HomeMy WebLinkAboutTown Of Mamaroneck, New York Final Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 8/1/2014
TOWN OF MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
FINAL
MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
August 2014
Submitted to
Town of Mamaroneck
740 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, New York 10543
Prepared By
Environmental Technology Group Inc.
300 Wheeler Rd., Suite 202
Hauppauge, NY 11788
ETG, Inc. Contents
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
i
Town of Mamaroneck, NY
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Table of Contents
Page
Number
Summary Statement ...............................................................................................0-1
1 – Planning Process
1.A Background Information ........................................................................................1-1
1.A.1 Mamaroneck Background Information ...........................................................1-1
1.A.2 Demographics .................................................................................................1-2
1.A.3 Characteristics of the Town of Mamaroneck ..................................................1-5
1.A.4 Town Government ..........................................................................................1-5
1.A.5 Town Services .................................................................................................1-6
1.B Plan Requirements and Supervision ........................................................................1-9
1.B.1 FEMA Requirements....................................................................................1-9
1.B.2 Planning Steps ..............................................................................................1-10
1.C Supervision and Direction of the Plan .....................................................................1-13
1.D Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee .................................................................1-14
1.E Public Involvement .................................................................................................1-16
1.F Planning Activities....................................................................................................1-16
1.G Formal Community Process and Approval ............................................................1-19
2 – Public Involvement and Outreach
2.A Public Meetings........................................................................................................2-1
2.B Public Information Activities ..................................................................................2-3
2.C Public Input ............................................................................................................2-4
3 – Coordination with Other Agencies and Organizations
3.A Community Stakeholders and Participating Partners ...............................................3-1
3.B Representative Agency Contacts ..............................................................................3-6
3.C Review of Community Needs, Goals and Plans ....................................................3-6
3.D Draft Action Plan Review ......................................................................................3-7
4 – Assess the Hazards
4.A Introduction and Background...................................................................................4-1
4.B Hazard Identification ................................................................................................4-3
4.C Hazard Ranking by The HAZNY System ...............................................................4-12
4.C.1 HAZNY Process .........................................................................................4-12
4.C.2 Hazard Ratings ...........................................................................................4-15
4.C.3 Hazard Rating Criteria ...............................................................................4-16
4.D Hazard Profiles .........................................................................................................4-16
4.D.1 Floods ..........................................................................................................4-17
ETG, Inc. Contents
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
ii
4.D.2 Hurricanes ....................................................................................................4-25
4.D.3 Other Severe Storm Hazards .......................................................................4-32
4.D.4 Winter Storm Hazards ..................................................................................4-46
4.D.5 Other Natural Hazards ................................................................................4-50
4.D.6 Technological Hazards ...............................................................................4-72
4.D.7 Human-Caused Hazards .............................................................................4-84
4.E Elimination of Hazards ...........................................................................................4-85
5 – Assessing the Impacts
5.A Introduction ...........................................................................................................5-1
5.B Inventory of Assets ................................................................................................5-3
5.B.1 Inventory of Buildings According to Property Use ....................................5-4
5.B.2 Critical Facilities .........................................................................................5-5
5.B.3 Key Assets ..................................................................................................5-8
5.B.4 Infrastructure ...............................................................................................5-9
5.B.5 Vulnerability of Critical Facilities and Key Infrastructures .......................5-10
5.C Assessment of Primary Hazards .............................................................................5-19
5.C.1 Flood Related Hazards ................................................................................5-19
5.C.2 Hurricane Hazards ......................................................................................5-23
5.C.3 Severe Storm and Wind Related Hazards ...................................................5-25
5.C.4 Winter Storms, Snow and Ice .....................................................................5-26
5.C.5 Utility Failure Problems ..............................................................................5-27
5.C.6. Dam Failure ................................................................................................5-29
5.C.7 Fire ............................................................................................................5-29
5.C.8 Extreme Temperatures ................................................................................5-30
5.C.9 Hazardous Material Releases ......................................................................5-32
5.C.10 Explosion ....................................................................................................5-33
5.C.11 Oil Spills .....................................................................................................5-34
5.C.12 Air Contamination ......................................................................................5-35
5.C.13 Earthquakes .................................................................................................5-36
5.C.14 Terrorism.....................................................................................................5-38
5.C.15 Epidemic .....................................................................................................5-38
5.C.16 Other Hazards .............................................................................................5-38
5.D Impact and Damage Analysis of Major Hazards on Town Facilities ....................5-39
5.D.1 Vulnerability and Value of Buildings Subject to Hazards ..........................5-39
5.D.2 HAZUS Flood Model and Damage Analysis .............................................5-47
5.D.3 Valuation Assessment of Wind Storms ......................................................5-51
5.D.4 Valuation Assessment of Earthquakes ........................................................5-61
5.E Valuation Assessment of Other Hazards ................................................................5-75
5.F Natural and Beneficial Functions ...........................................................................5-75
5.G Land Use Development, Redevelopment and Population Trends .........................5-76
5.H Potential Sites for Temporary Housing Units and for Relocating/Rebuilding Housing
Units ........................................................................................................................5-76
5.I Summary of the Impacts on the Community .........................................................5-77
ETG, Inc. Contents
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
iii
6 – Setting Goals and Objectives
6.A Setting Mitigation Goals ........................................................................................6-1
6.A.1 Goals for Reduction of Vulnerabilities ......................................................6-2
6.A.2 Strategy for Objectives ...............................................................................6-4
6.B Mitigation Objectives by Goal ...............................................................................6-9
6.B.1 Decrease Hazards from Flooding................................................................6-9
6.B.2 Protect the Community from Catastrophic Disasters to Avoid
Loss of Life and Injury ...............................................................................6-10
6.B.3 Protect Public and Private Property and Infrastructure
from Catastrophic Disasters ........................................................................6-11
6.B.4 Protect Environmental and Natural Resources. ..........................................6-12
6.B.5 Involve the Community, Partners, and Stakeholders in Identifying and
Implementing Mitigation Measures. ...........................................................6-12
7 – Review Mitigation Activities
7.A Planning Process and Strategy ................................................................................7-1
7.A.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................7-3
7.A.2 Mitigation Action Categories ......................................................................7-3
7.A.3 Estimating Activity Item Costs ...................................................................7-5
7.A.4 Setting Priorities..........................................................................................7-6
7.A.5 Capability and Resources ............................................................................7-7
7.B Proposed Mitigation Activities.................................................................................7-8
7.B.1 Goal 1 - Decrease the Hazards from Flooding............................................7-8
7.B.2 Goal 2 - Protect the Community from Catastrophic Disasters
to Avoid Loss of Life and Injury. ...............................................................7-13
7.B.3 Goal 3 - Protect Public and Private Property and Infrastructure from
Catastrophic Disasters. ................................................................................7-18
7.B.4 Goal 4 - Protect Natural Resources and the Environment ..........................7-23
7.B.5 Goal 5 - Involve the Community, Partners, and Stakeholders in Mitigation
Measures .....................................................................................................7-25
8 – Draft Action Plan
8.A Introduction ............................................................................................................8-1
8.B Administration Responsibility for Action Items .....................................................8-3
8.C Action Plan Priority Groups ...................................................................................8-4
8.D Capability and Resources ........................................................................................8-5
8.E Funding Strategy and Sources ...............................................................................8-6
8.F Mitigation Action Implementation ........................................................................8-7
8.F.1 Implementation of Priority 1 Mitigation Actions ..........................................8-12
8.F.2 Implementation of Priority 2 Mitigation Actions ..........................................8-21
8.F.3 Implementation of Priority 3 Mitigation Actions ..........................................8-28
8.G Next Steps ............................................................................................................8-32
ETG, Inc. Contents
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
iv
9 – Implement, Maintain, Evaluate, and Revise Plan
9.A Plan Implementation Process ..................................................................................9-1
9.A.1 Plan Administration ......................................................................................9-1
9.A.2 Public Participation .......................................................................................9-3
9.A.3 Incorporation with Other Plans and Activities ..............................................9-4
9.B Monitoring and Evaluating the Plan ......................................................................9-6
9.C Plan Maintenance Process ......................................................................................9-7
9.D Evaluate Plan Effectiveness ...................................................................................9-7
9.E Revising the Plan ...................................................................................................9-8
10 – Adopt of the Plan
10.A Formal Town Government Process ........................................................................10-1
10.B Official Public Participation: ..................................................................................10-1
10.C Adoption of the Final Plan ......................................................................................10-2
11 – References Cited ...................................................................................... 11-1
12- Acronyms and Glossary .......................................................................... 12-1
List of Figures
0-1 Regional Location Map for Town of Mamaroneck, NY ...................................0-3
0-2 Map of Southern Westchester County, NY .......................................................0-4
1-1 Town of Mamaroneck Boundary ........................................................................1-3
1-2 Town of Mamaroneck and Surrounding Area .....................................................1-4
1-3 Town of Mamaroneck Organization Chart .........................................................1-8
1-4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and Consultants .................................1-15
4-1 Topographic Map Town of Mamaroneck ...........................................................4-5
4-1.A Streams and Water Bodies ...................................................................................4-6
4-2 100 and 500-Year Floodplain Town of Mamaroneck ..........................................4-20
4-3 Severe Street Flooding from Nor’easter, April 15, 2007 ....................................4-23
4-4 Town of Mamaroneck Hurricane Inundation Zones ............................................4-29
4-5 Major Regional Hurricane Tracks ......................................................................4-30
4-6 States most Prone to Thunderstorms……………………………………………4-40
4-7 Wind Zones of the United States .........................................................................4-45
4-8 Seismic Hazard Zones in New York State ..........................................................4-59
4-9 Hazardous Materials Locations Town of Mamaroneck ......................................4-78
5-1 Location of Critical Facilities .............................................................................5-7
5-2 Frequently Flooded Streets ...............................................................................5-18
5-3 Photos of Local Flooding in the Town of Mamaroneck .....................................5-21
5-4 HAZUS Historical Model Projected Track .........................................................5-53
ETG, Inc. Contents
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
v
5-5 Annualized Earthquake Loss ...............................................................................5-63
5-6 Per Capita Annualized Earthquake Loss ..............................................................5-64
5-7 Per Square Mile Annualized Earthquake Loss ....................................................5-65
Folded Pocket Maps
Map-1 Aerial Photo Incorporated Town of Mamaroneck
Map-2 100 and 500-Year Flood Hazard Areas Town of Mamaroneck
Map-3 Town of Mamaroneck Land Use Designations
Map-4 Hurricane Inundation Zones Town of Mamaroneck
List of Tables
1-1 Town of Mamaroneck Open Space Acreage
1-2 Town of Mamaroneck Demographics
1-3 Key Activities, Meetings and Milestones
3-1 Stakeholders & Participating Interests
4-1 Major Historical Disaster Declarations for New York State
4-2 Initial Screening of Potential Hazards
4-3 Sources Used to Determine the Probability of Future Events for Natural Hazards
4-4 Summary of Significant Safety Risks and Damage Potential
4-5 Summary of Hazard Scores Based on HAZNY Analysis
4-6 Historical Hurricanes Storm Tracks from 1861-2012 within 50 Miles of Mamaroneck
NY
4-7 Major Northeast Hurricanes and Damage Costs
4-8 Historic U.S. Dam Failures
4-9 Typical Earthquake Impacts
4-10 Largest Earthquakes near New York City
5-1 Summary of Hazards Scores based on HAZNY Analysis
5-2 Residential, Commercial, Industrial and other Buildings in the Town of Mamaroneck
5-3 Critical Facilities in the Town of Mamaroneck
5-4 Key Assets in the Town of Mamaroneck
5-5 Town of Mamaroneck Key Infrastructures
5-6 Vulnerability of Critical Facilities to Selected Hazards
5-7 Vulnerability of Key Infrastructure to Selected Hazards
5-8 Residential, Commercial, Industrial and other Buildings Potentially Exposed to
Hazards in the Town of Mamaroneck
5-9 Town of Mamaroneck Property Tax Assessments and Property Values
5-10 Building Exposure by Occupancy type
5-11 Number of Buildings in the Town of Mamaroneck Subject to Flood Hazards
ETG, Inc. Contents
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
vi
5-12 Value of Buildings and Properties Town of Mamaroneck Subject to Flood Hazards
5-13 Estimated Persons Displaced from Flood and Seeking Short-term Public Shelter
5-14 Number of Buildings in 100- and 500- Year Flood Zones
5-15 Building-related Economic Loss Estimates from Flood
5-16 Expected Building Damage from Flood by General Occupancy
5-17 Potential Damage to Town of Mamaroneck Buildings From a Category 3 Hurricane.
5-18 Probabilistic Building Damage Risks from Hurricanes that Could Strike the Town of
Mamaroneck.
5-19 HAZUS Hurricane Probabilistic Model - Property Damage Capital Losses (X$1,000)
5-20 HAZUS Hurricane Probabilistic Model - Business Interruption Losses (X$1,000)
5-21 HAZUS Hurricane Probabilistic Model - Summary of Economic Losses (X$1,000)
5-22 Earthquake Casualty by Time of Day
5-23 Earthquake Shelter Requirements
5-24 Expected Earthquake Building Damage by General Building Type
5-25 Expected Earthquake Building Damage by General Occupancy Type
5-26 Estimated Annualized Earthquake Building Stock Losses
5-27 Transportation System Economic Losses from Earthquake
5-28 Utility System Economic Losses from Earthquake
6-1 Hazard Mitigation Goals and Primary Objectives - Town of Mamaroneck, NY
6-2 Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Objectives with their Corresponding goals
7-1 Proposed Activities to Avoid and Reduce Hazards from Flooding.
7-2 Proposed Activities to Protect Community from Catastrophic Disasters to Avoid Loss
of Life and Injury.
7-3 Proposed Activities to Protect Public/Private Property and Infrastructures from
Catastrophic Disasters.
7-4 Proposed Activities to Protect Natural Resources and the Environment.
7-5 Involve Community, Partners, and Stakeholders in Mitigation Measures.
8-1 Potential Funding Sources for Mitigation Activities
8-2 Priority 1 Action Items Implementation – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation
Plan
8-3 Priority 2 Action Items Implementation – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation
Plan
8-4 Priority 3 Action Items Implementation – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation
Plan
ETG, Inc. Contents
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
vii
APPENDICES
Attachments and Supporting Documents
Appendix 1. HAZNY Analysis
Appendix 2. Documents, Meetings and Notices
Appendix 3. HAZUS-MH: Sample Model Output
3.1 Hurricane Event Report
3.1.1 Hurricane Gloria Historical Model Event Report
3.1.2 Probabilistic Model Event Report
(Quick Assessment Report)
(100 Year Return Period)
(500 Year Return Period)
(1000 Year Return Period)
3.2 Earthquake Event Report
3.2.1 Historical Model Event Report
3.2.2 Probabilistic Model Event Report
(100 Year Return Period)
(500 Year Return Period)
(1000 Year Return Period)
3.3 Flood Event Report
3.3.1 Probabilistic Model Event Report
(100 Year Return Period)
(500 Year Return Period)
Appendix 4. NYS DHSES Hazard Mitigation Planning Standards Backup
Documentation
ETG, Inc. Executive Summary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
0-1
Town of Mamaroneck
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Executive Summary
Summary Statement
This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is for the jurisdiction of the Town of Mamaroneck,
Westchester County, New York (See Figure 0-1). This Plan identifies and assesses natural and
manmade hazards that could adversely impact the community. It proposes feasible mitigation
activities for the Town, which could reduce the impacts of an identified hazard. The Plan
follows the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) guidance for developing
hazard mitigation plans.
Background Information
The Town of Mamaroneck, New York, was officially created on May 17, 1788. The Town
includes all of the Village of Larchmont, the portion of the Village of Mamaroneck situated
west of the Mamaroneck River bordering Rye Neck, and the Unincorporated area. The
incorporated Villages and the Town are all self-governing, yet they define the Town as a
political and governmental subdivision of New York State. See Section 4.A for a
comprehensive description of the background and history of the Town.
This Hazard Mitigation Plan will focus on the Unincorporated area of the Town, which is
bordered by the Village of Larchmont and Long Island Sound to the South; the Village of
Mamaroneck, Town of Rye, and Town of Harrison to the East; Village of Scarsdale to the
North; and the City of New Rochelle to the West (See Figure 0-2).
The Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck (The Town) has a population of 11,977 (2010
Census). The Town has a temperate coastal climate with an average high July temperature
of 84.5 degrees Fahrenheit. The average minimum temperature in January is 22.23 degrees.
The average annual rainfall is 42.27 inches. (www.homefacts.com).
ETG, Inc. Executive Summary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
0-2
The Town is protected by its Police Department, Fire Department, and Ambulance District.
The Police Department protects the citizens in the Unincorporated area of the Town and
consists of one Chief, two Patrol Division Lieutenants, one Administrative Lieutenant, one
Detective Sergeant, six Patrol Division Sergeants, three Detective Division Detectives, one
Youth Division Detective, one Records Police Officer, and 24 Patrol Division Police
Officers.
The Fire District provides fire rescue and emergency medical services within the
Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck. The Unincorporated Town borders are also the
same borders of the Fire District. The Fire Department consists of three Volunteer Chiefs,
seventy Volunteer Firefighters, fourteen full time Firefighters/EMTs, and a very active
Junior Firefighter program.
The Larchmont/Mamaroneck Volunteer Ambulance Corp. provides emergency medical
service and responds to all medical calls within the Village of Larchmont and the
Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck. It also provides additional mutual aid to the Village
of Mamaroneck, City of New Rochelle, and other neighboring communities. The
Larchmont/Mamaroneck Volunteer Ambulance Corp. consists of twenty Volunteer EMTs
and a combined total of thirty Volunteer Drivers, Attendants, and Support Personnel.
The Ambulance District coordinates advanced and basic life support services to the Village
of Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, and Village of Mamaroneck. It provides Paramedics
and coordinates emergency rescue training to all EMTs. The Ambulance District consists of
one full time Administrator/Paramedic, one full time Basic Life Support Coordinator/EMT,
and twenty-five part time Paramedics.
Flooding has been identified as a major problem in the Town. Major storms, floods, and
other hazards that have damaged properties have on several occasions, impacted
Mamaroneck. (See Section 4). Past natural disasters have resulted in large expenditures of
both private and public funds to repair and rebuild damaged properties and facilities.
!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!
!!!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!ROCKLANDCOUNTYBERGENCOUNTYBRONXGREENWICHSTAMFORDDARIENCOUNTSUFFONORTH CASTLEMOUNT PLEASANTHARRISONGREENBURGHCONC O N N E C T I C U T
CITY OFNEWYORKNEW JERSEYNEW YORKNEWRYEMOUNTTuckahoePortManorPelhamHudsonDobbs FerryArdsleyBrookRyeIrvingtononHastingsElmsfordWHITE PLAINSTarrytownMAMARONECKMamaroneckLarchmontBronxvilleROCHELLEVERNONPelhamYONKERSChesterR I V E RPl LONG ISLAND SOUNDRYERYEEASTCHESTERSCARSDALESleepyHollowN O R TH
ROUTE 303RIDGE
R O U N D
LO NGPARKWAY
STREET
U.S. 9WHILL
RI D G ERIVE RSV ILL EMERRITT
YORKROAD
R OAD
RO AD
STATEPARKWAYROUTE 59T HR U W A Y
N O RT H STREETP A L I S A D E S MERRITTTPKETAPPAN ZEE BRIDGESU M M E R
R O U N D
ROU TE 303
ST REE THOYT STROAD
U.S. 9WPOSTRIVERSV IL LE
IN T E R S T A T E
H ILL BOSTONCONNECTICUTR OAD
ROAD ROADGLENVILLEROA D POSTTPKEP A RKW AYBOSTONCONNECTICUTSTREETLIVINGSTONCLOSTERU.S. 9WPARKWAYDOCKROADR O ADKNICKERBOCKEREASTINTERSTATEC LINT O N AVENUEPARKWAYROADU.S. 9WPALISADESPARKWAYDEEGANHUDSONMOSHOL UROADTHRUWAY
BROADWAYPLAINSHENRYPOSTPARKWAYP ARK WA YROADRIVER
MAJORRIVERLANDHAMEXPWYR O A D
NEWMETRO NORTHMETRO NORTHHARLEM LINEAMTRAKMETRO NORTH HUDSON LINELINE(AMTRAK)NEW HAVEN#*#*#*#*#* POCANTICO LAKETARRYTOWN RESERVOIRGRASSY SPRAIN RESERVOIRR E S E R V O IR
H IL L V IE WRYELAKENO. 1NO. 2IR VINGTONRESE RVOIRKIRBYPONDPLAYLANDLAKEVAN AM RINGEMILLPONDSHELDRAKELAKERESERVOIRNO. 1RESE RVOIRNO. 3WHITE PLAINSRESE RVOIRSFOR ESTLAKEHUGUENOTLAKEKENSICO RESERVOIRMAMARONECKRESE RVOIRLAKECRESTWOODLAKENO. 2RESERVOIRWOODLANDSLAKESILVER LAKEKENSICOGRAHAM HILLSROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVEKINGSLANDPOINTHILLV. EVERITPRES.LENOIRRIDGE ROADSILVER LAKEPARKMAPLEMOORPLAYLANDMARSHLANDSCONSERVANCYISLANDGLENSPRAIN LAKEDUNWOODIEGOLF COURSEDAM PLAZAMILLERTIBBETTS BROOK PARKV. EVERIT MACY PK.PARKSPRAIN RIDGE PARKGOLF COURSEPARKSAXON WOODSGOLF COURSESAXONWOODSWILDLIFESANCTUARYPARKCOURSEGOLFPARKPARKWOODSPARKWILLSONSPARKHABIRSHAWPRESERVEROCKEFELLERSTATE PARKPOCANTICOLAKEPARKTARRYTOWNLAKESTA XT ERRIDGECOUNTYWATERFRONTPARKWESTWOODHDQSWASHINGTONPRESERVEHARTSBROOKHILLSIDEWOODSWINDHAMGRAHAMPARKLAKEGLENWOODLIBRARY GREENMACY PK.READEDITH G.SOUTH COUNTY
T R AILW A Y
GLENVILLEWOODSPARK/BUTTERMILKRIDGETRAILWAYAQUEDUCTOLDCROTONCOUNTYSOUTHTRAILWAYMALCOLMWILSONRIVERNATURESTUDYWOODSTWINLAKESPARKRESERVATIONPRESERVELAKECRANBERRYOLDRIVERRESERVATIONBRONXBRONXROCKEFELLERSTATE PARKPRESERVELOWERSAWMILLRIVERTROUBLESOMEBROOKSPRAINBROOKSAW MILL(UPPER)SHELDRAKERIV E R
MAM'KBEAVERSWAMPBROOKBLINDBROOKBLINDBROOKBYRAMRIVERWAMPUS RIVER
CR 29KENSIC O R D
L E R DCOX
AVE
COLUMBUSAVEC O M M E R C E S T
M LAKE RD
CR 64CR 2 9
CR 29
CR 40ICR106CR 27AV IR GI N I A RD
VIRGINIA R D .LEGION DR.WEBER AVE.HAMILTON AVE.W E S T C H E S T E R
W E S T C H E S T ERLAKEUNDERHILLSTREETBENEDICT AVENUEWOODS RD.W E S T LAKE D R.OLD SAW MILLCR 51
CR 52ACR 52CR 14ACR 51CR 15CR 32CR 32BCR 32CR 15IICR 13 5
CR 29CR 29A
CR 64II
CR 300CR 301CR 302SO. RIDGE STREETHEATHCOTE BYPASSAVE.RIVERSTNY POST ROADPOLLY PARK ROADANDERSONNORTHS TRE E T
JACKSON AVE.CR 78ACR 143CR 54CCR 54CR 73CR 73CR 73CR 37CR 308CR 54BCR 72C R 73CR 54CR 38CR 54CR 80ACR 94CR 8
CR 8CR 44CR 62CR 108CR 99CR 26CR 153CR 30C R 3 0
CR 62CR 62CR 104AVE.AVE.CR 62CR 62AVE.CR 32AROADDANA RD.SO. COLUMBUSKIMBALL PLMAIN ST.WARBURTON AVE.EAST LINCOLN AVE.PELHAM SHORE ROADPALMERAVE.PALMERRDPARKAVEMT. VERNONBRONXRIVERPKWYBROAD ST.MIDLAND AVE.BRONXWILMOT R O A D
MIDLANDAVEQUAKER RIDGE ROADMILL RD.ROADTUCKAHOE3 RAMPSCR311CR 312CR 75ICR 47IIAC R 91
CR 1 11CR 61CR 84CR 65CR 67ICR 101
C R 8 1
CR 33IIICR 33IICR 47IICR 47IICR 69C R 113
CR 2CR 69CR 36ACR 139CR 36CR 59CR 59CR 9CR 129
AVE.CR 66ACR 132PARK AVE.UNION AVE.THEOFREMDAVEHAMMOND RD.OLD POST RD.HIGHLAND AVE.WAPPANOCA AVE.HALSTEADAVE.AVE.MIDLAND AVE.SANFORD BLVD.AVE.CR 27BEDFORD RDCR1308CR 301CR 30 3
RIVER RD.CR 146AQUEDUCT RD.CR 124ASHFORD AVE.CR 134C R 1 51 FORT HILLRD.CR 14
2CR 78ARDSLEY ROADBROO K ST.CR 33IMAIN ST.CR 69IITH O MA S E. S H AR PE
B LV D .CR 65ANORTH CR 67IICR 65N O R TH ST.CR 43WILLETT AVE.NORTH RIDGECR 54BCR 18CR 18HILLOLD MAMARONECK RD.CR 53M A M A R O N E C K A V E .
