrilla in the Cayuga Inlet, extensive efforts have been undertaken to limit the spread of this species into Cayuga Lake. Insect populations: A detailed history of infestation events is not available for Tompkins County; however recent events and concerns have been documented. For one, the emerald ash borer (EAB) is an insect of increasing concern within NYS. This species was first confirmed in NYS on June 17, 2009, but research indicates that it has been present in some areas since the mid 1990s. Tompkins County susceptibility to this species isn't fully documented since the number of ash trees within the area has never been quantified and the areas of greatest ash density are not known. However, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) data estimates that 12 percent of the total tree volume in Tompkins County is ash(Figure 5.12). An accurate inventory of trees in priority, high-traffic areas needs to be completed so that liabilities can be calculated. 560.018.001/12.13 - 62- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 5.12— Percentage of Ash per Total Basal per County in New York State (NYSDEC Forest Health and Protection, 2012) N NYS DEC"" c� r r.—f Pt—Uh &rmfecrrmr 7 i.7 7 s lY L1_..., ...: n r f1 I 7, 7 New York State 5 Ash (Fra inus s, p.) Distribution Percentage of Ash per Total Basal Area per County 1lll@llllll� II 2%-5% 6a,6-7% 8%-11% 120A-169/0 M,28% 8"l0 3 a Natural Breaks(Jenks) 2,+ a Low High r Dptnaat Aeh(Fraxrnus spp� 11 w• r m r. urfl When,6wiryT and Andrew J.Later(Inreylaw) I l r ApheWog'd-based naareek meOgPoibOxs i '. ;"� e rmlautabon aaprmfi W large area mapping 0.1 100 200 nff0raakreharaotefrefraa uwnp fold earppled data, 111le, , 6ebm¢kked Ba lRerm+rke�'kin�inp afEnvrrOnmank m{imn�mar�r� awmn«,nnn<a�r�icwm�.,�n�arrm aav a�wr r'wo�+a ' Based on guidance from the Technical Committee, an EAB infestation can influence a community for 10-20 years after it first descends upon an area. Figure 5.13 shows the currently documented infestation locations of EAB within NYS. As shown, the closest identified infestation is in the Town of Nichols, Tioga County; Tompkins County is located just 16 miles north of this infestation location. 560.018.001/12.13 - 63- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 5.13—Emerald Ash Borer Infestation, Detection, and Quarantine Locations within New York State (NYSDEC, Forest Health and Protection, 2012) DECmlned Areas�a arsEmerald Ash (EAB) P a x +""' FRANKLIN Infestations and Detections GTupwtiENCE ., !sX l'kum �Id, 09/20/12 U�j? PA JEFFERSON 'I' 1•.�. 1 0,0 �k t+F.�h^L5 .,..f HAMILTON WARREN fYTVEO f,.R7IYR EANfi .. bMANN2 GSWEiG'9y�. k UA M4ERiu41 Po6UR FllI Tt�Wv 6FnRATpiS `ASMIMGTOPW 1 Y NIAUAGEA �� CkNR{7E �A L LCNN hII" "II { A 1 fl ,..�{ .., ... GNT " p A4RIC1 4f.hYllGA N�NOA✓.+ W,0.a4Y9Si'�M 1.. / �t ERIE IIWUCllGSto- y .. Y 9ENLC rACbN 1 .W`Y�JL^71N V d��IX.oKA�4T�4FSiEh69.4. w ........,.GRkAN"a Md�p ,.. �.•I+fr (.�f„'L(5CY'�M/�b�f.HOHARI k.Fl°3.iFLA'R .... U� Y 1 .f 3�" AG BAN' GHENANGO � 1!f S TOMPKIN�EUEEN DELAWARE .. "f GATTARRUGUS ALL,EGANY �GH EM'LV TI 7(,rT.� G4YECNI aTI I .. 1Ub1 � J/ i CBsAIJ"fANQLIA V ........�.... ...444e.,x , �o.,.. f/ r UL5'1'ER N yp SUL1.IVAN UUTGHII 1 Emerald Ash Borer(EAB)Tree Infestation rn" NGE I+WI NAM AL Emerald Ash Barer(EAB)Trap Detection Only WBSTCHE TER '1p ROCKLANLI ©Quarantined Area eraC ] 4, JFFOLK $,APXP N WYGR�K—A,IkAq[' NASSAU . 1€0 200 IWesQUEENS RD4;Hh Nb �y/��ilrE� ami+ KINGS Other invasive insect pests that are documented within NYS and have the potential to impact Tompkins County include hemlock woolly adelgid(HWA) and Asian longhorn beetle (ALB). Asian long-horned beetles weaken the integrity of infected trees, which results in decreased wood quality, structural weakness, and eventual death for the tree. ALB populations attack a variety of tree species representing 15 different plant families. Appendix A - Figure 5.14 depicts locations within the Country that are susceptible to ALB infestations. Hemlock woolly adelgid poses a major threat to eastern hemlock trees, a species which is not overly abundant in Tompkins County. Regardless, changes to ecosystem structure and function could occur in riparian areas and moist sites where hemlocks thrive. It should be noted that significant tree loss will have an aesthetic impact on the County's many natural areas which may have an impact on the region's tourism industry. Additional insect populations that aren't a problem right now when the forests are healthy could become a problem once the forestlands are weakened by an invasive pest. 560.018.001/12.13 - 64- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Plant populations: Ecological and economic impacts of Hydrilla are significant. This includes shading of native plants, oxygen deficits, fish kills, habitat quality change, cyanobacteria outbreaks and toxin production linkage with bald eagle. Due to the wide use of Cayuga Lake, economic impacts to tourism, fishing, swimming, and property values have the potential to be significant. The waterways affect the local economy in three primary ways; through flood protection,property tax revenues and tourism spending,particularly spending associated with recreational boating and water-dependent businesses. Property values in the waterfront are high; although nearly 97% of waterfront properties are tax exempt, annual tax revenues from the remaining 3% is over $2 million. Finally, water-dependent businesses generated over $2 million in sales (nearly $700,000 of which came from docking fees) in 2008. Revenues from facilities specializing in non-motorized boats are not included. The Inlet has four primary facilities catering to non-motorized boaters: Cornell University and Ithaca College Crew facilities, a business that rents and sells canoes and kayaks, and the Cascadilla Boat Club with approximately 175 members with annual membership and training fees of$60,000 (CCETC, 2012). Based on the experience in Tompkins County the cost of maintenance associated with Hydrilla is substantial. The local Hydrilla Task Force elected to utilize herbicide treatments of endothall and fluridone to attempt to eradicate Hydrilla. An endothall treatment was applied on June, 26, 2012 and was deemed a success. A fluridone treatment was applied to the Cayuga Inlet area, including Cascadilla Creek and Six Mile Creek, starting July 12, 2012 and ending October 31, 2012. The funding for this effort was received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the amount of$800,000. Appendix A —Figure 5.15 shows the specific locations where the fluridone treatment was applied. Currently, the effectiveness of this treatment is being analyzed; additional eradication efforts will likely be needed. Significant staff time of local officials from the City of Ithaca, Cornell University, Tompkins County, Tompkins County Soil and Water District and others have been used in this effort. The effort and funds expended to- date are significant. Not including in-kind contributions, approximately $130,000 was spent in 2011 and $460,000 in 2012. The estimate for eradication efforts in future years is approximately $500,000 per year. Eradication of this species from the waterways of Tompkins County represents a realistic scenario that could occur at any time in association with additional invasive plant species. Insect populations: EAB damage will very likely result in the death of all untreated ash trees within the County. Infested trees begin to fall in large sections soon after dying, causing a significant potential threat to health,property, and public infrastructure. An increase in property and road maintenance costs would likely occur and an increase in overhead utility service repair requests. Falling ash debris also has the potential to accumulate in waterways and clog culvert locations. Management efforts for the EAB and hemlock woolly adelgid often consist of insecticide treatments and removal of infested trees. Such efforts will prove to be costly, when they are needed in the future. Wood-boring pests in the U.S. cause an estimated $3.5 billion in damage annually. When infestations are confirmed, state and national funding may be made available to the affected areas to help with the pest management and hazard mitigation. Such funds in other infested areas have ranged from $20 million to $65 million. 560.018.001/12.13 - 65- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Future Potential Impacts Given the steady increase of documented invasive species in the country, reports of new invasive populations within the County are expected to continue. A 2011 study indicated that there is over a 30 percent chance that another damaging wood boring insect will be introduced into the U.S. within the next 10 years. Local government coordination with local property owners and utility providers will be critical in mitigating risks associated with tree fall and debris management. Current climate change projections indicate that long-term temperature increases and other weather changes are likely to create a more satisfactory environment for the establishment and survival of invasive populations. According to climate changes forecasts such as ClimAID, the Southern Tier of New York State, including Tompkins County, will likely be the first area of the state to be affected by invasive plant and animal species. 5.1.10 Extreme Temperatures General Hazard Description An extreme temperature event was determined to occur if an event lasted for at least 3 days with a temperature colder than -10 degrees Fahrenheit(cold wave) or hotter than 95 degrees Fahrenheit(heat wave). This hazard is defined by extended periods of excessive cold or hot weather with a serious impact on human and/or animal populations,particularly elderly and/or persons with respiratory ailments. People living in urban environments may be at greater risk from the effects of prolonged heat wave than those living in rural areas due to the "urban heat island effect." Exposure to extreme temperatures for prolonged periods of time can result in death. Key Extreme Temperature Findings for Tompkins County • 45 extreme cold events have occurred over the past 29 years. • Just 2 Extreme heat events (3 consecutive days with temperatures of 100 degrees Fahrenheit(standard for extreme heat events)) have occurred over the past 29 years. Historical Hazard Occurrence According to the NWS, 45 cold events have occurred in Tompkins County over the past 29 years and 2 heat events have occurred in the County over the same time period that have exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit for three or more consecutive days. Figure 5.16 depicts the NYS Counties with the highest and lowest rates of vulnerable populations (aged< 5 and> 65 years). Tompkins County exhibits a vulnerable population of 14.2 percent of the total County residents. This number further breaks down to 9.8 percent aged 65 and older and 4.4 percent aged less than 5 years. 560.018.001/12.13 - 66- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 5.16- Percent of Populations Most Vulnerable to Extreme Temperature Events (NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011) Percentage of Population Most Vulnerable to Extreme Temperatures Popdation below,5 years or 65 gear's or greater g, 25 511 % � NPay m AAwanrc iiiiiiiii/ �� Fr4aano 1 a�.rd4agd� i NNIm C"y 93 „ SehAurie A16Percentage VWnerable i years olid ��pp ppry ail��ll 1«12�1&0 Source:US.B,uc�u Ham 22:1 3.7' ; UIIlU.1lUIlU1J1l 2011-22.0 Dwer .5 . - 13.F 52 mg deeMarmn 11.44_.Z2 q8. Sia �q23 5.5 17.8 882 623 WJ 1143 P.& 21A rdx waw 15.7 5.2 2@9 U�ua1... ne t�:9 4.3 dfi 199 60 k 'ZF74- 15.2 64 21.2 NuYandsr'4xs 113 52 effe, Ko 14 nne iU 57 I&D a4 2L't USM379V U-2 62 rence 85.3 32 210 MNaaara 15,5' 5A Steuilden 153 5 21.2 81 q5.4 52 21.1 FNeW"F IZ9 6,C( 18. Suf"k CULPIMA 17 .0 4,7 2m.7 omm .1 SA 21. TWW 145 66 20..'9 N w Ywk � C✓rtannd 82.9 SA M.2 Orw@g 31 5.9 a9. ins .e: M7acNrendronN9'Kirlpa ,. 6.. 12.9 5-3 132 1111 TO m q53. 4.9 21.7 EPS 85.6 5.3 28.4 t35 5.1 88. ex' F¢'aWn 831 4.5 183 15.,5 43 89.E ��Was- 13.5. 5,g H)4 NAM 85.6 E.1 207 Putrwn 11.6 5:2 16. a 13.2 5.2 .704 Ark SWe Offne df Fffnergency Management qS.A1 ya"s lkgd 5.d 223 39a�v 2ffi71!g Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Most concern related to extreme heat events occur when people or animals are overexposed to heat and have over-exercised for their age and/or physical condition. Older adults, young children, and those who are sick or overweight are more likely to experience the adverse effects of extreme heat. Similarly, cold events have a greater potential to affect elderly populations. Historically, Tompkins County has opened cooling centers at Cornell University and elsewhere to provide heat relief to the public, especially vulnerable populations. Future Potential Impacts NYSERDA's C1imAID report states that temperatures will continue to rise over the next several decades, indicating that extreme heat events would increase in frequency and duration. Because of this warming, extreme cold events are not likely to increase in duration and frequency. 560.018.001/12.13 - 67- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.1.11 Epidemic General Hazard Description An epidemic is the occurrence or outbreak of disease to an unusual number of individuals or proportion of the population, human or animal. Key Epidemic Findings for Tompkins County • Tompkins County is considered to be notably vulnerable to this hazard because of its significant number of international student populations. • The County's active role in the H1N1 virus preparations (2009)has provided a framework for epidemic risk reduction. Historical Hazard Occurrence There is no extensive record of historic epidemic events within Tompkins County. However, because of the diverse global representation found on the Cornell University and Ithaca College campuses, the County is notably vulnerable to human outbreaks of disease. Recent epidemic events that have been previously documented in Tompkins County include avian flu (2003), influenza A (HINT) (2009), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Agricultural epidemics are also an important component of this hazard in Tompkins County. Historic epidemics that have affected the agricultural community include leucosis, Marek's disease, as well as foot and mouth disease. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates A large-scale epidemic event could affect large numbers of people and has the potential to result in mass care and/or mass casualties. Initiatives to quarantine and/or vaccinate residents to prevent the spread of a particular disease would be an expensive, but needed, effort. Because historic records of previous epidemic events are not available, it is difficult to estimate that total damages that could occur from a widespread event. Because the majority of the County's economy relies on agriculture and farming, an increase in agricultural epidemics would also be costly to the area. Future Potential Impacts Global trends indicate that pandemics occur in predictable cycles. The last mass pandemic was the 1912 Spanish Flu; experts suggest that the next cycle is approaching and that jurisdictions should begin preparing for this future occurrence. Because diseases are dynamic, it is difficult to predict what types may appear in the future and what the most effective way is to combat these potential events. Agricultural epidemics should also continue to be addressed through both mitigation and response plans. Climate change may increase the likelihood of epidemics due to increased floodwaters contaminating drinking water supplies and increasing temperatures allowing more disease-causing agents and vector-borne diseases to flourish. One of the future goals of Tompkins County, related to epidemic events, is to build partnerships with other agencies and groups to prepare for such events. 560.018.001/12.13 - 68- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.1.12 Tornado General Hazard Description Tornadoes are described as local atmospheric storms, generally of short duration, formed by winds rotating at very high speeds. The vortex of the tornado can be up to several hundred yards wide and is visible to the observer as a whirlpool-like column of winds rotating about a hollow cavity or funnel. Tornado winds have been estimated to be as high as 400 miles per hour. During the County's 2012 risk assessment discussion, it was determined that a credible worst- case scenario for a tornado event is a F2 or F3 magnitude. Tornados of these magnitudes commonly exhibit 3-second wind gusts between 110 and 209 mph(Appendix A —Table 22). Key Tornado Findings for Tompkins County • Five historic tornado events have been documented for Tompkins County between 1952 and 2009 (57 years). • The most recent tornado event to impact the County occurred in April 2011 in the Town of Danby. Historical Hazard Occurrence As indicated by Appendix A - Figure 5.17, Tompkins County is mapped in a light yellow shaded area, denoting that between one and five F3, F4, or F5 tornados have occurred within the County for every 3,700 square miles. Appendix A —Figure 5.18 shows that Tompkins County, and the majority of NYS, is not mapped within a high risk area for tornado events. The State Hazard Mitigation Plan includes five records of tornados that occurred in Tompkins County between 1952 and 2009; details of these hazard events are included in Table 23. Tracks of these tornados are depicted on Figure 5.19. Anecdotal information indicates that a minor tornado event occurred in Ulysses in the early 1990s, damaging a residence. The most recent tornado recorded for Tompkins County, and the event reported by the NCDC, occurred on April 28, 2011, in the Town of Danby and the Town of Ithaca. The path of this tornado stretched from the northern boundary of the Town of Danby and Route 9613, southwest, to the Town of Ithaca's western boundary. This event resulted in significant tree damage along this hazard route. Table 23—Historic Tornado Events for Tompkins County (NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011) Date Location I Magnitude I Details 08/25/1961 Tompkins Co FO $25,000 in property damage 06/20/1969 Tompkins Co F1 $25,000 in property damage 06/18/1977 Tompkins Co Undetermined $3,000 in property damage =/216/'1'994 988 Tompkins Co F1 $250,000 in property damage 1 Dryden I FO 1 $500,000 in property damage 560.018.001/12.13 - 69- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 5.19—Tornado Tracks within New York State, 1950-2005 (NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011) Tornados in Tornado Tracks and Fujita Scale New York State rI W, Rankings 1950 -2005 FO F1 V2 F3 F4 Homvmo mnv NMI- 7, SOWCO", NOAA "ve " NAnnal OC_11JnCJrgl Arno hVI,OUis nain ng-A—�hMNA""d A'Vi'd-N.11 h0p)lclhjdame a goAmcg?S,rgiS Aug,,bT 2007 Historical Cost and Damage Estimates It is difficult to accurately estimate potential damage levels associated with this hazard in Tompkins County because of the limited historic occurrence of tornados in this area. Hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of damages would likely occur if a tornado tracked through the center of the City of Ithaca, while much smaller damage levels can be assumed for tornados in more rural portions of the County. According to the loss estimates reported from the NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan for this hazard, damages have historically ranged between $3,000 and $500,000 within Tompkins County. It is estimated that$627,200 in (public or private)property damage resulted from the 2011 tornado that touched down in the Town of Danby. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate that an F2 or F3 tornado event would result in over $1 million in damages within the County. Future Potential Impacts Recent climate change projections predict an increase in severe weather events. Such events could include tornado occurrences. The frequency of this hazard occurring in Tompkins County will continue to remain low, despite these severe weather projections. The National Weather Service does have active advisory processes in place to warn residents of potential tornado threats. Pre-disaster warnings such as this will help to minimize the potential damage that could occur within the County as a result of a tornado event. Such warnings are anticipated to at least limit the amount of potential deaths and injuries associated with a tornado event. Impacts could 560.018.001/12.13 - 70- Barton&Loguidice, P.C Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan occur anywhere in the County and affect a wide range of existing infrastructure and properties. The exact path and touchdown locations of a tornado are often difficult to predict. 5.2 Technological and Human-caused Hazard Profiles Details associated with the eight technological and human-caused hazards profiles in this section were obtained using Geographic Information System (GIS) layers, technical and project committee knowledge, Tompkins County records, NYS OEM and FEMA data and information, and other resources, as appropriate. 5.2.1 Transportation Accident General Hazard Description A transportation accident is defined as a mishap involving one or more conveyances on land, sea, and/or in the air, which can result in multiple casualties and/or substantial loss of property. Key Transportation Accident Findings for Tompkins County • Approximately 2,500 transportation accidents occur in Tompkins County each year. In 2010, 11 accidents resulted in fatalities, which is slightly above average. • The City of Ithaca has the highest crash rate within the County, but the lowest deer collision rate. Historical Hazard Occurrence Transportation accidents are unpredictable, both in time, location, and frequency. On average, there are less than 10 accidents a year in Tompkins County that result in fatalities (NYSDMV, 2000). The highest accident rates and most severe accidents occur on the State Routes (SR) located within the County. These State Routes total approximately 176.3 miles in length and include the following route numbers: 13, 13A, 222, 227, 327, 34, 34B, 366, 38, 392, 79, 89, 930F, 96, and 96B. The prevalence of accidents along these routes is likely attributed to higher posted speed limits and a greater volume of traffic. Figure 5.20 shows the locations of State Routes within Tompkins County. Accident information and data for Tompkins County was obtained from the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). ITCTC created maps using the NYS Department of Transportation's Accident Location Information System (ALIS) 200-2009 data. The highest crash rate within the County was reported for the City of Ithaca. Numerous roads within the City report having between 9 and 15, or> 15, accidents per million vehicle miles. The severity of accident data looks at the amount of fatalities and injuries per reported accident(severity index). The severity index shows the occurrence of severe accidents throughout all portions of the County, though six roads in particular have a rating>15: Shaffer Road (Town of Newfield), Bostwick Road(Town of Ithaca), Fall Creek Road and West Dryden Road (Town of Dryden), and Ridge Road (SR 34B) and Auburn Road (SR 34) (Town of Lansing). Accident data involving pedestrians and bicyclists were also reviewed. The City of Ithaca had the highest rate of accidents involving a pedestrian or a bicyclist. 560.018.001/12.13 - 71 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 5.20—State Route Transportation Network in Tompkins County (NYSDOT, ALIS, 2004) 38 Lan 'ng �34B Groi on 34B 227 gg 713 ur 96 366 13 " .. 3" � 392 G n 791 y 366 �.. 38 327 a� 79 13- 9' e d 34 an y T ,'`� ✓ Local Road �,� County Route State Route Cayuga.Lake Municipal Boundary A healthy deer population in Tompkins County is also a variable linked to transportation accidents. The City of Ithaca has the lowest deer collision rate in the County. In contrast, there are 13 roads in the County where >25 % of all accidents that occur involve deer collisions: Bundy Road(Town of Ithaca), Ellis Hollow Road(Towns of Ithaca and Dryden), Bostwick Road and Trumbulls Corners Road (Town of Enfield), Perry City Road (Town of Ulysses), Ridge Road and North Triphammer Road (Town of Lansing), Asbury Road and Scofield Road (Towns 560.018.001/12.13 - 72- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan of Lansing and Dryden), West Dryden Road(Town of Dryden), and Sovocool Hill Road, Spring Street Extension, and Cobb Street(Town of Groton). No records of accidents involving other modes of transportation were available or located. During the County's risk assessment, it was estimated that a bus accident occurs about once per year and that runaway truck accidents occur approximately once every other year. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Often times, the damages involved in accidents,particularly vehicular, are the responsibility of the drivers involved. When damage to public infrastructure occurs, the local jurisdictions may be responsible to make repairs. A high frequency of transportation accidents occurs within Tompkins County, but the majority does not result in loss of life or damage to property. According to the New York Department of Transportation's Accident Location Information System (ALIS), the City of Ithaca does historically have the highest number of accidents (1,375 in 20 10) though only a small percentage of those accidents result in fatalities (1 in 2010, or 0.1%). Fewer accidents occur in the surrounding rural areas, however of those accidents a higher percentage are fatal. For example, in 2010 the Town of Enfield was noted as having 95 accidents, 20 of which (21.1%)resulted in injuries. Of these 2 (2.1%)resulted in fatalities. Future Potential Impacts Transportation accidents, particularly vehicular, will continue to occur within Tompkins County and will be difficult to predict. With the potential of future shale gas drilling, truck traffic is anticipated to increase throughout the region. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement(SGEIS)for High- Volume Hydraulic Fracturing notes that truck traffic associated with this practice is two to three times higher than traditional vertical well drilling. This increase is largely due to the need for heavy truck water delivery. The SGEIS notes that a single well may produce nearly 6,000 truck trips. Regional truck traffic would likely increase even if no wells are drilled in Tompkins County. Local roads and minor collectors would likely experience the most level of congestion and potentially accidents. The SGEIS indicates, "An increase in the amount of truck traffic, and vehicular traffic in general, traveling on both higher and lower level local roads would most likely increase the number of accidents and breakdowns in areas experiencing well development" (NYSDEC, 2011). 