C R 8 CBRYANT AVE.CR 104C R 14 8
C R 1 47 PLAYLAND PKWY.CR 18ACOUNTY A IR P O R T A C C E S S R D .C R 8 7 CR 71MurrayAve.CR 74
CENTRALCR 1 3 3 CR 112BOWMAN104IICRCR 144FARRAGUTPKWYCR 47IVIADUCTCR 82McLEANAVE BRIDGECR 127CR 47IVCR 68CR 1 50
CR 87 CR 149CR90CR8ACR 8B
CR 44ACR 65ECHO AVE.PELHAMPKWY.CR 70CR 47ISH 79-12SH 7 9-12SH C72-8SH 82-16SH 81-13SH 9487SH 6520SH 5376SH 1645SH 19SH 1457SH 780SH 780SH 1456SH 5 03 SH 63-7SH 9479SH9369S H 5 2 2 6
SH 5226SH 9247SH9245SH 9489SH 5355SH 5231SH5362SH 68-6SH 9488SH 1167SH 9206SH 9485SH 1053SH 5231SH 9246SH 503SH 18SH 9246SH 9488SH 34SH 34SH 9206SH 52SH 1570
SH 1570
SH 520SH 68-10SH 9206SH 5361 SH 53SH 9486SH 35SH 9248
S H 52 56
SH 20SH 35SH 20SH 901SH 901 S H 92 56
NO. GREENWICH RD.W E S T C H ESTERBROADWAYBROADWAYRD.SAWTOW NCRO
S
S HILLSIDEAVEMILLPLAINSNYS THRUWAYRDROADGRASSLANDSBROOKWHITEPKWYB R ADHUR S T
AVE
BEDFORDROADPKW
Y
ROADRIVERS TAT E HARRISONAVE.NEWENGLANDTHRUWAYWESTCHESTERP UR C H A S E STMAIN ST.PUTNAM A VE.PKWYPALMERAVEPARKBROOKKING ST
STR EET
PUR CHAS E
ROADPOSTAVENUESAWMILLPKWYSPRAINNORTH STREETRIVER
SAWMILLRIVERA V E N UE
RIVERDALE AVE ART.CROSSCOUNTYPARKWAYRIVERHUTCHINSONNEWENGLANDTHRUWAYCENTRALYORKPARKWAYPOSTPARKWAYPLAINSWEAVER S T.WHITESTATESPRAINMEMORIALHIGHWAYSH 5003ARMONKSH 50S H 1015
SMANVILLE RDSH 1308SH 52
TAC O N IC SH 520SH 66 15BROADWAYSH 8457SH 9257SH 9249SH 9206SH 503SH 503SH 1646KNOLLWOODSH 5571RD.SH 5231SH 9244W. HARTS DAL E AVE.
SH 523 1
DOBBS FERRYSH 8456SH 17THRUWAYSH9484SH 68-6SH 5606YONK E R S
SH C73-11NEWSH 5375BOSTONPOSTRD.SH 5374SH 5374BOSTONS T .SH5371ROADE X P Y SH 5719SH 5662HUTCHINSONSH 9489SH 19SH 19SH 9478S H 90 1
SH 5226NEPPERHAN AVE.SH 5357TAPPAN ZEE BRIDGEW EAVERSH 1309SH 9206
SH 948
0
SH 5571TARRYSH 9485PKWYRIVERSH 5726SH 5372SH 537210120.5Milesμ#*County Sewage Treatment Plants!!!!!County Channel Lines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Westchester RiverWalk RouteGovernment FacilitiesCounty Parks & Parkway LandsState Parks & Parkway Lands* Certain local planning and zoning actions on or near these local roads are subject to referral to the Westchester County PlanningBoard as if still County roads.S.U.N.Y.College atPurchaseWestchesterCommunityCollegeWestchesterCountyAirportValhallaCampus atGrasslandsInterstate, State Roads and ParkwaysState Touring Routes with Local Maintenance JurisdictionCounty Roads and ParkwaysFormer County Roads with Referral Jurisdiction*Prepared by Westchester County Department of Planning July, 2010Legend
ETG, Inc. Executive Summary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
0-5
The Town of Mamaroneck’s major floodplains are located along the Sheldrake River and its
tributaries, stretching from the Northern most section of the East Branch, which flows south
from Scarsdale; and the West Branch, which flows from New Rochelle down to the
Sheldrake Lake/Larchmont Reservoir, which flows into the Larchmont Gardens Lake and
then into the Village of Mamaroneck. The two branches combine into one river at West
Brookside Drive. Other floodplains are located along the Premium River in the Southwest
section of the Town, the East Creek in the Southeast, and the Mamaroneck Reservoir in the
Northeast.
This Plan contains information obtained from a variety of Federal, State and local sources.
Flood information shown on the maps in this Plan are approximate and are based on existing data
sources such as current FIRM and FIS documents. The plan also takes into account FEMA’s
Advisory Base Flood Elevations, based on damage from Superstorm Sandy.
Requirements
This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan follows FEMA regulations and guidelines for mitigation
planning. (See 44 CFR Part 201, FEMA Example Plans 2003, 2012 guidance, and FEMA’s most
current Local Mitigation Planning Handbook guidance, dated March 2013. The requirements for
the Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program are described in the
Federal Register (Vol. 67 No. 38/February 26, 2002). The approach involves collecting and
profiling hazard information, assessing hazard impacts, setting goals and objectives, developing
and reviewing mitigation alternatives, evaluating risks and benefits, establishing priorities and
preparing a course of action. This plan also satisfies requirements for several federal programs.
Target grant and insurance rate reduction programs include, but are not limited to:
FMA, (Flood Mitigation Assistance Program)
PDM (Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program)
HMGP (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)
DMA 2000 (Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000)
ETG, Inc. Executive Summary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
0-6
The DMA amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by
adding a section, which places emphasis on Mitigation Planning. It requires local governments
to have an approved “All-Hazard Mitigation Plan” in place to be eligible to receive Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program funding. The plan must also include criteria established in 44 CFR
Part 201.6 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Grant Program. This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
for the Town of Mamaroneck incorporates all probable hazards. Under the Community Rating
System (CRS) Program, each homeowner’s flood insurance cost could be reduced from 5% to
50%.
Plan Process
This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is the result of a process that involved the work of the
Consultant, the Environmental Technology Group (ETG), Inc., and the Town of Mamaroneck’s
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee, the Town Board, Town Administrator, several operating
departments in the Town including the EMS/Ambulance District, Fire Department/Rescue,
Police Department, Highway Department, Code Enforcement & planning, Community Services,
participating citizens, Westchester County Department of Emergency Services and the New
York State Office of Emergency Management (NYSOEM). Local, State and Federal
stakeholders include local citizens and key stakeholders from neighboring communities. The
purpose of this Plan is to address both the past and probable future hazards and to develop action
items to mitigate identified hazards. These actions are intended to protect citizens, businesses,
properties and infrastructures in the Town. This Plan is divided into 10 Sections. Each of the
sections is a step in the FEMA process that addresses a phase in the planning process. The
process is based on FEMA’s guidance and example plans established in 2003, 2012, and March
2013.
The first 8 steps of this planning process are:
Step 1- Organize Resources
Step 2- Involve the Public
Step 3- Coordinate with other Agencies and Organizations
Step 4- Assess the Hazards
Step 5- Assess the Problems
ETG, Inc. Executive Summary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
0-7
Step 6- Set Goals and Objectives
Step 7- Review Possible Activities
Step 8- Prepare a Draft Action Plan
These steps represent the development process of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The last
two steps are action items which the Town can take once the Plan is approved by FEMA and
adopted by the Town Board. They include:
Step 9- Implement, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Step 10- Adopt the Plan.
Public Participation
The public is invited to participate in development of the plan through the local newspaper,
postings in public places and the Town Web Page. Town residents have the opportunity to
participate, provide input in public meetings and express concerns about the flood and other
hazards they face on a regular basis. The residents provide input for actions that would aid in
mitigating the problems. The public will be involved in the Plan’s revision and updating
process. Public input on key issues will be encouraged and notices and progress will be
published in local papers. The Town posts updates on their Website,
http://www.townofmamaroneck.org/index.html
Assessment of Hazards and Vulnerability
The plan process involves identifying all possible hazards that could harm people in the
community or damage buildings and structures. A profile of each hazard was prepared and each
hazard is ranked according to their importance. This hazard assessment was based on evaluating
the frequency of occurrence, extent and severity of impact to property and people, cascading
effects on other hazards, duration of the hazard, warning time prior to onset, and recovery time
from the hazard. Historical records and documents for each hazard impacting the Town were
summarized and evaluated. Based on the assessment of each hazard profile, only the most
significant hazards were analyzed further for a detailed impact analysis, proposed mitigation
measures and a cost benefit evaluation.
ETG, Inc. Executive Summary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
0-8
Goals and Objectives
Five major Goals were developed with the aid of the Hazard Mitigation Committee. These
include:
1. Decrease hazards from flooding.
2. Protect the community from catastrophic disasters to avoid loss of life and injury.
3. Protect public and private property and infrastructure from catastrophic disasters.
4. Protect natural resources and the environment.
5. Involve the community, partners, and stakeholders in mitigation measures.
In addition, 22 objectives were formulated as a means to obtain these goals. (See Section 6.)
Setting of goals and objectives are an important part of the strategy for planning mitigative
actions.
Mitigation Strategies
As part of the strategy, specific activities or actions are identified to reduce the risk of identified
hazards. Priorities are established for mitigation activities based on these analyses and the goals
and objectives set for the community. Mitigative actions are assembled that were effective,
feasible and met the objectives specified in Section 6. Approximate costs are compared to the
benefits identified.
Prepare Action Plan
Thirty mitigation activities are proposed to address principal hazards evaluated in the Plan. The
purpose of this action plan is to identify which tasks will be implemented first and to outline the
strategy for implementation of each of the items. Most of the proposed activities are dependent
on funding from County, State or Federal grants. The Action Plan is a working document which
is expected to change as conditions and needs vary. Tables in Section 8 provide action items and
priorities, approximate costs, administrative responsibility, schedule and/or duration of the
activity and possible funding sources. The cost and benefits for each proposed activity were then
evaluated and priorities established in the hazard mitigation action Plan.
ETG, Inc. Executive Summary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
0-9
Implementation
This Plan will be approved by the Town of Mamaroneck Board and by FEMA. It will then be
implemented, updated and modified by the Town according to Step 9 in Section 9. Five-year
updates will include the success of implementing the Plan’s activities, availability of funds,
availability of new hazard information and changes in priorities.
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-1
Town of Mamaroneck
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 1 - Planning Process
1.A Background Information
This single jurisdiction Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan has been developed for the unincorporated
section of Town of Mamaroneck, which is located in Westchester County, New York. (See
previous Figure 0-2, 1.1 and 1-2 below.) This Plan identifies and assesses natural and manmade
hazards that could adversely impact the community. The Plan then proposes and evaluates
feasible mitigation activities for Mamaroneck, which meet identified goals and objectives and
mitigate the identified hazards based on priorities, costs and benefits. The Town of
Mamaroneck will coordinate with any future multi-jurisdictional plan prepared by Westchester
County.
1.A.1 Mamaroneck Background Information
The Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck is a community located in Southeastern Westchester
County with a population of about 11,977 people recorded in the 2010 U.S. Census. It is
bordered by the Village of Larchmont and the Long Island Sound to the South; the Village of
Mamaroneck, Town of Rye, and Town of Harrison to the East; Village of Scarsdale to the North;
and the City of New Rochelle to the West. (See Figures 0-2 and 1-1). The Town has a land area
of 2,265 acres. About 792 acres, or 35% of the Town consists of open space. (Westchester
County Department of Planning, 2010.)
Table 1-1. Town of Mamaroneck Open Space Acreage
Total County Local
Open Space Municipal Percent Park Parks
Acres Acreage Municipality Acres Acres
792 2,265 35% 210 95
Source: - Westchester County Department of Planning, 2010. Databook.
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-2
The Town has a temperate coastal climate with an average high July temperature of 84.5
degrees Fahrenheit. The average minimum temperature in January is 22.23 degrees. The
average annual rainfall is 42.27 inches. (www.homefacts.com).
See Section 4.A for a comprehensive description of the background and history of the
Town.
1.A.2 Demographics
The population was 11,977 in the 2010 census with a population density of 3,422/mi2. (Table 1-
2), US Census Bureau, 2010.) The Town’s population increased by 8% from 11,141 in 2000 to
11.977 in the 2010 census. There were 4,510 occupied housing units in the Town and the
median income was $136,006. The racial makeup of the Town in 2010 was 84.9% White, 6.7%
hispanic, 4.6% Asian, 1.8% Black or African American, and 3% from other races.
The Town is largely a residential and a commuter community. A number of commercial small
businesses are present in the Town. The Town of Mamaroneck is socioeconomically diverse
with most residents being middle to upper middle class professionals.
Table 1-2 Town of Mamaroneck Demographics.
Total
Population
Population
Density
White Hispanic Asian African
American
Median
Household
Income
11,977 10,170 805 548 210 $136,006
(US Census, 2010)
WEAVER STNEW ENGLAND THWYMAIN STFENIMORE RDGRIFFIN AVEPALMER AVEROCKLAND AVE5TH AVEBEACH AVETHE PKYL
A
R
C
H
MON
T
A
V
E
OLD W
HITE PLAINS RD
FO REST AVE1 7
2 3 N
MURRAY AVEMYRTLE BLVDRUSHMORE AVE23S
O A K A V E
C
L
A
F
LIN A
V
ECENTER AVEWALTON AVEW BOSTON POST RDWE
S
T
S
T
PRYER LNS BARRY AVEAVON RDC
I
R
C
L
E
A
V
EHARMON DRPROSPECT AVEHALSTEAD AVEN CHATSWORTH AVEV IN E R D 18AJEFFERSON AVEW FLAGLER DRN
B
A
R
R
Y
A
V
E
B A R N A R D R D
M
O
N
R
O
E A
V
E GRAND ST18BMARBOURNE DRSHORE ACRES DRM O UNTAIN AVEGROVE AVESTANLEY AVEHOMMOCKS RD GROVE STO
R
IE
N
T
A A
V
E
PREMIUM PT
UNION AVE
VALLEY RDISELIN TERYORK RD
PLAIN AVECHATSWORTH AVE
EAST DRBYRON LNBOSTON POST RDBALDWIN PLWENDT AVE HOYT AVESHORE DRMAMARONECK AVEDANTE STMAYHEW AVE
H
A
R
RIS
O
N D
R LOCUST AVE1ST STMAPL
E AVEHALL AVE
PARK AVEHOLLY PLWI
NFI
ELD AVECORNELL STMT
P
L
E
A
S
A
NT
A
V
E3RD STO
C
E
A
N
A
V
EWOODHOLLOW LNEDG EW O O D AVEMADISON STECHO LN WINGED FOOT DRALDA RDPOTTER AVEW A R D A V EKOLBERT DRN E W S T
COLONIAL AVEB R A D F O R D R D
HOWELL AVE22HIGHVIEW STSHADOW LNRIDGE RDOLD BOSTON POST RDGLENDALE RDBRIARCLIFF RDE BOSTON POST RDCARLEON AVET R A V E R S A V E
S
A
L
E
M
D
R
FERNWOOD RDBONNIE BRIAR LNETON RDCOVE RD SD
O
G
WO
O
D
L
N OAKHURST RDCORTLAND AVEK
IL
M
E
R
R
D SAXON DRH A Z E L L N BRUCE RDTHE CRESRAILROAD WAYGLEN LNCARRIAGE HOUSE LNBEECHTREE DRBIRCH HILL LN
BRO O K STLAWN TERSKIBO LNN BROOK RDTO M PKIN S AVEVALLEY PLB
A
Y
H
E
A
D D
R
NINE ACRES LNPROTANO LNFULTON RD
HILLTOP RD
SEAHAVEN DR
GERTRUDE AVE
COVE RD WNAUTILUS LN
BEECH RD
R
O
C
K
L
A
N
D
P
L JEFFERSON STSOUTH DRDORIS RD
HARMON DR18B
2 3 S
PALMER AVEPROSPECT AVE0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000Feet
DWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 01/28/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Figure 1-1Town of Mamaroneck Boundary
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
Legend
Mu nicipa l Bo undaries
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
NEW ROCHELLE
LARCHMONT
MAMARO NECK VILLAGE
HARRISO N
SCARSDALE
Long Island Sound0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000Feet
DWN B Y: AJZCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHOWNDATE: 08/27/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti Hazard Mitigation Plan
Figure 1-2Town of Mamaroneck and Surrounding Area
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
300 WHEELER ROAD, SUITE 202, HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK 11788
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-5
1.A.3 Characteristics of the Town of Mamaroneck
The Town of Mamaroneck is a largely built-out residential suburban community. The Town is
primarily residential. There are some large tracts of recreational land, and small areas of
commercial development. Most commercial activity, consisting mainly of local commerce, is
located in the small commercial business districts, along the Boston Post Road, Fifth Avenue,
and Myrtle Boulevard. There is virtually no manufacturing in the Town.
Interstate-95, also known as the New England Thruway, is a major traffic artery that is heavily
travelled by passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. US-1, also known as the Boston Post Road, is
another major traffic artery that is subject to both heavy passenger and commercial vehicular
traffic. Other highly traveled roads include Weaver Street, which provides access to Scarsdale
and New Rochelle; and Palmer Avenue, which provides access to New Rochelle, Larchmont,
and the Village of Mamaroneck. The Metro-North Railroad’s New Haven Line runs from New
York City. The Larchmont Train Station services residents in the Town of Mamaroneck. These
tracks are also used by Amtrak, a national commuter line, and limited use by CSX, a freight line.
The Sheldrake River and East Branch Sheldrake River are the major streams in the Town.
The Sheldrake River has a drainage area of 6.3 miles. The East Branch Sheldrake River has
a drainage area of 1.9 square miles. Both rivers flow through the Town in a generally
southeastern direction. Principal flooding areas exist along the Sheldrake River between its
confluence with the East Branch and Rockland Avenue. Other river basins include East
Creek, Pine Brook and the Premium River.
The Town’s primary water supply comes from the New York City Reservoir and Aqueduct
System. Westchester Joint Water Works provides the water for the Town.
1.A.4 Town Government
The Town of Mamaroneck is governed by a Town Board, which consists of the Town
Supervisor, who serves as Chief Executive Officer, and four council members. (See Figure
1-3.) The Town Board is responsible for legislation, appropriation of monies, and decision
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-6
making on general local governmental policies. The Board authorizes the annual budget
and the collection of taxes. The current Town Supervisor is Nancy Seligson. Current
Council members are Phyllis Wittner, Ernest Odierna, Abby Katz, and Jaine Elkind Eney.
The Town Board is supported by the Town Administrator, who serves as the Chief
Operating Officer. The Town Administrator provides the Supervisor and the Town Board
with background information and recommendations for policy decisions. The Administrator
implements all policies created and approved by the Board, and oversees the daily operation
of the Town, its various departments and personnel. In addition, the Administrator is
responsible for proposing the annual budget to the Board, and implementing it, once
authorized.
1.A.5 Town Services
Emergency Services
The Town has separate services for Police Department, Fire Department and Ambulance Corps.
The Larchmont/Mamaroneck Volunteer Ambulance Corp. is responsible for responding to all
medical calls within the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont. It also provides
mutual aid to the Village of Mamaroneck, City of New Rochelle, and other neighboring
communities. The Ambulance Corp. consists of twenty volunteer Emergency Medical
Technicians and thirty volunteer Drivers/Attendants/Support Personnel.
The Ambulance District coordinates advanced and basic life support services for the Town of
Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, and Village of Mamaroneck. The District provides
Paramedics and coordinates training and certification of all Emergency Medical Technicians.
The Ambulance District consists of one full-time Ambulance District Administrator (Paramedic),
one full-time Basic Life Support Coordinator (EMT), and twenty-five part-time Paramedics.
Fire and Rescue Services:
The Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department operates out of the Weaver Street Firehouse. It
provides fire, rescue, and emergency response services to the Town. The Fire District
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-7
boundaries are the same boundaries as the Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck. It is run by
about seventy volunteer firefighters, fourteen career firefighters and an active Junior Firefighter
program. The Town Board serves as the Board of Fire Commissioners, and governs the 5 square
mile Town of Mamaroneck Fire District. The Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department’s
apparatus includes one aerial ladder truck, three engines, two rescue vehicles, three Chief’s cars,
and two inflatable, gas-powered boats.
Town of Mamaroneck Police Department: The Police play an integral role in maintaining
order in the Town. The Town of Mamaroneck Police Department provides basic police
services to the unincorporated area of the Town, such as crime prevention and investigation,
patrol and traffic enforcement, and has a youth division. It also assists the Volunteer
Ambulance Corps by responding to emergency medical calls.
The Town of Mamaroneck Police Department is run by one Chief and is comprised of two
Patrol Division Lieutenants, one Administrative Lieutenant, one Detective Sergeant, six
patrol Division Sergeants, three Detectives (Detective Division), one Detective (Youth
Division), one Police Officer (Records Office), and twenty-four Police Officers (Patrol
Division).
Figure 1-3. Town of Mamaroneck Organization Chart
Electorate
Town
Justices
Town Supervisor/
Town Board
Town
Attorney
Volunteer Boards
and Commissions
Town
Administrator
Fire
Dept.
Police
Dept.
Comptroller
Town
Assessor
Building/
Plumbing
Receiver of
Taxes
Recreation Highway
Dept.
Community
Services
Ambulance
District
Conservation
Town
Clerk
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-9
1.B Plan Requirements and Supervision
1.B.1 FEMA Requirements
The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) requires municipalities to compile
a structured hazard mitigation plan to qualify for several FEMA grant programs. Prior to these
requirements, local governments could choose if they wanted to implement a hazard mitigation
plan or a flood mitigation action program in order to qualify for FEMA funds. The Town is
required to prepare a Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan that meets current Federal requirements if it
wishes to apply for FEMA funding. FEMA authorized funding under the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation program for the Town of Mamaroneck, NY, Multi-hazard Mitigation Project. A
major objective of a Hazard Mitigation Plan is to prevent or mitigate hazards that would
otherwise require an emergency response under the National Incident Management System
(NIMS), which is administered by FEMA.
This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is based on FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Handbook
(2013), and FEMA regulations and guidelines, which were discussed below. This Plan follows
the process described in the FEMA State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guides (FEMA
386 Parts 1-4, FEMA, 2003a) and follows the FEMA example Plans (FEMA 2003b). The New
York State Office of Emergency Management (NYS OEM) oversees the process.
This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan follows FEMA regulations and guidelines for State and local
mitigation planning. (See 44 CFR Part 201 and FEMA Example Plans, 2003.) The requirements
for the Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program are described in the
Federal Register (Vol. 67 No. 38/February 26, 2002). The approach involves collecting and
profiling hazard information for all probable hazards, assessing the hazard impacts, setting goals
and objectives, developing and reviewing mitigation alternatives, evaluating risks and benefits,
establishing priorities and preparing a course of action. This plan also satisfies requirements for
several Federal programs.
Target grant and insurance rate reduction programs include, but are not limited to:
FMA, (Flood Mitigation Assistance Program)
PDM (Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program)
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-10
HMGP (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)
DMA 2000 (Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000)
The DMA 2000 amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by
adding a section, which places emphasis on Mitigation Planning. It requires local governments
to have an approved “All-Hazard Mitigation Plan” in place to be eligible to receive Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program funding. The Plan must also include criteria established in 44 CFR
Part 201.6 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Requirements
and criteria for developing the Plan are specified in this regulation. This Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan for the Town of Mamaroneck incorporates all probable hazards in accordance with these
requirements. Completion and approval of a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is required by federal
regulations in order to receive funding for flood prevention and storm protection projects or other
FEMA Programs. For disasters declared after November 1, 2004 a local government must have
this Plan approved by FEMA in order to receive grants.
The flood hazards mitigation portion of this plan can be used as the first step in getting approval
for the Community Rating System (CRS) Program. This Program is a National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that provides incentives for the communities to complete activities that reduce
flood hazards risks. When a community completes these activities, the insurance premiums of
these policyholders can be reduced. This Plan, subsequent filing of an application, and receiving
approval are necessary for qualifying for this Program. Under the CRS Program, each
homeowner’s flood insurance cost could be reduced from 5% to 50%.
1.B.2 Planning Steps
This Plan addresses both the known past and potential future hazards and develops action items
that the Town can implement to protect its citizens’ businesses, and their property. This Plan is
divided into 10 Sections. Each of the sections is a step in the FEMA process that addresses a
phase in the planning process. The process is based on FEMA’s guidance and example plans
dated March 2003. These first 8 steps are:
Step 1 Organize Resources
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-11
Step 2 Involve the Public
Step 3 Coordinate with other Organizations
Step 4 Assess the Hazards
Step 5 Assess the Problems
Step 6 Set Goals and Objectives
Step 7 Review Possible Activities
Step 8 Prepare a Draft Action Plan
These Steps represent the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan development. The last two Steps are
action items for the Town to take once the Plan is approved by FEMA following its adoption by
the Town Board. They are:
Step 9 Implement, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Step 10 Adopt the Plan.
This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is the result of a process that involved the work of the
consultant, the Environmental Technology Group (ETG), Inc. and the Town of Mamaroneck’s
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. The Town Board, Town Supervisor, Town
Administrator, and several operating departments in the Town including the Town of
Mamaroneck’s Ambulance Corps, Fire, Police, Building, Highway, and Community Services
Departments provided information and input for the Plan. Participating citizens, Westchester
County Department of Emergency Services and the New York State Office of Emergency
Management (NYS OEM) were additional resources.
Organizing the Town resources: This is a first step in the planning process. The Town’s
administrative staff was crucial to the organization of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
and in working with the consultant during the development of the Plan. The Town’s Ambulance
District Coordinator, Michael Liverzani is the designated Town Hazard Mitigation Coordinator,
and was active in coordinating resources and public involvement and providing information for
the development of the Plan. Town Officials, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee, and
community participants’ reviewed and commented on this Plan.
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-12
Using a standard review process FEMA evaluates and comments on the Draft Plan. These
comments are resolved and incorporated into the Draft Final Plan prior to approval. The Draft
Final Plan is then presented to the Town Board for approval and acceptance and then forwarded
by NYS OEM to FEMA for review and approval.
Where applicable, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps that identify hazard locations,
critical facilities, and vulnerabilities were incorporated in this plan. The Plan includes an
appendix with supporting documents and articles and hazard analyses details, which were
discussed in the main part of the plan.
The plan process involves identifying all possible hazards that could harm people in the
community or damage buildings and structures. A profile of each hazard is prepared and each
hazard is ranked according to their importance. Rating and ranking of scores were developed
using the New York State Hazards NY (HAZNY) computer program. (See Section 4C.) This
assessment is based on the frequency of occurrence, extent of impact, severity of impact to
property and people, cascading effects on other hazards, duration of the hazard, warning time
prior to onset of the hazard, and recovery time from the hazard.
Based on this analysis and the hazard assessment provided for each profile, only the most
significant hazards were analyzed further for a detailed impact analysis, proposed mitigation
measures and a cost/benefit evaluation. Priorities were then established for mitigation activities
based on these analyses and the goal and objectives set for the community.
This Plan contains information obtained from a variety of Federal, State and local sources. (see
Section 3, Coordination with Other Agencies.) The accuracy of this information has been
verified to the best extent possible. For the majority of hazards evaluated in Section 4D and 4E
(such as hurricanes, high winds, blizzards and ice storms), specific locations or extent of
damages could not be specified since the entire Town is at risk. Flood information shown on the
maps in this Plan is approximate and is based on existing data sources such as current Flood
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-13
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Studies (FIS). Information on these maps is
regarded as acceptable for planning purposes.
This Plan will be updated and modified by the Town according to Step 9 in Section 9. Updates
will include the success of implementing the Plan’s activities, availability of funds, availability
of new information and changes in priorities.
1.C Supervision and Direction of the Plan
The planning process included the formation of a project team which coordinated with the Town
staff (Figure 1-4). Town officials, the Planning Committee, and community participants
reviewed and commented on the Plan. FEMA staff will then review and comment on the Draft
Plan so that issues are resolved prior to approval. The Draft Final Plan is presented to the Town
Board for approval and acceptance and then forwarded by NYS OEM to FEMA for their final
review and approval. The project team, participating citizens and organizations involved in the
planning process are discussed below.
Figure 1-4 shows the team members involved in the planning process. Key to the success of the
process was the coordination of Town officials, the Consultant, stakeholders and the public.
Michael Liverzani, Ambulance District Coordinator, was the designated coordinator of the
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Environmental Technology Group, Inc. (ETG), Inc.
managed the consultant planning activities. James E. Brower, Ph.D., Environmental Planner,
supervised and advised the planning efforts. The Plan was prepared with the assistance of the
Town staff and the Planning Committee.
ETG worked closely with the Town Hazard Mitigation Coordinator, the Planning Committee and
other Town officials in developing the Plan. William J. Seevers of ETG, served as the
Consultant Project Officer and liaison with consulting personnel. Albert Machlin of ETG,
assisted with assessing feasibility of mitigative strategies. Valerie Rifkin, an Environmental
Planning Specialist, coordinated the plan by collecting, researching and reviewing documents,
evaluating hazard information, assessing the hazards, assessing the impacts, and in preparing
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-14
several sections of the Plan. The GIS mapping, HAZUS modeling and technical assistance were
provided by ETG consultant Yuping Shen.
1.D Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
A Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was appointed by the Town Hazard Mitigation
Coordinator to provide input, guidance, review and information needed to develop the Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan. (See Figure 1-4) It contained key representatives of the Town who
provided various services for the Town affected by the proposed plan. Michael Liverzani served
as the Chairperson of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. Members of the Committee
are listed in Figure 1-3 and consist of Town staff and public citizens who are familiar with the
potential hazards facing the Town. Michael Liverzani served as the primary point of contact for
the mitigation planning consultant and the Planning Committee.
The Planning Committee was knowledgeable of the Town needs and was very active and
involved in the Plan development. The viewpoints of the Committee regarding hazards of
concern and mitigation needs have been solicited through formal meetings. The Committee met
frequently during the preparation of the plan to discuss the progress of the Plan and to provide
input into the process (see Table 1-4). They have been especially helpful in focusing on the
issues that are of greatest importance to the safety of Town property and residents. They have
played a large part in identifying major hazards, shaping the goals, objectives and proposing
activities given in Section 6 and 7 of the Plan. The committee included a diverse group
representing different services in the Town.
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-15
Figure 1-4. Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and Consultants
Stephen Altieri
Town Board
Town Administrator
Michael Liverzani
Ambulance District Coordinator
Multi-Hazard
Plan Coordinator
Public Participation
Program Ronald Carpaneto
Town of Mamaroneck
Building Department
Paul Creazzo
Town of Mamaroneck
Police Department
Anna Danoy
Town of Mamaroneck
Community Services
William Seevers
Consultant, ETG Inc.
Project Officer and Liaison
James Brower
Planning Consultant
ETG, Inc.
Valerie Rifkin
Planning Consultant
ETG, Inc.
Connie Green O’Donnell
Town of Mamaroneck
Town Administrator’s Office
Yuping Shen
GIS/HAZUS Model
ETG, Inc.
Joseph Russo
Town of Mamaroneck
Fire Department
Louis Martirano
Town of Mamaroneck
Highway Department
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-16
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was responsible for the following planning
activities:
Assist and oversee the public involvement process.
Identify and encourage participation from regional agencies, stakeholders and citizens in
the development of the Plan.
Assist in identifying community hazards.
Review and comment on the hazard ranking and assessment.
Develop goals and objectives for mitigation activities.
Assist in identifying hazard mitigation activities important to the community.
Assist in gathering information, plans and documents to include in the Plan.
Oversee the development and review of the Plan drafts.
Adopt, revise and maintain the Plan.
1.E Public Involvement
Section 2 discusses the second stage of the planning process – public involvement and how the
public was involved in the process. Two formal public meetings are held to inform the
community and Town Board about the planning process. Drafts of the Plan were made available
for community review. Input from the community was actively sought through public notices,
public meetings, and direct participation on the Planning Committee.
The Town of Mamaroneck website: www.townofmamaroneck.org provided a good resource for
public involvement. The community will continue to be involved in the revision and updating
process. Public meetings on key issues will continue and notices ad progress will be published
in local papers.
1.F Planning Activities
A kickoff meeting to plan and organize the process was held with Town Administrator and Town
Hazard Mitigation Coordinator and staff on April 2, 2013 at the Town of Mamaroneck Town
Center. Figure 1-4 shows the staffing used for the developing the Plan. Supervision and
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-17
direction of the process is discussed in Section 1B below. Table 1-3 lists the key activities and
milestones in developing the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Preparation of this Plan involved:
Input and coordination from several key Town participants
Regular meetings and discussions with the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee,
Review, comment of the Plan by the Town community
Review and approval by the Town Board
Review, comment and approval from FEMA.
In addition several plans, documents and requirements were reviewed including:
Town Building and Fire Codes
Town Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan
Town Development Plans
Town Waterfront Revitalization Plan
Westchester County Stream Control Law
Westchester County Emergency Management Plan
New York State Building Code
Town’s Flood Insurance Study /Town Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
New York State Hazard Mitigation Plan
FEMA "How-to Guide" (FEMA 386)
FEMA “Local Mitigation Planning Handbook” (2013)
National Weather Service Information
USGS Information
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 1-18 Table 1-3 Key Activities, Meetings and Milestones. Date Event Key Participants 01/02/13 Town Board authorize the plan Town Board 03/20/13 Award consultant contract Town Board, Town Mgmt.104/02/13 Project initiation and kickoff meeting with Town representatives Town Mgmt., Consultant206/18/13 1st Committee meeting project review, hazards HAZNY analysis Town Mgmt., Consultant, Committee3 07/18/13 2nd Committee meeting review of goals and objectives Town Mgmt., Consultant, Committee 09/26/13 3th Committee meeting – review of mitigation measures Town Mgmt., Consultant, Committee 11/06/13 Consultant Plan Overview with Town Board (Work Session) Town Board, Consultant 11/15/13 Submit 1st Draft for Committee review Town Mgmt., Committee 12/18/13 1st Public Meeting. Briefing on hazards and plan process Town Board, Consultant, Public4 01/09/14 4th Committee Meeting – review comments on Draft Plan Town Mgmt., Consultant, Committee 02/26/14 Begin 30-day Public Review Period Public, Participating Partners5 03/19/14 2nd Public meeting, Draft Plan Presentation Town Board, Public 03/26/14 Close of Public Comment period Public 04/03/14 Submit Draft Plan to NYSDHSES for review and comment Town Mgmt. 05/20/14 Resolve NYSDHSES Plan Review comments; Resubmit for FEMA review NYSDHSES, FEMA, Consultant 07/30/14 Resolve FEMA and Public Comments Town Mgmt., Consultant, NYSDHSES, FEMA 08/12/14 Incorporate all Final Comments in Plan Consultant 08/13/14 Adoption of Plan by Town Board Town Board 08/29/14 Submit Final Draft Plan to NYSDHSES and FEMA Town Mgmt. 1. Town Administrator and Town Hazard Mitigation Coordinator. 2. Consultant – ETG, Environmental Technology Group. 3. Committee – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. 4. Public – Town of Mamaroneck residents. 5. Participating Partners – Organizations having an interest in the Plan.
ETG, Inc. Section 1 Planning Process
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
1-19
1.G Formal Community Process and Approval
The preparation of this Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is backed by a formal community process
and approval. Major stages of planning are reviewed, documented, authorized and approved by
the local government Town Board and FEMA. This process and approval includes authorization
and funding of the plan development, selection and approval of a consultant to prepare the Plan,
approval of the draft and final plan by FEMA and the Town Board, and documentation of public
meetings.
A Town of Mamaroneck resolution was offered and officially authorized the acceptance of a
proposal for preparation of a Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan and establishment of a
committee to complete the project. The Hazard Mitigation Committee, consisting of Town staff,
interested parties and the planning consultant (Figure 1-4) were given full authority to carry out
the steps in the hazards identification, assessment, planning and mitigation process.
Once the draft plan has been accepted by FEMA, the Town Board will adopt the Plan through a
formal resolution (See Section 10). The revisions to the Plan will be submitted to FEMA
through NYS OEM to assure that all comments and issues have been resolved and for approval
of the Plan.
At the Town of Mamaroneck Town Board Meeting 3/20/2013 the Board approved the awarding
of the contract for the preparation of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Environmental
Technology Group, Inc. (ETG).
ETG, Inc. Section 2 Public Involvement
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
2-1
Section 2 – Public Involvement and Outreach
The community in the Town of Mamaroneck was invited to participate in the process of
developing this Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan through invitations in newspapers and website
notices and postings around the Town. They were asked to provide comments at meetings, in
letters and emails (See Appendix). A draft of this Plan was made available to the public at the
Town Center, Library and on the Town website. A list of all public and committee meetings and
other key activities of this plan were given in Table 1-3 in Section 1. (See Appendix for
additional details.)
Public meetings are held in conjunction with the Town Board meetings. These meetings can be
accessed through LMC-TV the local public access television station. They can be viewed on
Cablevision channel 76 or Verizon channel 35. The Board meetings can be viewed online at
www.lmc-tv.org Videos on Demand, Municipal meetings.
2.A Public Meetings
A public meeting was held in the Town Center Courtroom to inform interested people in the
community about the plan and to obtain their input. A notice for the first public meeting was
issued on December 4, 2013 announcing the first meeting, which was held on December 18,
2013 at 8:00 PM. A copy of this public notice is provided below. The purpose of this first
meeting was to summarize for the community the current status of the project, future planning
activities and the process for developing the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Members of the
Board of Trustees were encouraged to provide input based on the first Draft Plan. Members of
the community were also encouraged to provide input. Several comments and questions were
presented by the Town Board to the consultant. A second meeting was held on March 19, 2014
to present the second Draft Plan for their review and comment. The purpose of the second
meeting was to summarize the Draft Plan, obtain public input and comment, and present the next
steps in the planning and approval process.
ETG, Inc. Section 2 Public Involvement
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
2-2
Notice of Public Mtg. to Solicit Public Input-Hazard Mitig.
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
Notice of Public Meeting To Solicit Public Input For the preparation of a Pre-Disaster
Hazard Mitigation Plan (PDHMP) For the Town of Mamaroneck, NY
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Time: 8:00 PM
Place: 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543
All interested parties are invited to attend a Public Meeting hosted by the Town of
Mamaroneck Board and the Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee, which includes contractual, elected, appointed and citizen representatives
to assist and contribute in the preparation of an All Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Town
of Mamaroneck.
The Town is preparing this Pre-Disaster Plan with a grant from the Department of
Homeland Security / Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) in the
amount of $66,900. Additional administrative oversight and technical assistance is being
provided by the NYS Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Services , Office of
Emergency Management (NYS OEM), and the Westchester County Office of
Emergency Management.
It is anticipated that a plan will be prepared in draft from the comments and
considerations presented by the Committee Members and interested citizens in the
Town of Mamaroneck community. A second Public Meeting will be held in early 2014 for
additional public input and comment on the draft plan, before it is considered ready for
submission to NYS OEM and FEMA.
For further information, or if you have any questions, please call Michael Liverzani at
(914) 381-7838.
ETG, Inc. Section 2 Public Involvement
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
2-3
2.B Public Information Activities
Members of the community were encouraged to attend public meetings and to report on notable
hazard issues in the Town. Printed notices were posted in several public places in the Town. A
notice and meeting summary was also put on the Town Web Page. See the website at
www.townofmamaroneck.org.
In order to facilitate coordination and communication between the Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee and Town of Mamaroneck citizens, several methods of public outreach were
conducted to inform the public of the Plan and encourage participation in the planning process.
The Town has made the following efforts for public input in the preparation and review of this
Plan:
• The Town has created a page on its website devoted to the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
to inform residents about the project and allow for direct input.
• A press release, notifying the community about a public meeting on December 18, 2013
was published in the Journal News on December 5, 2013 in The Town of Mamaroneck
and surrounding communities.
• A summary of the first public meeting was posted to the Town of Mamaroneck’s website
(www.townofmamaroneck.org) following the December meeting.
• On December 24, 2013, the Draft Plan was posted to the Town of Mamaroneck’s
website. (www.townofmamaroneck.org)
• A press release notifying the community about the second public meeting on March 19,
2014 was sent to Journal News on February 27, 2014.
• A formal opportunity for public comment has been provided for the Draft Plan that was
submitted to NYSDHSES and FEMA. The Plan was available for public review and
public comment until March 26, 2014.
Examples of public outreach efforts are given and public comments that have been received to
date are documented in the Appendix.
ETG, Inc. Section 2 Public Involvement
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
2-4
2.C Public Input
The Town officials and Town Board sought public input on the Plan that would help it identify
and prepare for any disasters that could impact the community. The public was invited to
provide information by telephone, letter, or E-mail, and by participation at public meetings. The
residents were informed that this Plan would qualify the Town for grant money to help mitigate
the hazards evaluated in the Plan.
At the first public meeting, the consultant explained that the Town is seeking input from
residents about potential hazards the community faces and ways the local government can help
residents prepare for and recover from disasters.
At the second public meeting, the consultant reviewed the progress of the completed plan, to
date, and also welcomed input to the plan from residents about potential hazards the community
faces and ways the local government can help residents prepare for and recover from disasters.
Public comments were noted and incorporated into this Plan where applicable and feasible. The
meetings were covered by the local press and LMC-TV. The primary hazard of concern is
frequent flooding in various areas of the Town. (See Section 4.D in this Plan.) The public was
invited to review and comment on the Draft Plan. Many concerns and comments were expected
by the end of public review period.
Once the document is complete, it is transmitted to NYSDHSES for review and comment by
NYSDHSES and FEMA. Though the planning procedure officially requires a specific 30-day
comment period, feedback was continually sought and welcomed from the public. Through
public outreach the Town will get ideas from people who have been impacted by these hazards.
Anyone wishing to submit comments to the Town could call (914) 381-7838, or submit a letter
or email to the Town Hazard Mitigation Coordinator at MLiverzani@townofmamaroneck.org.
ETG, Inc. Section 3 - Coordination with Other Agencies and Organizations
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3-1
Section 3 - Coordination with Other Agencies and
Organizations
Many government agencies and private organizations have stakeholder interest in the
development and implementation of this Plan. Their roles and interests in the Plan preparation
and process were evaluated. Some key agencies may fund programs, oversee regulatory
requirements or provide technical input or review. These agencies or organizations may also
have relevant information useful to the Town needs. Several existing plans and recent studies
that are applicable to this Hazard Mitigation Plan involved different interested parties. These
documents were reviewed and discussed in this plan. This section discusses the public agencies
and organizations that may have stakeholder interest in development and implementation of this
Plan.
3.A Community Stakeholders and Participating Partners
Several potential interested agencies, offices, organizations and groups and their potential roles
are given in Table 3-1. These stakeholders have the various interests in or potential contributions
to this Plan. The following list identifies the group, its role in the planning process. Roles in the
process include: providing sources of data and information, funding of projects, regulatory
oversight, review and input to this Plan and review of specific mitigation action plans prior to
their implementation. Stakeholders were invited to review and comment on the online copy of
the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Other groups, identified below, will be invited to participate a later
time during the planning phase of a specific mitigation action.
Federal Agencies
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - Provided planning guidance, regulatory
oversight, funds and program review for preparation and implementation of this Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Approval of this Plan by FEMA is required.
ETG, Inc. Section 3 - Coordination with Other Agencies and Organizations Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 3-2 Table 3-1. Stakeholders and Participating Interests. Federal Agencies New York State Agencies Local Agencies Neighboring CommunitiesPrivate Organizations Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) NY State Office of Emergency Management (NYS OEM) Westchester County Dept. of Health Village of Mamaroneck Consolidated Edison U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) NYS Dept. of Transportation (NYSDOT) Westchester County Dept. Emergency Management Village of Larchmont Verizon and other Communication Companies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Westchester County Dept. of Planning Town of Harrison Cablevision National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Hudson River Valley Greenway Westchester County Dept. Public Works Town of Rye Metro-North Rail Road U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) State Elected Officials County Elected Officials Village of Scarsdale Federal Elected Representatives NY State Department of State (NYSDOS) Mamaroneck Union Free School District City of New Rochelle National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), FEMA, Region 2, New York Long Island Sound Watershed Inter-municipal Council (LISWIC) Westchester Joint Water Works Coastal Zone Management Commission Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board
ETG, Inc. Section 3 - Coordination with Other Agencies and Organizations
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3-3
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), FEMA, Region 2, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,
NY. Regional administrator. This office is a key source of information on flood hazard
insurance. They will be informed of plan activities that are related to flood mitigation and
flood insurance activities.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - This agency is a key
source of data and information on natural hazards.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Any proposed projects related to the Sheldrake or
Mamaroneck Rivers or its shorelines will require interfacing with this agency for permits and
regulatory approvals.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Provided earthquake and topographic information relevant
to planning and implementation of mitigation activities.
Federal government elected representatives will be informed of plan activities that may
require legislative actions or affect other jurisdictions. The Congressional representative for
the Town of Mamaroneck will be requested formally to seek Federal Funds for flooding
problems in the Town.
New York State Agencies
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - This State Agency would be
involved with any State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requirements,
pollution discharge permits, regulation of hazardous material releases, protection of habitats,
wetlands and protected species related to implementation of this Plan protection of habitats,
wetlands and protected species that may be related to implementation of this Plan. NYSDEC
involvement will be required during the planning stages of specific mitigation actions having
potential environmental impacts.
NY State Office of Emergency Management (NYS OEM) – NYS OEM implements planning
guidance from FEMA, regulatory oversight, funding management and other emergency
planning documents.
NYS Dept. of Transportation - Interfacing with this State Agency will be needed for any
transportation or State highway projects proposed this Plan. The Town coordinates with
DOT for the Traffic Management related to hazard impacts.
ETG, Inc. Section 3 - Coordination with Other Agencies and Organizations
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3-4
NYS Department of State (NYSDOS) – This State Agency would be involved with any
Local Waterfront Revitalization LWRP community issues.
Hudson River Valley Greenway - This State-sponsored program facilitates the development
of a voluntary regional strategy for preserving scenic, natural, historic, cultural and
recreational resources while encouraging compatible economic development and maintaining
the tradition of home rule for land use decision-making. Review and input from this group
will be sought for specific projects affecting their interests during the planning phase for that
mitigation action.
Local Agencies
Westchester County Dept. of Health - This agency will be needed for review and approval of
any mitigation action plans that may impact drinking water quality of the area or disease
vectors.
Westchester County Dept. of Emergency Management - Any proposed activities that relate to
interfacing of the County and Town fire and emergency services will require input from this
department. Town emergency plans will be reviewed by this group to assure that they are
consistent with the County plans. The Town of Mamaroneck will coordinate with any future
multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. This Hazard Mitigation Plan was available to the
County for review and comment.
Westchester County’s “Restoration of Society” - This initiative includes the County’s plan
for recovering and restoring communities following a catastrophic event. It focuses on
restoring basic services such as power, water supply and other utilities and infrastructures.
Westchester County Dept. of Planning - This department will be informed of any Town plans
and proposals that relate to County plans.
Westchester County Dept. Public Works - This department oversees design and construction
of infrastructure systems, capital projects and non-recurring repair and replacement projects
for the County. Implementation plans and designs involving public works projects will be
provided to the County for their review and comment.
Local and County Elected Representatives - Local and County officials need to be informed
of multi-hazard issues and proposed mitigation activities. They may also assist in
appropriating legislative funding for needed projects.
ETG, Inc. Section 3 - Coordination with Other Agencies and Organizations
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3-5
The Long Island Sound Watershed Intermunicipal Council (LISWIC) – A group of 12
municipalities located in the Long Island Sound Watershed in Westchester County, New
York. The group works to achieve a common goal of a cleaner Long Island Sound by
protecting the Sound’s watershed. Review and input from this group will be sought for
specific projects affecting their interests during the planning phase for that mitigation action.
Westchester Joint Water Works – A public benefit corporation. Review and coordinate any
plan activities that could affect water service or buried water lines.
Neighboring Communities
The following communities may be involved or affected by the planned actions and will be
informed of mitigation activities being proposed. These communities were invited to review and
comment on this Hazard Mitigation Plan:
Village of Mamaroneck
Village of Larchmont
Town of Harrison
Town of Rye
Village of Scarsdale
City of New Rochelle
Private Organizations
Consolidated Edison - Review and coordinate plan activities that could affect power failures;
tree damage to power lines or excavation that could affect buried cables.
Verizon (and other communication companies) - Review and coordinate any plan activities
that could affect telephone communications, tree damage to phone lines or excavation that
could affect buried lines or cables.
Cablevision – Review and coordinate actions that could affect cable TV, computer services,
tree damage to cable lines or excavation that could affect buried cables.
LMC TV – Handles all public access broadcasts to residents.
Metro-North Rail Road – Provides commuter rail service to Town of Mamaroneck residents.
They would review and coordinate any plan activities or hazards that could affect rail
service.
ETG, Inc. Section 3 - Coordination with Other Agencies and Organizations
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3-6
Nature Conservancy – Coastal Resilience project. Provides communities, planners,
businesses, and officials with easy access to information on projected changes in sea level
and coastal storm impacts in order to assist in coastal planning and management decisions.
http://coastalresilience.org/
3.B Representative Agency Contacts
Interested parties were invited to review and comment on the Plan, which was posted on the
Town Website: www.townofmamaroneck.org
Contacts were made with organization representatives to discuss hazards and mitigation
measures relevant to the Town of Mamaroneck. A list of groups recommended for review and
comment is given below in Section 3.D.
Existing documents were obtained from some of the agencies cited above. A full listing of
available documents and citations is given in Section 3.C below and in the References Cited,
Section 11, at the end of Part I of this Plan. A variety of information was obtained from several
of these agencies using the Internet. Sources were also obtained from the local newspapers and
newspaper websites were used for information on historic events.
3.C Review of Community Needs, Goals and Plans
Community needs, goals and plans were discussed with the Town officials from the beginning of
the planning process. Discussions were held at Planning Committee meetings and public
meetings. The Community presented their needs at two public meetings, particularly for
mitigation of flood hazards. (See Section 2 above.) The public hazards concerns have been
incorporated into the Plan. Additional public input to the Draft Plan will be included prior to the
final submission of the Plan. The result of this review process is found in Steps 6, 7 and 8 in the
establishment of goals, objectives, priorities and a mitigation plan.
Several plans, studies, reports are listed in Section 11 References Cited were used to obtain
information for this Hazard Mitigation Plan. Key sources include:
ETG, Inc. Section 3 - Coordination with Other Agencies and Organizations
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3-7
Flood Mitigation Action (FMA) Plan - February 2008
Town of Mamaroneck Web Site, www.townofmamaroneck.org
Town of Mamaroneck Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Master Plan DEIS–1989 and Updates, Phase 1-1986, Phase 2-1987
Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont Waterfront Revitalization Program, 1986,
1995
Upper Sheldrake River and Larchmont Reservoir Hydrology Report, 1985
Sheldrake Watershed Hydrology Study, 1991
Watershed Advisory Committee Study, 2001
Emergency Action Plan, Larchmont Reservoir Dam – August 2010
Pine Brook Drainage Study Draft, 2008
Feasibility Report - Flood Control Mamaroneck & Sheldrake Rivers – October 1977
The Nature Conservancy, the Coastal Resilience Project
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics, Mamaroneck,
New York. http://factfinder.census.gov/
Flood Insurance Study, Town of Mamaroneck, New York. September 15, 1989
Flood Insurance Study, Westchester County (All Jurisdictions) September 28, 2007
Westchester County Hazard Mitigation Plan
A History of Conservation in the Town of Mamaroneck 1948-2006.