5.2.2 Fuel Shortage General Hazard Description A fuel shortage is defined as a situation in which the normal quantity and/or timely delivery of fuel supplies to distributors and retail establishments are interrupted. As part of this document, the definition was further expanded to assume that a fuel shortage event would occur County- wide. Key Fuel Shortage Findings for Tompkins County • Fuel shortage events are limited to the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis. 560.018.001/12.13 - 73- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan • The growth of alternative fuels and green living helps to reduce dependence on fuel. Historical Hazard Occurrence Two documented occurrences of fuel shortages have historically affected Tompkins County. The 1973 oil crisis resulted in gas rationing across the country, while the 1979 energy crisis caused widespread panic and odd-even gas rationing in NYS. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates No cost figures were available to determine how much it cost the County or State to implement and oversee gas rationing during the 1973 or 1979 events. No other fuel shortage events have been recorded in the County, so damage estimates are not available. Future Potential Impacts World politics and natural hazards are hard to predict, especially in the long-term, so it is difficult to know when a world event may occur that would threaten the U.S.' supply and acquisition of fuel. Regardless, as economic growth continues to trend toward alternative fuels and alternative transportation options, the demand for fuel may decrease. If this decline is achieved, it is likely to be slow, as alternative fuel use is still in its infancy in the County. 5.2.3 Fire (Urban) General Hazard Description Fire is defined as the uncontrolled burning in residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or other structures in developed areas. It is important to note that fire spreads quickly. Heat and smoke from fire can be more dangerous than the flames themselves. Fire produces poisonous gases that make a person disoriented and drowsy. Asphyxiation is the leading cause of fire deaths. For the purposes of this document, a fire is defined as a block or neighborhood scale event. Key Urban Fire Findings for Tompkins County • Fire is defined as a block or neighborhood scale event. • As storm severity increases, the potential for fire to occur also increases. Historical Hazard Occurrence There is no historical evidence of fire events affecting Tompkins County. Numerous smaller scale fires that have been isolated to one or two buildings or properties have occurred in the past; a handful of such events occur within the County annually. 560.018.001/12.13 - 74- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Given that no urban fire events that match the hazard definition have occurred in Tompkins County, damage estimates from such an event were not available. According to the TCPD, the City of Ithaca has the highest full market assessed property value, totaling $17,701,001,320. The City is home to 5,555 properties. A hypothetical scenario may consist of a block fire in the City that impacts 5 houses at 80% of their total value. This hazard event scenario would result in approximately $12,745,995 in total damages. Future Potential Impacts This hazard received a moderately low ranking due to its infrequent occurrence within the County. As storm events increase in severity and frequency over the coming decades, as is predicted by climate change research, the potential for fire to occur as a cascading hazard increases. 5.2.4 Utility Failure General Hazard Description Utility failure includes the loss of electric power supply, telephone service, or public water supply as a result of an internal system failure or by the effects of a natural disaster. A widespread electrical power outage could cause traffic accidents, civil unrest, and failures to other utility infrastructure that relies on electricity. Key Utility Failure Findings for Tompkins County • Utility failure impacts every jurisdiction at least once a year. • The severity and frequency of utility failures are anticipated to increase in the future, as storm occurrence and severity increases. Historical Hazard Occurrence For many of the natural disasters previously profiled, utility failure was identified as a cascading hazard, meaning it results from another hazard. The frequency of a power failure is approximately once a year in each jurisdiction, with typical duration of less than a single day (less than 24 hours). Historical documented utility failures in Tompkins County include: • 2000 —Town of Dryden • August 2003 —Northeast blackout—power restored by next day • May 2004 — Town of Dryden— electricity • June 2005 — Town of Dryden—power restored same day • May 2012—Village and Town of Dryden 560.018.001/12.13 - 75- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan The most significant regional event listed was the 2003 blackout. Power was restored by the following day; however, thousands of people were impacted. This power outage event was declared a Presidential Disaster, authorizing up to $5 million in federal funding to reimburse local and state governments that were negatively impacted. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Although accurate figures were not found to assess the cost of power outages, the disruption of services, spoiling of food, and loss of work production could range from the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Since utility failures rarely occur by themselves, and not as a result of another hazard, specific data within Tompkins County is limited. A previous concern revolved around the water treatment plants in the County in the event of a power failure. This is less of a concern given that many of the plants are now installing full size generators in preparation for such occurrences. Residents with private wells would however lose potable water supply during a power failure. Future Potential Impacts NYSERDA's climate change research points to an increased severity and frequency of extreme weather events. Extreme weather events and utility failure go hand in hand; therefore, an increase in the severity and frequency of utility failures is presumed. 5.2.5 Water Supply Contamination General Hazard Description Water supply contamination is defined as the contamination, or potential contamination, of surface or subsurface public water supply by chemical or biological materials that results in restricted or diminished ability to use the water source. Though single property events will be discussed, this hazard was determined to occur if it affected a large region; the effects were reviewed from a population standpoint and not based on affected geographic area. Key Water Supply Contamination Findings for Tompkins County • Water supply contamination concerns are estimated to occur once or twice every 10 years. • Isolated contamination events are estimated to cause approximately $25,000 in damages, while a larger scale event could result in millions of dollars in damages. Historical Hazard Occurrence Approximately fifty (50)percent of the County's population receives public water; the remaining households are on private well systems. During droughts and dry seasons, some well residents have experienced inadequate water supplies. These wells are susceptible to contamination from spills, herbicide and pesticide run-off, and leaking underground storage tanks. County residents that receive public water are largely supplied by one of three water treatment plants (WTP): Cornell WTP (withdraws from Fall Creek), City of Ithaca WTP (withdraws from Six Mile 560.018.001/12.13 - 76- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Creek), and Bolton Point WTP (withdraws from Cayuga Lake). Other"village systems" serve the Villages of Dryden, Groton and Trumansburg as well as the Hamlet of Newfield. Documented events of water supply contamination that have occurred in Tompkins County include: • MTBE and gasoline contamination in the Village of Groton as a result of a Smith Corona spill, which has now been remediated. • The Town of Newfield's Shelter Valley Water System has received multiple"do not drink" orders from the County Department of Health in the past. • Prior to 1981, the City of Ithaca's and Cornell's WTPs were shut down on multiple occasions because of high turbidity and nearby fuel oil spills. • In 1997 a fuel oil spill from a fuel truck resulted in a water supply outage at the Cornell WTP for 6 days. • On December 4, 2009, an attempted theft of gasoline from the Caroline Highway Facility resulted in 500 gallons of fuel leaking into Six Mile Creek. • Precautionary shutdown of the City of Ithaca's water treatment plant occurred as a result of an overturned truck on Burns Road that leaked diesel fuel into the reservoir. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Contamination of the public water supplies within Tompkins County is a concern because of the amount of people that rely on these systems. A history of both fuel and manure spills have occurred in the County which has led to water supply contamination. Even short-term water supply outages can cause hardships on residents. The spill event that occurred in 2009 resulted in $25,000 in losses and damages. This contamination event represents a realistic hazard scenario and damage estimate for Tompkins County. A larger scale water supply contamination event has the potential to result in millions of dollars in damages due to the number of properties and residents that would be affected. Future Potential Impacts Increased flooding expected as a result of climate change is likely to cause an increase in the number of water supply contamination events in the future, beyond the current documented water supply contamination events rate of one to two events every ten (10) years. While numerous safeguards are put in place at the water treatment plants to account for short-term outages or shut downs, it is likely that these safeguards will be relied upon more heavily in the future. As an example, Bolton Point must now monitor for pesticides in their intake and finished water. Another concern that was voiced during the County's risk assessment was how susceptible private well water supply, as is found in much of the rural areas of the county, would be to contamination due to less predictable precipitation in the future. One added area of increasing concern is the aging infrastructure of pipelines that cross several of the County's creeks. These pipelines carry a variety of potentially dangerous materials, including sewage, oil, and natural gas. It is estimated that these pipelines cross at least 60 stream locations in the County, many of which have been observed as being in poor condition. The 560.018.001/12.13 - 77- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan rupturing of these pipelines could have immediate adverse impacts to water quality and, in many cases, could put drinking water supplies at risk. More detailed analysis and mitigation should be undertaken by local government,pipeline owners, and local stakeholders to reduce this risk. 5.2.6 Hazardous Materials in Transit General Hazard Description Hazardous materials in transit events consist of an uncontrolled release of material during transport, which when released can result in death or injury to people and/or damage to property and the environment through the material's flammability, toxicity, corrosiveness, chemical instability, and/or combustibility. Key Hazardous Materials in Transit Findings for Tompkins County • Historical hazardous materials in transit events have been minor with limited clean-up needs and no long-term impacts. • The frequency and severity of hazardous material in transit occurrences may increase if hydraulic fracturing is approved in New York State. Historical Hazard Occurrence In addition to rail transport, hazardous materials are transported through Tompkins County on several of the State Routes that traverse the area. Rail car transport is limited to rock salt and coal; no other hazardous materials are transported by rail in the County. These routes are major transport corridors since interstate access to the County is limited. During peak traffic times, it is estimated that over 400 freight trucks pass through the County every two hours. Often times, the materials being transported by trucks or train are unknown, making it more difficult to deal with a hazardous materials situation when it does occur. New York State does not require the registration of vehicles that transport hazardous materials, or require that such vehicles follow a set route; however it is required that federal codes be followed for marking and placarding of such trucks (ITCTC, 2002). Historical hazardous material events noted within the County include: • 1988: A fuel truck overturned along NYS Route 96 in the Town of Ulysses. • 1997: A train derailed in the Town of Dryden causing a fuel oil spill that led to the shutdown of the Cornell WTP. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Specific damage reports associated with previous hazardous materials in transit events were not available. In cases of minor fuel oil spills, $10,000 would cover the cost of clean-up, but larger events involving WTP shutdowns or prolonged road or railroad closures could result in much larger costs. 560.018.001/12.13 - 78- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Future Potential Impacts Hazardous materials in transit concerns are expected to continue in the future given the frequency of truck and train transportation within Tompkins County. Although prior hazard events were mostly minor with short-term impacts, a growing concern among County residents is the potential for hydraulic fracturing fluids to be transported through the area, especially if such an activity is approved to occur within New York State in the future. As discussed under the Transportation Accident hazard, the number of trucks traveling on roads in the County is expected to rise dramatically if shale gas drilling is approved. The SGEIS for High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing notes that trucks will be transporting potentially hazardous materials and that"additional transport resulting from horizontal drilling poses an additional risk" (NYSDEC, 2011). Tompkins County Department of Emergency response does not anticipate hazardous material transport associated with gas drilling to cause major disruptions, though the Department is preparing a plan to address potential impacts related to drilling operations. This concern is further detailed in Section 4.5. 5.2.7 Terrorism General Hazard Description Terrorism is defined as the threat or use of violence to achieve political or social ends usually associated with community disruption and/or multiple injuries or deaths. Key Terrorism Findings for Tompkins County • Cornell University received anthrax threats concurrent with the national anthrax episodes post-September 2001. Historical Hazard Occurrences A major terrorist event has never been documented within Tompkins County; however, Cornell University and other facilities received anthrax threats concurrent with the national anthrax episodes post-September 2001. Because of the potential for mass casualties to occur as a result of such a terrorist event, the fact that such events occur with no warning, and the concern that such events are likely to increase in the Country in the future, this hazard was assessed as part of Tompkins County's HMP. Terrorism is determined to have a moderately low potential of occurrence within the County, as there are no significant targets recognized within the area. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Terrorism events can result in a wide range of damages and recovery costs. A small isolated event may result in a minor disruption with low damage and cost implications, while a large- scale event could take years of recovery and cost billions of dollars to clean up and re-build an area. Given the unpredictable nature and variety of terrorist actions, it is difficult for the County and municipalities to be prepared and secure the proper equipment for such an event. 560.018.001/12.13 - 79- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Future Potential Impacts An isolated terrorist event has a low potential to occur within Tompkins County. Though no nationally significant targets were identified within the County, facilities such as airports, municipal buildings, universities, and water/wastewater treatment plants have a potential of being targeted in Tompkins County. Although occurrences have been relatively minor, agricultural terrorism should continue to be addressed, largely through response plans. 5.2.8 Civil Unrest General Hazard Description Civil unrest is defined as an individual or collective action causing serious interference with the peace, security, and/or functioning of a community. This hazard governs major disruptions, not just civil disobedience events. Key Civil Unrest Findings for Tompkins County • Incidents of civil unrest within Tompkins County are infrequent and are commonly associated with Cornell University or Ithaca College. • Civil unrest and public demonstration events in Tompkins County are normally peaceful and focused on a specific cause. Historical Hazard Occurrences Although public demonstrations are frequent events in Tompkins County, major incidents of civil unrest are less frequent and are normally associated with Cornell University or Ithaca College students in the City and Town of Ithaca. Campus parties and student activities, including Slope Day at Cornell University and Fountain Day at Ithaca College, often require additional law enforcement, medical services, or fire personnel to become involved. Noise ordinances,particularly the ordinance implemented by the Town of Ithaca, have resulted in the noted decrease in noise related events. The largest civil unrest occurrence in Tompkins County occurred on the Cornell University campus in 1968 when a group of students took over Willard Straight Hall. Other documented events include: a demonstration that blocked traffic on Green Street, the occupying of Immaculate Conception Catholic Church on Seneca Street, and a demonstration in the Town of Dryden on the ethical treatment of animals. Historical Cost and Damage Estimates Though civil unrest events have been known to cause property damage and vandalism, this is not the case with the majority of the civil unrest events and public demonstrations in Tompkins County. These events are normally peaceful and focused on a specific cause. The costs related to the extra law enforcement required to deal with large or unruly events is the highest cost associated with this hazard. 560.018.001/12.13 -80- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Future Potential Impacts Civil unrest and organized demonstrations are unpredictable, though Tompkins County, with its three institutions of higher education, may be at higher risk than surrounding counties for these types of events to occur. 560.018.001/12.13 -81 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.0 Hazard Vulnerability The Tompkins County HIRA-NY risk assessment was completed to identify the hazards with the highest potential to impact the County and associated jurisdictions. This information was used to guide the subsequent ranking of such hazards in order of the most severe and/or frequently occurring type, to help determine the highest priority of need with respect to implementation of pre-disaster action, and to guide the focus for recommendations and mitigation actions to be included in this HMP Update. After these pertinent hazards were identified and profiled, the vulnerability assessment, as described below, was completed to provide a quantitative estimate of the people and property that may be susceptible to a particular hazard event. Each Town and Village was asked to provide information concerning the occurrence of hazards in their community and to help identify what areas these hazards affected. This information was combined with information provided by FEMA, via the FEMA website, and from the NYSOEM with respect to relative cost of damages reported for various declared disaster events in New York State. 6.1 Identify Assets Critical facilities identified within Tompkins County include, but are not limited to, the E-911 Emergency Center, schools, fire departments, hospitals, medical centers, County and Town highway garages, government agencies, Town and Village Halls,police departments, local operational offices for telephone and electrical power utilities, airports, water supply facilities, waste water treatment facilities, etc. These facilities represent the critical assets located within the County. For the purpose of this planning document, lists of these critical facilities were prepared using information provided by the County, Towns, and Villages and are provided as Appendix G. A list of community assets and critical facilities was not identified in the original plan. 6.2 Damage Potential The damage potential for housing within Tompkins County was estimated using housing characteristics and housing values reported by the U.S. Census Bureau's American Fact Finder. In 2011, 39,000 occupied housing units were identified in Tompkins County; 22,000 (55 percent) were owner occupied and 18,000 (45 percent)were renter occupied. These numbers represent an approximate 7 percent vacancy rate among existing residential structures in the County. The damage potential for housing within Tompkins County was estimated using 2012 tax parcel data provided by the Tompkins County Department of Assessment. Care was taken to ensure housing types were not consolidated so as to better compare across jurisdictions. Information on the age of mobile homes was not available; therefore, these residential structures were not included in the Table 24 analysis. Tables 24, 25 and 26, below, further detail the housing types and values reported for the participating jurisdictions within Tompkins County. 560.018.001/12.13 -82- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. l O m — O l O �o l O 't N v) �o 't oo O aulog aIlgoW m ° aauaplsag leuoseas u01;uaaaag O ,—i ti N N O OHO M O M N 7y Jul;uappag li'ang N N o N o o N o 00 0 0o N o a.InljnaWIV 7y Iulauappag leang 0 Iul;uappag li'ang aSfl lei a.13tutuoj N O m N m m N o l O oo v O N gJIM aauaplsa-d N aauappag aldulny� �Iulsnog paanaaujnuuw a � H Oulsnog paanaaujnuuw nn o � w m Io O m m v N O v O O N O N �Iulsnog paanaaujnuuw � a U auampudV °O 00 0o m oo m N v m a v') oo �10 O ti ti ti ti N Jul U3 filuleg£ N h Jul;uapTsag fl!tuuj Z r" N lulauamsag fTlule T N N � � bA •� S""y N U w Q Q W w w �l cC H U a Z Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 25—Age of Structures (Tompkins County De artment o Assessment, 2013 <1940 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2011 Town of Caroline 458 101 230 249 99 Village of Cayuga Heights 255 294 239 113 22 Town of Danby 306 141 293 343 171 Village of Dryden 193 96 195 163 34 Town of Dryden 702 417 952 821 406 Town of Enfield 256 96 172 242 94 Village of Freeville 95 19 27 19 14 Village of Groton 430 42 149 98 26 Town of Groton 485 80 176 190 123 City of Ithaca 2948 390 811 703 128 Town of Ithaca 580 706 1018 990 275 Village of Lansing 39 71 129 296 134 Town of Lansing 603 312 566 759 428 Town of Newfield 366 119 377 307 147 Village of Trumansburg 290 90 99 77 41 Town of Ulysses 467 221 250 304 146 Tompkins County 8473 1 3195 1 5683 1 5674 1 2288 Table 26—Housing Values (Tompkins Coun Department o Assessment, 2013 Less $500K than $100- $150- $200- $300- or $50K $50-99K 149K 199K 299K 499K greater Town of Caroline 24 100 365 304 264 106 90 Village of Cayuga Heights 0 0 11 46 304 395 122 Town of Danby 29 174 361 318 240 106 17 Village of Dryden 5 59 327 147 57 4 1 Town of Dryden 96 363 946 888 726 260 52 Town of Enfield 104 294 1 356 193 133 29 13 Village of Freeville 1 23 85 33 7 1 1 Village of Groton 20 272 289 55 14 1 2 Town of Groton 98 443 421 1 184 81 21 1 City of Ithaca 14 190 793 1251 1209 483 178 Town of Ithaca 3 84 494 1029 1129 552 80 Village of Lansing 1 2 1 34 1 45 66 1 163 1 205 1 58 560.018.001/12.13 -84- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 26—Housing Values (Tompkins Coun Department o Assessment, 2013 Less $500K than $100- $150- $200- $300- or $50K $50-99K 149K 199K 299K 499K greater Town of Lansing 43 248 619 576 454 486 213 Town of Newfield 65 369 598 281 146 33 13 Village of Trumansburg 2 6 28 66 258 332 94 Town of Ulysses 24 100 365 1 304 1 264 1 106 1 90 Tompkins County 530 2759 6103 1 5741 1 5449 1 3120 1 1025 These data reveal that a considerable amount of residential infrastructure in the County was constructed before 1960, of which over two-thirds was built prior to 1940. Older houses are typically more susceptible to impacts or damage from an ice storm, winter storm, windstorm, fire event, etc. Approximately 24-percent of occupied housing in Tompkins County is represented by mobile homes that also are more vulnerable to damage from major disasters. In addition, based on 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data, an estimated 7-percent of all housing within the County remains unoccupied. Vacant structures and properties often fall into a state of disrepair, making them more susceptible to damage from storm events. The approximate median value of an occupied housing unit in Tompkins County is $199,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). If 1 percent(265 units) of the total occupied housing units in Tompkins County were demolished by a severe storm event, a tornado for example, the potential value of damage would amount to $52,735,000. Granted, natural storm damage does not typically amount to complete destruction of homes in Tompkins County, but this scenario does demonstrate how significant the damage has the potential to be when only a limited amount of total infrastructure within the County is affected. Even if 1 percent of houses in the County each sustained only $1,000 in minor damage from a storm event, it would still amount to a considerable sum: $265,000. The following Table 27 provides an approximate monetary range for losses associated with some of the natural hazards that were profiled in this plan. Costs associated with a hazard's potential to impact people and properties were estimated for the highest ranking natural hazards. The completion of this assessment utilizes estimates and assumptions of damages and costs that have been developed using historic storm damage information for Tompkins County, damage estimates provided by other sources such as the NCDC, and the use of engineering judgment. Actual hazard events have the potential to incur greater or lesser losses and impacts than what the results of the vulnerability assessment indicate. The cost estimates put together to assess hazard vulnerability are not exhaustive and may not encompass all damages that could occur as a result of a hazard event. To aid in this exercise, information from Section 2.5, Table 4 was considered regarding the number of parcels per land use category for each jurisdiction. Additionally, the total property values of all lands within each jurisdiction were estimated by the Tompkins County Office of