3.D Draft Action Plan Review
The Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan underwent comprehensive review and comment by Town
Administrators, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee, members of the Town Board, the
Coastal Zone Management Commission, interested Stakeholders, and the public. The public
comment period was 30 days. The Draft Plan will be sent to NYS OEM project manager for
FEMA’s review and comment. Comments by FEMA will be resolved and incorporated into the
plan. The final plan incorporates a resolution of the comments from these reviews.
Several communities, local agencies and groups were openly invited to review and comment on
the plan via the Town of Mamaroneck website.
ETG, Inc. Section 3 - Coordination with Other Agencies and Organizations
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3-8
These invitations included:
Village of Mamaroneck
Village of Larchmont
Town of Harrison
Town of Rye
Village of Scarsdale
City of New Rochelle
Mamaroneck School District
Westchester County Planning Department
To date no specific comments were received from other parties that required significant changes
or additions to this Plan.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-1
Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
4.A Introduction and Background
The Town of Mamaroneck was purchased in 1661, had its first town meeting in 1697, and was
officially created in 1788 by an act of the New York State Legislature. There are two Villages
located within the Town: The entire Village of Larchmont (1 square mile), and part of the
Village of Mamaroneck lying west of the Mamaroneck River bordering Rye Neck (2.3 square
miles). The remainder of the Town is the unincorporated area (5.17 square miles), which is not a
part of either Village. Though both the incorporated Villages and the unincorporated Town are
self-governing, they define the Town as a political and governmental subdivision of the State of
New York. Total population in the three areas, according to the 2010 U.S. Census is 29,156.
This Hazard Mitigation Plan will focus on the unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck.
The Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck is a community located in Southeastern Westchester
County with a population of about 11,977 people recorded in the 2010 U.S. Census. It is
bordered by the Village of Larchmont and the Long Island Sound to the South; the Village of
Mamaroneck, Town of Rye, and Town of Harrison to the East; Village of Scarsdale to the North;
and the City of New Rochelle to the West. (See Figures 0-2 and 1-1).
The Town of Mamaroneck is subject to a variety of events that may lead to damage from water,
wind and various man-made hazards. From the perspective of FEMA’s Community Rating
System (CRS) objectives, this water-related hazard is a major concern to the Town. In addition
to water-related events, there are severe windstorms, other natural events and man-made hazards
to which the community is potentially exposed. This all-hazard mitigation plan evaluates
flooding events, storm hazards, other natural hazards and several human-caused hazards as
required under the Disaster Mitigation Act 2000 and FEMA 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206, 2002.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-2
Process
The hazard identification and assessment process included four steps:
1. Identify all potential hazards based on the input from the Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee and the public, a review of documents and website searches. A list of
potential hazards was developed.
2. Profiles of the hazards of concern were prepared and primary hazards of concern were
evaluated for potential risk assessment. Each hazard was then summarized, evaluated
and characterized in a hazard profile. (See Section 4D.)
3. Assets were then identified and inventoried for impacts of concern. (See Section 5)
4. Potential losses were estimated and the hazards were evaluated for human health and
safety risks and for property damage and losses. (See Section 5.)
A list of potential hazards was prepared and reviewed with the Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee. Those that were not applicable, prevalent or would not cause significant damage or
personal harm were screened out and not evaluated further. (See Table 4-2, and Section 4.E
Elimination of Hazards.) The list of potential hazards was then evaluated and rated using New
York State’s HAZNY program (See Section 4.C below). The HAZNY process helps to evaluate
the relative degree of hazard posed by each prevalent hazard or significant risk. The New York
State Office of Emergency Management (NYS OEM) recommends that the HAZNY analysis
program be used as one tool to review and assess the hazards. The American Red Cross together
with NYS OEM developed this program. It is an interactive program where members of the
Planning Committee and the consultants provided input to the process.
Background information, frequency of occurrence, impacts, severity, extent, location and other
data were then summarized for each hazard profile. (See Section 4.D below).
Sources of Information:
In addition to the plans, studies and reports noted in Section 3C, several sources of information
were used to identify and characterize the hazards of concern. For definitions of abbreviations
and acronyms see Section 12 Acronyms and Glossary. For additional sources and detailed
citations see Section 11, References Cited. These sources include, but are not limited to:
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-3
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
Public meeting with residents
Town of Mamaroneck Officials
Town Board of Supervisors
Local newspaper articles
Town of Mamaroneck website www.townofmamaroneck.org
Documents, plans and Engineering reports supplied by the Town
New York State Standard Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 2011
http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/mitigation/plan.cfm
New York State Standard Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan (Draft) 2014
http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/mitigation/hm-plan-2013.cfm
Several NOAA websites http://noaa.gov/
National Climate Data Center www.ncdc.noaa.gov
National Weather Service, Hurricane Page, www.nhc.noaa.gov
FEMA website www.fema.gov/
FEMA Region II Coastal Analysis & Mapping http://www.region2coastal.com/bestdata
Westchester County Flood Insurance Study (2007)
USGS website http://earthquake.usgs.gov/
Seismic Zoning Maps for NYS Seismic Building Code
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University Website
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu
Consolidated Edison website, press releases, and studies, www.coned.com/
Westchester County GIS website http://giswww.westchestergov.com/westchester/emap/wc
EPA Enviromapper website http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home
4.B Hazard Identification
The hazards screened include those given in FEMA 386-2 guidance, FEMA (2003b) examples
and Disaster Mitigation Act 2000 guidance (FEMA, 2000), Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide
(FEMA, 2011), Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (FEMA 2013), HAZNY guidance, and
input from the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Committee. The Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee with the aid of the consultant screened all potential hazards listed and the committee
concluded that these hazards are possible in the Town of Mamaroneck and surrounding areas.
Historic FEMA disaster declarations for New York State are listed below in Table 4-1. Tables 4-
2 and 4-4 summarize the hazards evaluated and the results of their initial screening.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-4
Those hazards in the region that were judged to be prevalent, pose a significant human safety
risk or have a potential to cause significant damage were selected for further analysis. This
assessment was based on available documents, information from databases, and websites. (See
sources above and Section 11 References Cited.) The sources used to determine the probability
of future events for each natural hazard are given in Table 4-3. Knowledge and experience of
local officials and the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee aided the analyses and
assessments made by the consultant. The consultant guided the Committee through the hazard
assessment process during the period June through November 2013.
The hazards evaluated include:
natural hazards (floods, hurricanes, other severe storms, winter snow and ice storms and
other natural non-storm hazards),
technological hazards (environmental releases, fires, explosions and utility failures) and
human-caused hazards (such as civil unrest and terrorism).
These hazards are individually profiled below in Section 4.D. The prevalent hazards and other
hazards judged to be important were then evaluated using the HAZNY hazard ranking system
discussed in Step 4.C below.
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
NEW ROCHELLE
LARCHMONT
MAMARONECK VILLAGE
HARRISON
SCARSDALE Long Island Sound0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000Feet
DWN BY: AJZ, YS
CHK BY: JB
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: 03/11/14
Town of Mamaroneck
Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4-1.A
Streams and Waterbodies
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
2
7
1
6
5
4
3
Streams and Waterbodies:
1 Sheldrake River
2 East Branch of Sheldrake River
3 East Creek
4 West Branch of Sheldrake River
5 Premium River
6 Pinebrook River
7 Mamaroneck Reservoir
8 Sheldrake Lake
9 Premium Point
10 Premium Millpond
11 Premium Marsh Conservation Area
12 Goodliffe Pond
8
10
11
9
12
300 WHEELER ROAD, SUITE 202, HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK 11788
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-7
Table 4-1. Major Historical Disaster Declarations for New York State.
Year
Date
Disaster Types
Active
Disaster
Number
2013 07/12 Severe Storms and Flooding Yes 4129
2013 04/23 Severe Winter Storm and Snowstorm Yes 4111
2012 10/30 Hurricane Sandy Yes 4085
2011 09/13 Remnants of Tropical Storm Lee Yes 4031
2011 08/31 Hurricane Irene Yes 4020
2011 06/10 Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes,
Straight-line winds
Yes 1993
2011 02/18 Severe Winter Storm and Snowstorm Yes 1957
2010 10/14 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-line
winds
No 1943
2010 04/16 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1899
2009 12/31 Severe Storms and Flooding, Tropical
Depression Ida and Nor’Easter
No 1869
2009 09/01 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1857
2009 03/04 Severe Winter Storm No 1827
2007 08/31 Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornado No 1724
2007 07/02 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1710
2007 04/24 Severe Storms and Inland and Coastal
Flooding
No 1692
2006 12/12 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1670
2006 10/24 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1665
2006 07/01 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1650
2005 04/19 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1589
2004 10/01 Tropical Depression Ivan No 1565
2004 10/01 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1564
2004 08/03 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1534
2003 08/29 Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding No 1486
2003 05/12 Ice Storm No 1467
2002 05/16 Earthquake No 1415
2002 03/01 Snowstorm No 1404
2001 09/11 Terrorist Attack No 1391
2000 07/21 Severe Storms No 1335
1999 09/19 Hurricane Floyd No 1296
1998 09/11 Severe Storms No 1244
1998 07/07 Severe Storms and Flooding No 1233
1998 06/16 Severe Thunderstorms and Tornadoes No 1222
1998 01/10 Severe Winter Storms No 1196
1996 12/09 Severe Storms/Flooding No 1148
1996 11/19 Severe Storms/Flooding No 1146
1996 01/24 Severe Storms/Flooding No 1095
1996 01/12 Blizzard No 1083
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-8
Table 4-1. Major Historical Disaster Declarations for New York State
(Contd.).
Year
Date
Disaster Types
Active
Disaster
Number
1993 04/02 World Trade Center Explosion No 984
1992 12/21 Coastal Storm, High Tides, Heavy Rain,
Flooding
No 974
1991 09/16 Hurricane Bob No 918
1991 03/21 Severe Storm, Winter Storm No 898
1987 05/15 Flooding No 792
1985 10/18 Hurricane Gloria No 750
1985 03/22 Snow Melt, Ice Jams No 734
1985 03/20 Flooding No 733
1984 09/25 Severe Storms, Flooding No 725
1984 04/17 Coastal Storms, Flooding No 702
1977 02/05 Snowstorms No 527
1976 09/03 Hurricane Belle No 520
1976 07/21 Severe Storms, Flooding No 515
1976 06/29 Flash Flooding No 512
1976 03/19 Ice Storm, Severe Storms, Flooding No 494
1975 10/02 Severe Storms, Heavy Rain, Landslides,
Flooding
No 487
1974 07/23 Severe Storms, Flooding No 447
1973 07/20 Severe Storms, Flooding No 401
1973 03/21 High Winds, Wave Action, Flooding No 367
1972 06/23 Tropical Storm Agnes No 338
1971 09/13 Severe Storms, Flooding No 311
1970 07/22 Heavy Rains, Flooding No 290
1969 08/26 Heavy Rains, Flooding No 275
1967 10/30 Severe Storms, Flooding No 233
1965 08/18 Water Shortage No 204
1963 08/23 Heavy Rains, Flooding No 158
1962 03/16 Severe Storm, High Tides, Flooding No 129
1956 03/29 Flood No 52
1955 08/22 Hurricane, Floods No 45
1954 10/07 Hurricanes No 26
Source: http://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/state-tribal-government/38
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-9
Table 4-2. Initial Screening of Potential Hazards.
Potential
Hazards
Possible
Hazards
Prevalent
Hazards*
Potential
Hazards
Possible
Hazards
Prevalent
Hazards*
Natural Hazards
Flood X X Land Subsidence
Severe Storm Hazards Land (Rock) Slide
Hailstorm X X Mudflow
Hurricane X X Tsunami
Coastal Storm ** X X Volcano
Severe Storm &
Thunderstorm
X X Wildfire X
Tornado X X Technological Hazards
Windstorm X X Air Contamination X
Winter Storm Hazards Building Fire X
Avalanche Explosion X
Ice Jam X Hazardous Materials
Release (Fixed Site)
X
Ice Storm X X Hazardous Materials
Release (Transport)
X
Severe Snow Storm X X Mine Collapse
Other Natural Hazards Oil Spill X
Dam Failure X Radioactive Release X
Drought X Structural Collapse X
Earthquake X X Utility Failure X X
Epidemic X Water Supply
Contamination
X
Erosion X Human-Caused Hazards
Expansive Soils Civil Unrest X
Extreme Temperature X X Terrorism X
Infestation X Transportation Accident X
* A frequent or regular event. May occur more than once in 7 years to several times a year.
** Includes Nor’Easter storms
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-10
Table 4-3. Sources Used to Determine Probability of Future Events for
Natural Hazards.
Hurricane & Storm Hazards Historical weather data
NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
US Landfall Hurricane Probability Project,
Colorado State University
National Weather Service
SHELDUS
Flood Hazards Historical flood data
Town Flood Insurance Study
Engineering Reports supplied by the Town
FEMA Flood Mapping
Town FIRM
Earthquake FEMA
NYS OEM
USGS
NYCEM
Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic
Network of Columbia University
Winter Storms Historical weather data
NOAA/NCDC
National Weather Service
SHELDUS
Tornado and Wind Hazards Historical data
NOAA/NCDC
Tornado Project Website
SEMO wind zones
Extreme Temperature & Drought Historical data
NOAA/NCDC
National Weather Service
Epidemic Historical data
Center for Disease Control
Westchester County Health Department
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-11
Table 4-4. Summary of Significant Safety Risks and Damage Potential.
Possible Hazards
Health and
Safety Risks
Potential for
Damage
Natural Hazards
Flood X X
Severe Storm Hazards
Hailstorm X
Hurricane X X
Coastal Storm X X
Severe Rain and Thunder Storm X X
Tornado X X
Windstorm X X
Winter Storm Hazards
Ice Storm X X
Severe Snow Storm X X
Other Natural Hazards
Earthquake X
Epidemic X
Extreme Temperature X X
Technological Hazards
Air Contamination X
Explosion X X
Fire X X
Hazardous Material Spills
(Transport)
X X
Hazardous Material Spills (Fixed) XX
Radioactive Release X
Water Supply Contamination X
Utility Failure XX
Human-Caused Hazards
Civil Unrest XX
Terrorism X X
Of the 39 listed hazards in Table 4-2, 30 were considered as possible for the region and only 12
were considered to be prevalent hazards to the community. A significant health and safety risk
was associated with 20 possible hazards and 18 hazards were linked to significant damages to
property, buildings and other structures.
Preliminary Hazard Elimination
Based on the above screening, several Hazards were eliminated from further consideration and
include:
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-12
Avalanches: There are no mountains in or near the town that could produce avalanches.
Erosion of soils: There are no significant areas subject to severe erosion.
Land Subsidence: There are no significant areas subject to subsidence.
Expansive soil hazards: There are no expansive soils hazards in the area.
Volcanoes: Do not occur in this region of the country.
4.C Hazard Ranking by The HAZNY System
Identification and ranking of all hazards that affect the Town of Mamaroneck is a primary
system assessing significant hazards (See Section 4.B above). The Hazards New York (HAZNY)
method further identifies and ranks hazards based on a rigorous method, which combines input
from the community with the experience of emergency services professionals. The Hazard
Mitigation Committee was guided through the HAZNY process to resolve questions concerning
the risk level and priority of consideration for several of the risk factors.
This section discusses the process for selecting and ranking the hazards based on the HAZNY
process. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 4-5 and are discussed below. The
analysis was done under the guidelines of the HAZNY program, which is a New York State
organized process for identifying and prioritizing the risks of hazards that might be experienced
in the Town. The formation of the list, and the determination of their relative values, is based in
part on the actual experience of the Committee members. Additional details are given in the
appendix.
4.C.1 HAZNY Process
The HAZNY process involves a logical ordering by priority, and perception of the hazards that
affect a community like the Town of Mamaroneck. It analyzes and ranks hazards on the basis of
five factors which include:
Scope covers the aerial extent of the impact and the likelihood that the event itself would
trigger another hazard (i.e. Cascade Effect).
Frequency of the event.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-13
Impact from the standpoint of the likelihood of injury or death, and damage to private
property and public facilities.
Onset, or how much warning time will be received.
Duration, or the length of the event and its recovery time.
The detailed summary of Ground Rules is found in the NYS OEM Ground Rules for HAZNY,
which is found in attachments in the Appendix of this Plan. We have ranked FEMA-recognized
“generic” hazards including hazards that have been identified in Mamaroneck from the
standpoint of likelihood of occurrence and prevalence. Using the HAZNY Ground Rules the
committee scored the major risk factors for the group of Mamaroneck hazards that are possible
and prevalent. These factors can be used to examine and quantify other risk factors that may be
identified in the future.
Some potential hazards such as avalanches, mudflows, and volcanoes were excluded since they
were considered of low probability and judged insignificant for further evaluation. (See Table 4-
4.) Several hazards such as civil unrest, epidemics, and drought were considered to be not
prevalent but were included in the HAZNY analysis because they were considered to have
potentially significant impacts, although uncommon. The results of the HAZNY analysis are
given in Table 4-5.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-14
Table 4-5. Summary of Hazards Scores Based on HAZNY Analysis.
HAZNY Score
Mamaroneck
High Hazard 321-400
Flood 321
Moderately High Hazard 241-320
Coastal Storm* 253
Hurricane 248
Severe Storm & Thunderstorm ** 246
Moderately Low Hazard 161-240
Dam Failure 239
Fire 232
Windstorm 230
Winter Storm 230
Transportation Accident 222
Utility Failure 221
Terrorism 219
Tornado 218
Hazmat (In Transit) 210
Extreme Temperatures 204
Earthquake 202
Oil Spill 201
Landslide 199
Explosion 192
Water Supply Contamination 182
Epidemic 179
Transportation Accident (Rail) 172
Hazmat (Fixed Site) 168
Structural Collapse 164
Low Hazard 44-160
Drought 152
Fuel Shortage 142
Radioactive Release 140
Infestation 136
Air Contamination 132
Ice Jam 123
Food Shortage 119
Fuel Oil Spill 113
____________________________________________________
* Including tropical storms, Nor’Easters.
** Including severe and gale force winds as well as other non-winter storms listed. Hurricanes and coastal storms
not included
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-15
4.C.2 Hazard Ratings
The HAZNY rating scores were used to further screen hazards. The information from the
HAZNY analysis contributed to the preparation of the Hazard Profiles in Section 4.D. The
Committee concurred in general with the selection of the high, moderately high, moderately low,
and low hazards in Table 4-5. The detailed results of scoring for each hazard are given in the
Appendix.
The most significant hazard in Table 4-5 is flooding with a High hazard ranking. (See Section
4.D below.) The storm of greatest concern for this area is the coastal storm which includes
several types of storms as well as hurricanes, both of which were rated as a moderately high
hazard. This may reflect the fact that few high category hurricanes hit the Town of
Mamaroneck. By the time a hurricane makes landfall it is often relegated to a tropical storm.
By the time Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey (October 29, 2012), it had lost its
hurricane status and was a “post-tropical cyclone with hurricane force winds”. (NWS National
Hurricane Center. www.nch.noaa.gov). Floods were considered the most severe hazard which is
caused by several types of storms such as coastal storms and severe storms/thunder storms which
were rated as number two and four in the HAZNY analysis. Coastal storms scored 253 and
were rated the 2nd highest hazard (Table 4-5). Although not as severe as hurricanes, these storms
cause severe flooding and wind damage. Such storms often last longer and flood more often than
hurricanes. Frequent local flooding is the major community concern expressed in public
meetings.
Both localized and regional utility power failures are a concern which can be the result of
cascade effects from other hazards discussed in Section 4.D below. Utility failures can also
impact critical facilities, rail transportation systems as well as residences, industrial and
commercial facilities. Dam failure with a score of 239 was rate as a moderately low hazard in
the Table 4-5.
Winter storms ranked 7th had a score 230. These storms include blizzards that can damage
buildings, power lines, critical facilities and transportation systems.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-16
4.C.3 Hazard Rating Criteria
A summary of the hazard rating criteria based on the HAZNY process is attached in the
Appendix. We have ranked FEMA-recognized “generic” hazards including hazards that have
been identified in the Town of Mamaroneck from the standpoint of likelihood of occurrence and
prevalence. Using the HAZNY Ground Rules we scored the major risk factors for the group of
Mamaroneck hazards that are possible and prevalent. These factors can be used to examine and
quantify other risk factors that may be identified in the future.
The HAZNY criteria also provide a basis to specify the relative scope or location of the hazard.
For example: if the hazard occurs at a single location, several individual locations, throughout a
small region or throughout a large region the score will reflect this scope. Of the prevalent
hazards like coastal storms and floods, information on the location/size of the hazard is provided.
The HAZNY scores also incorporate the probability or likelihood of future occurrences. This is
one of the specific quantified elements of input in the HAZNY process. The probability or
likelihood of future occurrence has been specified for each of the hazards included in this
analysis.
The extent or magnitude of each hazard can be expressed and quantified. Such factors as the
extent of the area affected, the likelihood of a cascade effect, the frequency of the event and the
impact of the hazard on the health and safety of people, the impacts on property and the impacts
on infrastructure are all covered in this analysis.
4.D Hazard Profiles
We have assembled a comprehensive summary of past hazard events, which provides accounts
that describe the potential impact of these events on the Town of Mamaroneck. These data
together with firsthand accounts by members of the committee, historical meteorological reports
of hurricanes, Nor’Easters and other storms completes the picture that the Town of Mamaroneck
Planning Committee and the consultants use as an important tool of the planning process.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-17
Detailed hazard profiles are presented below for the high hazard of flooding, three moderately
high hazards, and seven moderately low hazards listed in Table 4-5 above. The hazard ratings
were based on committee meeting discussions and the New York State HAZNY analysis
discussed in Section 4.D above. These hazards were considered to have a higher magnitude or
severity of impact to the Town and include:
Floods (Section 4.D.1)
Coastal Storms (Section 4.D.3.2)
Hurricanes and Tropical Storms (Sections 4.D.2, 4.D.3.1)
Severe Storms and Thunderstorms (Section 4.D.3.3)
Severe Winter Storms (Section 4.D.4)
Dam Failure (Section 4.D.5.1)
Wind Storms (Section 4.D. 3.5)
Tornadoes (Section 4.D.3.4)
Extreme Temperatures (Section 4.D.5.4)
Utility Failures (Section 4.D.6.1)
Fire (Section 4.D.6.7)
Other hazards considered less severe or low magnitude are described in less detail but may be
reevaluated in later updates to this Plan. These hazard profiles include summarized information
and details on the following hazard features:
Overall summary
Definition
Location
Extent (magnitude/severity)
Previous instances
Future events
Impact
4.D.1 Floods
Hazard Summary: A flood is a general and temporary condition of partial or complete
inundation of normally dry land areas from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, (2) the
unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff or surface waters from any source or (3) from intense
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-18
and severe rainfall. Flooding is a frequent occurrence in the Town of Mamaroneck at several
locations shown on Figures 4-2, and 5-2. Floods may cover large areas of several streets, brooks,
the river flood plains around the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers, the Premium River, Pine
Brook, and shoreline of the Long Island Sound. Floods of several feet deep have occurred
following rain events. A major flood occurred on April 15, 2007. (See Figure 4-3). The most
recent major flood was caused by Tropical Storm Irene on August 28, 2011, followed by
remnants of Tropical Storm Lee on September 4, 2011. Future flooding problems are expected to
continue unless mitigation actions are implemented. A future 100-Year flood is a likely event for
the areas identified. Floods are costly from the damage they cause. Numerous homes, families,
and businesses have been impacted with flooded basements, stores, and impassible streets and
highways. Details of the flood hazards in the Town of Mamaroneck are given below.
Sources of information on floods are included in Section 11, References Cited: Conversations
with residents and local officials; Local media articles: Soundview Rising, Larchmont-
Mamaroneck Patch, Sound & Town, Mamaroneck Daily Voice, The Loop, Larchmont Gazette
(Archives), The Journal News, NY Times; Documents and Engineering reports supplied by the
Town, NOAA websites, FEMA website, Westchester County Flood Insurance Study, a History
of Conservation in the town of Mamaroneck 1948-2006, Spatial Hazard Events and Losses
Database for the United States (SHELDUS), http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sheldus.aspx.
Profile Details: Flooding is a serious problem for the Town of Mamaroneck and ranked 1st with
a high HAZNY score of 321. It is a low lying shoreline community that is crisscrossed by a
number of rivers and streams, thus making it susceptible to flooding from a variety of sources.
Floods in the Town have been caused by hurricanes, coastal storms, windstorms, thunderstorms
and melting snow and ice. Notable events that caused major damage were from Tropical Storms
Floyd and Ernesto, the Nor’Easter of 2007, and most recently, Tropical Storm Irene in August
2011. Based on the past frequency of flooding, the probability of future floods is very high.
The Town’s major floodplains are located along the Sheldrake River and its tributaries,
stretching from the northernmost part of the East Branch, which flows south from the Town
border of Scarsdale; and the West Branch, which flows from the City of New Rochelle down to
the Sheldrake Lake and into the Village of Mamaroneck. The two branches combine into one
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-19
river at West Brookside Drive. Other floodplains are located along the Premium River and Pine
Brook, in the Southwest of the Town, the East Creek in the Southeast, and the Mamaroneck
Reservoir in the Northeast (See Figure 4-1.A). Properties located along these areas lie within the
100-Year floodplain. Critical flooding occurs in these areas (See Figure 4-2). These areas are
also at high risk for personal safety, personal property damage, and severe damage to
infrastructures such as utilities, storm and sanitary sewer lines and roads.
Floods are costly and cause extensive damage. According to FEMA, $4,784,317.08 was paid out
in insurance claims for flood damage in the Town between January 1, 1978 and September 30,
2013. However, these flood insurance claims are likely underreported and actual flood damages
are probably higher. This amount only covers 546 losses, and only covers insured damages.
(http://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports/1040.htm#36).
4.D.1.1 Flood Extent
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicating flood zones effective September 28, 2007
(National Flood Insurance Program) for the Town of Mamaroneck is shown in Figure 4-2. This
map illustrates the hazard areas related to flooding in the Town. This map shows the floodplain
area that would be inundated by the 100-Year flood or Base Flood. Also shown are the areas
that would be impacted by the 500-Year flood.
According to the FIRM, the most critical areas for flooding in in the town are located along the
Sheldrake River between its confluence with the East Branch Sheldrake River and Rockland
Avenue. The topography in these flood risk areas is relatively flat, with poor drainage and high
chance for flooding (Figure 4-1). Please refer to Section 4.D.1 for a list of other flooding areas
in the town.
4.D.1.2 Impact on Storm Sewer Backups
There have been many reports of storm drain and sanitary sewer manhole overflows. These
backups have been a particular problem in poor drainage areas in the Town. Section 4.D.1.3 of
this plan lists these areas.
WEAVER STNEW ENGLAND THWYMAIN STFENIMORE RDGRIFFIN AVEPALMER AVEROCKLAND AVE5TH AVEBEACH AVETHE PKYL
A
R
C
H
MON
T
A
V
E
OLD W
HITE PLAINS RD
FO REST AVE1 7
2 3 N
MURRAY AVEMYRTLE BLVDRUSHMORE AVE23S
O A K A V E
C
L
A
F
LIN A
V
ECENTER AVEWALTON AVEW BOSTON POST RDWE
S
T
S
T
PRYER LNS BARRY AVEAVON RDC
I
R
C
L
E
A
V
EHARMON DRPROSPECT AVEHALSTEAD AVEN CHATSWORTH AVEV IN E R D 18AJEFFERSON AVEW FLAGLER DRN
B
A
R
R
Y
A
V
E
B A R N A R D R D
M
O
N
R
O
E A
V
E GRAND ST18BMARBOURNE DRSHORE ACRES DRM O UNTAIN AVEGROVE AVESTANLEY AVEHOMMOCKS RD GROVE STO
R
IE
N
T
A A
V
E
PREMIUM PT
UNION AVE
VALLEY RDISELIN TERYORK RD
PLAIN AVECHATSWORTH AVE
EAST DRBYRON LNBOSTON POST RDBALDWIN PLWENDT AVE HOYT AVESHORE DRMAMARONECK AVEDANTE STMAYHEW AVE
H
A
R
RIS
O
N D
R LOCUST AVE1ST STMAPL
E AVEHALL AVE
PARK AVEHOLLY PLWI
NFI
ELD AVECORNELL STMT
P
L
E
A
S
A
NT
A
V
E3RD STO
C
E
A
N
A
V
EWOODHOLLOW LNEDG EW O O D AVEMADISON STECHO LN WINGED FOOT DRALDA RDPOTTER AVEW A R D A V EKOLBERT DRN E W S T
COLONIAL AVEB R A D F O R D R D
HOWELL AVE22HIGHVIEW STSHADOW LNRIDGE RDOLD BOSTON POST RDGLENDALE RDBRIARCLIFF RDE BOSTON POST RDCARLEON AVET R A V E R S A V E
S
A
L
E
M
D
R
FERNWOOD RDBONNIE BRIAR LNETON RDCOVE RD SD
O
G
WO
O
D
L
N OAKHURST RDCORTLAND AVEK
IL
M
E
R
R
D SAXON DRH A Z E L L N BRUCE RDTHE CRESRAILROAD WAYGLEN LNCARRIAGE HOUSE LNBEECHTREE DRBIRCH HILL LN
BRO O K STLAWN TERSKIBO LNN BROOK RDTO M PKIN S AVEVALLEY PLB
A
Y
H
E
A
D D
R
NINE ACRES LNPROTANO LNFULTON RD
HILLTOP RD
SEAHAVEN DR
GERTRUDE AVE
COVE RD WNAUTILUS LN
BEECH RD
R
O
C
K
L
A
N
D
P
L JEFFERSON STSOUTH DRDORIS RD
PROSPECT AVEPALMER AVEHARMON DR2 3 S
18B
0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000Feet
DWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 01/28/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4-2100 and 500-Year Floodplain
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
Legend
FEMA Flood Mapping
100 Year Flood Line
500 Year Flood Line
2
7
1
6
5
4
3
PRINCIPA L RIVER BASIN S: 1 Sheldrake River2 East Branch of Sheldrake River3 East Creek4 West Branch of Sheldrake River5 Premium River6 Pinebro ok River7 Mamaroneck Reservoir
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-21
4.D.1.3 Frequent Local Flooding
Frequent flooding occurs in several areas throughout the Town of Mamaroneck. Areas that have
experienced the most damage from flooding (See Figures 4-2 and 5-2) occur in the following
locations:
Inland Flooding Areas:
Adrian Circle
Bonnie Way, from Weaver Street to Addee Circle
East Valley Stream Road
Fenimore Road, from Fenbrook Road to Durham Road
Forest Avenue & Weaver Street
Griffen Avenue – from Murdock Road to Carriage House Lane
Hilltop Road
Kolbert Drive
Lakeside Drive
North Brook Road
Old White Plains Road, from Deerfield Lane to Rock Ridge
Sheldrake Drive
Sheldrake Avenue
York Road & Country Club Drive
Poor Drainage Areas:
Cabbot Road
Dogwood Lane
5th Avenue & Madison Avenue
Murray Avenue & Colonial Avenue
Boston Post Road & Weaver Street
South Drive, from West Drive to Glen Eagles Drive
Coastal Flooding Areas:
Point Road (Premium Point Island)
Hommocks Road
Dillon Road
Pryer Manor Road
Wildwood Circle
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-22
Flooding has been a major issue in the Town of Mamaroneck, with documentation dating back to
1942 when the U.S. Department of War, New York District Engineer’s Office began a Flood
Control Study.
In 1945, the Westchester County Harding Report studied alternate approaches on the
Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) started the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers’
mitigation studies in 1977. In 1987 they created a preliminary design for a flood control project
to widen and deepen the Mamaroneck River, and to reroute the Sheldrake River under Fenimore
Road. This project was not completed due to high costs.
A Federal, State, and County agreement was signed in 2010, which authorized the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to reexamine opportunities to curtail flooding from the Mamaroneck and
Sheldrake Rivers drainage basin, in order to reduce flood risks. The parties are reevaluating the
flood mitigation project that was abandoned. Changes to the rivers’ flows require further study
prior to forging ahead with the project. Cost-Sharing partners of this project are USACE, New
York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC), and Westchester County. The Town of
Mamaroneck, along with the Village of Mamaroneck and Town of Harrison are non-cost sharing
partners. USACE is expected to reveal which measures it may take to mitigate flooding by mid
2014. Westchester County is currently working on a countywide flood mitigation plan.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-23
Figure 4-3. Town of Mamaroneck
Street Flooding during the Nor’Easter April 15, 2007
Flooding on Brookside Drive
Photo by Abby Katz, via Larchmont Gazette
Overflowing Stream – brook and waterfall
Photo by Linnet Tse via Larchmont Gazette
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-24
4.D.1.4 The Base Flood
The Base Flood is the 100-Year flood. This is not a flood that occurs once in 100 years but is a
large flood elevation that has a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year. Therefore, the 100-Year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of
time. The "100-Year" flood is a measure of the size of the flood, not how often it occurs. The
100-Year flood is the standard used by most federal and state agencies such as the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The FEMA 100-Year flood line for the Town of Mamaroneck runs along the shoreline and up
along the river corridors. It runs along the Sheldrake River and it’s tributaries, along the
Premium River, Premium Point, the East Creek, and the Mamaroneck Reservoir. (See Figure 4-
2).
Properties along these waterways are vulnerable to storm damage during severe northeasters and
hurricane conditions. Flooding can come with little warning. Even though they appear to move
slowly (three feet per second) a flood two feet deep can knock a man off his feet and float a car.
Properties that would be impacted are primarily areas that are vulnerable to the effects of poor
drainage, low elevation, and abnormally high tides.
4.D.1.5 The 500-Year Flood
A 500-Year flood is a flood that has a 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
one year. Extensive portions of the Town of Mamaroneck lie directly within the 100-year
floodplain and the 500-year floodplain. (See Figure 4-2.)
Numerous structures could potentially be impacted. The 500-Year flood is an infrequent event
meaning that it can occur between once in eight years to once in fifty years. However, these
storms have been happening more frequently. As with the 100-Year Flood, it does not mean a
flood occurs once in 500 years.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-25
4.D.2 Hurricanes
Hazard Summary: Hurricanes are major tropical cyclonic wind and rain storms with winds
ranging from 75 to over 155 mph. The last major hurricane to cross Westchester County was the
“Great Hurricane of 1938”. Since then, there have been no official hurricanes. Damage is not
only from strong wind but also major flooding can occur from storm surges. Hurricanes are
among the most threatening and highest ranked natural disasters in the northeast. Heavy rainfall
would result in flooded areas shown in Figure 4-2. The extent of wind damage from hurricanes
varies but this hazard would impact the entire Town and the surrounding region. Wind and water
damage from hurricanes include: serious flooding of streets and homes; utility failures; damage
to buildings, roofs, windows and personal property; interruption of traffic and emergency, fire,
police services; automobile accidents; food shortages; sewage impacts; economic loss, business
loss, loss of employment, downtime, loss of inventory. A major hurricane though infrequent can
strike the Town of Mamaroneck. The Town is vulnerable due to its close proximity to the
coastline.
Sources of information on Hurricanes are given in Section 11, References Cited and include:
National Weather Service Hurricane website; US Landfalling Hurricane Project website; NOAA
Hurricane Research Division website; NOAA National Climatic Data Center website and event
record details; National Center for Atmospheric Research; Accuweather website; Local papers:
Journal News, NY Times, Soundview Rising, Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch, Sound & Town,
Mamaroneck Daily Voice, The Loop, Larchmont Gazette, Daily Mirror (September 23, 1938,
pgs. 3 & 17).
Profile Details: The flood-producing hurricane has a moderately high risk with a HAZNY score
of 248. Although most hurricanes have been downgraded to tropical storms by the time they
have reached Westchester County, the hazard was given a moderately high HAZNY score due to
the damage they can cause. Based on historical records, the last hurricane to cross Westchester
County was the “Great Hurricane of 1938”. Since then, there have been no official hurricanes.
There have been numerous storms that began as hurricanes, such as Irene in 2011, Hanna in
2008, Ernesto in 2006, and Floyd in 1999, which were downgraded to tropical storms by the time
they reached Westchester County. Sandy, also known as Superstorm Sandy, was not classified
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-26
as a hurricane when it hit landfall on the coast of New Jersey on October 29, 2012. It was
considered to be a post-tropical cyclone with hurricane force winds. This was said to occur due
to the alignment of a tropical storm with an extra tropical storm.
These tropical storms will be discussed in detail in Section 4.D3.1. Figure 4-5 shows the paths
of the hurricanes listed in Table 4-6 that have been tracked within 50 miles of the Town of
Mamaroneck from 1861 through 2012. This map was generated from the NOAA (2013) web
site http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/.
Hurricanes are among the most threatening and highest ranked natural disasters in the northeast.
Heavy rainfall would result in flooded areas shown in Figure 4-2. The extent of wind damage
from hurricanes varies but this hazard would impact the entire Town and the surrounding region.
Wind and water damage from hurricanes include:
Serious flooding problems (streets and homes)
Utility failures (electricity and telephone)
Natural resource damage (trees, wetlands)
Property damage (buildings, roofs, windows, personal property)
Oil spills (floating and damaged underground tanks)
Boat damage (destruction and capsizing)
Serious traffic problems (interruption in emergency, fire, police services)
Beach and shoreline erosion
Public health and safety (automobile accidents, food shortages, sewage impacts)
Economic loss (business loss, loss of employment, downtime, loss of inventory)
From 1971 until 2008 hurricanes were rated according to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale
based on the intensity of the sustained wind speed, pressure, storm surge, and flooding
measurements. In 2009, the U.S. National Hurricane Center switched over to the Saffir-
Simpson Wind Scale, which is a categorical classification of hurricanes based on their sustained
wind speed. The scale underwent minor modifications in 2012.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-27
The scale ranges of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale are from 1 to 5 as follows:
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale
Category Sustained
Winds
Types of Damage Due to Hurricane Winds
Category
1
74-95 mph
64-82 kt
119-153
km/h
Very dangerous winds will produce some damage: Well-
constructed frame homes could have damage to roof, shingles,
vinyl siding and gutters. Large branches of trees will snap and
shallowly rooted trees may be toppled. Extensive damage to
power lines and poles likely will result in power outages that
could last a few to several days
Category
2
96-110
mph
83-95 kt
154-177
km/h
Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage: Well-
constructed frame homes could sustain major roof and siding
damage. Many shallowly rooted trees will be snapped or
uprooted and block numerous roads. Near-total power loss is
expected with outages that could last from several days to
weeks.
Category
3
111-129
mph
96-112 kt
128-208
km/h
Devastating damage will occur: Well-built framed homes may
incur major damage or removal of roof decking and gable ends.
Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous
roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for several
days to weeks after the storm passes.
Category
4
130-156
mph
113-156 kt
209-251
km/h
Catastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can
sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure
and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or
uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power
poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last
weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be
uninhabitable for weeks or months.
Category
5
157 mph +
137 kt +
252 km/h
+
Catastrophic damage will occur: A high percentage of framed
homes will be destroyed with total roof failure and wall
collapse. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential
areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months.
Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.
Source: National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center, Saffir-Simpson Hurricane
Wind Scale, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php
Because the Town of Mamaroneck is in the northeastern U.S., Category 5 hurricanes are
considered unlikely. Although possible, no category 4 hurricanes have directly hit Westchester
County. The Town of Mamaroneck is located in Wind Zone 2, with wind speeds ranging up to
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-28
160 mph. It is also mapped in the Hurricane Susceptible region, which extends along the east
coastline.
The Hurricane of 1938, for example, was one of the most damaging events on record. It was a
Category 3 storm, but Mamaroneck did not suffer the brunt of the storm. According to news
archives, Mamaroneck suffered from flooded cellars, downed telephone and telegraph poles,
downed trees along back roads, and power outages for only one half hour. (Daily Mirror, Friday,
September 23, 1938).
Climate models project increased rainfall rates, which can lead to stronger hurricanes and rising
sea levels. This topic is discussed in Section 4.D.5.7, The Effect of Climate Change on Natural
Hazards.
WEAVER STNEW ENGLAND THWYMAIN STFENIMORE RDGRIFFIN AVEPALMER AVEROCKLAND AVE5TH AVEBEACH AVETHE PKYL
A
R
C
H
MON
T
A
V
E
OLD W
HITE PLAINS RD
FO REST AVE1 7
2 3 N
MURRAY AVEMYRTLE BLVDRUSHMORE AVE23S
O A K A V E
C
L
A
F
LIN A
V
ECENTER AVEWALTON AVEW BOSTON POST RDWE
S
T
S
T
PRYER LNS BARRY AVEAVON RDC
I
R
C
L
E
A
V
EHARMON DRPROSPECT AVEHALSTEAD AVEN CHATSWORTH AVEV IN E R D 18AJEFFERSON AVEW FLAGLER DRN
B
A
R
R
Y
A
V
E
B A R N A R D R D
M
O
N
R
O
E A
V
E GRAND ST18BMARBOURNE DRSHORE ACRES DRM O UNTAIN AVEGROVE AVESTANLEY AVEHOMMOCKS RD GROVE STO
R
IE
N
T
A A
V
E
PREMIUM PT
UNION AVE
VALLEY RDISELIN TERYORK RD
PLAIN AVECHATSWORTH AVE
EAST DRBYRON LNBOSTON POST RDBALDWIN PLWENDT AVE HOYT AVESHORE DRMAMARONECK AVEDANTE STMAYHEW AVE
H
A
R
RIS
O
N D
R LOCUST AVE1ST STMAPL
E AVEHALL AVE
PARK AVEHOLLY PLWI
NFI
ELD AVECORNELL STMT
P
L
E
A
S
A
NT
A
V
E3RD STO
C
E
A
N
A
V
EWOODHOLLOW LNEDG EW O O D AVEMADISON STECHO LN WINGED FOOT DRALDA RDPOTTER AVEW A R D A V EKOLBERT DRN E W S T
COLONIAL AVEB R A D F O R D R D
HOWELL AVE22HIGHVIEW STSHADOW LNRIDGE RDOLD BOSTON POST RDGLENDALE RDBRIARCLIFF RDE BOSTON POST RDCARLEON AVET R A V E R S A V E
S
A
L
E
M
D
R
FERNWOOD RDBONNIE BRIAR LNETON RDCOVE RD SD
O
G
WO
O
D
L
N OAKHURST RDCORTLAND AVEK
IL
M
E
R
R
D SAXON DRH A Z E L L N BRUCE RDTHE CRESRAILROAD WAYGLEN LNCARRIAGE HOUSE LNBEECHTREE DRBIRCH HILL LN
BRO O K STLAWN TERSKIBO LNN BROOK RDTO M PKIN S AVEVALLEY PLB
A
Y
H
E
A
D D
R
NINE ACRES LNPROTANO LNFULTON RD
HILLTOP RD
SEAHAVEN DR
GERTRUDE AVE
COVE RD WNAUTILUS LN
BEECH RD
R
O
C
K
L
A
N
D
P
L JEFFERSON STSOUTH DRDORIS RD
PROSPECT AVEPALMER AVEHARMON DR2 3 S
18B
0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000Feet
DWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 01/28/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4-4Hurricane Inundation Zones
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
Legend
Hur ricane Inundation Zones
0
1
2
3
4
Historical Hurricane Tracks
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-31
Table 4-6. Historical Hurricanes Storm tracks from 1861 - 2012 within 50
Miles of Mamaroneck, NY.
Storm Name Max Saffir-Simpson Date
NOT NAMED 1861 H1 Sep. 27,1861 to Sep. 28, 1861
NOT NAMED 1863 TS Sep. 16, 1863 to Sep. 19, 1863
NOT NAMED 1866 H1 Oct. 28, 1866 to Oct. 30, 1866
NOT NAMED 1872 H1 Oct. 22, 1872 to Oct. 28, 1872
NOT NAMED 1874 H1 Sep. 25, 1874 to Oct. 1, 1874
NOT NAMED 1888 H3 Aug. 14, 1888 to Aug. 24, 1888
NOT NAMED 1888 TS Sep. 6, 1888 to Sep. 13, 1888
NOT NAMED 1893 H3 Aug. 15, 1893 to Aug. 26, 1893
NOT NAMED 1900 TS Oct. 10, 1900 to Oct. 15, 1900
NOT NAMED 1915 H1 Jul. 31, 1915 to Aug. 5, 1915
NOT NAMED 1924 ET Sep. 27, 1924 to Oct. 1, 1924
NOT NAMED 1934 H1 Jun. 4, 1934 to Jun. 21, 1934
NOT NAMED 1938 H5 Sep. 10, 1938 to Sep. 22, 1938
NOT NAMED 1945 H4 Sep. 12, 1945 to Sep. 20, 1945
ABLE 1952 H2 Aug. 18, 1952 to Sep. 2, 1952
DIANE 1955 H3 Aug. 7, 1955 to Aug. 21, 1955
BRENDA 1960 TS Jul. 28, 1960 to Aug. 1, 1960
UNNAMED 1961 TS Sep. 12, 1961 to Sep. 15, 1961
DORIA 1971 TS Aug. 20, 1971 to Aug. 29, 1971
AGNES 1972 H1 Jun. 14, 1972 to Jun. 23, 1972
BELLE 1976 H3 Aug. 6, 1976 to Aug. 10, 1976
GLORIA 1985 H4 Sep. 16, 1985 to Oct. 2, 1985
CHRIS 1988 TS Aug. 21, 1988 to Aug. 30, 1988
BERYL 1994 TS Aug. 14, 1994 to Aug. 19, 1994
BERTHA 1996 H3 Jul. 5, 1996 to Jul. 17, 1996
FLOYD 1999 H5 Sep. 7, 1999 to Sep. 19, 1999
HANNA 2008 H1 Aug. 28, 2008 to Sep. 8, 2008
IRENE 2011 H2 Aug. 21, 2011 to Aug. 30, 2011
Source: http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes
Note: Hurricane Irene formed on August 20, 2011 and dissipated on August 30, 2011. Its
highest rank on the Saffir-Simpson Scale was a Category 3 Hurricane (H3). Irene was
downgraded to a Tropical Storm before it reached Westchester County. Hurricane Sandy
formed on October 22, 2012 and dissipated on October 31, 2012. Its highest rank was a
Category 2 Hurricane (H2). Sandy was downgraded to a post tropical cyclone with hurricane
force winds before it reached Westchester County.
4.D.2.1 Notable Northeastern Hurricanes
All of the hurricanes listed below in Table 4-7 struck the northeast portion of the United States.
Their total cost, death toll, and relative ranking are based on their overall impact along the
Atlantic coast. The 1938 Hurricane (The Long Island Express) was a Category 3 storm when it
hit landfall in the Northeast. The Category 4 hurricane such as Donna is a rare event largely
because hurricanes generally lose force and intensity as they move into northern areas with
colder ocean water.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-32
Table 4-7. Major Northeast Hurricanes and Damage Costs.
National
Ranking by
Damage
Hurricane Name
Year
Hurricane
Category
Total Damage
Million Dollars*
9 Agnes 1972 1 11,760
14 Floyd 1999 2 9,225
17 Diane 1955 1 7,408
19 L.I. Express 1938 3 6,325
23 Great Atlantic 1944 3 5,706
26 Carol 1954 3 4,175
29 Donna 1960 4 3,215
30 Bob 1991 2 2,703
Source: NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6. “The Deadliest, Costliest and Most
Intense U.S. Tropical Cyclones From 1851-2010 (And Other Frequently Requested Hurricane
Facts)”. National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center, August 2011.
www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf
*Damage costs for East Coast U.S. based on Year 2010 deflator.
Note: Not included above: Hurricane Irene (2011) has an estimated total damage of
$15,800,000,000. Damage costs for Hurricane Sandy (2012) have not been totaled yet, but
estimates as of June 2013 assess damage to have been over $68,000,000,000, a total surpassed
only by Hurricane Katrina.
4.D.3 Other Severe Storm Hazards
There are other severe storm hazards that produce damaging winds and flooding. This section
discusses warmer season storms. Winter storm hazards are addressed in Section 4.D.4 below.
The impact locations and extent of damage and flooding from other severe storms can be similar
to hurricanes, and result in 100-Year and 500-Year floods that were discussed above in Section
4.D.1. The geographical extent of wind damage from severe storms may cover large areas and
this hazard would likely impact the entire Town. The damage to Mamaroneck from severe
storms and coastal storms has been very significant.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-33
Utility failures occur during severe storms such as Nor’Easters, tropical storms, wind and
snowstorms. This is usually due to the breakage of utility poles or power lines causing electrical
failures in local areas. This damage may be localized in several areas or impact the entire Town.
Con Edison reports that during storm events several hundred thousand customers have been
without power for several days. Storm related damage has sometimes required help from other
utilities outside our region in order to restore power. Utility failure will be discussed in detail in
Section 4.D.6.1. Structural damage for each of these storm hazards has not been quantified but
can be assumed to be similar to less severe hurricanes.
4.D.3.1 Tropical Storms
Hazard Summary: Tropical storms are tropical cyclones with sustained winds between 39-73
mph. Hurricanes have sustained winds of 74 and up and are often downgraded to tropical storm
status by the time they reach Westchester County. It is an organized rotating weather system
that develops in the tropics and which has a warm center (or core) of low barometric pressure.
The Town of Mamaroneck has felt the effects of many tropical storms. Because of their less
severe wind speeds, wind damage is less than a hurricane. However, rainfall, wind, and storm
surge from these storms has caused serious flooding in the Town. Areas flooded are shown in
Figure 4-2, 4-3, 4-4 and 5-2. Damages are the same as those described for flooding discussed
above. Future flooding from tropical storms can be expected.
Sources of information on tropical storms are given in see Section 11, References Cited and
include: Meetings with residents; Local papers and websites, including: Journal News, NY
Times, Soundview Rising, Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch, Sound & Town, Mamaroneck Daily
Voice, The Loop, Larchmont Gazette (archives); Town Documents and Engineering reports;
NOAA websites; FEMA website; Westchester County (All Jurisdictions) Flood Insurance Study,
September 28, 2007; NYS Office of the Governor Press releases; FEMA Press releases; Con
Edison press releases.
Profile Details: Tropical Storm Floyd wreaked havoc on Westchester County on September 16,
1999. Sustained 60 mph winds accompanied torrential rainfalls. Maximum rainfall rates ranges
from 1 to 2 inches per hour for at least 3 consecutive hours across parts of Westchester. Total
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-34
rainfall at the Westchester County Airport was measured at 6.26 inches. Damage in Westchester
County was reported at $6.6 million.