Real Property (included in Appendix A - Table 28). This information was helpful during the inventory of assets step of this hazard mitigation planning process and was also considered during this vulnerability assessment. During the compilation of 560.018.001/12.13 -85- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan this document, each jurisdiction was tasked with identifying their vulnerabilities, if any, to the hazards evaluated during the risk assessment process. The significant vulnerabilities for each jurisdiction are included in Table 27, below. Flooding remains the number one hazard of concern among the municipalities within Tompkins County. Table 27 -Natural Hazards: Range of Potential Damages ($) to Vulnerable Structures in Tompkins Count Significantly Vulnerable Damage Potential Loss of Life Potential Jurisdictions Severe storm/Hurricane $1,000-$10,000 each event Moderate All jurisdictions vulnerable $35,000 annually Earthquake $4,000-$80,000 each event Moderate All jurisdictions vulnerable $0 annually $0-$100,000 each event Town of Danby,Town of Landslide $0 annually Low Ithaca,City of Ithaca,Village of Lansing,Town of Ulysses Town of Lansing, Village/Town of Groton, Town/City of Ithaca, $1,000-$400,000 each event Town/Village of Dryden, Flash flood $47,000 annually Moderate Town of Caroline,Village Cayuga Heights,Town of Enfield,Village of Freeville, Town of Newfield,Village of Trumansburg, $1,000-$100,000 each event LOW City of Ithaca,Town/Village Lake flood $5,000 annually of Lansing,Town of Ulysses Infestation $10,000-$2,000,000 each Low City of Ithaca event Tornado $3,000-$1,000,000 each Moderate No significant vulnerabilities event identified Severe winter storm/Ice $0-$1,000,000 each event Moderate All jurisdictions vulnerable storm $10,000 annually Epidemic $10,000-$10,000,000 High City of Ithaca $0-$1,000 each event City of Ithaca,Village of Extreme temperatures $0 annually Moderate Cayuga Heights,Village of Lansing Drought $0-$15,000,000 each event Low No significant vulnerabilities identified $0-$1,000,000 each event City of Ithaca,Town of Ice jam $2,000 annually LOW Ithaca 560.018.001/12.13 -86- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.3 Development Trends As stated in the Tompkins County Development Focus Area Strategy, for over half a century new construction in Tompkins County has been located in rural areas, outside of the city and villages, by a ratio of 2 to 1, but conditions have changed and continue to evolve to the point where the majority of development is occurring in the City and Town of Ithaca. Since adoption of the 2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan, development has continued throughout Tompkins County at a slow, but steady rate. Much development has occurred within the City and Town of Ithaca, though the surrounding Towns and Villages have also seen their share of development. In the Town of Ithaca, several projects have been built or received approval focused on expanding senior housing options. These projects have occurred on West Hill (Conifer Village Senior Living Community, Conifer West Hill Development), South Hill (Longview Care Facility Addition, Longview Patio Homes), as well as East Hill (Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments). Over this same time period, substantial projects at Cornell University (CU) and Ithaca College (IC), which have considerable portions of their campuses within the Town of Ithaca, have continued to occur. The most substantial development on campus has been the Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center. The facility opened at IC in 2011 and includes a 130,000 square foot field house plus a 47,000 square foot aquatics pavilion. It is anticipated that the center will host some of the largest events in the County. Other major projects at IC have included the building of a new business school, the Peggy Williams Center, the expanded boathouse on Cayuga Inlet and the expansion of the Circle Apartments student housing facility. Projects at CU, within the Town of Ithaca, include the Heat and Power Plant, the Merrill Family Sailing Center on Cayuga Lake, the Physical Sciences building, and the East Hill Office Building. Other noted projects within the Town of Ithaca include an expansion of EcoVillage at Ithaca, Belle Sherman Cottages, Overlook at West Hill, and the approved Holochuck Homes and Holly Creek subdivisions. The majority of development activity in the County has occurred within the City of Ithaca. In 2007, the City elected to rebuild their century old water treatment plant on its existing site. The new plant, currently in planning stages, will continue to draw water from Sixmile Creek for treatment and distribution throughout the City. The largest project to occur over the last several years in the City is the Collegetown Terraces. The first phase of this project is now complete and includes 80 graduate student apartments and 184 bedrooms. Downtown Ithaca's major projects include the mixed use Cayuga Green II and approvals for the Breckenridge Apartments affordable housing project, the Holiday Inn Expansion, and Seneca Way mixed use building. Projects within the City at CU included Milstein Hall. Approvals were also granted for the CU law school addition as well as a new Computer and Information Services building. Other significant projects in the City include the development of affordable housing on Floral Avenue on the Cayuga Inlet, the Coal Yard Apartments on Maple Avenue, and the College Park Apartments on Eddy Street. Other notable projects include the development of dormitories in the Town of Dryden at the Tompkins-Cortland Community College, the Poet's Landing affordable housing project in the Village of Dryden, and approved subdivisions in the Town of Lansing, including Lansing 560.018.001/12.13 -87- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Commons, Woodland Park, and Farm Pond Circle. Near the junction of Routes 34 and 34B in the Town of Lansing, there is also added activity surrounding the new Lansing Market. 6.3.1 Affordable Housing Housing prices in Tompkins County continue to increase with median housing process continuing to be 50 to 75 percent higher than in neighboring counties. As stated in the County's Comprehensive Plan (2004), barely half of the homes in the County are owner occupied. With the high price of housing and low vacancy rates, affordable housing continues to be an issue, which several jurisdictions are struggling to deal with and integrate into development proposals. Some of the available "affordable housing" is located in high risk areas such as floodplains. 6.3.2 Development Focus Areas A number of the new development proposals have occurred in areas identified by Tompkins County as Development Focus Areas. These noted areas have existing public water,public sewer, and transit infrastructure. By continuing to develop mixed-use compact development within these areas, several benefits will be realized, including the improved resilience and adaptation to changing energy markets as well as natural hazard events. 560.018.001/12.13 -88- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 7.0 Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation The 2006 HMP served as the basis for this Plan Update and all hazards, mitigation goals, objectives, and actions in that original plan were reviewed and, if they were still deemed to be relevant priorities, incorporated into the update. The planning process for the Plan Update encouraged the evaluation of new information, emerging issues, ideas, and actions to ensure that the plan is a living document that will be well-used by participants in the future. 7.1 Mitigation and Adaptation Goals The prime objective of setting hazard mitigation and adaptation goals is to reduce or eliminate losses and damages from hazard events well in advance of hazard occurrence. It is important to create goals that are tangible. The goals identified below represent what the participants and municipalities are hoping to achieve through the implementation of this hazard mitigation plan. • Goal 1: Protect Life and Property • Goal 2: Increase Public Education, Outreach, and Partnerships • Goal 3: Protect and Restore Natural Ecosystems • Goal 4: Enhance Emergency Services These goals were developed based on the risk assessment results, County-wide vulnerabilities, County and jurisdiction capabilities, and overall disaster preparedness. The addition of Goal 3: Protect and Restore Natural Ecosystems reflects the region's belief that natural systems play a critical role in increasing hazard resilience,particularly in the face of increasing climate change concerns. An example of this is the County's emphasis on advancing watershed-based approaches to flood hazard mitigation, where natural systems are utilized to build resilience in a way that protects water quality and avoids adverse impacts both up and downstream. The establishment of goals helped the jurisdictions to focus on effective and meaningful mitigation actions. 7.2 Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy 7.2.1 Mitigation and Adaptation Actions Numerous mitigation actions were proposed by participating jurisdictions to reduce the impact of potential hazard events. These actions were evaluated in a public process and resulted in the identification of 86 actions to be taken by jurisdictions and partners to help achieve the goals outlined in the Plan Update. Of those actions there are 45 individual jurisdictional actions, 15 high priority multi jurisdictional actions, and 26 other multi jurisdictional actions. The proposed mitigation actions are varied, but can be grouped into six broad categories as indicated by FEMA 386-3: • 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 and zoning, building 560.018.001/12.13 -89- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan codes, capital government programs, open space preservation, and storm water management regulations. • Property Protection—Actions that involve the adaptation of existing buildings, infrastructure systems, or structures to protect them from a hazard, or removal from the hazard area. This includes the protection, upgrading, and/or strengthening of existing systems. Examples include acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofits, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness —Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate and increase resilience to them. Such actions include outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and 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 the use of green infrastructure, sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Emergency Services —Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event. Services include warning systems, emergency response services, and protection of critical facilities. • Structural Projects —Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Such structures include dams, levees, floodwalls, seawalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. All the mitigation and adaptation actions included in this Plan Update have been reviewed by plan participants to ensure that they meet the goals of the plan. The proposed actions represent a range of projects that are well distributed throughout the six categories of mitigation. It is realized that some of the proposed actions included in this plan represent maintenance actions or post-hazard actions, which are generally not eligible for funding under FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program. Regardless, such actions were deemed important to the community and are included in this plan. Other grants and funding sources will be sought to complete such proposed efforts. Each participating jurisdiction proposed at least one implementable,pre-disaster mitigation activity to be included in this document. Table 29 outlines each individual jurisdiction's list of proposed mitigation measures. This table shows that all jurisdictions took an active role in the planning of this document and considered what action(s) could be implemented to minimize hazard vulnerabilities in their community. This list reflects the re-inclusion of some actions from the original plan that are still relevant, but also incorporates many new actions that would also minimize potential impacts to life and property as a result of hazard events. This list represents mitigation actions that were proposed by participating jurisdictions, agencies, and members of the public, based on need. Those actions identified as multi jurisdictional are addressed in section 7.2.4. 560.018.001/12.13 _90- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 7.2.2 2006 Plan Implementation Since the adoption of the 2006 Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan for Tompkins County, numerous efforts have been made through the County, Town, Village, and support agencies toward reducing the impacts of disasters on the community. The 2006 HMP mitigation actions were reviewed to determine their statuses and implementation details. These actions are included in Appendix A —Table 30, along with their statuses (active (re-included), inactive (deleted), completed) and any additional details. Details associated with local mitigation activities that have been implemented over the past five years are also included as part of the 2007 and 2008 Implementation Reports, completed by the HMP Implementation Committee. These meeting notes are included in Appendix C for review. 7.2.3 Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy There are many factors that must be considered when implementing an action or project. Table 29, below, contains specific implementation details associated with each proposed action including goals achieved, implementing agency(ies), estimated costs,possible funding sources, and implementation timeframes. When detailed costs were not available, estimated price ranges were considered for each mitigation action. The levels for the cost estimates are as follows: • Low: cost is estimated to be below $10,000 • Medium: cost is estimated to be between $10,000 and $100,000 • High: cost is estimated to be over $100,000 The implementation timeframes provided for each action are also estimated. Smaller, locally funded projects are easier to implement and therefore have shorter timeframes, while larger, complicated actions that involve funding applications, agency reviews, etc. will likely take five years or longer to complete. The levels for the timeframe estimates for each mitigation action are as follows: • Short: completion anticipated within 1-2 years • Moderate: completion anticipated within 5 years • Long: completion anticipated in greater than 5 years • Ongoing: action involves continued coordination or effort For some actions, timeframe is presented as a range. This indicates that the action is currently being implemented or should be implemented as soon as possible and that it will continue for an extended period of time. 560.018.001/12.13 _91 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. a "d v � N bD bD bD N y IR " a o v .° .° on IV o w a a G U H H o U U-14 Q Q U U 0 � N .,..i w 8 w o � ..r .�nyy � `•y N N -- -- M c w w Z CR tp v �Io C� .14H r W v w G� H H H H H H U U v o � o pip r b eC un un �, un t4 � a �q Q on � a U rn e� w un"' ° �' ° �' ° ani ° ani ani ° i v ob 1 - c - c un c un > � o � o � o � N tQ 41, ro wtQ 'y t O • V N70 on o c m otQtQ — VtQ tQ y � O a p'° •� ° ° �i .� c y ° _ O b oc � H 17 c � � N o � 6 w � ° � w �q G� eu U o o U o C .� Q U ° C•o F ,O .nl b ^d a Q N U C w N ° C� CA bD o Tq tQo v ani o t o t o i � � •I. M M M M ... a T C ^� o > Ccvn cn Uw Uw o o 45 �? o 3 c 3 c 3 51 rn 8, o W +� ` a N N y v a '^.k' p ami o � Lei ami o � � �,� CVC � � �' '''o � � '^ o .�. w � o •� N C° � � � Q� o � Q� 0 0. 0.� a � W.� �""'w°.� U � � •-'ua � � 0., ^c vii N "y v � bD ,N bD ,N •�, bD bD � bA O �i� �i� �i� •�i� b � O t4 %, bA iy iy U o U w O b o w � hQ�" Z Z Z a � U � e� ra v o 0 o C7 o C7 0 0 0 0 0 o U o �'�o�n O N ° ° ° o a C w > w O aJ—14aj ^CS s� Ct 45 oo � o �? a�io ° > roc i � w a Nati o O U I� cC ',� cC•r� s� N O s.r s.r aJ F� s.r ✓ yy o ^CS cC H s.r F� cC VO � N U U U U U U U U U U H H w Fy H A y � p N O U b � 6 a a a o a '� � pywvz w a w Z w a wZa O O wU 0 U Q 0 +�. o ton o on o ungg o o o o ° 0 0 o o zx z •nil p t ct �� `� w o � � ww �•� w w �0 0 N un w cvt .a cC O it cC..� •s.r ,� .� 4� o a c o c - tnY � o tQ 0 045'45 R z z # / � Bk / $ + ! - § % ■ & \ % . \ kB B � \ � \ ( � }\ \ ) \ � a © ■ d $ � � Q © 74 \ } a § �ƒ � a � - 2 % © 7# � � M � cd . ƒ\ . §) \ / � ( ) ( § � / Tompkins County DRAFT Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 7.2.4 Mitigation and Adaptation Action Prioritization A cost-benefit analysis was completed for each proposed action as a way to prioritize the many actions included in this document. The priority level indicated for each action is based on the current knowledge of the mitigation actions, including their estimated costs, timeframes, and funding availability. Prioritization criteria will continue to be reviewed and revised on an annual basis during the five-year plan update timeframe. By implementing the proposed actions as part of pre-disaster mitigation, and not as an afterthought, the implementation will be more cost effective and the incorporation of these actions into normal planning processes and operational procedures will naturally occur. Each proposed action was evaluated against the following considerations (FEMA, 2008): • Compatibility with goals and objectives identified in the current NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006 HMP); • Compatibility with goals of the plan update; • Assessment of the impact of identified actions on jurisdictions within the entire planning area or region; • Cost/benefit reviews of potential actions; • Funding priorities identified in the current NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan; and • Compatibility with other local and regional plans and programs. Each participating jurisdiction evaluated the actions that applied to their jurisdiction. These evaluations considered the six elements addressed above. This exercise provided the participating jurisdictions with a way to prioritize the mitigation actions using a simple cost/benefit analysis (Table 31). Depending on the results of the action evaluations, each action is recognized as a high priority project, medium priority project, or low priority project. The results of the mitigation and adaptation action priority assessment are included in Table 32 and Appendix A —Table 33. Table 31 —Benefit and Cost Prioritization Rankings Assessment Levels and Description High Medium I Low Benefits Action within the next five A long-term impact on the It is difficult to assess the years is important and is reduction of losses is benefits of an action due to its anticipated to have a anticipated.Action within the long-term timeframe.Action meaningful impact on next five years is anticipated, within the next five year is reduction of losses. though not critical. unlikely. Costs Existing funding sources are Funding exists,but will have to Funds to implement action are inadequate or are not identified be reapportioned or budgeted available in existing budget. to cover implementation of the over multiple years. action. 560.018.001/12.13 -98- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County DRAFT Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Actions recorded as having a benefit level equal to or higher than the cost level, were viewed as cost-beneficial actions, therefore receiving a high priority ranking. This priority ranking process should be viewed as a preliminary analysis. As the implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies progresses, the ranking system used during this evaluation will evolve based on input from participating jurisdictions, agency representatives, and other branches of state and federal government. Additional funding sources will be required for many of the proposed actions. Coordination with agencies such as NYSOEM and FEMA will be necessary to secure funds for proposed mitigation actions, especially those with high costs and long-term implementation schedules. Table 32 lists the 15 highest priority multi jurisdictional actions being proposed as part of this HMP Update. The plan update project team identified these actions as those with most importance for implementation in the next five years. This list reflects the re-inclusion of some actions from the original plan that are still relevant, but also incorporates many new actions that would also minimize potential impacts to life and property as a result of hazard events. This list represents actions that were proposed by participating jurisdictions, agencies, and members of the public, based on need. Some of the proposed actions relate to a specific type of hazard event or specific jurisdiction, while others are proposed to mitigate an array of hazards or will apply to multiple jurisdictions. Appendix A —Table 33 includes the remaining list of 26 multi- jurisdictional actions identified as a part of the update process. 560.018.001/12.13 _99- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. y ee v o a3 >< >< a3 a3 a3 o o pip z � N o opo z z Qw z z � w w Q V5V5 w N U TUU Q Qv U � V� UO V5 a 0 i V Y.+ N N .d w N N 'CS � N I ani ° 121, ;o vO G� b o u CoC N o. wo ct .1 a) O-C:; 3 �' O O O O •� o O . �.., .c7 � C,ri C ° Q, w � �` � E L N ° ° � ai ., � on � v c o o _ o o c O `, my v o o pip z � w •o �i p 'd y '�� U� U o � w w w w � d' C ai4 C7Q � Q C7QQ gyp° . H � •o ° R' Q, Q � � o � R' R' ,ti w w F.~�yy •v N O•^ to 4.ocvt o°Jn ° o c o14 ° w � ° on ° ° "B + ct o o ai ° IV- � v ° o � o ° �� > Q, w ' •° two o . ° k) o o w o v�w un N x• o v o o o ; M w °' ^c c v o P p on r p•� O v 'Ic"j) 21 15,�.JC, C, P., w v •° 54 .° U o ° o w r c o O m 45 � I� Q+ cy ca I� I� ..� bD v �i c � Bk ) / % ■ & & \ / \ B � = R � ® \ a \ © 7§) ) \ \ ( \ � ■ 7 ee � = t 2 � .2 2 ■ 2 7# 2 \ 7 � ¢ \ \ ) 5 / kjez ° % _ ) i o { & - eG ) \ 2 %3z 2 )a 2 � 3 & Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 8.0 National Flood Insurance Program Long-term mitigation of potential flood impacts can be best achieved through comprehensive floodplain management regulations and enforcement,particularly at a local level. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is regulated by FEMA. The goal of this program is to reduce the impact of flooding on private and public structures by providing affordable insurance for property owners. The program encourages local jurisdictions to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations in order to mitigate the potential effects of flooding on new and existing infrastructure (FEMA, 2009). Communities that participate in the NFIP adopt floodplain ordinances that require that all insured structures that are damaged over 50-percent of the property's market value must comply with the floodplain ordinance when the structure is repaired/re-built. These repairs could mean changes to the elevation of the structure, acquisition and demolition by the municipality, or relocation to a location outside of the floodplain. Insured structures that are located within floodplains identified on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS)receive funds if impacted by a flooding disaster. These distributed funds are to be used to mitigate the risk of future flooding by implementing pre-disaster mitigation actions, such as those previously referenced. The NFIP and other flood mitigation actions are important for the protection of public and private property and public safety. Flood mitigation is valuable to communities because (1) it creates safer environments by reducing loss of life and decreasing property damage; (2) it allows individuals to minimize post-flood disaster disruptions and to recover quicker(homes built to NFIP standards receive less damage from flood events —when damage does occur, the flood insurance program protects the homeowner's investment); and (3)it lessens the financial impacts on individuals, communities, and other involved parties (FEMA, 2009). 8.1 Tompkins County Flood Mapping FEMA's Q3 flood data, which is derived from their FIRMS, were reviewed for Tompkins County. These datasets were last updated in 1996. Enfield is the only jurisdiction in the County that has never been mapped by FEMA. The Village of Cayuga Heights has been mapped, though there are no floodplains identified within the Village's municipal boundary. There are a total of about 6,464 acres of land in the County that are located within 100-year or 500-year mapped flood zones. A 100-year flood indicates a flood elevation that has a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. Similarly, a 500-year flood indicates a flood elevation that has 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The land area in Tompkins County that is mapped within either of these flood zones accounts for, at least portions of, 3,749 tax parcels. The full market value of these parcels, in their entirety, is $7,423,609,047. Parcels located within mapped floodplains consist of the following land uses: 364 parcels — Commercial, 129 parcels —Community Services, 76 parcels —Forest, 9 parcels — Industrial, 59 parcels —Public Services, 36 parcels —Recreation, 2475 parcels —Residential, 507 parcels —Vacant. As indicated, an overwhelming majority of lands mapped within 100- and 500-year floodplains are residential properties. The majority of identified parcels are located adjacent to Salmon Creek, Taughannock Creek, Fall Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Sixmile Creek, 560.018.001/12.13 -103- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Cayuga Inlet, Owasco Inlet, Mud Creek, and Virgil Creek. Table 34 lists the total number of parcels mapped in 100- and 500-year floodplains according to their jurisdiction location. Table 34—Total Parcels Mapped in 100- and 500-Year Floodplains by Jurisdiction 1996 Q3 FEMA Flood Mapping and 2011 TCDD Tax Parcel Data Total Parcels Located Jurisdiction in Floodplains Total Parcels Within (includes entire or Jurisdiction partial arcels) Town of Caroline 229 1,968 Town of Danby 83 2,009 Town of Dryden(including Villages of Dryden and 585 5,818 Freeville) Town of Groton(including Village of Groton) 244 2,783 Town of Ithaca(including Village of Cayuga Heights) 224 5,434 City of Ithaca 1,874 5,676 Town of Lansing(including Village of Lansing) 202 4,801 Town of Newfield 71 2,328 Town of Ulysses(including Village of Trumansburg) 1 400 12,637 FEMA has been slowly updating FIRM mapping for Counties within New York State in recent years. An update to the flood mapping in Tompkins County is planned, but no further specifics have been proposed at this time. Future Plan annual reviews and five-year updates will consider any new flood mapping and information that becomes available. 8.2 Tompkins County NFIP Policy and Loss Statistics National Flood Insurance Program records and claims were analyzed to determine the extent of participation, flood losses, and flood insurance policies within Tompkins County. All of the jurisdictions within the County are current participants in FEMA's NFIP, except for the Town of Enfield. NFIP Policy Data and Loss statistics for all participating jurisdiction in Tompkins County are included on Tables 35 and 36. These data are current as of August 31, 2012. The information included in Table 35 documents the number of flood insurance policies, coverage amounts, and premium amounts for all jurisdictions within Tompkins County on August 31, 2012. The NFIP policy statistics indicate that the only jurisdiction that does not have any properties currently purchasing flood policies is the Village of Trumansburg. The Town of Enfield has no data, but that is because they currently do not participate in the NFIP. The City of Ithaca has the highest number of policies in-force and the greatest insurance amounts in-force. The flood loss data included in Table 36 documents the number of losses and payment amounts associated with flood losses from January 1, 1978 to August 31, 2012. It indicates that the City of Ithaca has experienced the highest incidence of loss from flood events, but that the Village of Groton has sustained the most total damage, signified by the amount of total payments. The 560.018.001/12.13 -104- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Town of Lansing also shows a large amount of total loss and a high total payments value. The Village of Lansing and the Town of Danby have not reported any loss claims since this information started to be collected in 1978. Out of an approximate 34,885 tax parcels in Tompkins County, 364 flood insurance policies were in place as of August 2012. The jurisdictional distribution of these policies is included in Table 35. Table 35—NFIP Policy Statistics, Snapshot as of August 31,2012 (Bureau Net, Policy Information, 2012) Insurance Written Policies In-Force Premium Jurisdiction In-Force (whole$) In-Force Caroline(Town) 11 $2,088,100 7,895 Cayuga Heights(Village) 3 $1,050,000 1,215 Danby(Town) 5 $1,050,000 1,527 Dryden(Town) 23 $6,368,800 28,583 Dryden(Village) 27 $3,449,900 24,064 Enfield(Town) - - - Freeville(village) 6 $743,300 3,919 Groton(Town) 15 $1,445,300 12,352 Groton(Village) 15 $4,149,900 23,321 Ithaca(Town) 48 $11,206,200 33,358 Ithaca(City) 139 $28,801,400 159,258 Lansing(Town) 43 $6,602,700 28,069 Lansing(Village) 3 $592,000 2,080 Newfield(Town) 8 1 $819,000 1 4,299 Trumansburg(Village) 0 0 0 Ulysses(Town) 18 $3,848,400 10,058 Policies in-force=NFIP policies as of August 31,2012 Insurance in-force=coverage amount for policies in-force Written premium in-force=premium paid for policies in-force 560.018.001/12.13 - 105- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 36—NFIP Loss Statistics, as of August 31,2012 for Losses Incurred Since January 1, 1978 (Bureau Net, Claim Information, 2012) Closed Jurisdiction Total Closed Open without Total Losses Losses Losses Payment Payments Losses Caroline(Town) 21 17 0 4 $72,531.40 Cayuga Heights(Village) 4 3 0 1 $15,790.79 Danby(Town) 0 0 0 0 0 Dryden(Town) 5 5 0 0 $56,450.54 Dryden(Village) 16 12 0 4 $84,639.71 Enfield(Town) - - - - - Freeville(village) 4 4 0 0 $17,760.16 Groton(Town) 6 4 0 2 $16,773.65 Groton(Village) 12 9 0 3 $614,682.96 Ithaca(Town) 17 13 0 4 $35,396.78 Ithaca(City) 86 63 0 23 $220,430.64 Lansing(Town) 52 41 0 11 $442,746.94 Lansing(Village) 0 0 0 0 0 Newfield(Town) 2 2 0 0 $9,297.04 Trumansburg(Village) 1 3 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 $902.32 Ulysses(Town) I 1 I 1 1 0 0 $5,798.14 Total losses=all losses submitted regardless of status,total claims Closed losses=losses that have been paid Open losses=losses that have not been paid in full CWOP losses=losses closed without payment Total payments=total amount paid on losses According to the NYSOEM State Mitigation Plan (NYSOEM, 2011), there are 11 properties in Tompkins County that have repetitive flood loss, though the TCPD documents 12 parcels that meet the repetitive loss definition (Section 5.1.2). The State Plan includes an estimated value of structures located within 100-year mapped floodplains in Tompkins County. This estimate includes a median sales price of$164,800 and an estimate of 997 structures in 100-year floodplains, for a total calculated estimated value of$164,305,600. This potential flood loss estimate is based on 100-year floodplain mapping and estimated values of structures. 8.3 NFIP Mitigation Actions As part of the Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, each participating jurisdiction was required to evaluate a specific set of mitigation actions aimed at continued compliance and participation with FEMA's NFIP. These mitigation actions are proposed in addition to the mitigation actions already included in this plan. The mitigation actions, incorporated by FEMA 560.018.001/12.13 - 106- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan in their 2008 guidance, and included to reduce the impacts of future flood hazard events, consist of the following: • Revisions to floodplain management ordinances in order to comply with FEMA's latest regulations and remain consistent with the FIRMS; • The designation of a Floodplain Administrator in each participating jurisdiction; • Ensuring that staff members have appropriate training to adequately enforce NFIP regulations and ordinances; • Requiring staff involved in floodplain management and/or regulations to become Certified Floodplain Managers (CFMs); • Joining the Community Rating System (CRS). These NFIP specific mitigation actions are further detailed in the Multi-Jurisdictional mitigation action strategies included in Table 33, located in Appendix A. In addition to these NFIP mitigation actions, one of the specific pre-disaster mitigation actions proposed by the Town of Enfield is to become a participating member of the NFIP. The Community Rating System is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages floodplain management activities at the community level. As a result of CRS participation, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk that results from community actions to meet the three goals of the CRS: reduce flood loss, facilitate accurate insurance ratings, and promote flood insurance awareness (FEMA, 2010). 560.018.001/12.13 -107- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 9.0 Plan Maintenance Process This section details the future maintenance process that will be followed for subsequent plan updates. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that adopted mitigation plans define and document the processes and mechanisms for maintaining and updating the hazard mitigation plan at least once every five years in order for the participating jurisdictions to remain eligible for funding. This hazard mitigation plan maintenance process must include: monitoring and evaluating the plan; updating the plan; providing an implementation schedule; and outlining steps for continued public involvement. A checklist to assist with the monitoring, evaluation, and updating of this Hazard Mitigation Plan is included in Appendix I. 9.1 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation The 2013 Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be monitored on an annual basis to ensure that the goals and objectives of the Plan remain relevant and that the proposed mitigation actions are being implemented efficiently. The Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All- Hazard Mitigation Plan—Implementation Committee will continue to hold annual meetings to review and discuss this document, recent hazard events, and how to incorporate this Plan into other County-wide planning efforts. These annual meetings will be publicized and open to the public, as a way to promote continued public involvement in this process. The Tompkins County Planning Department will be in charge of scheduling and moderating the Implementation Committee annual meetings, and will be responsible for compiling a meeting summary and annual report at the end of every year. This annual report should detail changes made to the HMP document, if any, and how and when these changes will be made. The meeting summary will provide important information regarding hazard events that occurred during the previous year and implementation details associated with the proposed mitigation actions included in the HMP. The implementation of proposed mitigation actions is important to review to determine whether the plan is being executed correctly. Items that should be reviewed and recorded for each completed mitigation action include the ultimate cost of the activity, the successes and failures of the action in minimizing hazard impacts, and the funding sources used for the action. During each annual meeting of the Implementation Committee, the following HMP components will be assessed: • Whether the goals and objectives address current and expected conditions; • Whether the nature, magnitude, and/or type of risks have changed; • Whether the current resources are appropriate for implementing the plan; • Whether there are implementation problems or coordination issued with other agencies; • Whether the outcomes have occurred as expected, and • Whether agencies and other partners participated as originally proposed. 560.018.001/12.13 - 108- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan The schedule and tasks associated with the monitoring of Tompkins County's HMP are included in Appendix L The annual reports compiled by the TCPD will be posted to the County's website for public review. 9.2 Plan Updating The 2013 HMP will be updated by addendum at any time during the five-year execution period in which the Implementation Committee determines that a significant change has occurred that warrants such an action. In the event of a hazard occurrence, the goals, actions, and procedures outlines in the Plan will be reviewed, as necessary. If any revisions or changes are warranted, the plan will be updated immediately, or at the next five-year update timeframe, depending on the importance of the proposed change(s) or revision(s). During the updating process, the participating jurisdictions will be contacted to provide updated information concerning the elements of the Plan applicable to their community. This process will be completed through the issuance of a questionnaire to be returned to the Implementation Committee for review prior to their annual meeting. Approximately 18 months prior to the end of the current five-year execution period, the Plan update process should be initiated. This document represents the first update to Tompkins County's original HMP, review and approved by NYSOEM and FEMA in 2006. Participant and public review will continue to be completed during each five-year Plan Update process. All future plan updates will be submitted for re-approval in accordance with the five-year review schedule dictated in DMA 2000. Following FEMA conditional approval, each participating jurisdiction must formally adopt the new Plan by resolution. These resolutions should be collected and filed in Appendix F for documentation, and submitted to FEMA and NYSOEM for final HMP approval. A user friendly checklist was formulated to aid Tompkins County in competing future five-year updates to the HMP. A copy of this checklist is provided in Appendix L This checklist will help the County organize and complete revisions to future Plan Updates and will assist the County in adequately meeting the five-year review timeframe instituted by FEMA. 9.3 Local Planning Considerations Hazard mitigation has become integrated in regional planning in and around Tompkins County. Due to a number of significant storm events, refined climate data and municipal interest mitigation planning is becoming closely engrained in local decision making. As noted in Table 11, approximately half of the jurisdictions in Tompkins County have, or are in the process of updating, community Comprehensive Plans — including Tompkins County. Through the comprehensive planning visioning process, communities can identify key vulnerabilities across a broad range of topic areas and select actions that may help them mitigate those risks. As an example, the Village of Trumansburg identified the following concern in its 2009 Comprehensive Plan, "heavy rainfall in the upstream drainage area of Trumansburg, and its large tributary, Boardman Creek, can produce periods of significant flows through the Village." As a result of this, the Village recognized the multi-faceted role that stream buffers could play in terms of stabilizing streams, improving water quality and habitat, as well as protecting property. Recommendations for regulated buffers were included in this comprehensive planning effort. The Village then codified this regulation in the update of its municipal zoning code which now 560.018.001/12.13 _ 109- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan requires stream buffers in certain creekside zones. Buffers now play an active role in the Village's development review and enforcement process. Continuing with the stream buffer example, several other jurisdictions, including the Town of Ulysses and the Town of Ithaca, have enacted stream buffer regulations from similar processes. Tompkins County has further developed model stream buffer regulations which are currently being considered by several jurisdictions for implementation. The County has also continued to support its Stream Corridor Restoration & Flood Hazard Mitigation Program, which has resulted in the planting and protection of over 12,000 linear feet of stream corridor throughout the County. Projects have ranged from restoring stream corridor vegetation to developing, implementing and monitoring riparian easements. The majority of these projects have been advanced thanks to the prioritized guidance of the region's watershed assessments. These watershed assessments highlight the key" hotspots" in need of mitigation in most of the County's watersheds. Information on some of these resources is available at ham://www.toinplcinscounlyn .gov/planning/water-resources-stream-buffers. Each of these projects has additionally allowed for the advancement of mitigation education with municipalities, landowners and the several hundred volunteers and contractors involved with these projects. Stream buffer protection serves as just one example of how mitigation is integrated with planning efforts in Tompkins County. Other significant strides are being made in relation to infestation through local public works and conservation efforts along with a host of flood mitigation efforts. Thanks to the mitigation planning process, with the inclusion of the required 5-year update of our FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan, this work is even further advanced. Through its review of local plans and projects, Tompkins County is committed to regularly ensuring mitigation planning is integrated. Additionally, the County will continue to convene municipal partners at least annually to revisit the mitigation plan's goals/actions and to encourage the proactive coordination of mitigation in various planning and policy decisions. Lastly, to set an example for the importance of mitigation in local planning, the County is currently in the process of updating its own Comprehensive Plan. As a component of that update, climate adaptation/mitigation has been identified as a key overarching principal that will be addressed in the broad range of chapters of this communitywide plan. By adopting a resolution to accept the Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan, each participating jurisdiction agrees to reference and incorporate the document into their future local planning documents, codes, decisions,processes, and regulations. Plan elements will be considered during municipal and County-wide development actions and comprehensive planning. Planning mechanisms and current capabilities recognized among the participating jurisdictions are demonstrated by Table 11 in Section 3.1.1. Table 11 will be revised as new mechanisms and capabilities are adopted and updated by the participating jurisdictions. Table 37 shows how this HMP will be incorporated into the existing and future planning mechanisms and opportunities of each jurisdiction. 560.018.001/12.13 _110- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 37—Planning Mechanism Incorporation Mechanism How Pian Will be Incorporated Emergency Planning Plan will be added/referenced as an Appendix to the County's Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan (an annex of the CEMP). Hazard risk assessment and vulnerability data included in the mitigation plan will be reviewed during emergency planning and Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan updates. Specific mitigation activities will be incorporated into the annual work plans of TC-DOER and the County Emergency Management Planning Committee. Annual Budget Mitigation actions will be considered when setting the annual budgets within participating jurisdictions. Plans and Programs Hazard Mitigation Plan information will be considered by each participating jurisdiction during program and protection updates and revisions. Programs and plans will be compared to the Hazard Mitigation Plan to ensure that goals and objectives are consistent among all documents. Grant Applications and Data and maps from the HMP may be used as supporting other Funding documentation in grant applications. Opportunities Mitigation actions included in the Plan will be considered during application submission and fund allocation. Economic Development Hazard vulnerability information will be reviewed and utilized during the siting of local development efforts within each participating jurisdiction. Capital Improvement Current and future projects will be reviewed for hazard Planning vulnerability. Hazard resistant construction standards will be incorporated into the design and location of potential projects, as appropriate. Some jurisdictions in Tompkins County are taking a more active role in sustainable development, green infrastructure, disaster planning, etc. within their community. After a review of the planning mechanisms and capabilities associated with each jurisdiction, a list of recommended regulatory elements or planning documents was compiled. These potential efforts include: • Comprehensive/Land Use Plan—Town of Enfield (Update) and City of Ithaca(Update) • Watershed Protection Plan—all jurisdictions, especially those with repetitive flood loss • Redevelopment Plan—City of Ithaca • Land Use Regulation— Towns of Enfield, Caroline, Newfield • Zoning Code Review and Update—Villages of Freeville and Dryden 560.018.001/12.13 -111 - Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan • Flood Regulations —Town of Enfield, Villages of Cayuga Heights, Dryden, Lansing and Trumansburg • Participate in the NFIP — Town of Enfield Numerous changes and additions were made to this document as part of the five-year HMP Update process. These updates and reorganization have made the 2013 Plan more valuable as a planning tool and more easily implementable. No evidence to support the integration of the 2006 HMP by participating jurisdictions into their local planning mechanisms or processes was noted. No indications of such are included in the Implementation Committee annual meeting notes. An emphasis on such efforts will be placed over the next five-year period. The incorporation of this document in local planning efforts and processes will be reviewed and discussed on an annual basis. 9.4 Public Involvement It is the intent of Tompkins County and participating jurisdictions to keep the public informed about the hazard mitigation planning efforts, actions, and projects that occur within the County. To accomplish this goal, and in addition to the public involvement already incorporated into the completion and review of this document, the following opportunities for ongoing public involvement will be made available: • A web link will be provided on Tompkins County's website that will include a digital copy of the hazard mitigation plan and a list of upcoming planning activities and plan updates; • Public announcements of, and invitations to, annual mitigation committee planning meetings and five-year mitigation plan update events; and • Completion of public outreach and mitigation training events throughout the County, especially in higher risk hazard areas. Public outreach efforts will be documented in future plan updates through the inclusion of samples, copies of notices, flyers, web announcements, and/or meeting minutes. If public response is lacking during subsequent update processes, additional ways to expand participation will be considered. Public outreach ideas that may be implemented to increase participation include: • Distribute targeted questionnaires to local civic, community, and non-profit groups to received public feedback; • Organize topic specific meetings with key individuals and experts to discuss particular concerns and brainstorm solutions; and • Hold education programs during various community events to disseminate information and engage the public in discussions on mitigation planning and hazard preparation. 560.018.001/12.13 - 112- Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 10.0 Works Cited 2010 Census Gazetteer Files, 2012. hqp://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz cousubs national.txt U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Hydraulic Analysis and Impacts of Long Term Shoaling for Flood Risk Management Project, Cayuga Inlet, Ithaca, New York. USACE—Buffalo District. Burby, R. 1998. Cooperating with Nature. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. City-Data, 2011. hLtp://www.ciiy-data.com/. Accessed 2012. College Board Big Future, 2012. hLtps://bigftitiLire.colIegeboard.org/colIege-search Cornell University, 2012. Campus Photograph—ILR International Programs Webpage. htti)://www.ilr.comell.edu/intemational/visitin�Fellows/IncomingVF.htinl Cornell University. 2006. Tompkins County's Major Employers. hqp://www.gradschool.comell.edu Family Search, 2012. Historic Map of Tompkins County. htti)s:HfamiIvsearch.or�/1eam/wiki/en/TomDkins Countv, New York. Provided by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. FEMA. 2001. Understanding Your Risks —identifying hazards and estimating losses. State and Local Mitigation Planning - how-to guide. FEMA 386-2. August 2001. FEMA. 1996. Flood Insurance Rate Maps —FEMA Digital Q3 Flood Data. Downloaded from the New York State GIS Clearinghouse—Tompkins County coverage. Fly Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. htti)://www.flvithaca.com/images/categorv/aerial-views.htinl Global Aviation Navigator Inc. 2012. New York Airports. www.globalair.com/airport/airports in New_York.aspxx Higher Education in Tompkins County, 2009. htti):Htbed.or�,,/wD-content/tiDloads/TomDkins`/`2OCountv-Joint-EIS-ReDorL S Lept- 2009.pd Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). 2002. Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study. ICTC and Sear Brown. www.tomDkins- co.org/itctc/projects/fts/FTS-finalreport-0502.pd 560.018.001/12.13 -113- Barton&Loguidice, P.C Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. Accessed 2012. Fly Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. hqp:Hflyithaca.com/. Photo obtained from the 'The Airport' page. Kammen, C. 2004. Places Names of Tompkins County. htti)://www.tomi)kins-co.or�/historian/PlaceNames/PlaceNamL,sofrC.pdf Lee, H.C. 2008. A History of Railroads in Tompkins County. hqp:Hecommons.library.comell.edu/bitstream/I813/11518/6/A`/`2OHistory`/`20of`/`2ORai Iroads%20in%20TomDkins%20Countv.Ddf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. Severe Weather. www.noaawatch.gov/themes/severe."h National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010. Thunderstorms, Tornadoes, Lightning...A Preparedness Guide. www.nws.noaa.gov/om/severeweather/resources/ql6--10.pdf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. National Severe Storms Laboratory - Understanding Damages and Impacts. www.nssl.noaa.gov/Drimer/flood/fld dama National Weather Service, 2012. hqp://www.erh.noaa.gov/bgm/climate/bgm/bgm annual totals.shtml National Weather Service Forecast Office, Binghamton, New York. National Weather Service. 2012(2). Lightning Safety. www.lightningsafeiy.noaa.gov/fatalities.htin New York State Climate Office, 2010. Climate of New York. http:Hnvsc.eas.comell.edu/climate®of ny.htm1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2011. Revised Draft SGEIS 2011, Sections 6.10 —6.13.2. www.dec.nv.�ov/docs/materials mineralsDdf/rdweisch6bQ91j.pdf New York State Department of Labor. 2012. New York's Economic Recovery. hLtp://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/pressreleases/prtiistat.htin New York State Department of Labor, 2012(2). Current Employment by Industry htti)://www.labor.nv.�zov/stats/cesemi).g.sg New York State Department of Labor, 2012(3). hqp://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/employ/tomhist.txt New York State Department of Labor, 2012(4). Private Sector Jobs. http://www.labor.ny.,zov/stats/pdfs/cesiobs®mai?. d£ 560.018.001/12.13 -114- Barton&Loguidice, P.C Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan New York State Department of Labor. 2012(5). Statewide Labor Market Overview. hqp://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/ New York State Department of Labor. 2012(6). State Labor Department Releases May 2012 Area Unemployment Rates. htti)://www.labor.nv.�zov/stats/Dressreleases/Drlatis.shtin New York State Department of Labor. 2012(7). Unemployment Rates by County. ham://www.labor.ny_.gov/stats/pdfs/tir_map.pdf New York State Department of Labor. 2011. Significant Industries. htti)://www.labor.nv.�zov/stats/sou/index.shtin New York State Department of Labor. 2011(2). Labor Statistics. hqp://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/sou/index.shtin New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. 2000. Accident Frequency Rate of Counties According to Population and Vehicle Registrations. hqp://www.dmv.ny.gov/Statistics/count2k.htin New York State Department of Transportation. 2011. County Roads Listing. htti)s://www.dot.nv.�ov/divisions/en�ineerin�/technical-services/hds- respository/Couniy`/`20Roads`/`2OReg`/`203`/`20-`/`2OTompkins`/`2OCounly.pd . New York Department of Transportation. 2010. Accident Location Information System (ALIS). New York State 2100 Commission. 2013. Preliminary Report on Improving the Strength and Resilience of New York State's Infrastructure. http://www.governor.ny.�zov/NYS2100Commission New York State Department of Transportation. 2003. List of State Routes in Tompkins County. hqps://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineeringtechnical-services/hds- respository/tompkinstybk.pdf New York State Emergency Management Office (NYSEMO). 2008. NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan. hqp://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/mitigation/archive/hm-plan-2008.cfin New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2011. ClimAID: Responding to Climate Change in New York State Synthesis Report. Report 11-18. New York State Office of Emergency Management. 