Tropical Storm Ernesto brought strong winds and heavy rain to Westchester County on
September 2, 2006. The hardest hit areas were in the Southern Westchester towns, including
Mamaroneck, Larchmont, Greenburgh, Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, North Castle, Ossining,
Port Chester, Rye, Scarsdale, Tarrytown, White Plains and Yonkers. The storm caused power
outages to approximately 80,000 customers in Westchester County, most located in Southern
Westchester. According to Con Edison, approximately 100 trees were downed, and 900 wires
fell. Residents of the Town of Mamaroneck experienced high winds, which downed power lines
and trees, and caused power outages.
Tropical Storm Hanna hit Westchester County on September 6, 2008. Wind gusts ranges from
35 to 45 miles per hour, and rainfall totaled 4.41 inches of rain at Westchester County Airport.
Tropical Storm Irene hit Westchester County on August 27, 2011. The President declared an
Emergency for the State of New York, Including Westchester County (DR-4020). Irene made
landfall as a tropical storm along the southeastern New Jersey Coast and New York City. It was
made up of sustained tropical storm winds, very heavy rain, and destructive storm surges along
the coast. It also brought two tornadoes in the area. This storm brought severe damage to
Westchester County. Over 7 inches of rainfall fell on the Town of Mamaroneck. A storm surge
reached 5 feet reached the Town. Trees and power lines were also downed. Wind gusts of 75-80
MPH knocked out power to some areas of the Town for several days. An estimate of 233 area
residents utilized the emergency shelter located in the Mamaroneck High School Gymnasium
(DR-4020).
Hurricane Sandy hit Westchester County on October 29, 2012. Sandy was not a typical
hurricane. By the time it made landfall in the Northeast, it had become a post-tropical cyclone
with hurricane force winds. Referred to as “Superstorm Sandy”, this phenomenon occurred due
to the alignment of a tropical storm with an extra tropical storm.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-35
Sandy did not produce too much rain, but the high force winds downed trees and power lines
throughout Westchester County. Con Edison reported more than 206,000 customers lost power
in Westchester County; 180 roads were closed in the County. In the Town of Mamaroneck, the
storm exceptionally high tides in the coastal areas at Hommocks Road and Pryer Manor road
caused some homes to flood. Wind speeds reached as high as 70 MPH, causing downed trees
and power lines, knocking out power to approximately 60% of the community and forcing the
closure of 70 area roads.
Along with widespread power outages, Sandy created logistical problems, which made it
difficult to obtain and transfer fuel from the refineries and terminals to those who needed it, thus
creating a gasoline shortage.
A Federal Emergency Declaration was declared for Sandy on October 28, 2012 (EM-3351) for
New York State, including Westchester County. On October 30, 2012, a Major Disaster
Declaration was declared (DR-4085) for parts of New York, including Westchester County.
4.D.3.2 Coastal Storms
Hazard Summary: A coastal storm is a non-tropical storm that produces gale-force winds and
precipitation in the form of heavy rain or snow. An intense extra-tropical coastal storm for the
region is called the Nor’Easter. The Town of Mamaroneck has felt the effects of many coastal
storms. Because of their less severe wind speeds, wind damage is typically less than a hurricane.
However, rainfall and storm surge from these storms has caused serious flooding in the Town. In
the winter these storms can cause blizzards. Flooding impacts several streets scattered over the
Town. Areas flooded by these storms are the same as for other storms and are shown in Figures
4-2, 4-4, 4-5 and 5-2. Damages are the same as those described for flooding and tropical storms
discussed above. Future storms of this type are commonly expected. Future flooding from these
storms can be expected.
Sources of information on coastal Nor’Easter storms are given in Section 11, References Cited
and include: Public meetings with residents; Local papers and websites, including: Journal
News, NY Times, Soundview Rising, Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch, Sound & Town,
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-36
Mamaroneck Daily Voice, The Loop, Larchmont Gazette (archives); Documents and
Engineering reports supplied by the Town; NOAA websites; FEMA website; Westchester
County (All Jurisdictions) Flood Insurance Study, September 28, 2007; NYS Office of the
Governor Press releases; FEMA Press releases; Consolidated Edison press releases.
Profile Details: Nor’Easter storms move north along the east coast and have strong winds with
heavy precipitation blowing off the Atlantic Ocean from the northeast. If a Nor’Easter moving
up the coast follows a track westerly of New York City, rain is typically the result. However, if
the storm maintains a track just off the eastern coast of the city, then snow or mixed precipitation
is likely to occur. In the Mamaroneck area these storms have resulted in serious flooding of
streets and homes, very high gale force winds, destruction of trees, utility poles, and damage to
homes and other buildings. These storms are frequent and cover a large region including
Westchester County, Long Island, and New England.
The presence of fronts and a drop in temperature at higher levels of the troposphere keep the
storm from being classified as tropical. The most notable Nor’Easters that affect New York City
and Westchester County have occurred as snowstorms during the winter weather months.
Winter Nor’Easters are discussed below in Section 4.D.4. They may occur as heavy rainstorms
or snowstorms. Severe storms have occurred in the Mamaroneck area that resulted in heavy
precipitation, serious flooding of streets and homes, very high gale force winds, destruction of
trees, utility poles, and damage to homes, businesses, and other buildings.
These storms are frequent events and cover a large region including Westchester County, Long
Island, and New England. Wind speeds can approach those of a Category 2 hurricane. These
storms may last from one to a few days. There is a potential for serious injury and some deaths.
Property damage may be moderate to severe. Damage to infrastructures such as electrical power
lines may be moderate to severe. There is a high probability for a major future coastal storm.
The Nor’Easter of December 10-13, 1992 caused torrential rains, gusting winds, massive
flooding, power outages, and property damage. Basements were flooded, trees and utility poles
were down, and traffic was seriously snarled. This storm caused about $1-$2 million in damages
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-37
and costs and 19 deaths in the northeastern U.S. (NCDC/NOAA (1998), Billion Dollar Weather
Disasters). (FEMA DR-974).
The Nor’Easter of October 19-20, 1996 brought widespread flooding to the area.
Approximately 5 inches of rain fell in Westchester County, and there were 30-40mph winds with
gusts up to 60 mph. This storm caused more than $3.5 million in damages to Westchester and
Suffolk Counties. (DR-1146). (NOAA, NESDIS, NCDC, Event Record, 19 Oct. 1996).
The Nor’Easter of April 15, 2007 brought high wind gusts and about 8.05 of rain fell on
Southern Westchester County within a 24-hour period, leaving scores of homes and businesses
underwater. This resulted in what some people call the “worst flooding in half a century”. The
Town of Mamaroneck was hit hard by this storm, bringing serious flooding to approximately 70
homes in the Town. More than 7 inches of rain fell over 15 hours in the Town. Heavy rains
swelled local brooks and rivers releasing torrents of water throughout the town. Homes on East
and West Brookside Drives were especially hard hit. “The Brook”, a section of the Sheldrake
River overflowed and flooded adjacent roads and homes, forcing Con Edison to shut off power.
Other areas affected were near Larchmont Gardens Lake, Premium-Pine Brook, and areas
bordering the Sheldrake River and parts of Murray Avenue. Flooding occurred in approximately
70 homes, some level of damage occurred to 222 homes, and power was lost to approximately
600 homes. (DR-1692).
The Nor’Easter of March 13, 2010 brought rain, storm surge, and high wind gusts of up to 62
mph. High winds downed trees, tree limbs, and powerlines, causing significant property damage
in the Town of Mamaroneck, leaving over 1,000 homes without power. (DR-1899).
4.D.3.3 Severe Storms and Thunderstorms
Hazard Summary: Severe storms are atmospheric disturbances usually characterized by strong
winds, frequently combined with rain, snow, sleet, hail, ice, thunder and lightning. A
thunderstorm is an event that produces lightning strikes, thunder, high winds, heavy rains,
flooding and hail. Other associated dangers of thunderstorms include tornadoes, and flash
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-38
flooding. Flash flooding is responsible for more fatalities, more than 140 annually, than any
other thunderstorm-associated hazard.
Because their winds can be strong and gusty, wind damage can be severe. Trees, roofs and
utility lines are particularly vulnerable from wind and lightning throughout the entire Town.
Rainfall from these storms has caused serious flooding in the Town. Areas flooded by these
storms are shown in Figure 4-2, and 5-2. Damages are the same as those described for flooding
and tropical storms discussed above. Future storms of this type are commonly expected. Future
flooding from these storms can be expected.
Sources of information on severe storms and thunderstorms are given in see Section 11,
References Cited and include: Public meeting with residents; Local papers and websites,
including: Journal News, NY Times, Soundview Rising, Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch, Sound
& Town, Mamaroneck Daily Voice, The Loop, Larchmont Gazette (archives); Documents and
Engineering reports supplied by the Town; NOAA websites; FEMA website; Spatial Hazard
Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) website; Consolidated Edison
Press releases.
Profile Details: A severe storm and thunderstorm can produce lightning strikes, high winds,
heavy rains, flooding, hail, and cause damage to trees, utility poles, power lines, commercial
structures and residential homes. Although effects from one these storms is localized, the
damage could occur anywhere in the Town. Such severe storms and thunderstorms have a high
probability of occurrence in the region.
Deaths from lightning strikes and other accidents occur in Westchester County. Such
thunderstorms have a high probability of occurrence in the region. These storms are commonly
associated with frontal systems and may result in concentrated heavy down pours of rain. Rapid
local flooding may occur without warning.
Hailstorms, which can accompany thunderstorms, occur in Westchester but they are not
prevalent. Thunderstorms may also be associated with hurricanes discussed above and with
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-39
tornados discussed below. This severe storm hazard is prevalent in Westchester County during
the warmer months of the year.
Between January 1, 1960 and December 31, 2012, 206 major thunderstorms were listed in the
Spatial Hazard Events and Losses database (SHELDUS) for Westchester County. This is not a
complete listing of all storms as thunderstorms are more frequent than indicated. These storms
are very frequent events and may cover large area across Westchester County. Wind gusts of 50
to 75 mph are not uncommon. A storm may last from less than an hour to several hours. There is
a potential for serious injury and limited deaths. Property damage may be moderate to severe.
Damage to infrastructures such as electrical power lines is prevalent with downed power lines or
damaged transformers or substations.
Westchester County was hit hard by a multitude of weather events, all of which were
accompanied by severe thunderstorms. Most notable storms are described below.
Westchester County was hit hard in 2006 by a series of storms that occurred in the summer.
They occurred closely together and were all accompanied by severe thunderstorms. Most
notable thunderstorms include the ones that accompanied the microburst on July 18, 2006, which
affected areas in Westchester County south of I-287. Heavy rains, and wind gusts up to 60-70
mph knocked out power to 35,000 households. This storm damaged many trees in the County.
Another thunderstorm accompanied a microburst electrical storm that occurred just days later on
July 21, 2006, which also affected areas south of I-287. The next day, another storm knocked
out power to an additional 6,000 households.
A severe storm dropped about 4 inches of rain in lower Westchester County on March 2, 2007,
causing flooding of streets near tributaries in the Town of Mamaroneck.
On September 19, 2012, a severe storm occurred in Westchester County. Heavy rainfall and
high winds downed trees and powerlines, knocking out power to 118 customers in the Town of
Mamaroneck.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-40
On July 13, 2013, a summer storm dropped approximately 2.13 inches of rain on the Town of
Mamaroneck. High winds were blamed for knocking down several powerlines.
There is a high probability for future damaging thunderstorms. NOAA scientists predict that
more severe thunderstorms with lightning, hail and the potential for tornadoes will occur in the
future due to climate change. Prepared by the National Weather Service, Figure 4.6 below
identifies the states most prone to these severe storms, including New York State.
Figure 4-6. States
Most Prone to
Thunderstorms.
Source: msnbc.com, NWS
4.D.3.4 Tornados
Hazard Summary: A tornado is a local atmospheric storm, generally of short duration, formed
by winds rotating at very high speeds, in a funnel-shaped cloud striking the ground with whirling
winds of up to 318 miles per hour or more. The vortex, up to several hundred yards wide, is
visible to the observer as a whirlpool-like column of winds rotating about a hollow cavity or
funnel. Winds may reach 300 miles per hour or higher.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-41
They are infrequent and are scattered geographically over the County and cover a relatively
narrow path that can produce severe damages. Wood frame building and other weakly
constructed building, trees, and utility lines are particularly vulnerable from wind damage. There
is no history of a tornado in the Town of Mamaroneck. There were 7 documented tornadoes in
Westchester County between 1958-2004. Four scored an F1 on the Fujita Tornado Scale and 3
scored an F0. There was an 8th tornado on 7/12/2006, which was sighted over the Hudson River
and went through Sleepy Hollow, Mt. Pleasant, and the hamlet of Hawthorne. This was an F2
tornado. On July 1, 2013, a tornado scoring an EF0 on the Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale
touched down in Greenwich, Connecticut. Although not located in Westchester County,
Greenwich lies less than 10 miles from the Town of Mamaroneck.
Tornadoes have an unpredictable impact and could strike any area in the Town. These storms
are a rare event in the County and future storms of this type are possible. Hilly terrain such as
that surrounding Mamaroneck has a lower risk and frequency of tornadoes. They are also
associated with other severe storm hazards, so they are not evaluated further in the plan as a
separate hazard.
Sources of information on tornadoes are given in Section 11, References Cited and include:
Tornado History Project website; Bergen SkyWarn website; Accuweather.com; Journal News;
NY Times; NOAA websites; FEMA website; New York State Standard Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan; Westchester County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.
Profile Details: Although there have been several tornados reported in Westchester County, they
are considered infrequent. There is no history of a tornado striking the Town of Mamaroneck.
The database for storm events lists eight tornado events for Westchester County between 1950
and 2012 (SHELDUS, 2013) with one death reported. None of the eight reported events have
been in or near Mamaroneck. On July 12, 2006, the eighth tornado occurred in Westchester
County. A tornado was sighted over the Hudson River near the Tappan Zee Bridge. It quickly
moved east over the Village of Sleepy Hollow, then into the town of Mount Pleasant, where it
did the most damage in the hamlet of Hawthorne. Winds exceeded 150 MPH along the path. A
state trooper’s patrol car was picked up in the air and spun around. A two-story brick building
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-42
was critically damaged; seven large trees toppled onto the Metro-North railroad tracks; and 4,000
Westchester residents lost power due to the severe thunderstorms that accompanied the tornado.
There were 6 injuries reported. The reported path width of the tornado was estimated at 200 to
300 yards based on the damage survey across Westchester County. (National Weather Service,
Upton, NY, July 14, 2006). On July 1, 2013, a tornado touched down in Greenwich,
Connecticut. The tornado was rated an EF0 on the Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale, with winds
up to 80 MPH, and caused tree damage along a 3.7 mile path that was about 150 yards wide.
Although not located in Westchester County, Greenwich, CT lies less than 10 miles from the
Town of Mamaroneck.
There have been no other occurrences of tornadoes in Westchester County since 2006, despite
several tornado warnings. The last warning was as recent as September 2012.
As of February 1, 2007, the severity of a tornado is rated using the Enhanced Fujita Tornado
Scale. All reported tornados in the county were less than a magnitude of F3. The last tornado
reached an F2 magnitude, four of the tornadoes were an F1 Magnitude, and three reached an F0
Magnitude.
Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale
EF0 = 65 to 85 mph – light damage
EF1 = 86 to 110 mph – moderate damage
EF2 = 111 to 135 mph – considerable damage
EF3 = 136 to 165 mph – severe damage
EF4 = 166 to 200 mph – devastating damage
F5 = 201 mph and up – incredible damage
Although infrequent, these tornadoes can produce considerable damage in localized areas
anywhere in the Town or County. The reported width of tornados in Westchester County ranged
from 13 yards to 300 yards. However, the geographical occurrence could be anywhere in the
Town or the county. Tornados are also associated with severe thunderstorms and with hurricanes
for which hazards were discussed in Section 4.D.1. NOAA scientists predict that more severe
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-43
thunderstorms with lightning, hail, and the potential for tornadoes will occur in the future due to
climate change.
Because tornadoes are not a frequent hazard, are scattered geographically and are also associated
with other severe storm hazards, they are not evaluated further in this plan as a separate hazard.
4.D.3.5 Wind Storms
Hazard Summary: Windstorms are accompanied by strong gale force or stronger winds that
may or may not include precipitation. These winds may be associated with tornadoes,
thunderstorms, Nor’Easters, tropical storms, and hurricanes. They are violent winds of high
velocity and are commonly associated with frontal weather systems. They cover a relatively
wide path in the region and they affect the entire geographical area of the Town. Windstorms
can produce gale force gusts of wind and can cause severe damage to wood frame buildings,
roofs, trees, utility lines and unsecured materials and items.
Many notable wind events have crossed the Town of Mamaroneck. In January of 2006, a series
of severe windstorms occurred which uprooted trees and caused scattered power outages across
Southern Westchester. 61,486 households in Westchester lost power from these storms. NOAA
reported a severe windstorm occurred on September 30th and October 1st, 2010, with wind gusts
ranging from 40-55 MPH in Southern Westchester. Con Edison reported 1200 households in
Southern Westchester lost power as a result of that storm. On October 29, 2012, Super Storm
Sandy brought wind gusts of up to 70 MPH through Southern Westchester, causing extensive
damage and knocking out power to 60% of the Town of Mamaroneck. On January 31, 2013,
high winds reportedly downed trees and powerlines, causing three overhead transformers to
explode near the Town of Mamaroneck; knocking out power to about 100 customers in the
Town. Maximum wind gusts during this storm were reported to be 54 MPH. On May 25, 2013,
a wind event brought sustained wind speeds of 35 MPH and maximum wind gusts of 46 MPH to
Southern Westchester.
Wind events are common in the Town of Mamaroneck and they can strike any area the Town.
Future storms of this type are highly likely.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-44
Sources of information on wind storms are given in Section 11, References Cited and include:
Bergen SkyWarn website; Accuweather.com; local papers and websites including: Journal News,
NY Times, Soundview Rising, Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch, Sound & Town, Mamaroneck
Daily Voice, The Loop, Larchmont Gazette (archives); NOAA websites; FEMA website; Wind
zones of NY, NYS^OEM website; NYS Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Profile Details: Windstorms can cause destruction of trees, toppling of power and telephone
lines, and serious widespread damage to humans and property. Wind zones in the United States,
which are used for construction standards, are shown in Figure 4-7. The Town of Mamaroneck
is located in Wind Zone II, which makes it susceptible to winds of up to 160 MPH. It is also
situated in the hurricane-susceptible region. This wind hazard cannot be geographically
determined but can affect the entire Town planning area. These storms have caused power
failures, damage to property including window and roof breakage, human injuries from falling
objects, and damage and capsizing of boats, beach erosion, and financial losses. Windstorms are
similar to and commonly associated with the advance of other storm events such as
thunderstorms and tornados.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-46
4.D.4 Winter Storm Hazards
Winter weather for the Town of Mamaroneck is highly variable. Storm systems in winter may
deposit snow, sleet or freezing rain, with a significant impact on transportation systems and
public safety. These hazards also include severe snow storms and blizzards. Although there are
several winter storm hazards, ice storms and snowstorms are the most prevalent. There are no
mountains in the area that could produce avalanches. Although ice jams in the Town’s rivers can
occur in severely cold winters, they are not a hazard causing severe damage or loss of life, but
some have caused localized flooding.
The damage to the Town of Mamaroneck from severe winter storms, coastal storms,
Nor’Easters, ice storms, and snowstorms has been very significant. Winter storms cover a
relatively wide path in the region and they affect the entire geographical area of the Town.
Average minimum winter temperatures for the area are approximately 20.1 degrees Fahrenheit.
The lowest recorded temperature for New York City was -15 in 1934. (NYSCE 2006, Climate
Summary)
4.D.4.1 Snow Storms
Hazard Summary: A severe snowstorm deposits heavy snow amounting to 12 inches in 12
hours or less. Snowstorms are common winter events for the region. The average annual
snowfall for Westchester County runs from 25 to 45 inches. The Town of Mamaroneck, located
in the coastal area, averages between 25 and 30 inches of snowfall per year. Snow storms
deposit several inches of snow over the entire Town and are often accompanied by strong gale
force winds. Snow storms with high winds are referred to as blizzards. They blanket a relatively
wide area locally and can produce severe damage to buildings, trees, and utility lines. Heavy
snowfalls and blizzards affect the entire planning area since access to roads and highways is
necessary for residents. In addition they disrupt train service, bus service and traffic as well as
school, business and employment activities. The greatest daily snowfall since 1949 was 26.9
inches in February 2006 when a snowstorm occurred in the area. The blizzard of February 12,
2006 was the biggest snowstorm in the New York City region’s history. Snow events are
common in the Town of Mamaroneck and they generally strike the entire Town. Future storms
of this type are highly likely.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-47
Sources of information on snow storms are given in see Section 11, References Cited and
include: Accuweather.com; Local newspapers papers and websites, including: Journal News,
NY Times, Soundview Rising, Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch, Sound & Town, Mamaroneck
Daily Voice, The Loop, Larchmont Gazette (archives); NOAA websites; FEMA website;
NYSCE 2006, Climate Summary, NWS Forecast Office, Significant Weather Events Archive;
Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS); Current Results,
Research News & Science Facts website, www.currentresults.com/weather/new-york/; NYC
Weather & Storm Blog www.severeweathervideo.com.
Profile Details: Heavy snowfalls and blizzards affect the entire planning area since access to
roads and highways is necessary for residents to travel to work and school, obtain necessary
foodstuffs for their families, and allow fire, public safety, and ambulances to reach their
destinations when emergencies arise. These storms also cause dangerous situations from fallen
electrical lines and trees falling on roofs. Coastal winter snowstorms or Nor’Easters can be
particularly severe and hazardous. They can deposit large amounts of snow and produce strong
winds that result in blizzard conditions.
A Nor’Easter in December 1992 was a blizzard that covered the eastern U.S. This storm resulted
in 19 deaths over the area impacted. $2.5 billion were reported in damages. These dollar
amounts were adjusted to 2013 dollars by using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). (NCDC
/NOAA, Billion Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters, 2012). www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events
(DR-974).
A Nor’Easter on March 12-14 1993 was a blizzard that covered the eastern U.S. and was called
the storm of the century. It affected 26 states and resulted in 270 fatalities. This storm cost $8.9
billion adjusted 2013 dollars. In New York State the death toll was 23. Hundreds of roof
collapses occurred in the northeast due to the weight of the heavy wet snow. Over 3 million
customers were without electrical power in the region at one time due to fallen trees and high
winds. At least 18 homes fell into the sea on Long Island due to the pounding surf. Winds of 71
mph were reported at La Guardia Airport, NY (NCDC/NOAA, 2013). Westchester County
suffered approximately $8.9 million dollars in damages adjusted for 2013, and received between
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-48
10 and 20 inches of snow. Approximately 1,200 customers lost power in Mamaroneck and New
Rochelle. (NY Times, “The Blizzard of ‘93”, March 14, 1993). (EM-3107).
The blizzard of January 6-8, 1996 was the biggest snowstorm in the New York City region in 48
years. Over 27 inches of snow fell on some areas of the region. LaGuardia Airport reported 24
inches of snow. Seven deaths in New York State were associated with the storm. The impacts
of the storm were compounded by a thaw and heavy rains on January 19. Ten flood fatalities
resulted for New York State. According to the National Climate Data Center, “Billion Dollar
U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters (NCDC/NOAA, 2013), the total impact from this event on the
northeast was 187 fatalities and about $4.4 billion in total damages and adjusted 2013 costs
including snow removal. (DR-1083).
The blizzard of February 12, 2006 was the biggest snowstorm in the New York City region’s
history. A classic Northeaster, the storm was 1,200 miles long and 500 miles wide on satellite
images, and it had winds that gusted up to 60 miles per hour. It spanned across the Northeast
from Virginia to Maine. According to the National Weather Service, a record 26.9 inches fell in
Central Park, the most since record keeping began in 1869. The previous record was 26.4 inches
set during the great snowstorm of 1947 (Dec 26-27) when 77 people were killed. Another
record 25.4 inches fell at LaGuardia Airport. NOAA reported accumulation of 16 to 25 inches of
snowfall in Westchester County; 21.5 inches fell at Westchester Airport, and 24.5 inches fell in
New Rochelle. Although no power failures were reported in Westchester County, winds downed
many trees and power lines. The total impact from this event on the northeast was only 3
fatalities and about $3 billion in total damages and costs.
Approximately 12 inches of snow fell on the Town of Mamaroneck during the February 25-26,
2010 snowstorm. The storm also brought high wind gusts up to 45 mph to the Town.
The Blizzard of December 26-27, 2010 dropped approximately 22 inches of snowfall on the
Town of Mamaroneck. (DR-1957).
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-49
Snowfall rates of over 3 inches per hour brought 13 inches of snow on the Town of Mamaroneck
during the heavy snow storm of January 26-27, 2011. The storm also brought high wind gusts
up to 43 mph to the Town.
On February 8th and 9th, 2013, the Blizzard of 2013 dropped 22 inches of snow on the Town of
Mamaroneck.
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center has produced the Regional Snowfall Index (RSI) for
significant snowstorms that impact the eastern two-thirds of the United States. The RSI ranks
snowstorm impacts on a scale from 1 to 5, which is similar to the Fujita scale for tornadoes and
the Saffir-Simpson scale for hurricanes. An evolution of the Northeast Snowfall impact Scale
(NESIS) that NCDC began producing in 2005, the RSI differs because it includes population
data, as well as the amount of snowfall and the spatial extent of the storm.
REGIONAL SNOWWFALL INDEX (RSI)
Category RSI Value Description
1 1-3 Notable
2 3-6 Significant
3 6-10 Major
4 10-18 Crippling
5 18.0+ Extreme
4.D.4.2 Ice Storms
Hazard Summary: An ice storm is a type of winter storm that is characterized by freezing rain.