2014. New York State Standard Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan (State Mitigation Plan). htti)://www.dhses.nv.�ov/oem/mitigation/Dlan.cfin New York State Office of Emergency Management. 2011. New York State Standard Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan (State Mitigation Plan). 560.018.001/12.13 - 115- Barton&Loguidice, P.C Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan New York State Office of Emergency Management. 2010. Geographic Information System Mapping Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR). 2012. hqp:Hcsc.uoregon.edu/opdr/ Ritter, Michael E. The Physical Environment: an Introduction to Physical Geography. 2006. www.uwsD.edu/neo/facultv/ritter/�zeo�z101/textbook/titleDne.html TCLocal, 2012. hqp:Htclocal.org/ Tompkins County GIS Department. 2006. General School Districts. htti)://www.tomi)kins-co.orpis/mai)s/i)dfs/School Mal) 24 36.12d Tompkins County Historian. htti)://www.tomDkins-co.or�/historian/index.htinl Tompkins County Planning Department. 2012. Tompkins County Conservation Strategy Tompkins County Planning Department. 2010. Jobs and Business. hqp://www.tompkins-co.org/planninjobsbusiness/index.htin Tompkins County Planning Department. 2007. Planning Maps: Tompkins County Land Use and Land Cover and Land Use Land Cover Change Table. hqp://www.tompkins-co.org/planninPlanning Maps.htm Tompkins County Planning Department. 2004. Natural Feature and Agricultural Resource Focus Areas Tompkins County Planning Department. 2004(2). Comprehensive Plan. htti)://www.tomi)kins-co.or�/i)lannin�/comi)i)lan/comi)i)lan for web.od Tompkins County Planning Department. 2001. Natural Resource Inventory. ham://www.tompkins-co.or�,,/planning/nri/inventory_.pddf County Youth Services Department. 2011. School Listing, September 2011 —June 2011. hqp://www.tompkins-co.org/youth/documents/11-12SchoolLisqla.020�. dff U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hydraulic Analysis and Impacts of Long Tenn Shoaling for Flood Risk Management Project, Cayuga Inlet, Ithaca, New York. htti)://www.ecolo�icllc.com/Ddf/FEIS/FEIS.Dd U.S. Census Bureau Fact Finder. 2012. hqp:Hfactfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/Troductview.xhtinl2pid=ACS_ 10 5YR DP03&DrodTvDe—.table U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census Interactive Population Search. hqp://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ 560.018.001/12.13 -116- Barton&Loguidice, P.C Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan U.S. Census Bureau. 2006-2010. American Community Survey— Selected Housing Characteristics. 2006-2010 data no longer available, but 2007-2011 numbers available at hqp:Hfactfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtinl?pid=ACS_ 11 5YR DP04&DrodTvDe—.table U.S. Census Bureau. 2010(2). American Fact Finder— Tompkins County. hqp:Hfactfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community facts.xhtm1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Population Estimates Minor Civil Divisions: 2000 to 2009. htti)://www.census.�ov/DoDest/data/cities/totals/2009/SUB-EST2009-5.htinl U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Census Bureau Geography Division. Census Block Groups —New York State. GIS Shapefile. Weather Base Ithaca NY, 2012. hqp://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=56937&refer=&cityname=lthaca- New-York-Uni ted-States-of-Am eri ca 560.018.001/12.13 -117- Barton&Loguidice, P.C Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A Additional Figures and Tables 560.018.001/12.13 Barton&Loguidice, P.C. V �2 T F w C S y 4 tv -A o C o o C C 10 + v M v CD N O co� f...................... ............ Z � INI IF m, e, L Ii IIII Q IV II 1 12 vi U i N L �ll O LL °uul ul '� �w Illi ,, ........o PI I'......... .... lulu I Ills 0 ULLA JA +r ++ LL m '6 III"IIM�� N h IIII O IJII II IIII � Ill�llil I� Iglu � CO L CO 0 12 W a: CL � IIII �iij'' mud Jill O vl II � IIII ��r°III III�� III I I�I 1a °6 a� L II (IIII � I Q l 2 N 11 m N Loi, III 14 w,.,. LL ,.. III �_ �— I II u'•,....,...,,^IIPIII . II U3 o 4 JA o as r- 0 co p ®® N + O h°I" 0 " C °III.............. "W L °I WON, �.�. .0 u6 � �Ir w O KU G1 +..... Cn .+ o X.u � � '�iy{ass>�' m•° Z ,......... IA � a L � � yr � ,OY iiiii� m 6,A i (n 12 ° 9r ilii C dCL O yj(iii a� 1a L f i "6 M , LL "o ,....,.....,u u" iii v m c m � z u m Y f0 ++ E Q n v Q m Q a o E a ® ❑ ❑ 0 3 0 >, a � a 0 _ = N O a 00 ++ i cp o Q = M O d U o d, r-I N 4J i OA I.L 0 r-I ii 0 0 0 01 0 d' �li� �� ruN��✓ Chu i'� �((re t r d �i m� ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C Iw � �4nIN1 Acm � � L6� "��i a � � r i�1B.� m' '»K, C �p�ai� a�� iIBN � - ➢i� � IV"m`INC iv � ul � { � rep r• �' � �1'vl ��m�d '� 4 i � '" � W 010110 �O � utsi ' � I 0 _ CO w �ry� "pryry q � f ++MM R E cu c U � Lo N LL yrW L� );"�;�v� i��o�a� � 0�"�� `�`"��N} (� µp W'IVDU Y, m "'V �r��7��✓''�' � �� ,% hr4f �� IN O � �u�.,lyor �� '�r Fr 9I✓✓,,��rr�r��.��„„!, ,�� J',� N!"rml � ,- ��7,�°7" � i i`��`�r� „,,�M � � I� '"yi�w��!�V��r Vr �,� rrk a( C "' '�d '�;� � �I" �i�, 7 ''� 1✓ a�r�'d ,��^,�'"" i i'"U � Y/ Mr,�Y��1 P�rdc� Ip II i sn� h w �i r t 11111 kw r, 'goo go u municipaj Boundary 'o.. Cayuga Lake Districts Figure 2.9 Critical Facilities in Tompkins County ,^ U O Hmo 0 m o �. L U > c U) w YLL — o o = r Y o in U a m coi .Y �i r E m a >. �. o o Z o U .� Q m c0 � 0 0 LL 0 Q H S C 'S mo O (6 U O N U N ❑ N d E ❑ ''G > o E O O 4 Y H a S E U o m ❑ cn s O o O .� a — m _ O L U m N m o m Y o `o o m m E °� m m -o .� .o o ' o E m o o m U m U m m U U U U U ❑ ❑ w w w LL S S S — 2 O a a a a n U n H U H ® �l o rr ael I � - w W o ?' � J 0 al o a+ ® ml w rol F3 � �® z 11 E3* m r all x Ed Ed 3 LL Z ® W W ...�^.""w ,,rte .,.✓"r' ..ter 3 3 3 / R , , � g \ » 2 £ # « g � \ 3 � £ b / � z 2 3 = � _m k � 7 � / y 6 y 2 � � � _ _ 2 ƒ J \ ' ' \ \ � \ � � ■ 3 2 2 $ b o © - � ~ � � % � � \ � � ' � / � G 7 y y _ ■ U Q � � o / \ , , \ / § n a - ¥ n 2 � / « o � � 3 ■ § � W � � � z w - t § ■ � / r / # '[ § / G � � + � � ' ° � � � y J 2 � � � � % � S � ¥ 3 3 3 '$ � � \ � \ / U » \ \ � b # - a / _ / g / 9 k / / � � y y � w � � \ � / � \ � � o w 4 / ( � � % k » 2 \ \ \ \ � \ \ � \ & � Q § ) 2 2 \ § ( / / / \ g � ._ t / \ \ \ � / � / R 2 2 ƒ / � ■ � � � � m ) \ \ \ \ \ \ � § § � � m � \ � •� § \ w » � \ q / \ e \'§ / \ \ \ � \ ( l U rDc N CD LO � ro ' C 04 O q .2 ua� W ku tea, V T. w' y O U 0.4 2 77 � , C i � V uri r�a d ON 4 W 1�1 C... 1 111 CL CL - m 0 CV o =a z � m � m I� im IL ..W v, ��.. p �Jrvn w.�r z w Y QY w' rr4Y, d i I't° Y AL A"-.' .. 1. r.. w .m dura . ', O z_ L Q a � E C ~ 4 a IJ 'l u I � _ _ 'L ord•..II d.w��'` v L. u V O —� ��lllll�lllll�� 0 Mu V _ M d L L O 4- d.+ Z m m O L- CL d 4 f V � �JUUIUIIylyllyllUUl�lly➢111y1b IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LO aD L 0 P U- low" �1h r u La x Im b �u � u ll " Wmi"�aryl' "�'' y ry 1 I I I INlimil, , �ul�`�,, O u r.+ � uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuu I c -, //G/ilii. LOav rely ,� U J r N rrr p i i LL i .. J, Wm mli w tri°mk v� u nn 4 ' r p du'• �. N ,SII 4� Wm,f f wl h r� II If �1 y'f,.v ur v r Q p•, A N v r U � Q •� � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M� C � U ^Cr�7' n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n cn h v a cu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d' d' d' d' d' d' v1 v1 61 � O M l v1 AO Q H �' �' � �"�"' �y � � �y �y '_"' p � � � � p � gyp., � � "moi •'� Iwo � A v 0 ra v .ss U � Q •� � O O O O O O O O O O O S� MSI O C 4. O O O O O O O O - O O 40 O � h cn cn a� rA o o QO O ,\-� 0\O 0\O 0\O 0\O M 0\O a1 � — — — N — —N N N N N N — � 0�0 0�0 � A cn Q � O v a Figure 5.5—Agricultural Properties that Intersect Flood Zones I iiL 177777' rr rr f ,Ip I 4 j 1� 4 f ,i' r�, u J Groton „I N M [ l Cf 1 �vT Sooku, Al 1 Lansing r I f., �Enf101d Ithaca Iy ip 11, l r r �.r Cayuga Lake Agricultural Lands Village Agricultural properties highlighted in blue intersect IM City 100-year and'/or 500-year flood zones. Fj Town FEMA Flood l Zones 100-year 505-year Table 18—NFIP Flood Damage Data for Tompkins County, 1978 -August 31,2012 (FEMA, NFIP, 2012) Total Flood Loss Average Town/Village/City 1/1/78 8/31/12 Annual Loss* Caroline $ 72,531.40 $ 2,133.28 Cayuga Heights $ 15,790.79 $ 464.44 Dryden (T) $ 56,450.54 $ 1,660.31 Dryden (V) $ 84,639.71 $ 2,489.40 Freeville $ 17,760.16 $ 522.36 Groton (T) $ 16,773.65 $ 493.34 Groton (V) $ 614,682.96 $18,078.91 Ithaca(C) $ 220,430.64 $ 6,483.25 Ithaca(T) $ 35,396.78 $ 1,041.08 Lansing $ 442,746.94 $13,021.97 Newfield $ 9,297.04 $ 273.44 Trumansburg $ 902.32 $ 26.54 Ulysses 1 $ 5,798.14 $ 170.53 TOTAL $1,593,201.07 $46,858.85 * Partial year for 2012 included as a full year in annual loss average calculation Figure 5.6—Seismic Activity within the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada, Occurrences Between October 1975— March 2010 (NYSOEM, State Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011) I IN 10 � ' IN all IN �, IF M aim as M! IS . IS EmmFrmm e u Viadpi M J X11' ° ,M ... °� p Oft* in 9 all Tompkins Count V,, �Id ..�..... wwhvJ,.U'4".w.rl!II " ww„ it,d of Mlle'iiftl11d yrW uw 2 - 2,9 New Yo irk 3- 3.9 Yoy - 4,r) hia Capital Qti 40 0 40 �£w Wes Source; Boston College Weston Observatory,http://ivww.be.edu/researchlw estonobs rvatury/northeast/etgmaps.l tml rs 1 ,� �u 1-11t �°u r,¢r r �. o? � rr qJ n wiW �i a Frti " Gx � .. �_. ..... JIB „ r, Z O Q12 a r V (TJ ra r a c CL c L U) r � �.. W o mm u -yiy,ywpp r �r LL H141 r r.�� f � /'�p' t �� rWww✓ l� 1 uiw ,, � V A Q� V � O � N O ces � a A V Q� •� �k O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V ~ O CL � O � � O N o W � W o U � 0 0 0 u u u 03 x x x r— 00 00 0o O N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 M V1 V1 \O M � N M d' N N N N N N M --� V i cc ces >1 >1 r, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H i Z cr IN Li L V�2: 0 m Z F- U. x p 1, P, Y, Ij 2m z ......... . ......... ..........ir, (TJ 6)o, 11,6" z 4) a 3 m"''i CL CD rr ........ LO L ��'A... ....... a IIS ....J ... ir CD 02 - 0 3 9E, LU flo z d, VIV u Yr,o 04 1-74 1 s Q Table 21—Ice Jam Database Events in Tompkins County (USA CE, CRREL, 2012) Jam Date Location Water Details 01/19/1926 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater from ice 01/22/1927 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater from ice 02/08/1928 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater from ice 02/27/1929 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater from ice 02/20/1930 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater from ice 03/04/1934 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater from ice 02/16/1935 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater form ice 12/01/1944 Ithaca Cayuga Inlet Water level effected by backwater from ice 03/02/1946 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice effect of 6.3 feet 02/19/1948 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice effect of 3.0 feet 12/21/1951 Ithaca Cayuga Inlet Water level effected by backwater from ice 12/11/1952 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice effect of 0.05 feet 02/22/1955 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice effect of 6.0 feet 01/22/1957 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice effect of 3.4 feet 02/28/1958 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice effect of 1.9 feet 01/21/1959 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice effect of 6.3 feet 02/28/1962 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater from ice 03/17/1963 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice jam increased water level 02/21/1971 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice jam increased water level 01/01/1977 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice 10 feet thick located beneath Route 13 and RR bridges—caused localized flooding 03/15/1978 Ithaca Fall Creek Ice jam increased water level 03/02/1979 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater from ice 03/03/2003 Ithaca Fall Creek Water level effected by backwater from ice 02/11/2009 Ithaca Fall Creek Water temps caused ice to run and jam, resulting in moderate flooding "�IIIII�, II Ir " "rti 4I1y (n ! it "v C •�� I f�.�s4uu CL;Z, k (/ 42f G) �f NIS l� 91 l w�lVu fA a ' I Y o i � ifPn O 0 ��:.... rr lig I ' ql, IN 1�% a I /� %mcW0'i41Yrr Ir%1 f if; IW i 0 " 'fl,,; afi LL // / !i( i" rrf/�Y � r f,Its/ p r 4rlu III"� .. �„7 t'r��yry� ,,, V II eve, � I I y V Y r IIW'�I bz N I��III � IU II f IV P ilk I� i �l' ".AvW rU"'�lruVgr� �018wam l�er91,11".0h k !f VI J // III ,' IIIIIIIII y 1 Figure 5.15— Hydrilla: 2012 Herbicide Application Plan 2012 Herbiciide Application F'Nan Sonar One Treatment Area 8/2/12:90 acres Section Area Ac Area,,agft A 29.82 1233182 . D y 8 15.B3 689564 C 01.33 14476 1` t7 2.52 127214 i f Er 0.60 30131 1 tw 047 20293 Cs 1 89 82126 y l r r 0 1.1 8.07 351550 08102J12 Permit Modification iRcgmamt Addition of Area I:30 a—s 1a be treated With 6rona,one � r i1r v Il � r1/ f1 i f M1G/ I r iI J I 4 430 860 1 720 11MAIlled Cayuga Lake York -i r. E3iologEical Ithaca,New York 42.458048",-76.512091" -_ `. § t 9 / \ kA 00 Q \ $ / � en 2 ( / / \ 2 2 § 7 / § 00 — - - / � 7 / \ n 2 � t 7 Q � Q \ \ [ � _ S — § n � en � ■ m � ± � n / / / / w u u I o W^ I �'I'I''yyfl••5.5 Y LJ U 1,.1 �M LU `w �l,�.urw� b II "y�ilp ��11;[��I�f/JJ,��I• N. UII!I� �i� .,'"",* w _�.w 71Jr v (0-3 11 E00 �� ` �J r ��IJII11111U11�1 1166, XtZ � � I, Cl y • _� r ,a l� ,� X11111 � — 1J »ll�lllll� �� * * I iT im LLJ ' as� y �'dY ��'pi'� L•.31i �I N kV wNrvnnv now�a w nw.vonon ill III 11 11 11 11 11 11 olm -------------------------------------------------- co L O00 I�n I LOlay MN�NNMT� u�uuuuu LL u ..---------tee— r I 0 o/mI l �� - n ` iur rrr>!Iuu� Table 28—Estimated Property Values of Lands within Tompkins County (TC Office of Real Property, 2012) Full Market Assessed Value Jurisdiction # of Properties ($) Caroline (Town) 1968 249,429,396 Cayuga Heights (Village) 989 452,038,518 Danby (Town) 2016 268,870,442 Dryden (Town) 4799 891,283,394 Dryden (Village) 795 128,119,790 Enfield Town 1662 188,971,300 Freeville (village) 233 35,494,500 Groton(Town) 1871 209,018,898 Groton (Village) 908 122,905,410 Ithaca(Town) 4293 2,017,893,667 Ithaca(City) 5555 17,701,001,320 Lansing (Town) 3776 1,083,359,160 Lansing (Village) 1056 532,085,231 Newfield Town 2327 289,695,259 Trumansbur (Village) 710 137,661,412 Ulysses (Town) 1928 373,088,800 Table 30 Status and Details of 2006 HMP Mitigation Plan w 3 = U 75 Eow - E o 'o _ _ = p = 16 o _ y U jaoi d aoi aoi = aoi - U .n 2 E rn Y-' ~ Y3 Y3 Y3 Y3 3 75 -Z o xt fl. m ¢ d o c o Q 75 75 75 Im o E 15 Im Im o y lo � = o - 0 E E E o. o' 'o U U E _ w m mo> I m m m m r Q a E '� o o E E E E w - o N _ - _3 U _ Q -o o s - �n .00c o f d d d d E Em .3 �voi Y �ai _ m o 2n o C -2 - d .n 15y - _ _ _ Tm 3 Y o V > -o o ° - E Q L - p to `o s - m y E s 3 O _ _ E o - 3 3 3 _ 3 - Y _ G d N O O o r o O O CL o o N E m E o o o m �CID z o ` o �� U o0 o0 00 _ w Q o p o'2 d U ~ U p 3 4- o v m U °? o W U W U W U -16 m o U U Q � Y _ Z fA � U o E _ n n n n n o >° Q o .6 o o-,2 d M U U U U p m p m p m p m p U J U U U U U _ �' d c RS o m o m cr _ In = m Y U o p - E W _ m oA o s m o � m a�W o o Q 21 o U U W U d Q O O O O O O O O O a u v > CD CD CD I ID CD I ID CD CD wu O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1. c _ Y _ o o _ 0 0 o Z, o n 72 > m U d v 'E 2J Q .°'c -i >-T 2 a`� o _ m m r m - o R'' c o o 0ru 'o o o o U _ E '6 _ o E o o -ooo m _ a o o v _ - o m - - � Eo m6 U c oE o o -2 o c o. c a� a a E .oc - �ml j o _ aoi fl. E o >, fl. W o _ Q 3o N L1J > N U mN - U c - _ U aE W _ o m z L m o - U mml o "' o a� `o _ ori U m - n rn m m in vo o o o o xo o o p o > > > > > U U U U U U a a J o co Im Q Q ImE. U iio a a S S 3 Q E _ E Z - 116 - o o 16 Q E o EEi _ _ a _ Im n o oA E E75 Em In � - d — Q _ _ = d c E T go Eo Eo_ p S Y Q _ _ 3c�i Q o o o _ _ U E U `o o j r cSI c = _ CL m o 0 co co < CID N Q Q o o w � s � ooww i N o 0 o o ¢ ~ U co U O O - O o w o C ~ U z W m N ~ CO Q — — — 1?Y N n Yd _ .LY _ -LY _ ZY - to 30 _ 3 m 3 3 c o C) G J _ _ _ U ~ U N U a U Q U Q U U ul 1. . R U o E. 2 o d � _ ¢ .a O I,IJ CL 2 CLT Q O O O O O '+' m a u V > V V >t3 2 V 8 (7 t3 -m .d, mwu � U' d U' N C7 d O O O O O o C7 O C7 O 0 o wm E L _ o o 21 -f _ Im .n c m o'c . � `m o E _ o o ` ._ d y E woE o N s o - > _ E o m. go = _ fl. t "vNi U m o c 16 E o fl. E y m 3 m a�p> a� 3 m y _ O a m E. N ° U `� .n E a`�i z - _ _ _ _ 3 ° y E o LD m o 8 8 E`o o w EE w o u g c. d in d in > in w _ > in _ m cn Q cn cn S — S Q Q d d S S Z5 75 _ E E E a Q Q Q .a 75 - d d _ _ o - _ _ E - - z o 0 o U o o N v v v O E E E } _ o Q - - - - - E E O - _ - - o _ _ Y 0 o w w d w d w Y 0 42 o E E Eo o o rj _ _ m Em EmrG N U N U N O Omu O o o Us Us CID a O O O N o � w0 m o U= ; O z O ~ ~ ~ p N z Y y U a� o o U m w 0 W W olo c a- = _ > = U p p M - - z z J J w J ~ _ o — Q N 0 W m o — o W < U H N z o o ¢ d d E _ m w w p Q ` Z Z z E p, p .n fl. n r .-n r .-n r d Z c m `. `� fl. m d fl. d fl. d a } Z ao Z Z d p - CL m o 0 o o o0 J N N — A H v v v v v Q ? V V d v d _ _ C7 d 8 d 8 d c7 d 8 d c7 d m -.� m c7 .a c7 .a O O O O O O O O O O O O a o o h„ Qo c E m -_ Ln L _ Y m o t o `m ! 'o U - o p 2 - o �° i E m = - m _ - a ao�i E �' fl. .o E r. lui aw`� U c `o m o .L.- o o oo .3 o m _ - 'o k" `o E _ aoi _ 'o .woc r -'' _ a`� = E o U 3 o a, y Y fl. o o o o m L c' 21 a E a�oi o m > o' k U o Q U E w' o - a o a w - aEi 2 m o w E a m o p -moo s : E o l3 Q 3 m Q a v o m > ¢ a `o E E E o a'� C E fl. E r a -14 o 72 ` o ` o '� > o Q w Q _ Q w w H H H H p H 75 75 1. Q Q Q Q 21 - - E 75 d S S S S a� - S Y — — — — — Q — — — — _ 16 16 16 16 16 lo m Y O O O O _ 42_ _ 42_ _ 42_ _ a E _ - - � _ Em EmCID - O O o O O U cr N Q m W 0 m y O ~ d d t/! lo o Y Q I, U y U V O . O U O O v cn o V M N c c v ~ Q< o d C7 - cE o `o ul _ inv Q c S cn x o Q L o v o 0 O O cl) d CL o v CL - - o 0 0 0 U) cAi v Q O O O O cn O u' S o v J O J co U J (n 16 N t3 U C7 O a C7 m CD CD CD CD C m O O O O O O O o ami 30 c > '6 °.-�' �° a. 16 -1 0 3 m a. o - - _ o- o m m o ani o LY E 7E IkI" - o. _ o- o z es o E o o W r o k" 'aoi E m 'm a s c d m o U coi wo _ o 0 o m .3 m m Eo ._ 'o coi `n o °� m o w c - va a y U lomo E o o m o m o r d � cn - m ¢ m cn � � oc N _ `o 'a O - o 2 _ S ¢ - - c E �°' d - E - - o Q = o ^ m 5 U - > o E u>> p o d N L .o ._ .�--• - w H Q _ - c d Q a c > y a Y 75 = E 3 o m y Q N E m Z U E v Eo . N 75 2 am m U s o y J Im Eo d o 3 m `m i > - c = 16 _ 1 .w�: O 75 E rn a� E o w H o U a — c ~ _ o c E E o 0 0 _ 'c U -� N 3 U m E Eo 0 Q 2 .E m c w .o w .mc _ E w > > Y - — E. m o O. V21 o _ Q = .o o -63 m oE lo O " _ L o -m - 3 E EmEo y .oo o c o - - E a�= E _ y m o E Y GO G Q U N Y d o d a N - a d 3 m E CL > >, E r: m 'c Emi o Z5 N w E o ' aEi cD v o N O a w O 'o ._p - O d �' W O - fl. �' v m E (n N n ~� m m o00 .� _ o 3: C) 4- N co H H 2 } } Q _ H U J > �- O m 3o ~ =_ W ZZ ¢ S � O co aY ,Y Vt U N m m H H H H H H H M m n cn N o d 2 -2 d w o o e zcl) d " N v d S -Tcw m ` 'E z o .� 3 .� o d a a 1 2 K ~ o °- 3 o - ti a o a a � � o o o � ad o o E 2 'a `n U '- - Z U `� C cr C. o - - � d m o o T p p v c� v _ o y o 0 0 (n wo � N d N V V m t3 7c7 a c7 a 7 a 7 7 c7 77 cdo . c 6 a a U . . . . . _ . O O O O O O O O O O O o o o E m € .3 m w _ E w - _ s No � of 3 c E = o = o U - - U c .o s >' a a� o fl. m c 3 - - -_' E Z .S o E x_ a°'i Q - - a`6i cn o = E a> _ �° _ o �. Eo O c d d v d aoo o E _ c H E c y o y o > .c' - - c -o a - o -aoi c m E °' m o s m m c - 0 0 w d = o .E 8 n a d € d w E -• o. 'n `o U 3 a� _ - - y O c "' m m o o E Im E o E 'o r a a a a a a E 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn co w m Q w w w w w w a`� co H / K / \ � \ i E. lo o } o \ \ \ \ \ \ o § E I \ lo -Im t - o. � ( ( « - - - \ § - \ T \ Im k - \ s } . / \ . / § E. E. \ { 2 I m < § m > CID 0 U) .2 co e « _ ( { e 0 ]_In e e e e e e e R I © f - - \\ f@ ! f) § \ ! -co _ « \ 2 }\ \ Sk oEms ° [ f- J z = = e - c) () § � ` - - e % s » : f ) E i \ = 22g , ) \ \� - ® E o-- f/) /> - , - - - , _ - _ § te ` \ E § 3 - § ) \ 2 / § {+ § f» ` f § E/ J § ) w i - ° � : _ _ « ) E Z = Go ® ® ~ ` - \ ff) \ \ f{ _ : � : - r = = 2 ® = / oc'jm S -'6 / ) �) sa : � e = . _ : 2 \+ \ � � � © \ ; {5 \ \ \ ( �£ E7 ± ( j ) - \ ) % ) f § »{ ) j ) / 2222 ( l - - = ) 2ze / = , § a § a / { \# fa G \ 3 « {) ( \ ( « J , ) \ rte - - - \ () {` ; E> 2 = 3 : [ « 3 § \ � a` 2 _ \ \ � ) \\ / � � } ) ( \ �) f2 ) 7j \ k ` ; 2 \ � t2 {2 » \ r « { Z > / e / e IT _ _ _ 75 w w w w\ 75 75 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / E \ \ \ \ \ \ \ @ \ \ \ \ ) ) ) ) 75 Im \ \ _lo R E. E. E. E. E. \ ■ ( ( ( ( ( ( . § 2 2 2 2 2 2 \ \ I J J J J J J m < cL 04 ° 75 � T \\\ {\ \ -16 lo%_ / &° e ez50 § ` k j e e e e co e e e I _ © ) { CO72 m- =2 ) ) A : - - - - - « ° . { - \ { 0 \ { > a _ - - _ } J ~ {« ` / 2 ~ J2 J 65 Im ) } \ f / = & \ j / ! ! ƒ » § ] / ( \ (} {) } ° m \ cF/\ \ \ \ \ § \\\\ \ \\\ \\ \�� \ \ � \ �\ \ \ \ w [ ee : l z -2 E l ± ee = , - : _ _ _ _ [ 21 m e = � \ ( k ) \ \ \ \ � ) � / } ) j E./ /� � }\ � _ � ) « / K § - f{ 2 ( ) - - \ ) ) G � + ( ® \ / § ) \ � 81 � � ( S ± § £ ® \ � � � � - fo \ ` ru o 7 ) 7 ) 7 ) L 7 ) 7 ) 7m ) / ) / ) / ) / ) / / ) / _ 3 Q E 450 Q o w Q E - Y o E Q Q E E E lo - _ Im Q E _ _ - - Q Q - Q m ° Q z z E - � o E -_ o_ o crLD o U _ Q t/! - - -o o 3 - O d U U Qv E O Uo o 3 y d N Q 1 d d _ E E E _ E C m _ m o E E o 1. G E CL _ o aQ _ — — w wrE 2 N Q Q Q fl. U � 2 U U S O - - a O lo lo G U m o -a c y o 2 W 0 p v� N C) m w o E - o c o o - o U ami Q m U O U } w o W OW U .`� =U v� `� W H W } Z c0i U H H fl. Z fl. U fl.Z J N S Y _ a+ cr w � — S d H H D m H H H H H H M 3 N Q O d U °o' E o m - - °' E U d U E o w o I w U m d K W d W d d d W d U ~ LE a c W Q _ W d Z a Z CL - - Q - - CL Q O Q N 0 a� 0 O S S oH o t J \ U - _ _ _ _ _ �6ci - -Fu -Fu C7 m C7 d7 7d o O Om UOO O O O 1 O Q w s m E m E E 1. y o t o m o cn m oy ,'��'' Zm.' a o m w o E o - - o o .� fl. c = o c� - v c- E o cn - _ _ d 3 o E o m -d °' y o o " - - o o N - k" - ? a N o d E o 3 '� o E _ o o w o E o - - � 2 � - _ G t J m - E o Q 0 E 2 m ' .� '- °' Q °' .6 y ai U a� o� 0 3 0 o a' �. cLi , E o v > m E w o �aoi v c U m >,U - in fl. aEi o v d m m o E 3 E E -ru- E go w16 w E xU Z5 Em g o o g ati ati ati U H H \ � 5a : # . \ \ T \ E \ \ E. 2 \ \ \ \ \2 \ . \ } } - s 75 - oo 16 16 Im o ) -m 2z ? Ego - § \ \ 6 ) \ \ ) - /\ / _ /} \ - - ) - § 2 = _ \ R ( \ _ - \ o mm - - E. E. f - § y 2 2 \ E 2 2 2 I 2 } J J o ! J 2 <- J J \ _ \ co d &g a{) ) - 4- ~ - \\ k \\) - 0 e e ; e m = eem = e k m \ \ - ° § cl) e / § / / co e e e e e e § = :6E = :6E - - « \ 2o 2 _ \ { c \ \\ 2 « \ _ _ _ _ _ - : ° ) { 1 cl)< & () x m = m = ® _ 4 § r ° ; « 7 « A : - - - - - f f f f f { 0 f { 6 m CD CD \\) \- / © }\\ \ � \ \ \ ) § }{\ { \ {) \§ ( ( § % : 2 ! ! e _ ! _ ® \ _ . ! r = « f} ( esa ( sK ! = § \ { < {f / - _ \ } rG ® < f / § § m : - \\ [ ) \ \\ § ( - � � ( � ƒ § \ ) j « j - - ( _ - / ( ` m ` ® ! : e ` ` ® � �� \ ( { { / ` \ o- 21 - : � � E \_ E \}) \ ) \ o \ \ ( ( { � - ! _ _ ! ® ° 4e § $_ : / § aj » \ \ \ k ) ) ° « ° / ) { of ° : _) j \ \ _ ) S 3 � / o o � � \ \\ \ � \ � \ � \\ \\ ) \ o E. E E E \ \ \ \ \ \ } Ino REo \ - :\ \ _ R - \ - 5 _k ElEl El E Eo -2 / k § 2 2 Z5 lo 2 : 2 lo ) { _ » § cr 2 _ » -- - _ _ 0 , e cr k \ mcr cr / / e e q e e e e ) � E \-M COM � S � \ \ r � � ( - k \ E EF, f / ( { x § ® £ ` _ _ -: _ = m 7 CO = A : - - - - - - - « ^ „ ~ { { { 0 { ) \ } : 2LD { { \ - y \ \ ) � \ ( (\\ ) ) \ \ \\ � 75 --ffi6E0—to E� \ \ � : > \ 7 ® f } - - ( ( k » - _ \ \ \\ ) ) 5 _ g / Er ( \ ) }\\ � \ \ / :o f ) /\ ) \\ ) \ � � \ \ \ � � � � - MR -2� � � � \� - \ 0 ee { { { {ee \� 0 § ) ±f ±f § � Lo \ k o lo a o E E t o Z5 Z5 \ _ j § lo [ 16 ( o @ 2 \ Im \ 16 2m \ - { Im - R \ / { ) — = 2 r r f ( [/ E § \ 2 2 3o: _lo \ o _ co < » co \ 04 , / \ / » (\ / , 2 , 0 0 k = \ m \ qe e e e e e e I 3 , _ \ \ � � � � \ /\ \ \ {� In e zm , ot ) / [2 § E : - - - - - < z . . / 0 \ / 0 ƒ m 0 / $ / /\d � / � /� � / � / (D0 � / \ o ) a2 ) \+ 3 � - = = f _ « ® a = ; : eae 2a = + gym . _ ! ( /\\ § 2 ) f® ( / K) (ƒ > ) 4 {) # lfer & § {) 7733 ) § r % ® m §® § % Z ( 5 = « ® 5 ) ! ! E m » ` f ® # a _ ) 9 / ` Ea » ( / {\ ) \\) ` � mE � m § : § 3 Zj ) / ( : �o & _ § _ ! , � ( & / 9f « sr % ® f ) Zm ( \ \# 5 \ [ : 5a \ \ � R{ ® ` } { § § } ! ) \ rf ! ! ; 2 : ) _ _ _ _ _ - 2 \ ! Er /tf , \ }) ( / / \ }/ _ ( ) \ `{5 � ® ) Je ± / ) { ; ; z ) \ { ƒ m zee{/ G © z ( \ _ E. Em 3 \ { 3 \ { 3 \ { 3 \ { 3 \ { 0 E E _ - _o _ lo Q E Im - - - E - N m E U o - Eo — 3 E o U 75 m _ _ o ws U y 16 c 0 3 16 -16 E E o ~ ~ ' QIm U o o w a go o Q E Q Y _ - o Q U 'o o m Q m Q L .3 m _ oo CD >, Y ¢ ¢ E _ > E o o N _ N .o 3 c c a ¢ a ¢ o Q .n E E o Y o N N - .n E .n E E E m CL = o = o € _ � o Q O p o w p U y n 3: 3 O c= p `n ao ~ v a � 9 ° c � W a p m p ~ U U ~ p H J J > H O ~ o � w Y Rf U U [O [O U c6 W ~ p p p p U U U U � CD U U U U M ~ N w c a m E � � w E - _ ' 0 3 o dam — a r x_ a s U > U C) a22 ~ U CL p p - CL m mI T S J J J > - - - - - - - - Q > o C7 O C7 .a C7 a" i C7 .a C7 .a C7 .a C7 .a C7 .a C7 O O O O O O O O o o m �o 'moo - — _ o. of a� o- v d s m c c .r .o--, 0 0 - - - o _ °' Q oo E L 3 o aoi 2 E E E �6 m w v .'' d 3 E Z `�'-' o w o .� ,uu o o _ `� Y > � Ei_ _ ao E m o 6 _ N 8 E o _ - o Y -— '—� a�'v -o '3 E o c z Q = °' E w U ._ m _ — c o _o r _ y m 3 o - _ _ O m c' y U ao � w E a. m Q o 'o c c _ _ _ _ — m in �' '6 axi w E m L ? o m y 3 - o z >� E`o o m � 0 0 0 o > in 0 0 0 0 0 i.� i� w �- co 2 2 \ \ \ \ & \ \ \ \ \ 10< \ \ Imo E cr 72 \\ \\ \ . . 0 \\ - - cr o - o \ \ \ /� - - _ - Im o R z z I o o z} \ _ s 2 ( ( 2 2 2 ( { { ■ f § f § E - § \) \) < : : ƒ F 2 I < ! < ! a z z 7 < ! () \) eco ) ) 2 e , 0e e k CO - m qe e e e e e e . , e 10 - - ` ! \ {) }{� � � J) } j ) { \ Ef { /$ § E {\ \ / 3 ) ) /} \) ) f / &/ \ _ � otf ) \ ; r , ) ` - < m m { ƒ { \ \ \ / \\ \\ \\ (D \ \\ \\\° 8 8 wu p 22 [ - « : . 12 75 \ \ � � � � ( \ / 3 ) } [ \ / \ ) ) ; /- r ; \ 20 & ; ( _ {! § a y _ E § 5a § _ fe § ; � : 7 {( ; zr3 ; - \ / - - E � r 1. - [ {# \ , / _ _ ) ! j § § }§ _ o - = f ; / Z4 / \ aE - ® s) zzz - ± < ! £ + _ - j { ) _ \ } ; / a ; / r 77 \ & }7 $ $ g ; / � _ _ � n 3 \ { _ _ a 3 '6 o `o o lo lo lo? o L,Ci aaa S S S Q Q Q Q - E r U U U 75 o d d d Q aaa S S S S U o w w w o n Q Q Q c w m a o 0 olo lo lo N - - - Q N N N A m d d o N E E E r 3 E E E _ _ 75 m _ o J - - - CY s _ _H _ G m E Ea. >1 1212 E y E E E E Q U U U S H - U U U O 4- W W W C- C- > U U U w O z r CJ C7 C7 co co co �- Z Z Z co co co co O U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ N d d .a, �' � yaw Q z z z 0= o6o � Ew � EW � U - - o o D z o o d z w o o - o Z U m w w d m o 0 Q ~ m O O S S J v a"i v -M ¢ > > - - - " - - - _ - > _ C7 .a C7 .a C7 .1 �6 '� C7 -.1 �6 '� C7 .a C7 .a C7 .a C7 .a O O - 0 0 - O O O O O O 16 o vo o m 0 oo c m a d _ E a'a 5 - m 0 3 3 ¢ - _ m we -o a, 3 3 U a, o °- `�,' _ - a w m m o _ m C7 0 Eo c cu") o. fl. = YE oo _ s .oc o_ `- 3 � 3 0 0 0 � Na Qom w, o � oma = _ N. +- :0 2 o 5 r o _ fl. o o d m c7 U a. o m ,3 w o y _oo '_' m = 2 3 0 o. °' o` d E o co .o U o m _ U O 'o _ m M o �_ o d d U o c o E Q Q rno M Z U 3 v W d E m cn 3 3 - c U m o U rl� �, E o o _ w o o Z .