The National Weather Service defines it as a storm that results in the accumulation of at least one
quarter inch of ice on exposed surfaces. Ice storms frequently accompany snowstorms,
blizzards, and Nor’Easters, and can manifest itself as hail or freezing rain. Significant
accumulations of ice can knock down trees and power lines, and result in loss of power.
Extreme slipping hazards are created for motorists and pedestrians.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-50
Sources of information on ice storms are given in see Section 11, References Cited and include:
Accuweather.com; Local newspapers papers and websites, including: Journal News, NY Times,
Soundview Rising, Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch, Sound & Town, Mamaroneck Daily Voice,
The Loop, Larchmont Gazette (archives); NOAA websites; FEMA website; NYSCE 2006,
Climate Summary, NWS Forecast Office, Significant Weather Events Archive; Spatial Hazard
Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS); 2011 New York State Standard
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NY State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Services, NY State Office of Emergency Management.
Profile Details: Ice storms can affect the entire planning area, since access to roads and
highways is necessary for residents to travel to work and school, obtain necessary foodstuffs for
their families, and allow fire, public safety, and ambulances to reach their destinations when
emergencies arise. These storms also can cause dangerous situations from fallen electrical lines
and trees falling on roofs. Ice storms can be particularly severe and hazardous due to the
potential slipping hazard.
There have been many ice storms in Westchester County, but there have been no presidential
disasters declared for an ice storm alone, that did not accompany a blizzard, severe snowstorm,
or Nor’Easter since 1953. According to the 2011 NY State Hazard Mitigation Plan, a
vulnerability assessment was performed which indicated the New York counties most vulnerable
to ice storms. Westchester County’s final rating was a low score of 5 out of a possible 25.
Notable ice storm incidents have occurred in Southern Westchester County. A reported .25
inches of ice dropped in Southern Westchester County during a snow and ice event on January
18, 2011. On February 1, 2011, an ice storm was reported that dropped between 3/10th and
6/10ths of an inch of ice in Southern Westchester County.
4.D.5 Other Natural Hazards
Although other natural hazards occur in the Town of Mamaroneck, only a few are of concern
while most others may not be severe or prevalent events. Volcanoes do not occur in this region
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-51
of the country. The following potential hazards are discussed below: Dam failure, Earthquakes,
Epidemics, Extreme temperature, Drought, Landslides, and Tsunamis.
4.D.5.1 Dam Failure
Hazard Summary: A dam failure is the collapse or failure of an impoundment that causes
downstream flooding. This failure could be caused by weakened dam structure or terrorist act,
and would result in large volumes of water to rush downstream.
The Kensico Dam, located near Valhalla in central Westchester County (See Figure 0-2) holds
30.6 billion gallons of water in a reservoir covering approximately 2,000 acres. The Dam sits at
the head of the narrow canyon of the Bronx.
Should the Kensico Dam fail, countless people would lose their lives, as well as structures in the
floods path spanning from White Plains through the Bronx. The destruction would be extensive
and impacts would be County wide, running from White Plains through the Bronx. Impacts to
the Town of Mamaroneck would be less severe since it is not directly in the Bronx River Valley.
Approximately nine million people, including 85% of Westchester County would lose their
water supply. It could impact the Town and surrounding areas by running down the Sheldrake
and Mamaroneck Rivers, resulting to damage to buildings and utility lines. In addition, it would
disrupt train service and traffic. Future events of this type is considered unlikely but with a
potential for large impacts.
The Larchmont Reservoir/Sheldrake River Dam, also known as the Upper Dam, or Larchmont
Dam #2, is located in the City of New Rochelle near the border of the Town of Mamaroneck
within the James G. Johnson Conservancy. The Dam is owned and maintained by the Village of
Larchmont, was completed in 1903. The Class C High-hazard dam runs approximately 1,000
feet long with a maximum height of 30 feet, and a spillway width of 50 feet. The spillway is
located at the base of the dam with a 20-inch cast iron discharge pipe that can be remotely
operated to adjust the freeboard height. The pipe is used to regulate the reservoir water level,
and is manually controlled using a valve operated by the Town of Mamaroneck.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-52
The Larchmont Reservoir was originally created to provide potable drinking water from the
Sheldrake River for the Village of Larchmont. In 1975 it was no longer used for drinking water
and is now used for conservation and recreational purposes. The Dam provides vital flood
control for downstream areas in the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Mamaroneck.
neck.
A failure of the Larchmont dam could cause serious and damaging flooding of the Sheldrake
River Valley from below the dam to the Mamaroneck Harbor. Many houses would be
inundated. Several streets and roads along the river from the Sheldrake Reservoir to the
Mamaroneck Harbor could be flooded. Water flowing over roads would likely have high
velocity and could potentially wash pedestrians or vehicles downstream.
New York City and Westchester County are responsible for the safety and security of the
Kensico Dam. Therefore, no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated. Since the
Town of Mamaroneck is responsible for operating the valve on the Larchmont Dam, a damage
analysis and health and safety assessments will be discussed further in Section 5. Mitigation
measures will also be proposed and evaluated.
Sources of information on dam failures are given in see Section 11, References Cited and
include: Town officials, Planning Committee, Association of State Dam Safety Officials,
Collins’ Assessment of New York City’s reservoirs, dams, and aqueducts; 2010 Emergency
Action Plan, Larchmont Dam (National Inventory of Dams ID# NY13625, NYSDEC Dam ID#
215-0210); Larchmont Water Company Dam #2,) National Inventory of Dams ID# NY00112,
NYSDEC Dam ID# 215-0996).
Profile Details: The Larchmont Reservoir/Sheldrake River Dam (Upper Dam) is a Class C High
hazard dam located within the Larchmont Reservoir. Until 1975 the dam was used to provide
potable drinking water to the Village of Larchmont. Today it is used for conservation and
recreational purposes; and to provide vital flood control for the Town and Village of
Mamaroneck. The Town operates the flood control valve.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-53
Located in Valhalla, the Kensico Dam is 3,300 feet long, 307 feet high, and holds back 30.6
billion gallons of water in a reservoir covering approximately 2000 acres. 90% of New York
City’s drinking water is funneled through the Kensico Dam, along with 27 Westchester
communities (See Figure 0-2).
According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Dam failures are most likely to
happen for the following reasons:
Overtopping, caused by water spilling over the top of the dam
Structural failure of materials used in dam construction
Cracking, caused by movements such as the natural settling of the dam
Poor maintenance and upkeep
Poor piping, if seepage is not properly filtered, sink holes can form in the dam.
Since September 11, 2001, in today’s society, another potential reason for dam failure is the
possibility of terrorism.
Dam failures have been documented in every state in the United States. According to the
Association of State Dam safety Officials, there were 173 reported dam failures and 587
incidents (episodes, that, without intervention, would have likely resulted in dam failure) in the
United States between January 1, 2005 and June 2013.
The first comprehensive risk assessment of New York’s network of reservoirs, dams, and
aqueducts was performed by Michael Collins, former head of the NYCDEP’s Watershed Police
Department, in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1997. According to the
analysis, if the Kensico Dam were to fail, the City of White Plains could encounter water depths
of an estimated 70 feet within one hour of dam failure, which would dwindle to 3.5 feet four
hours after failure. This surge would be deadly. Table 4-8 shows the 9 worst dam failures in
U.S. history.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-54
Table 4-8. Historic U.S. Dam Failures*
Mill River Dam
Williamsburg, MA
May 16, 1874 139 deaths, destroyed factories,
Destroyed 740 homes in Leeds,
Williamsburg, Skinnerville, &
Haydenville
South Fork Dam
Johnstown, PA
May 31, 1889 Located 9 miles upstream,
City was devastated, 2,209 deaths
St. Francis Dam
San Franciscquito Canyon, CA
March 12, 1928 450 deaths,
1,200+ homes destroyed,
10 bridges destroyed
Buffalo Creek Dam
Logan County, WV
February 26, 1972 125 deaths, 500+ homes destroyed,
$400+ million in damages
Canyon Lake Dam
Rapid City, SD
June 9, 1972 Dam failed during severe storm,
widespread flooding, 237 deaths,
3,000+ injured, 1,300+ homes
destroyed, $60+ million in damages
Teton Dam
Teton, Idaho
June 5, 1976 11 deaths, more than $1 billion in
damages.
Laurel Run Dam
Johnstown, PA
July 19-20, 1977 40 deaths,
$5.3 million in damages
Kelly Barnes Dam
Toccoa Falls, GA
November 5, 1977 39 deaths,
$2.5 million in damages
*Association of State Dam Safety Officials, www.damsafety.org
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) protects the Kensico
Reservoir in northern Westchester County at Valhalla (see Figure 0-2). After September 11,
2001, the Dept. of Public Safety created Westchester County’s Office of Intelligence, Security,
and Counter-Terrorism (ISCT). The ICST is working with the NYCDEP and has made
significant security improvements at the Kensico Dam. Since this hazard is the responsibility of
NYCDEP and the County, no further health and safety assessments and damage analysis will be
performed for the Kensico Dam in Section 5, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or
evaluated.
To date, there has never been a failure of the Larchmont Dam. A failure of the Larchmont dam
could cause serious and damaging flooding of the Sheldrake River Valley from below the dam to
the Mamaroneck Harbor. The Town of Mamaroneck maintains and operates the dam valve
because the outflow impacts both the Town and Village of Mamaroneck. Further damage
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-55
analysis and health and safety assessments will be discussed in Section 5. Mitigation measures
will also be proposed and evaluated in Section 7.
4.D.5.2 Earthquake
Hazard Summary: An earthquake is a shaking or trembling of the crust of the earth caused by
underground breaking and shifting of rock faults beneath the land surface. This can be caused by
surface faulting, ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction, tectonic deformation, tsunamis, and
seiches. They are infrequent in this region and are scattered. Wood frame buildings and other
weakly constructed building are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. If an earthquake should
occur it would impact the entire area of the Town as well as the surrounding region. A measure
of earthquake hazard is the peak ground acceleration (PGA), which for the Town of
Mamaroneck is 3.78%. (See Figure 4-8) This rating places the entire area of the Town in a low
risk category for earthquakes. There have been no reported earthquakes in the Town of
Mamaroneck. No earthquakes have been reported with a magnitude greater than 5 on the Richter
Scale in Westchester County since 1884. All reported incidents in Westchester Co. have been
minor with no significant damage or injuries.
An earthquake is commonly measured on two different scales. The prominent method currently
used to evaluate the effects of earthquakes in the United States is the Modified Mercalli Intensity
Scale, which measures the intensity of an earthquake by observing its effect on people, the
environment and the earth’s surface. It does not have a mathematical basis; instead it is an
arbitrary ranking based on observed effects. The Richter Scale measures the energy released by
an earthquake using a seismograph. A base-10 logarithmic scale is obtained by calculating the
logarithm of the amplitude of waves recorded by the seismograph. Table 4-9 describes typical
earthquake impacts as measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-56
Table 4-9. Typical Earthquake Impacts.
Modified
Mercalli
Intensity
Observations*
Richter
Scale
Magnitude
I Felt only by a very few people under especially favorable
conditions.
1 to 2
II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of
buildings.
3
III Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors
of buildings. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations
similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.
3.5
IV Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. Some
awakened at night. Sensation like a heavy truck striking a building.
Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
4
V Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows
broken. Unstable objects overturned.
4.5
VI Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; few
instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.
5
VII Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction;
slight to moderate in well-built structures; considerable damage in
poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.
5.5
VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage
in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage
great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks,
columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
6
IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed
frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial
buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.
6.5
X Some well-built wooded structures destroyed; most masonry and
frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.
7
XI Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges
destroyed. Rails bent greatly.
7.5
XII Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects
thrown into the air.
8
*Source: www.USGS.gov
Sources of information on earthquakes are given in see Section 11, References Cited and
include: New York Times; NOAA websites; FEMA website; NYS Standard Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan; NYS Standard Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Draft 2014); USGS website;
USGS Seismic Zoning Maps for NYS Seismic Bldg. Code; Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,
Columbia University website, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; The Northeast
States Emergency Consortium (NESEC); NYS Geological Survey (NYSGS); NYC Area
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-57
Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation (NYCEM); NYS Disaster Preparedness Commission
(NYSDPC). SMS-Tsunami-warning website.
Profile Details: Although earthquake tremors have been felt and recorded in the area, they are
not considered a very big event in Westchester County. According to the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), danger is generally from earthquakes that are rated 4.5 or higher on
the Richter Scale. In addition, earthquakes are an infrequent event in Westchester County.
According to the USGS, 13 earthquake events occurred in Westchester County between 1973
and 2012. On August 23, 2011, tremors were felt in Westchester County from an earthquake
that whose epicenter was northwest of Richmond, Virginia. The earthquake registered 5.8 on the
Richter Scale.
The largest quake in the New York area occurred on August 10, 1884. According to the
Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network (LCSN) of Columbia University, it
registered a 5.2 on the Richter Scale. Only minor tremors occurred from that time until October
19, 2005, when an earthquake and foreshock struck about two minutes apart and were centered
in Ardsley, New York. The quake measured 4.0 on the Richter Scale, and the shock measured
2.0. An aftershock occurred on October 22, 1985 measuring 3.0 on the Richter Scale. Six
minor aftershocks then followed. On April 23, 1986, a small quake measuring 2.7 occurred in
the same area. On January 11, 2003 a quake occurred that measured 1.2, and on January 15,
2003 another occurred measuring 1.4. The fault line that runs southeast from Dobbs Ferry into
Greenburgh was responsible for these earthquakes. Based on this information earthquake
hazards causing significant damage, personal injury or death in the Town of Mamaroneck are not
prevalent, significant or likely. However, if a large quake should strike, significant damage
could result.
In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey updated its National Seismic Hazard Maps. New seismic,
geologic, and geodetic information on earthquake rates and associated ground shaking were
incorporated into these revised maps, which supersedes the 1996 and 2002 versions. The USGS
has determined that the 2008 map represents the best available date. The Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) is a standard measure of potential earthquake hazard used by FEMA and the
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-58
U.S. Geological Survey. This is a measure of the ground surface acceleration from an earthquake
relative to gravity, which is recorded as %g. For the Town of Mamaroneck (Latitude:
40.9481N, Longitude: -73.7599W), the %g value is 3.78% (See Figure 4-8). According to the
current USGS Seismic Hazard Map for the region the Town of Mamaroneck would be included
in that PGA zone. This indicates a low hazard due to earthquakes. There is a 10% chance in 50
years that the PGA would exceed 4%.
Based on historical evidence, the risk of a damaging earthquake event was thought to be highly
unlikely. However, new studies suggest that the probability of such an event may be more
prevalent than previously thought. A study published in the Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America analyzed past earthquakes, 383 earthquakes from 1677 to 2007 in a 15,000
square mile area around New York City. New data was also analyzed. The study suggests a
pattern of subtle, yet active faults, which increases the risk of earthquake to the greater New
York City area.
The study suggests that although earthquakes are an infrequent occurrence in the New York City
area, the risk is greater due to the extremely high concentration of people and infrastructure.
The population in the New York area is denser than in earthquake-prone areas. In the event a
damaging earthquake did occur in the area, the losses would be far more catastrophic.
Based on their research, an earthquake with a Magnitude of 5 is estimated to occur every 100
years. In addition, it is estimated that a Magnitude 6 earthquake will occur every 670 years, and
a Magnitude 7 earthquake will occur every 3,400 years (The corresponding probabilities of
occurrence in any 50-year period would be 7% and 1.5%).
In addition, the study revealed that the Indian Point Nuclear Power reactor is situated in a very
precarious position. A newly discovered seismic zone, that runs from Stamford, Connecticut, to
Peekskill, New York, runs less than one mile north of Indian Point. In addition, the Ramapo
Seismic Zone, that runs from Eastern Pennsylvania to the Mid-Hudson Valley, passes within two
miles northwest of Indian Point. The Indian Point Nuclear Reactor sits on the banks of the
Hudson River in Buchanan, New York. It was built to withstand a Magnitude 7 on the Mercalli
Scale, or 6.1 on the Richter Scale.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-60
Table 4-10. Largest Earthquakes Near New York City.
DATE
yr./mo/day TIME
hh:mm:
sec
LAT.
(°N)
LONG.
(°W) LOCATION MAGNITUDE
Richter (ML)
Max.
Intensi
ty
(MM)
Remarks
1884 Aug 10 19:07 40.45 73.90 Greater N.Y. City area 5.2 VII
Threw down
chimneys - felt
from Virginia to
Maine;
1737 Dec 19 03:45 40.80 74.00 Greater N.Y. City area* 5.2 VII Threw down
chimneys
1783 Nov 30 03:50 41.00 74.00 N. Central N.J.* 4.9 VI Threw down
chimneys
1847 Greater N.Y. City area* 4.5 V Probably
offshore
1848 Sep 09 41.11 73.85 Greater N.Y. City area* 4.4 V
Many people in
the NY City area
felt the
earthquake
1895 Sep 01 11:09 40.55 74.30 N. Central N.J. 4.3 VI
Location
determined by fire
and aftershock
1985 Oct 19 10:07 40.98 73.83 Ardsley, N.Y. 4.0 IV
Many people in
the NY City area
felt this
earthquake
1927 Jun 01 12:23 40.30 74.00 Near Asbury Park, N.J. 3.9 VI-VII
Very high
intensity in
Asbury Park, NJ -
perhaps shallow
event
1845 Oct 26 23:15 41.22 73.67 Greater N.Y. City area* 3.8 VI
1938 Aug 23 05:04:53 40.10 74.50 Central N.J. 3.8 VI
1951 Sep 03 21:26:24 41.25 74.00 Rockland Co., N.Y. 3.6 V
1937 Jul 19 03:51 40.60 73.76 Western Long Is., N.Y. 3.5 IV
One or few
earthquakes
beneath Long
Island
1957 Mar 23 19:02 40.60 74.80 Central N.J. 3.5 VI
1874 Dec 11 03:25 41.05 73.85 Near Nyack and Tarry-
town, N.Y. 3.4 VI
1885 Jan 04 11:06 41.15 73.85 Hudson Valley 3.4 VI
1979 Mar 10 04:49:39 40.72 74.50 Central N.J. 3.2 V-VI
Felt by some in
Manhattan [it is
called Chee
sequake
earthquake]
2001 Oct 17 01:42:21 40.79 73.97 Manhattan, New York
City 2.6 IV
Felt in Upper
West Side of
Manhattan,
Astoria and
Queens, NYC
(*) Location very poorly determined; may be uncertain by 50 miles., ML=Richter local magnitude
Source: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn/big-ny-eq.html
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-61
4.D.5.3 Epidemic
Hazard Summary: An epidemic is the occurrence or outbreak of disease in a large number of
individuals or proportion of human or animal populations. An epidemic affects many people at
the same time in an area and spreads from person to person in a locality where the disease is not
permanently prevalent. An epidemic would impact the entire Town of Mamaroneck. West Nile
Virus is a current threat to the NY area through exposure by mosquito bites. Another epidemic
concern is Flu epidemic spread by human contact. Lyme disease is borne by the deer tick, but is
seldom fatal, is easily treated through antibiotics and is therefore not an issue in the Town. The
probability of future epidemic event in the County and in the Town is low. The expected
magnitude and severity of an epidemic is expected to be low. No further health and safety
assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be
proposed or evaluated.
Sources of information for epidemic hazards are given in Section 11, References Cited and
include: Westchester County Health Department; USGS Disease Maps and website; Center for
Disease Control Website; Local Papers; NY Times; Journal News; “The Resurgence of West
Nile Virus”, Annals of Internal Medicine, December 4, 2012; “West Nile Virus May Get Worse
as Climate Gets Hotter”, Los Angeles Times, September 10, 2012.
Profile Details: A current epidemic threat is the possibility of being exposed to the West Nile
virus contracted from mosquitoes. This has been a concern in the Westchester area since the
mosquito vector breeds in wet areas, flooded areas, streams and shoreline areas in the region.
Potential epidemics also relate to the failure of the sanitary and storm sewers that could cause
floods, backups, and standing water in homes and streets. This would place the residents at risk
of contracting disease. Another major epidemic concern is a Flu epidemic, which can spread
quickly worldwide. Lyme disease, which is borne by the deer tick, is a concern in the County
but is seldom fatal, is easily treated with antibiotics.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-62
The number of cases of West Nile Virus occurring in Westchester County is minimal. There
were only 14 reported cases between 2008 and August 30, 2013. The cases were reported as
follows:
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(to 08/30/13)
Total
2 1 4 3 4 0 14
There have been no reported cases of West Nile Virus in humans in Westchester County in 2013,
as of August 30, 2013. However, the number of cases in the NYC area more than doubled from
2011. Nationally, in 2012 there were 5,674 cases reported to the Center for Disease Control
(CDC), representing the highest number of reported cases since 2003. According to the CDC,
70% of these cases occurred in Texas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota,
Michigan, Oklahoma, and Illinois. Over 1/3 of these cases occurred in Texas. As of August 30,
2013, there have been 1,134 cases reported to the CDC in 2013.
According to the Annals of internal Medicine, climate change may be a contributing factor to the
latest outbreak of West Nile Virus. Extreme weather patterns, such as abnormally high
temperatures increase the number of West Nile carrying mosquitoes. High temperatures increase
the rate of mosquito breeding as well as the rate of development of viruses within those
mosquitoes. As the climate gets hotter, some experts say West Nile Virus outbreaks may get
worse. This topic of will be discussed further in the Climate Change section of this Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Epidemics, although a concern for the entire planning area, are not considered to be a prevalent
or severe hazard. Such health hazards are handled through our current Westchester County
Health Department and the Federal health advisory system.
If an epidemic should occur, it would likely cover a wide regional area and not be restricted to
the Town geographical. However, an epidemic has a potential for serious illness and a large
number of deaths. There is a low probability for a future epidemic event in the Town of
Mamaroneck. No unique epidemic hazards were identified as significant or prevalent.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-63
No special mitigation measures beyond current state or county public health activities are called
for. No further health and safety assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and no
mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
4.D.5.4 Extreme Temperature
Hazard Summary: Extreme temperatures include extended periods of excessive cold or hot
weather with a serious impact on human populations, particularly the elderly and/or persons with
respiratory ailments. Heat waves are the primary hazard of concern. The NWS defines a “heat
wave” as three consecutive days of temperatures exceeding 90ºF. Temperature hazards are
region wide and include the entire Town area. The magnitude and severity of cold stress hazard
would be low. The magnitude and severity of heat stress would be high when temperatures
exceed 100 degrees, particularly when humidity is high. A previous occurrence in 1999 brought
a series of heat waves to the NY metropolitan region. The summer of 1999 brought 27 days of
90+ degree days, causing rolling blackouts to the area. The North American heat wave of 2001
brought 32 reported heat related deaths to NYC. Heat hazards can cause heat stroke and death
particularly to the chronically ill and elderly. The probability of future events is high. A
warning system is handled through the National Weather Service. No further health and safety
assessments and damage analysis for extreme temperatures will be performed, and no mitigation
measures will be proposed or evaluated.
Sources of information for temperature hazards are given in Section 11, References Cited and
include: Local Papers and websites: Journal News, NY Times, Soundview Rising, Larchmont-
Mamaroneck Patch, Sound & Town, Mamaroneck Review, Mamaroneck Daily Voice, The
Loop, Larchmont Gazette (archives); Climate change documents; National Climate Data Center
website; Accuweather website; Westchester County Health Department; NYSERDA website;
“Responding to Climate Change in NY State”, Technical Report 11-18, NYSERDA, November
2011.
Profile Details: Although extreme cold temperature is a concern, heat waves are the primary
hazard of concern. Extreme heat hazard is associated with summer weather and is typified by a
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-64
combination of high temperatures and humid conditions. Extreme heat can be a life-threatening
condition, affecting senior residents and those with health problems.
In 1999, New York was hit with a series of heat waves that imposed heat stress and extra energy
demands on the New York metropolitan region. High temperatures were widespread throughout
most of the eastern portion of the United States in July. During the summer, the New york
metropolitan area experienced 27 days of 90 degree temperature or higher. Rolling blackouts
occurred in area-wide system failures. More than 80,000 households and businesses in northern
Manhattan and the Bronx experienced a blackout for 19 hours. 33 people died from heat-related
causes.
In 2001, New York was hit with another heat wave, along with the rest of the east coast.
Temperatures in New York City reached a peak of 103 degrees, and Newark, New Jersey
reached a record 105 degrees.
In 2006, the North American heat wave spread throughout most of the United States killing at
least 225 people. 14 people died in Queens, 10 in Brooklyn, 6 in Manhattan, and 2 in the Bronx;
totaling at least 32 reported heat-related deaths in New York City. Blackouts occurred
throughout the entire tri-state area, most notably in Astoria Queens, and Westchester County.
In July 2010, a hot air mass developed and settled over the New York City area. Temperatures
were in the mid to upper 90s and low 100s. The NYSDEC issued an ozone advisory for the New
York metropolitan area. The Westchester County Health Department issued a heat advisory on
July 6th due to 101-degree temperature. More than 1300 were without power during this heat
wave.
In July 2011, the New York metropolitan area was hit with another heat wave. Temperatures in
Southern Westchester reached between 95 and 105 degrees, with heat indices in excess of 105
degrees. The heat index reached 109 degrees at Westchester County Airport on July 22, 2011.
There were 11 reported deaths in New York City from this heat wave.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-65
In July of 2013, Westchester County saw 7 consecutive days with temperatures in the mid 90s,
between July 14th and July 20th. According to Con Edison, electric usage fell short of its all-
time peak, reaching 13,161 MW during this heat wave. The all-time record of electric peak
usage was 13,189 MW, which occurred on July 22, 2011.
The National Weather Service (NWS) defines a “heat wave” as three consecutive days of
temperatures exceeding 90ºF. In addition, there is little wind, and abundant sunshine during the
entire day and heat is retained during the humid nights. Heat waves occur when an area of high
atmospheric pressure stalls over a region. Westchester County with its warm summer seasons is
susceptible to heat waves of this type.