- '� L o U _ o o a a a o o o o w w w w E E E E E E E 0 o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I I I I I 1 1 E E E E E E E 0 w 42 o cr E E E o E E E E N `0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 'E E E E E E E E E loO � Q _ _ _ _ _ _ loZ5 Z5 Z5_ O Y � J G CL � Q IS E vooi v vooi v vooi v vooi v vooi v vooi v vooi v _ C) = Q = Q = Q = Q = Q = Q = Q QQ Q C) = C J U C J U J J co U U N o co w ¢ ¢ ¢ ti ¢ ti > 0 ~ U W O J U U J U J U J U U U O H U ~ U ~ U U U U U N Y ,Y U U U U U U U U o 0 H H H H H H H H M C o o x _ d y w c cn _ m Q _ °_' E E v c ._ c c m U I C)= E -01 o 06 aEi c) cn cit _ U o c) CLd CL O O O J J J J J Z Z O In O _ O O C7 O C7 O C7 O C7 O C7 d U O C7 O O d o 'O I .� G 3 U ¢m � o m 3 E ai `o a E. m c 'L - _ o o °� - _ .o Z w z - @ w 3 c .n 3 _ lim w S m 16 w d k" vi U o o 'o vi I `o m _ o' _ m =o � aoi �Z .c6-o I6 E L E y o `- " o oo > U a w E in m co v E c Eo N m 3 Y o= so r a o o o v = - E E E E E E E W Q W Q W Q W Q W Q W Q W Q E E E Ica Q Q Q U U E E21 21 21 E 21 21 E E E 42 o E E c Q c Q St3 S Z5 16 16 c c c Q 3 E E E . 0 -m -m -lo E U! oo oo oo Q `o Q `o Q C E E E O N Q - - - �' - - aEi E O) _ S .o- •o- _ O 7 75 Y - - _ E CY _ oo So G 9 o a. ll > S Q S z Q tD � O U Q J Q J C7 U U G S S S U H ul Uul U8 U N U U Q U Q S � c) � � � W > } d U d } S } S U U O J Z Z Z Z U Z Z H H Y r � _ m W co W co W o o p C) U U C) U U o ~ M U N C x - x ~ - 2 m a'� E _ m Q E m 75 a'a o m d O o E E o E- Q Q wa Q w o H Uo Q C N Q O O O '"' '+' '+' O o O _ Q J p, ` J O op > ¢ > O O C7 C7 U O O o O O O c c d � o o E E m .c w Q - - ' c 3 m - E m a '_�' `a� 3 '6 a c o .o c c o Y o o - m E c m c-,) E Q o' _ aw`� E o 3 "- d �- .a m 'o o ? o = a Q 3 E w = a 'c -a- _o m o 1.2 vii _ m m a c in d o m fl. °' - E go - fl.> c r o - 0 3 N U > - - o c - z y - - o U 2" O um-iE. E fl. ~ w go lo E x o UUo o E a a a w E w w W Q W Q W QZ5 U o W Q 7 — U E E _ Q o E _ - p o E lZ Q 5om o 75 E3o a cr ~ j75 Im _ U a _ C m o o _ O o o o - Q — ~ }I EO 75 Y _ _ _ N N o Q o 3d _ m d d d -lo - oo E E E o Y Q _— U O _ O _ _ _ r Qo 22 CL E E E E E lo — _ Q Z cr U o o U CD 0 0 N `n CO o o o = Q cr o ~ ~ v CO Z Q o 0 o U -Z5 ME Y Y O M N N2 ` - voi -o 0 0 Q o f X - y U 3 c C) U U m c.> o f o U ~ " w 0 a a c " E a U Um .n m U - CL 2 Q 0 0 N m O o Fq J Fq J ~ N V V N V N V d o C7 d U' d_ U' d_ U' d_ U' d_ U' d_ U' d In _ U' d U' d U' d U' d U' N (7 m o m O U U U U U U U O O O O O U O OOE _ U a� U m O N O w > o` (n (n m rn Z mo m> o oE o E oms _ - o E _ m o o6 E o om 1 -MUn U J Ecd € 0 - .gyp O _ E - U W o' 'o s " m E U E m �- s Uo - .3 x o UE UE o 0 0 0 `o - - �- o '� o w a`� a`� Q U U In > > > H H a E a o o a a a a - E E E E. 12 'a lo a lo I - a - o = o y O - Y - - Q - 75 N N N o _ O O O _ Y n - - 1. Z — E _ _ E — CL cr cr � d ¢ ¢ z z Q O U H U U W o N o O a o a o z O W } 0 0 CO U U }CO CO } Z Z } ~ Z Z Z Y o Y O o o o o o o o N o o _ w p - - c o c c p, c c p, o N o aNi w } o 0 m o °� U — `a� 'U w o o c U c d o oQ 2 0 wa lo a Z Uo. CLd m _ mO O J O,N O - ~ J J oo J J _ o t3 C7 d U' N A N m (7 m m d U' d U' N C7 m O O O O O - O O O O O O O O O y to } O N N J N .- N w G o Y o U .3 3 .E _ _ d .Y U w B. Aog: ^. o y 'O m M — L'' �' - fl. fl. > o` 3 �° ,o a `� - pQ o aNi O lui E W m 0 E cn - a 0 m O o .n a� o o O Q m s m - o Z a c �' _ _mo. o m y in a`� E aNi o o o m co. m cmi c .� o c' m co wLo L6 w i z = G o d oL6 o m Lo N w o fl o o w w o o o d o d o d o w a a a 21 21 J O d _ E U � _ d E d E o - - o o E L Q E L Q 3 `o 3 `o o a ` o m 3 3 y — o y oU y o U Uw o m w o m a fl.- - a- - 2 Q n a E w E w o s o s w s Q = .3 c .3 c 'o 'o 'o 'a Eo 0 0 o N - m m E �. �. �. �. c LaNi _ .o o O fl fl fl fl — 3 - }' o ° Y Q d d w d d d d a - _ m o f E E E E Q Y - - a0 L Q cn m co m Q 15 o C) �3CL —wa e . =oIE - � o CID o W o W U W w U w coi w coi U 0 co H > 6 U H H H O ~ v '- c> '- pct) a � Z a � t/! ~ o' ~ o' z cl) Y Y o z z z `--' z 3 3 3 3 3 3 o d fl. o d fl. F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 o o M F N H - - } - -oo w o t d E S E = a w d Q _ o 's �'s r = a — — N a � �a a � � � acl) w w X z w y z o o O w co co C N J J = J J EA H3 V V u d d C7 .a c7 .a c7 .a c7 .a V m c7 .a c7 .a c7 .a c7 .a c7 .a O O O O O O O O O o. 0 E m 1 i� — _ 'Oo- .� a - m _ _ O m o o a� o E "c fl. E a. °' 'o [. 3 o d d y � - o _ 3 - a o E o w ° _ ,uu ~ w z _ _ E a�— c°'i c m °? N c 3 - - — o o y o — — — k". c Em m 3 c o o m o .� o -o. _ c_' o - - _ o Io o _ �6 .- Ln o' E m U E �° _ _ o' E _ _ O E J N — O O (6 m '00 �- E In O G a. RRRRRR p Z a a U a� Q w - N v� 'a - - 'o �= & - �_ 0 0 — U a, 3 0 y m �n U o _ - E o m — a E w _ "i o 3 `may °' fl. 75 z x o > > o o o o o o w = = w w w w w w U U r Q E o v v � 3 w E s Q E s - - o .3 `o - vY o 'o - 3 Q 3 N d _ _ _ o = y o y y U `o �' U `o 0 0 co o E w E w 3 = Z5 16Q75 I s a s _ _ 16 Io � t/) o U o U m Oa a o Eo Q m ' d m 3 d Q m E o lo 2 p E m E m (Q > U U E (6 G y co m cnm - E c Im `° - c c CL E E — = ' co _ = 3 m H U 'moo H U - U z (n in (n d U d O U = CD pU N o8 a c o co o cr z c) � z Y cn y y y y y y y y cn 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 o o o o o o o o O M N Q w w a a U ~ v z o E 3 a a� Q dm m `m >, lo _ Q flo . aoiaoi (o o (o o W d �' m W ` m C C - - � - - 'o 'o 'o 'o m Q o o o o J � EA EA ¢ > ¢ >o ¢ > Co m (D m (D m (� C7 m C7 m U` m Coj N m m o .d, o O O O U O O O O C7 U C7 O C7 O _ s 3 c o ,o ,o € - m E .3 m .3 m .n o o in m m o o o c U Q o fl. E.� 2 0. E o >' E o - o E ° 0 3 Uo - o ami o a P - _ - - E - uiE o - fiL o m _ _ U o o mo m o _ ' 2 a>> o.z �° o o c 'N �' o o a m ao` '`' 3 a>i m n Y o � o a�'i a .o.. E m o E E ° - o' E > U m E _ D m o 'm >, o o E m - m E 3 r� o m > > d y a cEi '� E cLi - m a _ _ N Q m o - o m- In E Im 0 0 0 - x v ago Ecl) 0 0 o `o > `o �- UE ` E E E. lo cr : ( - ) ( E. / (cr { o / -16 C2 \ ` \ \ \ \o \ ® f \ o § \ o - o \ 1.R - { \\ \ \- \ § - I 2 a { J J § 2 04 , ) \\ \ e 4- 0 ` k e - (� CD CD cl)_ _ ~ \ R ` > `` \ z : « \ ! §o ) \ \ ) ) 2 E \ \ J ® ° = o CL _ _ ° } CL ` - - \�o \ \ CD CD CD CD CD : u) E 2 {t E ) « > « § f / : 1 ) o ( { E@ }\J ® « § ! _ ! > : / \\ $ \ / b {\ / , « - 2 / ) ( (j § ! = yt = © � _m '2 [ - aeC) ) ) \ § ) � s o ) m % IJJ : za = - f 5 [ ± # ` 1 / ) > 2 % a ! % ° ` - } \ § 2 [ : ® co { } } } \ ) } = a Table 33 Additional Mitigation Action Strategies Lower Priority c.5 d CX d O.a) W W Q W Q Q 3 N m y 0 06 x 06 Z 06 x Z Z Z ai y W W � Z Z Z a 3 v � z O J9 E m c m N0 J C 0 J J J J J z } ai bA N Q C O a, W a 0 m 0) T m + �aNi U) W Q 0 � EUS o� S �� v 0 z �- 0 '�O O - m W > Z v 0 0 0 m >- >- U m rn c c c 0- O c E u +� dLLLU) Q o Z Z 0 fl o._ v U w e W J LL LL U JU U 7 }U u 0 Z �a aiE C� s C: w E ai C� E J J -06 = J J J J J ai 1pOp N O �i Q 2i v O W U J u w U w U N C } -O +N-• t0 E OW U- U zt I O'- ._¢W O N 0 w Q w N N .0 CU LL w N w N al p_U O c Qg 0 a c LL 0� 0 E Y Y 0)N W Q E 0 0 o a, _ a) WU EoN UUwwo � 5 O U) z v v 0) O cI.LZ I- U Off' ~ZLLZU > U =.0 � N Z -O 'c v .O � U j �- m0 :5; 0 m C: Ln c m N d .0 v 0 v y V 7 NN N O c > 0 !6 !6 W !6 m U c Q 0 W LL 0- W 0- W W sz N O O U U O O O a c U O 0 I- c 0 c U 0 0 c s a u J : t° v a o a ) F y C� 0O �- M �- N �- �- d' Cl) �- cv a, O a 0 a6 a6 a6 (n (n U N t t t N p u Z y N _ N_ N O O O M m m m N (D _ M N -O J -O J -O J LL LL LL >+ w N E O O O > > — u c LL LL U- (n (n U O O N C� aj v ai H Y � � J > O N N O to �'Y 7 6) O T t Q 0 (t=p 0-0 w m C 0 c N Y O O w N .>+ i� 0 (6 N O O N w N O-N O N ?i 'y O U C N C_ N O Y y O F N N E m N N U Y -O i O w s 6) N N 0 C 6) Y 7 N N O)> 7 U (6 (n '� 7 N N m O > 6) U m 6) "" ai o �- Lw" O -0' c m U c o 3 O � O > is N O 3 `N o U ;�, 'c C E m 0-0 C 0 6 7 " 0 0 'O C Y N 0 0 0 N m O O N N f.� v o m o :z� 0 E� m ami o 9 m 3L) $ :s- �� m > a�u c E ° a) Q EE3 sir E o c - � �.5 mN � aNi3 m0N cYsO oc} � � 0 : a c EEsm oa� cw > co � owm :z c Y4 c 6)� o m 0 m E v O 0 C � mo E O � O 0 m y N .� N SZ'�C N O m 7 E N E O N D (�6 W C Cn N N w H c LL 0 7 i O N 0- O S?N U N O m m ZT D 6) 'N C D a) a) U O— 0 m m 3 *= z cU c s ami' o'� °~ o� `m '� c °� 2 '� 25 S 0 3 0 5 `m } aEi )o ai o _ � rnm _ � rnw c Qy �c X N E i70 N s- s- .40--o N Z 0Y - a) c O 0 c m m �00 a� o.0 o� �� m C: .3 w �� m rn m ami c m o.5 rno ° mo N ._ .r, i SZ 0) t:: 6) '-' N C 0 m 6) C E O N � m c-1 aJ � O.� "-, CL N.� N N � 6) 0 6) Q fl- w 0 N 6) m '�.� N Y 6)-O 6) = c E U "" N O .O S 0 > m C'O Q N N O-E'E- � 'O OU � > 00 E 'N C C Q N `p N m � OU'- O bai n w W sz U LL sz m.E 0 U O m.E -O Y U U-0 m.� > 0 c o -0 s (n W ¢ O *k N M Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q c.5 d p'N N N Q N N N ai cm 0 d " Z Z Z x Z Z Z :9 h-D ai W � c o 3 a, � o z 0 N E0 J J 0 J U Z CL `p >� � u E U v on ai c ai Y O 'O N N O N U Ln N 10 p)N C'O U w'6 .� 0'O J u a•' V 0 O N D C 0 >,0 U 0 bC09 t00 C w (6 W m v 0 0 O nc Qmc =.o- N 0 m E u +� d LL N 7 =S 7 O U 'O U) w O nC) c mCj j NC � U- z � aj ai W C, U-u- s E O w a ai > E E E E E -0 IC d 2 =S s 3 E LL L� N N N = N N N J N Q v lL U 2i j? � u w U Y+ F _ a u v y p d C� 0"W (D U 0 t— ai QU Q c C Q U Q 0 o I— Q CL o a, — C� U) C c U)'c>- Z U c H >X =s ,O � Z O Q 7-> Z 7E C) � c Ln ..r m m c ++ a O � u O C i U O O O 0 N O N d =0 0 � d c .c 0 0 U Y +> m m U c ZT U O C CL CLSZ > SZ > Y W �n O U U E O N ~ E D �- O I- I- H I-U p 0- 0 s a u J W U U yFo v a o a N N Cl) M M M ~ 10 d p�L �- N ai cv i Z O uv c Ln a O CL _ 0 v 'n >'O >'O Q -O N c T� 'O y SZ m SZ m N O 0 7 O ai C N � N � N 7 m 5 E m u a i m � m � m � m a�'i Q E � C N >m C >m �- Y � c w E u w > O I— _ > O > O z ~ 0 y0 m C� aj v ai H Y � � J cv N O i v O ai pOa O w ,�C N rn (6 O U N.0 c v O C (6-0 O N O O __ m >i m,Y6 'O O rn N SZ O p N i.i (6 >i N w C ,� N 7 U (6 �_ -O m 7 C N m O C O O Q N U N w SZ U y C F C N C O N C m >+C N Y U N C O 'y N N N 0 N Y>+ ..� M N N N O ai =O LL wp (n :E- .-' Q p E 7 i (6 G O O N O'L- Y C .'`m N 00'N Q N O N N-O N w .0.��, C (6 m N'Fo N E O -O U N L 0 O. E C N (6 C (Cp j'� (6 C Q 0 N m O c 7 > E N y C m C N ,�, m E aJ p rn 7 -O ,C m N N U 0 N O O W = C .._, O (6 rn O cpm C ZT m > O N Y Q C O ..�.� C ZT 3 -O.2 C N .V N F' C aEi N o Q~o f =� U �.N `m m m Qm t 2i 7 N -O 3 O N.0 `� N C > m C', O° 0 C E in E -0 x �rn�sz�N Q Qms m� szN E E c w a� m rnE U.c m c.E= o sz0 > w O E U o m w QN E E > m � o m N �'�O ci m� o c � 0 0 3 i N L a N w N 0 m U N.— m.L N > O C N N N c E >� c '� E m s; w > E 3 �cn c a� — m 3'` > c m v w O C N s O y 0 j, C.- y 0m_ U N N U U m > N > C N (6 O C7 Q O Dm m Um 5) E— W v QQ� o� .� mYw.�l— � m .EYa) 0Qo Q Q Q Q Q Q Q _)� - aE # © 0w w 3 t y y t ai > E 2 " z « z z z z R22 o ! z \ § f § § § 2 ± ± 0 m m ) ) ) 2 § ƒ I / _ \ $ 0 2 \ E m E§ �� ai = 2 2 2 7 3 3 3 3 Fay , ) ee § § § § bo §§ (LLLA o¥ f f f f / z e= \ aj § � cj 2k E ® ( k Eaj ) j \ j j j j \ j CA© LU 0 0 2 u - a 2i # k t § o � � 2 E= E § E )k ) E E ai z g 7 U) / z / \LL \ / / 0 z < 2 - / ai & ) ) ) i § { fes] \ /j §/ k E0 E 2 2 2 / oo= oo = o - � \ 2 ] j j j ® ° o ® °° E ] ■ 2 n- } \ 7 ]) n / / � /\ \ § 2 0 // 2 2! Q Q Q q §f \ƒ T— T— } \ / wE wE : � =s R a a a / 6 - 2 ti / \ { \ \ ai aa � § =s fw § &±« \§ a ° ai � � � mpg / 2§ ® \\ 2 0 � % o ! L0M0(n 2f ) 6m ) q ® o §] _ ° ±� §® o fns E_= = m u • - e § o �¥ on § § §= ams f\ \ f . E � 2- C - A « ) § § = EG ±al �o� ]_ §% .2 §f = ) % ± Rm � / -u % o =sF- mt >� t' mf = o \ f : o wan o= ' 2 - no n % = u > o mm � � £ 212 0 _ \ [� mR ® o °t = d % Howe & � ® ® ± �§ e « 6@ ® /f± m2§) � \ t � k mm g � 08 } § LD (D m / /m7 » )\: - 2{ (D m �I � e ! % t of ! § Q Ec± E ± _= / ao § k G2 \� 7o e = : Sen $= ae- � - m M }g ! o o _= o § (L)'6 % E � o An f § ± ®Ef§ - ote / $ f.£ Etp %RG kk2m ° W �# _ \ j k }f / E ) ) r 2�$ ƒ% eCL� §g :E Z5-a ) �\ )§ ± \ : /u »] ± W .— > £ m:2f & a _E2 4 +&% E 3f± 62 § r / 25 aE) [ƒ! \ \ \ \ ai ° 03 3 3 3 mkt s 0 ± § f \ E § 2 § > ƒ I / _ \ $ 0 2 \ E )7 ai § o o / © ©r " § \_ § m )§ 2 (LLLA ® z / z a § m � E W > E E \ 2 j \ \ j ( © LU 0 0 2 u - a 2i W q q \\ p \ { \ 2 L ) ) /77 LD- ai ) zg U� E 'E 1, .$ / / /\ / \ \ ai : $ � � ai n § 7 § a\&\9 e 2 § 2 QE ) \§ % \ /) § t k _ _ k � 0o §o = / /00L - � \ 0 ] ^ ° { ( i / � 2J \ \ 0 « � /) ai \ § 2 = ) // \� \ � =R =f § \ z§ n LM 6 ] ƒ& \ / k 6 \ n N + ) $ f m \ ( k ® ¥ � { \ I ° \ » k )\ �: § // ) \ 3 / [ _ % 7 } � ¢§ o )_0 Z , #a-E °� _M(D. > m ® § t k b ) � �o\ R -2 0).2- \\\ § A t --2 �a � *t / § $ _ - e ® / * \k§ ) m /-E Eos 7b_ o ±» 3: /Eme 2r/ = \ / ( ° EQee2 ) \ § a ° > oo f8 § ) a2 / \ \ � a $2Qm /) \ � \a&% e� - e � § »U) tLD- i nn % ƒ2 \� §\k � 460 § ems $ ] §/aao .0 cm: e = @ ¥�= n>. $ omS m- m'77 & z $ £ �¥® � X2: 2 mm a / - mE± t, § Q /ea 2-0 E�� = : f � 9±� fg0 .2 - ai ® j =a ~ § Em \% § (D 75 o= ny0 M£ § /0aEoeaC)s 00 eamCO / 25 - § § § § Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B Tompkins County Historical Information 560.018.001/12.13 Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Appendix B — Tompkins County Historical Information The Office of the Tompkins County Historian has compiled a history of Tompkins County. According to the County Historian, the earliest inhabitants of Tompkins County were the Cayugas, one of the five nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, also called the Haudenosaunee or "People of the Longhouse." The term `Cayuga' names the people of that Nation and the lake by which they lived, although they primarily inhabited the area around the northern half of the lake. In the 1700s, the Sapony and Tutelo Tribes journeyed north to lands inhabited by the Iroquois Confederacy after being forced to leave their lands by early settlers. The Cayugas provided the people of these Tribes land at the southern end of Cayuga Lake. Figure 2.2 depicts a photograph of a plaque marking Tutelo Park, located in the Town of Ithaca, as a place where the Tutelo Tribe had settled and built a village called Coreorgonel (Kammen, 2004). Figure 2.2—Town of Ithaca Landmark in Tompkins County (Tompkins County Historian, 2012) B�uuu r V In 1779, during the Revolutionary War, Lieutenant Colonel Henry Dearborn and Lieutenant Colonel William Butler, under Major General John Sullivan, marched men down either side of Cayuga Lake. This raid destroyed Native American villages and forced the Cayugas to surrender their land (Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, 2004). Upon conclusion of the Revolutionary War in 1783, land in Central New York was designated as Military Tract, broken up, and provided to soldiers who had fought in the war as payment for their services (Kammen, 2004). This Military Tract land stretched from Lake Ontario south to the head waters of Cayuga and Seneca Lakes, spanning from the eastern shore of Seneca Lake, west, to present day Cortland County. This Military Tract area contained, at least in part,present day Tompkins County (Kammen, 2004). Figure 2.3 displays the military lands and 20 Townships recognized in the western part of New York (current Finger Lakes and Southern Tier Regions) during this post- Revolutionary War period. Figure 2.3— Historic Map of the Finger Lakes, Central, and Southern Tier Regions of New York State Post-Revolutionary War (Family Search, 2012) �.. a�07AMAP&"uC" JAL 1 a r �t�awaa d a1 r a � d a y aitt r w bir �a"� � {rad,,,,,, Am ��"r � �a i 7(��g`N4� ��1��1r Q Jmkra�J�� ! � � �'� ✓ ,�, ,,.. m awe.fldar a ¢yaa 'Y ar da� rd. t' p!! aaa aene�au �a �i k � N � e o•s un i M", 16 l Vev �a��/ �$aw o"r e d'✓road fF •,.$r u a✓a p;li as '" '` d .dew awiw u i Caana� f � rl V �' r..r � �� , o k yy p pp Arp rai WGA&4d VJlru � pI MP Katt w'N {U a,la r r r.., ttadPCW iJ.,�.dl ,1 ` d � � d � 7 dao �+mvdn r I ✓� a+�f ,� b8aA9'14f U r R!9„ arra: x Va &"rv, a a am�fa� Jro d� ,yy�� ✓,rar II ,a �* k 4 � �✓a V tt � a g; a9 V,.� �, 1 d Po ,�n�r FuF ` t " � 1 " A ?✓ '� l �p� K �� r P^a oro.arn V�Y �a c� 1a dd,m' an czb r' ,o �,, �t',.' >'. ✓ a „tib / ;l �a"ra6ima d e 1 ma a a t ✓7rdgr watl"u ��a Cdr - ,Ia,a ru ra amti a 9 r o- 0"'e✓ �/ v ✓y/ i far i� �` .. ' �"hr rr ra r a r dada w�' " lad d`dram nrJ" A ✓d a,�Q %l a craw &I as Jr tlm� aaWr�/ �s 1'rYA mr r dd'�s.a0��rm4 , J r a u I',x w ✓ ' da ? P y, 6aVAN�YIA IsIN�i,, mu " %'✓ qq rarTO AN e �f Settlement in the Tompkins County area began in 1792. Early settlers consisted of squatters and others cashing in their Military Tract land allocations. Ministers, lawyers, and merchants followed the first settlers and by 1810, Ithaca had been formed as an unincorporated village. The Ithaca-Owego Turnpike opened in late 1810, connecting Cayuga Lake with the Susquehanna River and providing for the transportation of goods south to cities like Baltimore, Maryland. This transportation system helped to identify Ithaca as an important transportation point for the shipment of goods. The opening of the Erie and Seneca Canals, as well as railroad development throughout the nineteenth(I91h) century,provided a constant supply of local goods to regional markets (Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, 2004). On April 7, 1817, Tompkins County was formally established through an act of the New York State Legislature. Tompkins County was formed from portions of Cayuga and Seneca counties, and the unincorporated village of Ithaca was named county seat. Tompkins County was named after Daniel D. Tompkins, a former governor of New York State and the vice president of the United States from 1817 to 1825. Between 1819 and 1854, the boundaries of Tompkins County were altered three times, reaching the present limits in 1854 when a portion of the Town of Newfield and the entire Town of Hector became part of Schuyler County (Kammen, 2004). Soon after, Cornell University was established (1865), bringing solidity to the County's economy by attracting students, faculty, and many new residents. The Cornell University campus, officially opened in 1868, was sited in the City of Ithaca on a hillside chosen by its namesake, Ezra Cornell. Figure 2.4 depicts a photograph of the current Cornell University campus overlooking Cayuga Lake. Ithaca College opened almost thirty years later in 1892 in downtown Ithaca. Ithaca College began as the Ithaca Conservatory of Music before expanding course offerings and adding additional schools in the 1920s. Today, Ithaca College offers a variety of private, coeducational undergraduate and graduate programs in business, communications, health sciences and human performance, humanities and sciences, music, and interdisciplinary studies. Figure 2.4— Photograph of Cornell University Overlooking Cayuga Lake (Cornell University, 2012) Ila oP i�ii1 ,III u 'I Ili I V I q t, 111iPlfilll� 'llI ll, 0r/ r � , The land uses within Tompkins County slowly began to shift from an array of farms and mills to an area of towns and villages, accessible by various forms of transportation (Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, 2004). Significant industries that came to be established in Tompkins County in the early 1900s include the Ithaca Gun Company, the Thomas-Morse airplane company, and the Groton Iron Bridge Company. Beginning in the 1960s, the local economy began to shift again, this time from manufacturing and industry toward education and public service sectors (Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, 2004). Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C Hazard Mitigation Plan Implementation Committee Meeting Notes — 2007 & 2008 560.018.001/12.13 Barton&Loguidice, P.C. ^ ' ��K�� x��*� Multi-Jurisdictional° ° ��k�� "`�"""x-�� County ,�=, " , � == Mitigation Plan TCHMP) — 2007 Implementation Report Asoutlined |nthe 2000TCHYNF, mentioned activities will be written and maintained.These annual reports will provide data for the 5~vearupdate ofthis plan and will assist in pinpointing implementation challenges. By monitoring the implementation of the plan on an annual basis the planning group will baable bmassess which projects are completed, which are nolonger feasible, and if funding is being provided." 1. Meetings Update The Tompkins ComntyNDw|U~Jurisd|mtioma| All-Hazard Mitigation P|an-Immp|emtat|om Committee was formed In December 2007 and met for the first time on January 30th 2008.The group, made upCfrepresentatives of each ofthe municipalities involved |ndevelopment Ofthe TCHMP, met to both lay the groundwork for the plan's update in 2011 and develop strategies for implementation of the plan. The focus of the meeting was to examine the plan's action items and update them based on accomplished items, repetition, and new realities.To assist with this review a consolidated list of hazard mitigation plan action items was built.This review document noted 1G1action items over 11 hazards Ulood. severe winter storm, severe storm, epidemic (agricultural), epidemic(human),fire(urban and wild), utility failure, transportation accident, water supply contamination, terrorism, civil unrest).The action items were listed by hazards and by lead agency responsible for implementation. Just flood hazard action items (59 action items)were examined as a part of the January meeting, future meetings will address other action items. Based on clarification from New York State Emergency Management Office(SEMO) no formal reporting is required as of yet for this update process, though they do encourage a group being formed.This group will meet fo2DDGd �OOGd ih regularity| 2010 topnaponeforthgrequinadupdaba. Other results ofthe meeting included: ~ Interest in reaching across County lines for assistance with various efforts. v Need to reconvene post-disaster event to see If mitigation measures have been useful, what added steps need betaken. * Emergency awareness will be greatly enhance through obtaining LIDAR data (due summer 2008). ° Local communities could use assistance with grant development and implementation.A "grants dav"vxamrecommended. * The committee did not think the plan should take onan"adaptotion^ role indealing with global climate change at this juncture.They did indicate that"thinking green"certainly did relate to hazard mitigation planning. The Tompkins County Emergency Management Planning Group[TCE80PG)met bi-month|y throughout 2007. Meetings were held the third Tuesday of the month beginning in February. Meetings were held February 2O. April 17. June 1G. August 21. October 16and December 18. The TCEMPG is the group of representatives from throughout the County whom are involved in emergency management issues.This group includes representatives from County government, local fire/police, the area College and University, American Red Cross, local utilities and several others. Adthe August 21st meeting a short presentation was made regarding the TCHMP maintenance and implementation through a formal mitigation planning group.This group would include a representative from each of the jurisdictions involved with the development of the plan and would update aspects of the plan and evaluate the overall progress of mitigation action items. The proposal for the formation of the mitigation planning group, which would be a formal reporting subgroup bothe TCEK8PG. was formally submitted bothe group at the October 1^thK8omUng. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2OU7Implementation Report Page 1nf0 ° ' m The August 21 meeting also served as an opportunity to update the group on a presentation that the County Emergency Manager, the County Hazard Mitigation Coordinator, Public Works Administrator and planning department staff provided to the Tompkins County Council of Governments (TCCOG).TCCOG is a representative body of the municipalities that lie within Tompkins County.The bulk of TCCOG participants represent jurisdictions covered by the TCHMP. Mayors, Town Board Members and Town Supervisors are among those who attend. The July 26tH presentation outlined the four levels of emergency management(Preparedness, Response, Recovery and Mitigation)with a special emphasis on mitigation.The mitigation discussion outlined current activities and the need for the development of a mitigation planning committee tDimplement and update the mitigation plan. A variety of Town-County and inter-County meetings laid the ground work for the items the mitigation planning committee will tackle for annual meetings. In essence the plan's action items will be revisited to determine what has moved forward, what hasn't, what is still relevant and also examine if any new risk assessment data is available to provide updates to the plan. Due to a turnover at the Hazard Mitigation Coordinator position and elections at several of the involved municipalities the mitigation planning committee will not meet until the first quarter of 2008. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan ^ ^ 11 . =~oca" M,=g==o , =c«"vity Update Avariety tfmitigation activity happened throughout 2OO6 and 2OOTthat activity Usoutlined below. • Lud|ovmviUe StOnnvvat$rControl P o Flood Action Item 5.1.44—Analyze overall drainage system atLanningviUe Rood � The Tompkins CountyPlanning Department applied for and received funding from the NYS Department ufEnvironmental Conservation's Water Quality Improvement Program /VVQ|P\b>study the drainage and design anengineered system h) reduce property damage from area $tonnVvaterrunoff. • Watershed Assessments o Flood Action Item 5.1.8—Continue tVconduct engineering studies and watershed assessments bosupport the reduction offlood potential o Flood Action Item 5.1.17—Continue Six Mile Creek, Fall Creek, Salmon Creek, and Cayuga Inlet Watershed Assessments m Watershed, flood mitigation needs assessment were conducted for Six Mile Creek, Salmon Creek, Fall Creek 8Cayuga Inlet. Priority issues and recommendations were identified for each ofthese wabarbodima. * Reorganization ofthe Tompkins County Flood Hazard Mitigation Program o Flood Action Item 5.1.49- Re-emphasize watershed approaches by developing a strategy to address the needs at the watershed level, including cumulative flood mitigation activities and priorities o Flood Action Item S.1.2O- Identify, evaluate, and implement effective flood mitigation activities for specific"hot spots"within the county � |nusing information gained from the previously mentioned watershed assessments the Tompkins County Flood Hazard Mitigation Program was re-organized toprovide amore watershed based approach. Several ofthose projects were addressed inimplementing the following action items. ~ Implementation ofthe Boni|estream bank stabilization o Flood Action |bam 5.1.14- Implement Barri|a stream bank stabilization o Flood Action Item 5.1.21 -Construct synthetic floodways to disperse flow and reduce velocity ofwater inSix Mile Creek o Flood Action Item S.1.32- Increase channel roughness ofSix Mile Creek ° Significant sized project helped toreduce flood risks for anumber of property owners inthe Town ofCaroline. Most recently the project vmso vegetated through the County Flood Hazard Mitigation Program.The Town ofCaroline iocurrently planning afollow upproject furtherdown Six Mile Creek. w As a part of the 2007 Tompkins County Flood Hazard Mitigation Program, the Salmon Creek Bank Erosion project was conducted that reduced erosion and dispersed the flow and velocity ofSalmon Creek o Flood Action Item 5.1.46-Continue local stream bank stabilization projects o Flood Action Item 5.1.31 - Implement physical mitigation activities, as necessary within Sin Mile Creek and other appropriate watersheds o Flood Action Item S.1.45-Stabilize the Broohbonda|eRoad stream bank * Banks Road—Six Mile Creek Readjustment o Flood Action Item G.1.51 -Address the bifurcated flow inSix Mile Creek, upstream ofBanks Road � Funding allocated to implement project on thio site, though follow up indicated that the Creek shifted and remained canalized, requiring no added work ° The County financially committed bosupport the Tompkins County Soil and Water District's contract tofly the County tocollect LiOAF{data that iothe first step inupdating flood plain (FIRM)maps. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2OU7Implementation Report Page uofa ° , • Flood Action Item 5.1,4—Enhance data and mapping for floodplains within the County and identify and map any Onodprone areas currently outside the County (see also 5.1.7) • Flood Action Item 5.1.7—Update flood plain /RRM\ maps. ° Various municipalities have implemented aspects oftheir Phase 2 Stormvvater Regulations—efforts have been made o Flood Action Item 5.1.12—Implement Phase 28bJrmvwabnrregulation compliance, and focus Vnefforts under S4that help b) reduce flood risk. • Obtained grant bmdevelop countywide stream buffer protection o Flood Action Item 5.1.41 ~ Identify or update existingland use iDmajor stra0 corridors and floodp|ainoinTompkins County. * Continuing to conduct aquifer studies in the Towns of Caroline, Danby and Dryden and actively initiating new studies o Flood Action Item 5.1.47—Conduct anassessment ofgroundwater resources within major glacial vaUeyo in Tompkins County to better understand current surface and groundwater resources inthe region. o Water Supply Contamination S.A.2—Continue aquifer assessment studies to better understand groundwater dynamics and re-charge areas. o Water Supply Contamination 5.9.3—Continue Six Mile, Virgil and Willseyville Creek Aquifer Studies. • Help tocoordinate funding for local U8GSstream flow gauge operation o Flood Action Item 5.1.18—Continue tooperate the USG8stream flow gauge for Six Mile Creek. Collect flow data for other sub-watersheds to determine their potential flood risk. ° The Tompkins County Planning Department coordinated the development of the Tompkins County Conservation Plan which identifies priority protection areas throughout the County.This plan, among other things, sets forth a strategy to preserve open space for flood mitigation, fish habitat and water quality inthe floodplain. o Flood Action Item S.1.36—Encourage development ofacquisition and management strategies to preserve open space for flood mitigation, fish habitat, and water quality inthe floodplain. • The Town of Danby conducted surveys of special needs populations to help identify those who may need extra assistance during ohazard event. o Severe Winter Storm Action Item 5.2.5—Survey institutions that have specific needs populations hoidentify their emergency needs. * The Town of Ithaca developed a stricter noise ordinance to assist in dealing with recurring student party concerns onSouth Hill. o Civil Unrest Action Item 5.11.2—Develop ostricter student party ordinance * Other mitigation measures not previously menUoned... Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2OO7Implementation Report Page 4of0 111. Information Distribution Update The following information was distributed or obtained relating to the TCHMP this year: • SEMO provided 3 mitigation funding opportunities In the fall of 2007 that was provided to the local municipalities and interested parties within Tompkins County.This continues to be a difficult process as the information from FEMA and SEMO is provided just weeks or days prior to a formal Letter of Intent is requested. • Conversations with SEMO indicated that a State Emergency Management Conference would likely be reinstituted in the approaching years. This Is certainly something the County and mitigation team should be Involved with as it is developed. • A Tompkins County Planning Department staff member attended an energy/climate change conference in November and indicated some discussion statewide of adaptation planning for climate change—in essence conducting planning work to prepare for community wide changes associated with climate change. At the first quarter, mitigation planning group meeting in 2008 one agenda item will be this issue and its relationship to the TCHMP. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007 Implementation Report Page 5 of 6 IV. Resource Update In May 2007,Tompkins County hired a new Senior Planner, Scott Doyle, to assume recent department vacancies, including that of County Hazard Mitigation Officer, Kate Hackett. Scott will assume the hazard mitigation coordinator role among others and coordinate the implementation and update of the Plan. He has previously worked on hazard mitigation planning issues, including PDM, throughout the State of Oregon. He can be reached at 607-274-5560 or at sclovie0tomokins-co.ora. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007 Implementation Report Page 6 of 6 ^ ^ ^��0�� m��nx Multi-Jurisdictional �k��^� ""� n-"~" County "°" "~~�~° " "~~~="~~"° " All-Hazard "~= Mitigation Plan (TCHMu ) — 2008 Implementation Report Asoutlined |nthe 2006TCHN1p. "areport summarizing the previously mentioned activities will ba written and maintained.These annual reports will provide data for the 5-year update of this plan and will assist in pinpointing implementation challenges. By monitoring the implementation of action items included inthe plan onanannual basis the planning group will be able toassess which projects anecomp|etGd, vvhichareno |ongerfeasib|m, andiffundingiabeinQpnuvided." y, Meetings Update The Tompkins County88m|t|~Jwdod|mtioma| All-Hazard Mitigation P|an-|mmpkm tati Committee was formed in December 2007 and met for the first time on January 30t'2008.The group, made up of representatives of each of the municipalities involved In development of the TCHMP, met to both lay the groundwork for the plan's update in 2011 and develop strategies for implementation of the plan. The focus of the meeting was to examine the plan's action items and update them based on accomplished items, repetition, and new realities.The initial meeting attendees included: • Beth Harrington (Tompkins County Emergency Response) * Ric Dietrich/[}anby\ ~ Lee Ghurt|eff(Tompkins County Emergency Response) * Glenn Morey(Groton) ^ Dick Coogan /U|yamem\ ^ Jessica Vedbao (Tompkins County Emergency Response) p Peter Hoyt(Cmro|ine) w Charlie Purcell /Lansing\ * Scott Doyle(Tompkins County Planning) To assist with this review o consolidated list of hazard mitigation plan action items was built.This review document noted 181 action items over 11 hazards Ulood. severe winter storm, severe storm, epidemic(agricultural), epidemic(human),fire(urban and wild), utility failure, transportation accident, water supply contamination, terrorism, civil unrest).The action items were listed by hazards and by lead agency responsible for implementation. Just flood hazard action items(59 action items)were examined as a part of the January meeting,future meetings will address other action items. Based on clarification from New York State Emergency Management Office(SEMO)no formal reporting is required as of yet for this update process, though they do encourage a group being formed.This group will meet again in 2009 at least one time, and meet with greater frequency in 2010 to prepare for the required update. An agenda of the 2OO8meeting imattached. Other results ofthe meeting included: ° Interest in reaching across County lines for assistance with various efforts. � Need to reconvene post-disaster event to see if mitigation measures have been useful, what added steps need betaken. * Emergency awareness will be greatly enhance through obtaining LIDAR data (Obtained Summer 2008). w Local communities could use assistance with grant development and implementation.A "grants doy/'vvaorecommended. ° The committee did not think the plan should take onan"adapbaUon^role indealing with global climate change at this juncture.They did indicate that"thinking green" certainly did relate bohazard mitigation planning. The 2DD8meeting has been set for February 28. 2DDG. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation F1om u000Implementation Report Page Ivf7 ° ° The Tompkins County throughout 2008. Meetings were held the third Tuesday of the month beginning In February.The TCEMPG is the group of representatives from throughout the County whom are involved in emergency management issues.This group includes representatives from County government, local fire/police, Ithaca College, Cornell University, American Red Cross, local utilities and several 4dthe October 2O88meeting a short presentation was made regarding the TCHyWPmaintenance and implementation through a formal mitigation planning group. A goal of updating all action items inearly 2UOBand mapping atimeline for the plan update A variety of Town-County and inter-County meetings laid the ground work for the items the mitigation planning committee will tackle for annual meetings. In essence the plan's action items will be revisited to determine what has moved forward, what hasn't, what is still relevant and also examine ifany new risk assessment data is available toprovide updates tothe plan. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional A]AHozord Mitigation Plan ° 11 Local Mitigation Activityte Avariety of mitigation activity happened throughout 2UD8which is outlined below. w Ludlowmle8tormwgter Control Project o Flood Action Item 5.1.44—Analyze overall drainage system etLene|ngviUe Road • The Tompkins County Planning Department applied for and received funding from the NYS Department ofEnvironmental Conservation's Water Quality Improvement Program (VV0F)tostudy the drainage and design aDengineered system toreduce property damage from area oburmvvoberrunoff. = Aconsultant, Barton & Loguidioa' PC, was hired inthe spring of2OO8 and has conducted enexisting conditions analysis for the region. One public meeting was held in2OD8bzintroduce the project. Afollow up meeting will be held in 2DO8bzdetail the initial report and introduce proposed design solutions. • Watershed Assessments o Flood Action Item 5.1.8—Continue toconduct engineering studies and watershed assessments tosupport the reduction offlood potential. ° Gnoundvvorhvvae |aidforvvaberohada000eomentfortheOvwamoo |n|mL o Flood Action Item 5.1.17—Continue Six Mile Creek, Fall Creek, Salmon Creek, and Cayuga Inlet Watershed Assessments � Watershed,flood mitigation needs assessment were conducted for Six Mile Creek, Salmon Creek, Fall Creek&Cayuga Inlet. Priority issues and recommendations were identified for each ofthese vwaerbodieo. Several ofthese projects were investigated and implemented in2OO8. • Reorganization ofthe Tompkins County Flood Hazard Mitigation Program o Flood Action Item 5.1.49-Re-emphasize watershed approaches by developing a strategy to address the needs at the watershed level, including cumulative flood mitigation activities and priorities o Flood Action Item 5.1.20- Identify, evaluate, and implement effective flood mitigation activities for specific"hot spots"within the county ° |nusing information gained from the previously mentioned watershed assessments the Tompkins County Flood Hazard Mitigation Program was re-organized hoprovide amore watershed based approach. Several ofthose projects were addressed inimplementing the following action items. * Implementation ofthe Boni|estream bank stabilization o Flood Action Item 5.1.14- Implement Borri|astream bank stabilization o Flood Action Item 5.1.21 -Construct synthetic floodways to disperse flow and reduce velocity ofwater inSix Mile Creek o Flood Action Item S.1.33- Increase channel roughness ofSix Mile Creek � Significant sized project helped toreduce flood risks for onumber of property owners inthe Town ofCaroline. Most recently the project wmo vegetated in2OO7through the County Flood Hazard Mitigation Program. The Town ofCaroline iecurrently planning afollow upproject furthar down Six Mile Creek. * As a part of the 2008 Tompkins County Flood Hazard Mitigation Program, the Salmon Creek Bank Erosion project vvaoconductadtho1raducadarooionanddioperoadthaflovv and velocity ofSalmon Creek. Projects were identified, designed and implemented inthe Fall Creek, Salmon Creek, Cayuga Inlet and 8ixm||aCreek watersheds.These projects included the stabilization of over 3,000 feet of stream bank and the vegetation of banks with over OOOtrees, o Flood Action Item 5.1.46-Continue local stream bank stabilization projects o Flood Action Item 5.1.31 - Implement physical mitigation activities, as necessary within Six K8i|m Creek and other appropriate watersheds Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard MiUgoUonP|on 2UU8Implementation Report Page 3of7 ° ° • Working closely with property owner, the project was stabilized with the assistance of natural in stream structures and a redesigned bank, vegetated with over 100 native trees and reseeded.The project runs 350'along the bank of Sixmile Creek and has created a protected 50' Riparian Buffer Area. • Flood Action Item 5.1.45-Stabilize the Brooktondale Road stream bank n Flood Action Item 5.1.22—Increase channel roughness ofthe Six Mile Creek, including introducing large woody debris in the banks, creating boulder and log sills in the riverbed' installing individual boulders and boulder clusters in the channel, and redefining the channel's thalweg. * Banks Road—Six Mile Creek Readjustment. Funding was allocated b)implement a project onthis site, though follow Vpindicated that the Creek shifted and remained channelized, requiring noadded work. o Flood Action Item 5.1.51 -Address the bifurcated flow inSix Mile Creek, upstream 0fBanks Road ° Tompkins County Soil and Water District with some financial support from the County obtained LiDAR data that is useful in a number of projects and is the first step in updating flood plain/RRyW\ maps. o Flood Action Item 5.1.4—Enhance data and mapping for floodplains within the County and identify and map any floodprone areas currently outside the County (see also 5.1.7) o Flood Action Item 5.1.7—Update flood plain /F|RM\ maps. * Various municipalities continue to implement aspects of their Phase 2 Stormwater Regulations. o Flood Action |bam 5.1.12— Implement Phase 28bormvvaherregulation compliance, and focus onefforts under S4that help toreduce flood risk. w Obtained grant to develop countywide stream buffer protection and designed and implemented a number of protection tools including a model riparian buffer ordinance. Outreach for these tools will beconducted |n2OOQ. o Flood Action Item 5.1.41 - Identify or update existing land use in major stream corridors and floodp|aineinTompkins County. o Flood Action Item 5.1.15—Develop model ordinances for sediment and erosion contro|, atormwmtaroontro|. and stream buffer implementation. • Continuing to conduct aquifer studies in the Towns of Caroline, Danby and Dryden and actively initiating new studies. Outreach to the Towns of Newfield and Groton as well as the Village ofGroton regarding this program. o Flood Action Item S.1.47—Conduct anassessment ofgroundwater resources within major q|acia|vaUmyoinTomphinoCtobetter understand current surface and groundwater resources inthe region. o Water Supply Contamination 5.G.3—Continue aquifer assessment studies to better understand groundwater dynamics and re-charge areas. o Water Supply Contamination 5.9.3—Continue Six Mile, Virgil and Wilseyville Creek Aquifer Studies. ~ Help tocoordinate funding for local U8(38 stream flow gauge operation.Avariety of efforts were conducted to continue funding for gauges. One gauge, on Salmon Creek, did not receive funding for continued use. o Flood Action Item 5.1.18—Continue tooperate the U8G8stream flow gauge for Six Mile Creek. Collect flow data for other sub-watersheds todetermine their potential flood risk. w The Tompkins County Planning Department coordinated the development of the Tompkins County Conservation Plan which identifies priority protection areas throughout the County. This plan, among other things, sets forth a strategy to preserve open space for flood mitigation, fish habitat and water quality in the floodplain. A variety of outreach was conducted for this planning effort. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard MitigoUonP|on uoouImplementation Report Page 4of7 ^ ' o Flood Action Item 5.1.26—Encourage developmentofacquisition and management strategies blpreserve open space for flood mitigation, fish habitat, and water quality inthe floodplain. 0 Bridge upgrades in Tompkins County continue tobedesigned bosupport natural stream functions further withstand flooding events. o Flood Action Item 5.1.2B—Retrofit orre-construct bridges atahigher elevation tV withstand flood events. 0 Retrofit OfCaroline Town Barn tosupport stFeambankstabi|izatiOn o Severe Winter Storm Action Item 5.2.1O—Retrofit critical structures 0 Obtained funding for purchasing backup generators |nCaroline and Danby o Severe Winter Storm Action |hom 5.2.8—Obtain funding to purchase backup generators * Public awareness of storm mitigation activities, including warnings and advisories were distributed via NY-ALERT o Severe Winter Storm Action Item 5.3.4—Increase public awareness of storm mitigation activities * Epidemic(Human)Action Item 5.5.5—Enhance public safety through awareness, by releasing timely public service announcements via various media w Resources were secured and identified to build the appropriate medical stockpiles o Epidemic(Human)Action Item 5.5.4—Identify and secure resources to build the appropriate medical stockpile ofmedicines and medical supplies 0 Outreach and education programs continue to be advanced by local fire departments in particular, through national fire prevention month(Ootober) o Fire Action Item 5.O.5—Enhance outreach and education programs aimed at mitigating fire hazards * Fire and security alarm system installed otDanby Town Hall o Fire Action Item 5.6.18—Install supervised fire/security alarm system at Danby Town Hall = Backup power toWest Danby Water District o Utility Failure Action Item 5.7.0—Provide backup power bothe West Danby Water District System * Backup generator purchased for 8|oterviUeFire Company o Utility Failure Action |bam 57.18—Purchase backup generator for 8|otarvU|e Fire Company m Some signal improvements to improve safety around West Danby Fire Station o Transportation Accident 5.8.1O—Arrange for NYSOTTosurvey West DonbyOra station site distances Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2OO8Implementation Report Page 5o[7 ^ ^ III�� . """"=~"~,"=.°=°" =~"~°=~°~==,=°" ~~u~�~°~~' The following information was distributed or obtained relating to the TCHMP this year: • SEMO provided 3 mitigation funding opportunities in the fall of 2008 that was provided to the local municipalities and,interested parties within Tompkins County.This continues to be a difficult process as the information from FEMA and SEMO is provided just weeks or days prior toaformal Letter ofIntent iorequested. ~ Conversations with SEMO indicated that a State Emergency Management Conference vVoU|d likely be reinstituted In the approaching years.This is certainly something the County and mitigation team should bminvolved with omitimdeveloped. • Emergency response and recovery training opportunities continue to be coordinated through the Tompkins County Department ofEmergency Response. • |tcontinues hobethe goal ofthe Implementation Committee tohave priority projects ready toimplement amfunding opportunities arise. Tompkins CuuNYMultiJurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan IV. Resource Update Scott Doyle continues to serve as the County Hazard Mitigation Officer and will coordinate the implementation and update of the Plan. He has previously worked on hazard mitigation planning issues, including PDM, throughout the State of Oregon. He can be reached at 607-274-5560 or at sdoU1A_to_m2king-co.org. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2008 Implementation Report Page 7 of 7 Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D Website Links to Tompkins County Planning Resources 560.018.001/12.13 Barton&Loguidice, P.C. County Resources Links: Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan -2004 htti):H=Y=toin 1<-in�,s-co.ort/Dlannin�/comDDIan/comDDlar for web.Dd Tompkins County Conservation Strategy—2012 hqp://www.toinpl<-ins-co.org/planning/nri/documents/ConservationStrategyfinaIO8-28-12.pd Tompkins County Conservation Plan -2010 htti)://www.tompkins- co.org/planning/Rural`/`20Resources/documents/FINAL Tompkins Conservation—Plan—Part-11 04-10 000.pdf Tompkins County Conservation Plan—2007 hLtp://www.toinpl<-ins-co.org/planning/nri/documents/Tompkins Counjy_Conservqtion_P1qn09- 21:Q7. df Tompkins County Natural Resources Inventory -2001 hLtp://www.toinpl<-ins-co.org/planning/nri/inventory.pd Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory—2007 httj):Hwww�.toin 1<-in�,s-co.or�/Dlannin�/nri/documents/TCSRreDortJanl7.pdf NYS Local Waterfront Revitalization Program—Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan -2004 hqp://www.cayuga-heights.ny.us/doc/othO8l32012.pdf Tompkins County Forest Management Plan—2007 httj):Hwww�.toin 1<-in�,s-co.ori/Dlannin�/Rural`/`20Resources/documents/OctIOMainPlan.pd Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan -2013 hqp://www.toinpl<-ins-co.org/planninglhaz mit.hun Tompkins County Workforce Strategy—2010 httj):Hwww�.toin 1<-in�swo�rl<-forcenv.or�/workforcestrate�zv.Dd Tompkins County 2020 Energy Strategy—2010 hLtp://www.toinpl<-ins-co.org/planninenergyclimate/documents/EnergyStrategy2O208-20- jjj.2df Development Focus Areas Strategy—2012 ham://www.toinplcins-- co.or�z/f)lannin�,,/communitv`/`20T)Iannin�/documents/Develoi)mentFocusAreasStrate�v adomed 10-2-12 OQQ.pdf Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Process Meeting Timeline and Attendees 560.018.001/12.13 Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Appendix E Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Process Meeting Timeline and Attendees In updating the plan, the County established two committees assist in guiding the process, the Steering Committee of municipal representation and the Technical Committee which consists of local experts in fields addressed in the plan update. The following is a list of that membership. Hazard Mitigation Update Project Steering Committee Name Municipality/Agency Beth Harrington Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response Lee Shurtleff Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response Jessica Verfuss Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response Katie Borgella Tompkins County Planning Department Scott Doyle Tompkins County Planning Department Cheryl Nelson Tompkins County Public Works Kevin Romer Town of Ulysses Don Barber Town of Caroline Dominic Frongillo Town of Caroline Irene Weiser* Town of Caroline Jeff Overstrom* Town of Lansing Creig Hebdon* Town of Ithaca Dan Thaete Town of Ithaca David Sprout* Town of Dryden Mary Ann Sumner Town of Dryden Elizabeth Thomas Town of Ulysses Darby Kiley* Town of Ulysses Susan Beeners* Town of Danby Matt Cooper Town of Danby Ric Dietrich Town of Danby Richard Driscoll* Town of Newfield Glenn Morey* Town of Groton Julie Holcomb* City of Ithaca Guy Van Benschoten City of Ithaca Roy Barriere Town of Enfield Name Municipality/Agency Larry Stilwell* Town of Enfield Ann Rider Town of Enfield Don Hartill* V. Lansing Marty Moseley V. Lansing Tammy Morse V. Trumansburg Martin Petorvic* V. Trumansburg Randall Sterling* V. Dryden Abby Homer V. Dryden Kevin Ezell V. Dryden Lotte Carpenter* V. Freeville Stephanie Mulinos V. Freeville Jeffery Evener V. Groton Chuck Rankin* V. Groton Kate Supron* V. Cayuga Heights Mary Mills V. Cayuga Heights James Steinmetz V. Cayuga Heights George Tamborelle V. Cayuga Heights Brent Cross V. Cayuga Heights *Lead municipal contact Hazard Mitigation Plan Technical Committee Name Agency/Muni Field Art Pearce Community Volunteer Gas Drilling Darby Kiley Town of Ulysses, Former County Staff Gas Drilling for Gas Drilling Work Jonathan Comstock Cornell Horticulture Climate/ClimAid Frank Kruppa County Health Public Health Craig Schutt Tompkins Co. Soil & Water Ag+ Conservation District(TCSWCD) Mark Whitmore Cornell Nat. Res. Invasives Jack Rueckheim Bolton Point Water Roxanna Johnston City of Ithaca Water Bob Passe NYSEG Utilities Name Agency/Muni Field Jack French Lansing Highway Transp Jessica Verfuss Emergency Response EM Ed Bugliosi USGS Water Bill Gray City of Ithaca Public Works The following is the meetings held as a part of the plan update process and a list of attendees. Steering Committee Kick Off Meeting— September 20, 2011 Organizing meeting, discussed why updating the plan, what new aspects we would explore, how we would engage the public and other items. The meeting included the following attendees: • Beth Harrington, Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response (DOER) • Kevin Romer, Town of Ulysses • Don Barber, Town of Caroline • Jeff Overstrom, Town of Lansing • Creig Hebdon, Town of Ithaca • Katie Borgella, Tompkins County Planning Department(TCPD) • David Sprout, Town of Dryden • Elizabeth Thomas, Town of Ulysses • Lee Shurtleff, DOER • Jessica Verfuss, DOER • Susan Beeners, Town of Danby • Cheryl Nelson, Tompkins County Public Works • Richard Driscoll, Town of Newfield • Scott Doyle, TCPD Technical Committee Meeting#1 —February 10, 2012—Overview of the process, discussion of committee's role, risk assessment preparation, and other items. The meeting included the following attendees: • Darby Kiley, Town of Ulyssess • Jonathan Comstock, Cornell University Horticulture • Frank Kruppa, Tompkins County Health Department • Roxy Johnston, City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant • Craig Schutt, Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District • Mark Whitmore, Cornell University Department of Natural Resources • Jack French, Town of Lansing Highway Department • Ed Bugliosi, United States Geological Survey (USGS) • Katie Borgella, TCPD • Scott Doyle, TCPD • John Condino, Barton & Loguidice (B&L) • Johanna Duffy, B&L Hazard Analysis Workshop - March 8, 2012 - A group of County staff, local officials, agency/interest group representatives, and technical experts was assembled to complete a HIRA-NY risk assessment process for Tompkins County. Such a risk assessment was previously conducted as part of the County's original 2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan, and was performed again for this Plan Update. NYSOEM Region IV personnel facilitated the March 2012 risk assessment and input the results in the HIRA-NY computer program. Detailed meeting notes were recorded throughout the process by Beth Harrington with the Department of Emergency Response, and reviewed by the project team in subsequent meetings. The following individuals attended this event: • Ronald Raymond, NYSOEM Region IV • Tom M°Cartney, NYSOEM Region IV • Beth Harrington, Lee Shurtleff, Jessica Verfuss, DOER • Irene Weiser, Town of Caroline • Creig Hebdon, Town of Ithaca • David Sprout, Town of Dryden • Larry Stilwell, Town of Enfield • Susan Beeners, Town of Danby • Ric Dietrich, Town of Danby • Matt Cooper, Town of Danby • Richard Driscoll, Town of Newfield • Julie Holcomb, City of Ithaca • Darby Kiley, Town of Ulysses • Scott Doyle, TCPD • Katie Borgella, TCPD • Jonathan Comstock, Cornell University Horticulture Department • Dan Maas, Cornell University Environmental Health and Safety • Leah Stoner, Cornell University Environmental Health and Safety • Jack Rueckheim, Bolton Point Water Treatment Plant • Ed Bugliosi, USGS • Cheryl Nelson, Tompkins County Department of Public Works • Dave Nicosia, National Weather Service • Kevin Carpenter, American Red Cross • Marcia Lynch, Tompkins County Public Information Office • Bob Lampman, Tompkins County Sheriff's Department • Paula Younger, Tompkins County Administration • Adam Hartwig, Tompkins County Health Department • Al Fiorille, Tompkins County Assessment Office • John Condino, B&L • Johanna Duffy, B&L In addition, representatives from the following agencies, groups, and jurisdictions were also invited: Town of Lansing, Town of Groton, Village of Lansing, Village of Trumansburg, Village of Dryden, Village of Freeville, Village of Groton, Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County Soil and Water District, NYS Electric & Gas, NYS Police, Ithaca College, Tompkins County Community College, Cayuga Medical Center, and T-S-T BOLES. Technical Committee Meeting #2 —March 29, 2012—Overview of hazard analysis workshop and refinement of risk assessment data. The meeting included the following attendees: • Frank Kruppa, Tompkins County Health Department • Ed Bugliosi, USGS • Craig Schutt, TCSWCD • Darby Kiley, Town of Ulysses • Roxanna Johnston, City of Ithaca • Mark Whitmore, Cornell University Department of Natural Resources • Katy Borgella, TCPD • Scott Doyle, TCPD • Jessica Verfuss, DOER Steering Committee Meeting #2 —April 19, 2012—Review of plan requirements, the update process, hazard history refinement and action item updates. The meeting included the following attendees: • David Sprout, Town of Dryden • Darby Kiley, Town of Ulysses • Larry Stilwell, Town of Enfield • Katie Borgella, TCPD • Creig Hebdon, Town of Ithaca • Kevin Ezell, Village of Dryden • Irene Weiser, Town of Caroline • Jeff Overstrom, Town of Lansing • Susan Beeners, Town of Danby • Jessica Verfuss, DOER • Beth Harrington, DOER • Glenn Morey, Town of Groton • Matt Cooper, Town of Danby • Julie Holcomb, City of Ithaca • Cheryl Nelson, Tompkins County Public Works • Dominic Frongillo, Town of Caroline • Scott Doyle, TCPD • Lee Shurtleff, DOER • John Condino, B&L • Johanna Duffy, B&L Steering Committee Meeting #3 —May 24, 2012 —Work Session to refine hazard history and map critical infrastructure. The meeting included the following attendees: • Darby Kiley, Town of Ulysses • Dan Thaete, Town of Ithaca • Johanna Duffy, B&L • John Condino, B&L • Larry Stilwell, Town of Enfield • James Steinmeiz, Village of Cayuga Heights • George Tamborelee, Village of Cayuga Heights Fire Department • Glenn Morey, Town of Groton • David Sprout, Town of Dryden • Jessica Verfuss, DOER • Beth Harrington, DOER • Scott Doyle, TCPD • Irene Weiser, Town of Caroline • Susan Beeners, Town of Danby • Guy Van Benschoten, City of Ithaca • Lee Shurtleff, DOER Steering Committee Meeting #4 —October 18, 2012—Reviewed the hazard vulnerability section of the HMP Update document. Introduced mitigation action concepts and discussed goals and objectives of the actions. The following jurisdictions were represented at this meeting: • Jessica Verfuss, DOER • Darby Kiley, Town of Ulysses • David Sprout, Town of Dryden • Katie Borgella, TCPD • John Condino, B&L • Beth Harrington, DOER • Irene Weiser, Town of Caroline • Susan Beeners, Town of Danby • Scott Doyle, TCPD • Johanna Duffy, B&L • Lee Shurtleff, DOER • Glenn Morey, Town of Groton • Creig Hebdon, Town of Ithaca Steering Committee Meeting #5—November 20, 2012—Action Item Workshop where plan's hazard profile section was reviewed and the statuses of the 2006 HMP actions were discussed. Started to identify new action items to include in the Plan Update. The meeting included the following attendees: • Katie Borgella, TCPD • Darby Kiley, Town of Ulysses • Susan Beeners, Town of Danby • Matt Cooper, Town of Danby • Jessica Verfuss, DOER • Beth Harrington, DOER • Guy VanBenschoten, City of Ithaca • Scott Doyle, TCPD • Johanna Duffy, B&L • John Condino, B&L • David Sprout, Town of Dryden • Irene Weiser, Town of Caroline Steering Committee Meeting#6—January 23, 2013 —Fine-tuned and discussed new or combined mitigation actions to include in the HMP Update. Discussed action prioritization and ranked the Plan's action items. The following individuals were in attendance: • Johanna Duffy, B&L • Beth Harrington, DOER • Katie Borgella, TCPD • John Condino, B&L • Darby Kiley, Town of Ulysses • Matt Cooper, Town of Danby • Guy Van Benschoten, City of Ithaca • Scott Doyle, TCPD • Irene Weiser, Town of Caroline • Chuck Rankin, Village of Groton • Brent Cross, Town of Danby • Creig Hebdon, Town of Ithaca • Larry Stilwell, Town of Enfield • Marty Moseley, Village of Lansing • Lee Shurtleff, DOER • Glenn Morey, Town of Groton • Julie Holcomb, City of Ithaca • David Sprout, Town and Village of Dryden • Ann Rider, Town of Enfield Hazard Mitigation Plan Update - Public Meetings - March 20, 2013 Town of Dryden Town Hall—313M Attendee List • Craig Schutt—TCSWCD • Barry Goodrich—Caroline/Water Resources Council • Glenn Morey—Town of Groton • Dan Kwasnowski—Town of Dryden • Josh Bogdon—Town of Dryden • Jane Nicholson—Town of Dryden • David Sprout—Town of Dryden • Scott Doyle—Tompkins County • John Condino—B&L • Johanna Duffy—B&L Comment and Notes from meeting • Has there been much conversation with NYSEG? Particularly in relation to Emerald Ash Borer impacts (increased tree loss/debris, plugged culverts), local power production and supply? • Pipelines are referenced throughout document to specific locations though this topic deserves much more attention. Calculations are that there are 160 pipeline crossing in throughout the County, many in need of attention. Particularly along Sixmile and the Inlet. Damage to pipelines could result in substantial disruption. Make this topic a more general County-wide issue-do not focus on it from a jurisdictional level. • Is there much in terms of a generator inventory? Like for the Varna Community Center?Were previous opportunities through Project Impact for solar generators—perhaps could be investigated further? • How about deer impacts? Likely connected with infestation. • How is agriculture addressed in the plan?Ag generators? Fires? Epidemics like hoof and mouth? Manure spills? • Access to hydrant action items? Does this include dry hydrants? Dryden is working with Bolton Point to map currently. • Doesn't FEMA have a post hazard focus? Starting to move more toward mitigation. Example of Banks Road rebuild through FEMA funding, culverts on Beaver Creek. Tompkins County Public Library—City of Ithaca—6PIVI Attendee List • Brian Eden— EMC • Tom Shelley—Ithaca CAC • Barry Stein—Tompkins County Red Cross • Gay Nicholson—Sustainable Tompkins • Scott Doyle—Tompkins County • John Condino—B&L • Johanna Duffy—B&L Comment and Notes from Meeting • The clarification of who and where vulnerable populations are is very important. Red Cross in Cortland has initiated a self reported registry that may be worth looking more into. Who currently holds this info?Who needs to? Religious orgs? Should it be online and available to planners and responders? Example of Chicago/Cuba and research related to social isolation of elderly populations. • Important to place emphasis on natural systems resiliency—much research related to this recently and NYS support (2100 Commission Report). Brian Eden to follow up with more detail. • Green infrastructure also important • Our region, particularly the City, is behind on Stream Buffer protection. Much interest in promoting added protections and regulations. • Undergrounding of utilities on The Commons. District Heating and CHP interesting resilient options being utilized locally. • Dredging a key locally. Have you worked with Army Corps? Like to see sediment prevention plan, climate/development discussion. Implement projects to prevent sediment accumulation in lake—focus on problem before lake • Look into COAST model through Department of State. Used in areas like Kingston, NY and allows users to visualize investments in mitigation measures and what benefits they can achieve. • City of Ithaca updating their comprehensive plan—it will be important to weave this planning effort with that one. • What happens when the grid goes down? Extra vulnerability. Examples of renewable energy based cooling center. Something to look into locally? Energy/Hazard relationship. o Warming centers as well. History of those in Ithaca—example the RIBS building. • Emphasize generator maintenance. • Need to normalize preparedness(talk about it enough and people get used to incorporating it into their everyday lives/routines) • Town of Lansing—provide information to Katrina • Mitigation as grassroots action? How does that fit here? • Public awareness on mitigation very important o B&L to provide examples to Gay • Civic engagement as mitigation. Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Comments Summary • Todd Bittner—Cornell Plantations—Suggestion to add language related to trail improvements and gorge safety—previously had trouble applying for FEMA funds to support trail improvements in gorges as it wasn't mention in previous plan • Rob Gallinger—USDA Farm Service Agency—asked if foreign animal disease response and agro tourism should be included. Wondered if plan was intended to be used for response • Matt Cooper— Danby CEO—noted Table 11 should show their gas prohibition is finalized • Gay Nicholson— provided link to COAST model • Water Resources Council—Advocated for supporting stream gages and support for farm agencies • Dave Herrick—TG Miller—Submitted letter noting concern over pipeline crossings and felt this should be further addressed • DOER—Various comments directly on plan,would like to see critical facility mapping • EMC—comments based on old plan?Would like to see more emphasis on adaptation,green infrastructure,ties to NYS 2100 Commission,gas drill ban Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix F Plan Adoption Resolution and Sample Resolution 560.018.001/12.13 Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Name of Jurisdiction: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE AND ADOPTION OF THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE FOR TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Planning Department, with the assistance from Barton & Loguidice, P.C., has gathered information and prepared the Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County, New York; and WHEREAS, the Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County, New York has been prepared in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),Part 201; and WHEREAS, Title 44 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 201.6(c)(5) requires each local government participating in the preparation of a Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan or Plan Update to accept and adopt such plan; and WHEREAS, the Town/Village of has reviewed the 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, has found the document to be acceptable, and as a local unit of government, has afforded its citizens an opportunity to comment and provide input regarding the Plan Update and the actions included in the Plan; WHEREAS, the Town/Village of will consider the Tompkins County HMP Update during the implementation and updating of local planning mechanisms, and will incorporate the hazard assessment data, hazard vulnerabilities, and mitigation actions in these mechanisms, where applicable; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town/Village of as a participating jurisdiction, adopts the Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County, New York, dated March 2013. This resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted on (Mayor/Supervisor) (Clerk) Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix G Tompkins County Critical Facilities List 560.018.001/12.13 Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Appendix G Tompkins County Critical Facilities List Locations of these facilities are generally shown on Figure 2.9 in Appendix A. Boatyards: • Johnson's Boatyard and Marina • Treman Marina • East Shore Sailing • Ithaca Yacht Club • Myers Point • Taughannock Falls State Park Marina Bus Terminals: • Lansing CSD Bus Garage • Ithaca Bus Terminal • Ithaca Tompkins Transit Center Camps: • Empire State Speech and Hearing Camp • Camp Barton Girl Scout Camp Community Centers: • Cayuga Nature Center • Bethel Grove Community Center • Ellis Hollow Community Center • Enfield Community Center • Brooktondale Community Center • Hillside Children's Center • Southside Community Center • Coddington Road Community Center • Varna Community Association • American Red Cross Community Center Correctional Facilities: • Lansing School for Girls • Tompkins County Jail • NYS McCormick Training Center Dams: • Jennings Pond • Treman Lake at Buttermilk State Park • Cayuga Inlet Fish Ladder • Dryden Lake Dam • Virgil Creek Dam • Second Dam • First Dam • Van Natta Dam • Flat Rock • Beebe Lake Day Care Centers: • Groton Head Start • TCAction Head Start • FSA Child Care Center at Tompkins County Community College • Ithaca Community Childcare at Kendal • Community Nursery School • Franziska Racker Center • Coddington Child Care Center • Drop-in Children's Center • Happy Way Child Care • Ithaca Montessori School • Stepping Stones Preschool • Cornell Child Care Center • Namaste Montessori • IC3 • Groton Day Care Electrical Substations: • Trumansburg Substation • South Lansing Substation • Cayuga Heights Substation • South Hill Substation • Etna Substation • Peruville Substation • Groton Substation • Milliken Substation • East Hill Substation • County Hospital Substation • Kite Hill Substation • 4 1 Street Substation • West Hill Substation 0 State Hospital Substation • Newfield Substation • Brooktondale Substation • Dryden Substation • Ludlowville Substation • Cayuga Rock Salt Substation Elementary Schools: • Montessori School • Dryden Elementary School —Dryden Central School District • Freeville Elementary School —Dryden Central School District • Trumansburg Elementary School — Trumansburg Central School District • Newfield Elementary School —Newfield Central School District • Groton Elementary School —Groton Central School District • Cassavant Elementary School —Dryden Central School District • R.C. Buckley Elementary School —Lansing Central School District • Caroline Elementary School —Ithaca City School District • South Hill Elementary School —Ithaca City School District • Northeast Elementary School —Ithaca City School District • Beverly J Martin Elementary School —Ithaca City School District • Fall Creek Elementary School —Ithaca City School District • Enfield Elementary School —Ithaca City School District • Cayuga Heights Elementary School —Ithaca City School District • Belle Sherman Elementary School —Ithaca City School District Emergency Operations: • Tompkins County Emergency Rescue (EOC) Fire Departments: • Neptune Hose—Company 41 • Newfield Fire Company • Varna Fire Station • Ithaca Fire Department— Central Station • West Danby Fire Hall • Trumansburg Fire Department • Speedsville Fire Hose • Slaterville Springs Fire House • McLean Fire Department • Lansing Fire Department— Company 45 • Lansing Fire Department— Company 44 • Lansing Fire Department— Company 43 • Lansing Fire Department— Central Station, Company 41 and 42 • Ithaca Fire Department— College Avenue Station 49 • Ithaca Fire Department—Fall Creek Station 47 • Ithaca Fire Department—West Hill Station 46 • Ithaca Fire Department— South Hill Station 45 • Groton Fire Station • Freeville Fire Department • Etna Volunteer Fire Department • Enfield Fire Station • Danby Volunteer Fire Company • Cayuga Heights Fire Department • Brooktondale Fire Station Government Centers: • Ithaca City Hall • Ithaca City Courthouse • Tompkins County Courthouse • Post Offices • Groton Town Hall • Newfield Town Hall • Enfield Town Hall • Ithaca Town Hall • Danby Town Hall • Lansing Town Hall • Ulysses Town Hall • Caroline Town Hall • Dryden Town Hall • Dryden Village Hall • Village of Freeville Office • Lansing Village Office • Cayuga Heights Village Office • Trumansburg Village Office • Groton Village Hall High Schools and Vocational Schools: • Lehman Alternative School • William George Agency • Newfield High School —Newfield Central School District • Charles O. Dickerson High School — Trumansburg Central School District • Dryden High School —Dryden Central School District • Groton High School —Groton Central School District • Lansing High School —Lansing Central School District • Ithaca High School —Ithaca City School District • Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga BOCES Highway Departments: • Town of Groton Highway Department • Town of Lansing Highway Department • Town of Dryden Highway Department • Town of Caroline Highway Department • Town of Danby Highway Department • Town of Newfield Highway Department • Town of Ithaca Highway Department • Town of Enfield Highway Department • Town of Ulysses Highway Department • City of Ithaca Streets and Facilities • NYSDOT Barn Human Services: • Franziska Racker Center • Tompkins County Health Department • Occupational Services of the Finger Lakes • Loaves and Fishes • Community Dispute Resolution Center • Lansing Residential Center • Finger Lakes Residential Center Industrial: • NYS Electric & Gas • Borg Warner • Emerson Power Transmission • THERM, Inc. • Cargill Salt Mine Major University or Small College: • Ithaca College • Cornell University • Tompkins County Community College • Empire State College— SUNY • TCCC Extension Center Medical Facility: • Parkview Medical Campus • Convenient Care • Cayuga Medical Center • Guthrie Clinic • Trumansburg Family Health Center • Groton Intermediate Care Facility • Groton Community Health Care Center Middle School: • Boynton Middle School —Ithaca City School District • DeWitt Middle School —Ithaca City School District • Lansing Middle School —Lansing Central School District • Groton Middle School —Groton Central School District • Dryden Middle School —Dryden Central School District • Russell L Doig Middle School — Trumansburg Central School District • Newfield Junior High School —Newfield Central School District Other Public Facility: • Chamber of Commerce • Ithaca City Youth Bureau • Tompkins County Airport • Tompkins County Annex Building • Old Jail • Old Courthouse • Tompkins County Mental Health • NYS Department of Motor Vehicles • Tompkins County Soil & Water Conservation District • Clinton House • Greater Ithaca Activities Center • NYS Army National Guard • NYS Department of Environmental Conservation • Northeast Transit/Swarthout& Ferris • US Coast Guard Auxiliary • US Army Reserve Center • US Geological Survey • American Auto Association • GIAC Community Pool • State Theatre • Trumansburg Fairgrounds • YMCA Performing Arts: • Ballet Center of Ithaca • Ithaca Academy of Dance • Hangar Theatre • Firehouse Theatre • Kitchen Theatre Police Department: • Ithaca Police Department • Village of Cayuga Heights Police Department • Village of Dryden Police Department • Village of Trumansburg Police Department • New York State Police • Tompkins County Public Safety • Groton Police Department • State Parks Headquarters Public Works: • Tompkins County Public Works • Tompkins County Recycle and Solid Waste Center • Bell Atlantic • Ithaca City Water & Sewer • Ithaca City Streets & Facilities • Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Plant • Groton Sewage Treatment Plant • Milliken Station Power Plant • Bolton Point Water Treatment Plant • Ithaca City Water Treatment Plant • Groton Municipal Light&Power Plant • Cornell Heating Plant • Hydroelectric Plant • Cayuga Heights Sewage Treatment Plant • Trumansburg Sewage Treatment Plant • Village of Groton Public Works Department • Cornell Water Treatment Plant • Cornell Water Filtration Plant • Bolton Intake • Dominion Transfer Station • Dryden Sewage Treatment Plant Shopping Area: • Pyramid Mall • Triphammer Mall • Ithaca Commons • Ithaca Farmers Market • Community Corners • Greenstar Co-op Market • Center Ithaca • East Hill Plaza • Cayuga Mall • Trumansburg Farmer's Market Stadium or Sports Facility: • Barton Hall • Schoelkopf Field • Lynah Rink • Ithaca College Events Center • Cass Park Rink and Pool • Butterfield Stadium • The Rink • Bartels Hall Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix H Tompkins County Transportation Infrastructure with Reoccurring Flooding Issues 560.018.001/12.13 Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Appendix H Tompkins County Transportation Infrastructure with Reoccurring Flooding Issues The replacement/rehabilitation/or other mitigative measures to prevent or minimize the impacts to these structures from flood events has been included as Individual Municipality Mitigation Action Strategy TO for Tompkins County (Table 28). Priority sites are denoted by an asterisk (*). Roadway Locations with Flooding Concerns and Reoccurring Problems: • *Ringwood Road(CR 164), from the intersection with Ringwood Court to approximately �/z-mile northeast in Dryden. This location is subject to frequent washouts from flooding where two Cascadilla Creek tributaries converge as a roadside ditch on a steep hill with narrow shoulders. • Stevens Road (CR 104),just south of the bridge over Fall Creek in Groton. During flood events, Fall Creek floods outside of its main channel and some of the sub-channels that form are cut-off from re-entering the main channel due to a turn at the bridge location. Elevated water levels from flood events have damaged the road and adjacent properties from the bridge to Cemetery Lane. • Fall Creek Road (CR 105),just south of the bridge over Fall Creek that is located between Peruville and North Roads in Dryden. Fall Creek floods outside of its channel upstream of the bridge and waters flow over the roadway south of the bridge as a result. • Sheldon Road(CR 180), at Mill Creek just south of Bone Plain Road in Dryden. This is a double-barrel culvert that is frequently plugged by local beaver populations. The County is hoping to replace the existing structure with a single box culvert. • Station Road(CR 188),just east of Brown Road in West Danby. The outfall from a double-barrel culvert that has filled with sediment needs to be re-graded to encourage flow to Cayuga Inlet, approximately 1400 feet away. The double-barrel culvert may also need to be replaced. County Bridges that are Scour-Critical and would Benefit from Flood Mitigation/Scour Protection: • Boiceville Road over Sixmile Creek (also prone to over-topping in major storm events) • *German Cross Road over Sixmile Creek (also prone to over-topping in major storm events) • *Hines Road over Enfield Creek(has a downstream check dam to prevent bed degradation— check dam needs work) • *Freese Road over Fall Creek • West Malloryville Road over Fall Creek • Davis Road over Fall Creek • Stevens Road over Fall Creek (roadway included above) • Connecticut Hill Road over Pony Hollow Creek • South George Road over Virgil Creek • Johnson Street over Virgil Creek • Dodge Road over Cascadilla Creek • Genung Road over Cascadilla Creek • Salmon Creek Road over Salmon Creek(prone to debris build-up during flood events) • Lockerby Hill Road over Salmon Creek • South Street Extension over Bolter Creek Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix I Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Process Checklist 560.018.001/12.13 Barton&Loguidice, P.C. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdiction All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Monitoring, Evaluation and Update Checklist Steps to be completed, at a minimum, at the end of Years 1, 2, 3, and 4: Meeting F-1 Identify members of the Hazard Mitigation Plan Implementation Committee (may need to be revised year-to-year) F-1 Set a meeting date and notify Implementation Committee members • Members should come prepared to specifically discuss status and details of pre- disaster mitigation projects or actions executed by their respective agency/organization F-1 Publish meeting date in newspaper and online to invite public participants F-1 Hold meeting— discuss hazard events that have occurred since last meeting or Plan Update, including: • Type of hazard event • Damages incurred • Cost of repairs • Hazard response • Hazard duration and recovery time F-1 Discuss how the HMP actions, strategies, and other information has been incorporated into local planning mechanisms and agency efforts over the past year(if applicable) F-1 Evaluate the HMP Update by assessing: • Whether the goals and objectives address current and expected conditions • Whether the nature, magnitude, and/or type of risks have changed • Whether the current resources are appropriate for implementing the plan • Whether there are implementation problems or coordination issues with other agencies • Whether the outcomes, thus far, have occurred as expected F-1 Update the HMP by addendum if any significant changes are needed Documentation F-1 Tompkins County Planning Department to prepare annual summary of collected information, hazard occurrences and damages, completed mitigation actions and costs, and other applicable information F-1 Post this annual summary on County website for public review and keep in files for next formal HMP Update process Steps to be completed end of Year Nearly in Year 4: Grant Funding F-1 Submit application to FEMA for grant funding to complete next HMP Update Steps to be completed in early/mid-way Year 4: Plan Document F-1 Determine who will be the primary author of Plan Update (Consultant or In-house) Meeting F-1 Inform Implementation Committee members of first meeting to begin formal Plan Update process HIRA NYRiskAssessment(if needed) F-1 Send email to participants with date and time of HIRA-NY event F-1 Complete HIRA-NY program with NYSOEM facilitation Steps to be completed in Year 5: Plan Document F—] Update pertinent sections of the Plan, including Appendices F-1 Add-in hazard related details that were collected during annual Implementation Committee meetings Meetings F-I Hold Implementation Committee meeting(s)to discuss and revise Plan Update F-IHold meetings and discussions with participating jurisdictions to update information relevant to each jurisdiction and revise each jurisdiction's previous risk assessment • Discuss how the HMP actions, strategies, and other information has been incorporated into local planning mechanisms since the last Plan Update F-I Hold public information meeting(s)to solicit comments on Plan Update Plan Approval Process F-I Submit final draft to NYSOEM for review Complete NYSOEM revisions and respond to comments, if necessary, and submit Plan Update to NYSOEM/FEMA for pre-approval F-I Complete FEMA comments, if necessary, and re-submit County and participating jurisdictions pass resolutions accepting the Plan Update— include these in Appendix F