High temperature hazard has occurred frequently in recent years for the entire planning area
during the hot summer months, and affects senior residents and those with health problems. The
highest recorded temperature since 1869 was 106.5° in 1936 for New York City. The summer of
1999 was one of the hottest periods on record for the New York City area, when they
experienced 27 days of 90 degree weather or higher.
Extreme high temperatures also result in power failures due to the high demand for air
conditioning during heat waves (See Section 4.D.6.1 below). Power outages during heat waves
have become a common occurrence in New York City and Westchester County. Although
blackouts and brownouts may be frequent, their direct effect on health, safety and structures is
not severe. During extended power failures, the lack of refrigeration results in food spoilage in
homes and markets, transportation problems, closing of schools and businesses, as well as great
financial losses. Power failures can put the sick or infirmed at risk. Extended power failures
associated with brownouts and blackouts have resulted in significant property damage in New
York City and Westchester County. The probability of power failures due to heat or storms is
high for the Town of Mamaroneck.
Although heat hazards may be frequent, its direct effects on health, safety is limited. It often has
impacts on infrastructures such as utilities. Heat waves cover a wide regional area and are not
restricted to the Town. However extreme temperatures have a potential to cause illness and
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-66
death for sensitive populations such as the chronically ill and elderly. There is a high probability
for future heat events in Westchester County. A warning system for this hazard is handled
through the National Weather Service.
Temperatures are predicted to increase in New York State by 1.5 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit by
2020, 3.5 to 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, and 4.5 – 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2080
(NYSERDA 2011). The link between extreme temperatures and global warming will be
discussed further in the Climate Change section of this Hazard Mitigation Plan.
No significant property damage has been reported from past heat waves. Interruption of services
and businesses is limited and primarily due to electrical utility failures. No further health and
safety assessments and damage analysis for extreme temperatures will be performed, and no
mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
4.D.5.5 Drought
Hazard Summary: A drought occurs when a long period of time passes without any substantial
precipitation. Droughts can occur at any time of the year. A prolonged drought can have serious
economic impacts on an area. Agricultural production can be damaged or destroyed by loss of
crops or livestock, resulting in food shortages. Increased demand for water and electricity can
result in shortages of these resources particularly those serving the Town and its surrounding
areas. Lack of precipitation, accompanied by extreme heat can increase the risk of wildfires and
heat stress. Health impacts are worse on the elderly, small children, and immune deficient. A
drought is a regional hazard and would impact the entire Town and its surrounding areas. A
severe drought during the summer of 1999 affected most of the northeast. Damage of over 1
billion in agricultural losses and 502 deaths occurred in the eastern US. There is a high
probability of a future drought. The magnitude and severity on the Town of Mamaroneck would
be low if water conservation measures are enforced.
Sources of information related to drought are given in see Section 11, References Cited and
include: Local Papers; Journal News, NY Times; Climate change documents; National Climate
Data Center website; Accuweather website; National Drought Mitigation Center Website;
National Weather Service, Climate Prediction Center; NYS Climate Office, Department of Earth
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-67
and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University web site; Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions website.
Profile Details: Drought impacts are regional and Town wide. The heat wave during the
summer of 1999 (see above) led to a major drought, which affected most of the Northeast. It was
reportedly the worst drought in the United States since the Dust Bowl of the late 1930s. In New
York City, combined rainfall amounts were almost 8 inches below normal for the summer
months, and reservoir levels were 15% below normal.
Homeowners were requested not to water their lawns, wash cars, or refill their swimming pools
in the New York area. Widespread ground fires broke out in the Hudson Highlands. This
drought was blamed for over $1 billion in agricultural losses and an estimated 502 deaths in the
eastern United States (NOAA/NCDC). A drought is an emergency that can lead to untamed
fires. The intense summer drought and responses to it may also have contributed to the outbreak
of the West Nile Virus, by affecting the habitat of mosquitoes and crows carrying the virus.
The 2012 North American Drought brought drought conditions over much of the United States.
In fact, at the peak of the drought, approximately 81 percent of the contiguous United States was
under at least abnormally dry conditions. 1,692 Counties in 36 states had been declared primary
natural disaster areas.
The connection between drought and global warming will be discussed in the Climate Change
section of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. There is a high probability of future drought event. A
warning system is handled through the National Weather Service. No significant property
damage in the town of Mamaroneck was reported from drought. Interruption of services and
businesses is regional and primarily due to electrical utility failures and water shortage. Due to
its low hazard rating, no further health and safety assessments and damage analysis will be
performed, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-68
4.D.5.6 Landslides
Hazard Summary: A landslide is a downward and outward movement of loosened rocks or
earth down a hillside or slope. According to the NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan, the landslide is
identified as a hazard of concern for New York State. However, most of Westchester County is
located in a low landslide incidence area. There was only one reported landslide occurrence in
Westchester County in the last 50 years, which occurred on July 3, 1969. According to the
USGS, the Town of Mamaroneck has a low landslide incidence.
This hazard was ranked as a moderately low hazard. No further health and safety assessments
and damage analysis will be performed in Section 5, and no mitigation measures will be
proposed or evaluated.
Sources of information on landslide hazards are given in Section 11, References Cited and
include: Town Officials; NY State Hazard Mitigation Plan; NY State Hazard Mitigation Plan
(Draft 2014); USGS Landslide Hazards Program; Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for
the United States (SHELDUS) website.
4.D.5.7 Tsunamis
Hazard Summary: Tsunamis are defined as a series of ocean waves that are generated by a
rapid large-scale disturbance of the seawater. Most tsunamis are generated by seismic activity
such as earthquakes. Volcanic eruptions, landslides, or undersea slumps, and meteorological
impacts can also cause tsunamis. They may also be caused by meteorological impacts. Most
tsunamis occur in the Pacific, and originate along a hotbed of seismic activity known as the
Pacific Ring of Fire. The Atlantic is home to much less seismic and volcanic activity. The
primary tsunami source for the east coast of the United States is from under water landslides that
occur along the continental slope in the Atlantic Ocean.
The impacts of tsunamis can be great. Loss of life due to drowning can occur, as well as damage
and destruction to property and infrastructure. Land erosion can also occur due a tsunami.
Although tsunamis in the East Coast are rare, they are still possible, should there be an
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-69
underwater earthquake greater than 7.0 in magnitude, a volcanic eruption, or underwater
landslide on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Sources of Information: NOAA Tsunami website www.tsunami.noaa.gov; NOAA West Coast
and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center website, http://oldwcatwc.arh.noaa.gov; “Tsunami, The
Great Waves”, 2nd edition, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, 2012; National
Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program website, http://trhmp.tsunami.gov; “East Coast Tsunami
Threats” presentation. Steve Pfaff, National Weather Service, Wilmington, NC,
www.erh.noaa.gov.ilm/stormready/tsunami/player.html.
Profile Details: Tsunamis are generated by a sudden displacement of a large amount of water,
usually from below as in earthquakes and submarine landslides. Meteotsunamis are generated by
atmospheric effects from above which generate the waves over time through resonance effects.
The most noteworthy tsunami in recent history occurred in November of 1929 when a major
earthquake with a magnitude of 7.2 triggered a submarine landslide 250 miles south of
Newfoundland. It was felt as far south as New York. The tsunami wave heights reached up to
23-feet and were concentrated on the coast of Newfoundland, but recorded as far as South
Carolina. 28 people were killed from this event.
Although meteotsunamis can occur several times a year, they are usually too small to be noticed
by people on the coast. Some previous significant meteotsunamis along the east coast have
occurred. In October 2008 a meteotsunami with waves reaching 12-feet high occurred in
Boothbay Harbor, Maine. Fortunately it occurred during low-tide, or the impacts would have
been worse. In July 1992, a meteotsunami with waves reaching 18-feet high occurred in
Daytona Beach, Florida, injuring 75 people.
On June 13, 2013 a tsunami-like wave occurred near Long Beach Island in Barnegat Light, along
the southern coast of New Jersey. Although the final cause of the tsunami is still under
investigation, NOAA confirmed that it was a meteotsunami, which was at least partially
generated by meteorological or weather effects occurred. It occurred in close conjunction with a
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-70
low-end derecho weather system. It was not spurred by an earthquake or an underwater
landslide. There were no life-threatening injuries. Scientists continue to investigate to determine
if a shifting at the continental shelf east of New Jersey could have played a role in the incident,
as well.
There is no record of a tsunami ever occurring in New York State. The Town of Mamaroneck is
not located in a region that is labeled as vulnerable to tsunamis. However, the possibility of an
occurrence cannot be ruled out.
4.D.5.8 The Effect of Climate Change on Natural Hazards
Heavier and more extreme weather events have occurred in the United States over the last few
decades with increasing incidence of devastating floods. Although no single storm can be
attributed directly to global warming, changing climate conditions have affected weather trends.
Warmer air can hold more moisture so that the atmosphere will have more water available for
rain. Therefore heavier and more precipitation is expected in the future. Climate models project
increased rainfall rates in hurricanes. This increased rainfall can lead to stronger hurricanes and
rising sea levels for the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. In addition, snowfall pattern shifts and
river ice melting changes may exacerbate flooding risks.
Although there are conflicting reports on the extent of the impact of climate change, models
suggest heavier rainfall, stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels, more extreme heat waves, and an
increase in droughts and wildfires. Rising sea levels are expected to increase coastal flood
frequency and severity from tropical cyclones, extra tropical cyclones and other severe coastal
storms. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sea level rise of between
one to two feet can be expected by the end of this century (IPCC). Recent studies have identified
the Northeastern United States as a hotspot of accelerated sea level rise. Over the past 30 years,
sea levels in the northeast have risen four times faster than the global average, increasing the risk
of storm surges and flooding. (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions).
The average annual temperature in New York has increased by more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit
since 1970, with winter temperatures rising twice as much. Temperatures are predicted to
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-71
increase in the Northeast by 1.5 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020, 3.5 to 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit
by 2050, and 4.5 – 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2080 (NYSERDA). Winter precipitation is
projected to increase by 20-30% in the Northeast by the end of the century; Sea level rise is
projected to rise from between 7 inches to 2 feet by the end of the century, causing an increase in
coastal flooding and damaging storm surges. (NECIA).
Major storms can cause coastal erosion from the combination of high winds and heavy surf and
storm surge. Climate change could exacerbate conditions that lead to both coastal and inland
erosion.
Rising temperatures along with little predicted change in summer rainfall is projected to increase
the frequency of short-term droughts. Higher temperatures combined with increasing levels of
carbon dioxide in the air can accelerate seasonal pollen production in plants, and thus extend the
allergy season and increase asthma risks. It can also worsen air-quality. Increased temperatures
coupled with more frequent droughts can increase the production of vector-borne diseases, such
as West Nile Virus and Lyme disease. Other projected casualties of climate change include
impacts to forestry, agriculture, fisheries, and dairies.
The Town of Mamaroneck has taken the pledge to combat climate change by joining the Climate
Smart Communities Program (NYSDEC), which is a state-local partnership to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, save taxpayer dollars and advance community goals for health and
safety, economic vitality, energy independence and quality of life. The Town is identifying
sources of greenhouse gases in the community; setting goals for emission reduction; and
developing a climate action plan.
Sources of information on the effects of climate change are given in Section 11. References
Cited and include: Climate Change Indicators in the United States, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/; NY State Climate Action
Council, “New York State Climate Action Plan Interim Report”, November 9, 2010.
http://www.nyclimatechange.us/InterimReport.cfm; “Confronting Climate Change in the US
Northeast – New York”, NECIA. www.climatechoices.org ; NYSERDA website; “Responding
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-72
to Climate Change in NY State”, Technical Report 11-18, NYSERDA, November 2011.
www.westchester.gov; “Climate Change and Sustainability”, Westchester County Website,
www.climatechange.westchestergov.com, “Climate Science Watch”,
www.climatesciencewatch.org; United States Global Change Research Program website
www.globalchange.gov/ Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “Climate Change and
Hurricane Sandy”, www.c2es.org/; NY State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Climate Change Information Resources www.dec.ny.gov/energy/; Intergovernmental panel on
Climate Change website , www.ipcc.ch.
4.D.6 Technological Hazards
Technological hazards such as regional utility blackouts, hazardous material releases, air
contamination, explosions, and fires are a community concern.
4.D.6.1 Utility Failures
Hazard Summary: Utility Failure refers to periodic cessation of electrical or communication
services due to adverse weather conditions, human error or mechanical failure. These failures
can cover an entire region such as northeastern United States, the entire Town, or just a few
blocks of the Town. The most frequent causes of outages are severe storms that damage power
lines or heat waves that overload power equipment. In 2006 a multitude of utility failures
occurred in Westchester County. The summer of 1999 brought 27 days of 90+ degree days,
causing rolling blackouts to the area. Impacts from power outages are severe and affect
businesses, emergency services, health and safety of the elderly and the ill, rail transportation,
communication, food preservation and numerous other impacts. The probability of future events
is high. The magnitude and severity of utility failures can be high depending on the area covered
by a blackout, the population affected and its duration. Con Edison has been upgrading their
distribution system, and has been coordinating their efforts with local municipal officials.
Sources of information are given in Section 11, References Cited and include: Con Edison
website, press releases and studies; Local papers and websites: Journal News, NY Times,
Soundview Rising, Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch, Sound & Town, Mamaroneck Review,
Mamaroneck Daily Voice, The Loop, Larchmont Gazette (archives); “Westchester County
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-73
Severe Wind and Rain Storm January 18-22, 2006”, Consolidated Edison,
www.dps.ny.gov/conediso-january2006stormreport.pdf; “Report on Preparation and System
Restoration Performance – Hurricane Irene”, Consolidated Edison, November 14, 2011.
Profile Details: Consolidated Edison is the primary supplier of electricity to the Town. Con
Edison has had significant problems related to electricity supply and demand. Utility failures
have occurred during severe storms such as hurricanes, northeasters, electrical storms,
windstorms, tornados, heat waves, and snowstorms (See Sections 4.D.3 and 4.D.5 above).
Power outages due to heat waves are a common occurrence in NYC and Westchester County.
The breakage of utility poles or power lines is a major cause of electrical failures in local areas
during storms. Storm related damage has sometimes required help from other utilities outside
our region in order to restore power.
Con Edison serves approximately 349,000 residential and commercial electric customers, and
232,000 residential and commercial gas customers in Westchester County. It is estimated that
there are approximately 5,259 Con Edison electrical customers in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Their service area encompasses 310 square miles, 15,089 miles of overhead wires, 6,452 miles of
underground cable, and 91,593 utility poles. Most notable outages are listed below.
On August 14, 2003, there was a mass power outage that swept across the entire Northeastern
United States. FEMA declared an emergency declaration for New York State allotting $5
million for public assistance relief. (EM-3186).
In 2006 alone, a multitude of utility failures occurred in Westchester County:
January 18-22, 2006: Thunderstorm, wind and rain storms occurred in Westchester County
which uprooted trees and 61,486 Con Edison customers lost power. (Con Edison:
Westchester County Severe Wind and Rain Storm January 18-22, 2006,
www.dps.ny.gov/conediso-january2006stormreport.pdf)
July 12, 2006: Severe thunderstorms that accompanied a tornado caused approximately
4,000 households in Westchester County to lose power.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-74
July 17, 2006: Heat wave caused 10,000 households in Westchester County to lose power.
High-energy consumption and an overloaded transformer were blamed for this power outage.
July 18, 2006: Severe storm caused an additional 35,000 households in Westchester County
to lose power.
July 21, 2006: Storm caused an additional 9,500 households in Westchester to lost power.
July 22, 2006: An additional 6,000 Westchester households lost power.
September 2, 2006: The remnants of Tropical Storm Ernesto caused approximately 80,000
households in Westchester County to lose power.
On September 14, 2006, Con Edison representatives met with several Westchester municipal
officials to discuss Con Edison’s response to the 2006 power outages, and to discuss solutions
and future plans. Con Edison agreed to work with the municipal officials on improving response
to power outages.
Regarding structural improvements, Con Edison was asked about the feasibility of moving the
power lines underground. Con Edison replied that this can be accomplished by a) burying the
existing system underground at an estimated cost of $5 billion; or b) Installing a new
underground system costing $50 billion, plus the additional cost of burying the telephone and
cable lines. Every street in Westchester County would have to be excavated, which would create
major construction disruptions, environmental, and safety issues. Con Edison stated that neither
method was being considered.
The Nor’Easter of March 2010 knocked out power to approximately 173,000 households in
Westchester County and New York City. Con Edison reported more than 1,000 households
without power in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Tropical Storm Irene, which occurred on August 23, 2011, reportedly knocked out power to
approximately 203,821 households in Westchester County and New York City. Con Edison
reported approximately 600 households without power in the Town of Mamaroneck.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-75
The Blizzard of October 2011 knocked out power to approximately 71,000 customers in
Westchester County. This storm also knocked out power to a reported 1,170 customers in the
Town of Mamaroneck.
In late October 2012, Superstorm Sandy knocked out power to approximately 206,000 customers
in Westchester County, affecting 3,332 customers in the Town of Mamaroneck. The Town
Center lost power for 8 days after the storm.
The Town of Mamaroneck has auxiliary power supplied by generators at the police, fire, and
EMS facilities. Their fuel pumps also have auxiliary generators to allow vehicles to function
during an emergency.
After Superstorm Sandy, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that regulators
would scrutinize Con Edison’s preparations for Sandy, as well as its subsequent attempts to
restore power in New York City and Westchester County after the storm. No further health and
safety assessments and damage analysis will be performed related to utility failures, and no
mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
4.D.6.2 Hazardous Materials Fixed Site Releases
Hazard Summary: This hazard is the release of any substance or material that when involved
in an accident and released in sufficient quantities, poses a risk to people's health, safety, and/or
property. These substances and materials include explosives, radioactive materials, flammable
liquids or solids, combustible liquids or solids, poisons, oxidizers, toxins, and corrosive
materials. Release of these materials from a business or industrial operation can impact the
health and safety of workers and people near the facility. There are commercial and industrial
enterprises that require the storage of chemicals and generate hazardous wastes in the Town of
Mamaroneck (See Figure 4-9). Most of the reported materials and wastes are small quantities
and are not likely to result in major loss of property and life. Therefore, the magnitude and
severity of the hazard would be restricted to local sites in the Town. The location of these sites is
mostly in the commercial and industrial sections of the Town. These areas likely have the
highest risk of a hazardous materials incident.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-76
Relatively few significant releases that would affect the pubic and require evacuation have been
reported in the Town. The risk is considered to be moderately low. No further health and safety
assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be
proposed or evaluated.
Sources of information are given in Section 11, References Cited include: Conversations with
Town Officials; Incident Reports from the Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department; Westchester
County GIS website; EPA Enviromapper website.
Profile Details: The Federal Community Right-to-Know law is enforced by New York State and
requires businesses and industries to maintain inventories of hazardous materials. The USEPA
and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation closely regulate hazardous wastes and
require the reporting of these wastes that are stored on-site.
Hazardous materials can be explosive, inflammable and combustible, toxic, and radioactive.
Hazardous materials are manufactured, used or stored at an estimated 4.5 million facilities in the
United States, and the "hazardous materials label" can be applied to more than 500,000 products.
Hazardous material release from fixed facilities is a hazard of concern. There are a number of
commercial and industrial enterprises that require the storage of chemicals and generate
hazardous wastes in the Town of Mamaroneck (See Figure 4-9).
Hazardous material releases in the Town of Mamaroneck can occur from activities such as dry
cleaning, auto repair and repainting, home building and maintenance, and small quantity home
use of chemicals. There could be a problem if materials used in commercial or industrial
facilities and homes are spilled, a tank or pipe breaks or leaks, a fire occurs in a facility
containing hazardous substances, or if an accident occurs during transportation and delivery of
fuels. Minor spills and releases is a common occurrence in the Town due to the numerous fixed
sites that are in the Town. There have been no significant hazardous material releases in recent
history that have caused injury or loss of life to any people in the Town.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-77
The frequency of hazardous materials distributed in the Town is an important community
concern. However, the majority of quantities involved would not result in significant property
damage or result in significant injury, illness, or mortality to the public. No further health and
safety assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be
proposed or evaluated.
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(WEAVER STNEW ENGLAND THWYMAIN STFENIMORE RDGRIFFIN AVEPALMER AVEROCKLAND AVE5TH AVEBEACH AVETHE PKYL
A
R
C
H
MON
T
A
V
E
OLD W
HITE PLAINS RD
FO REST AVE1 7
2 3 N
MURRAY AVEMYRTLE BLVDRUSHMORE AVE23S
O A K A V E
C
L
A
F
LIN A
V
ECENTER AVEWALTON AVEW BOSTON POST RDWE
S
T
S
T
PRYER LNS BARRY AVEAVON RDC
I
R
C
L
E
A
V
EHARMON DRPROSPECT AVEHALSTEAD AVEN CHATSWORTH AVEV IN E R D 18AJEFFERSON AVEW FLAGLER DRN
B
A
R
R
Y
A
V
E
B A R N A R D R D
M
O
N
R
O
E A
V
E GRAND ST18BMARBOURNE DRSHORE ACRES DRM O UNTAIN AVEGROVE AVESTANLEY AVEHOMMOCKS RD GROVE STO
R
IE
N
T
A A
V
E
PREMIUM PT
UNION AVE
VALLEY RDISELIN TERYORK RD
PLAIN AVECHATSWORTH AVE
EAST DRBYRON LNBOSTON POST RDBALDWIN PLWENDT AVE HOYT AVESHORE DRMAMARONECK AVEDANTE STMAYHEW AVE
H
A
R
RIS
O
N D
R LOCUST AVE1ST STMAPL
E AVEHALL AVE
PARK AVEHOLLY PLWI
NFI
ELD AVECORNELL STMT
P
L
E
A
S
A
NT
A
V
E3RD STO
C
E
A
N
A
V
EWOODHOLLOW LNEDG EW O O D AVEMADISON STECHO LN WINGED FOOT DRALDA RDPOTTER AVEW A R D A V EKOLBERT DRN E W S T
COLONIAL AVEB R A D F O R D R D
HOWELL AVE22HIGHVIEW STSHADOW LNRIDGE RDOLD BOSTON POST RDGLENDALE RDBRIARCLIFF RDE BOSTON POST RDCARLEON AVET R A V E R S A V E
S
A
L
E
M
D
R
FERNWOOD RDBONNIE BRIAR LNETON RDCOVE RD SD
O
G
WO
O
D
L
N OAKHURST RDCORTLAND AVEK
IL
M
E
R
R
D SAXON DRH A Z E L L N BRUCE RDTHE CRESRAILROAD WAYGLEN LNCARRIAGE HOUSE LNBEECHTREE DRBIRCH HILL LN
BRO O K STLAWN TERSKIBO LNN BROOK RDTO M PKIN S AVEVALLEY PLB
A
Y
H
E
A
D D
R
NINE ACRES LNPROTANO LNFULTON RD
HILLTOP RD
SEAHAVEN DR
GERTRUDE AVE
COVE RD WNAUTILUS LN
BEECH RD
R
O
C
K
L
A
N
D
P
L JEFFERSON STSOUTH DRDORIS RD
HARMON DR18B
2 3 S
PALMER AVEPROSPECT AVE0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000Feet
DWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 01/28/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4-9Hazardous Materials Locations
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
Legend
!(Hazardou s Waste Generators
!(Hazardou s Waste Transporters
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-79
4.D.6.3 Hazardous Materials Transport Releases
Hazard Summary: Hazardous materials can be explosive, flammable and combustible, toxic,
and radioactive. Release of these materials during transport within or through the Town can
impact the health and safety of its residents. Trucks carrying hazardous materials are likely most
at risk at one of the established transportation routes that traverse the Town of Mamaroneck.
These routes include Interstate-95, also known as the New England Thruway; and US-1, also
known as the Boston Post Road. Metro-North commuter tracks run through Mamaroneck, and
are also used by CSX to transport hazardous materials along the route that bisects the Town.
Hazardous materials spills or accidents could also occur at one of the many fixed sites located
throughout the Town where hazardous materials are used or stored. No significant releases that
would affect the public and require evacuation have been reported in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Therefore, the magnitude and severity of the hazard is expected to be limited to local areas.
Sources of information are given in Section 11, References Cited include: Westchester County
GIS website; Incident Reports from the Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department; Conversations
with Town Officials; Metro-North Website; Conrail website.
Profile Details: There are nearly 7,000 hazardous material incidents every year in the United
States on average, most of which occur on the highway. U.S. Department of Transportation
regulates the transport of hazardous materials and has procedures in place to mitigate hazardous
spills. These procedures involve the local fire and public safety departments. The Town of
Mamaroneck would rely on the Westchester County Hazardous Materials Response Team as its
primary agency to respond to and coordinate the control and cleanup of any hazardous materials
event.
The risk is considered to be moderately low. No further health and safety assessments and
damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
4.D.6.4 Air Contamination
Hazard Summary: Air contamination is the result of emissions of chemicals from industry or
transportation into the air. Air contamination events in the Town, due to local sources, are small
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-80
and isolated and generally do not represent a major increase in health and safety risks to local
residents. The primary risks are related to regional problems, rather than local sources. Air
contamination in the Town is considered to be a low risk hazard. Region wide ozone alerts are
generated by the National Weather service. No further health and safety assessments and
damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
Sources of information are given in Section 11, References Cited and include: Conversations
with Town Officials; EPA Enviromapper website; Westchester County GIS website;
Accuweather website.
Profile Details: The commercial and industrial establishments in the Town of Mamaroneck
would generally not cause an air pollution problem of significant concern. Regional air episodes
such as ozone alerts occur over the New York City Metropolitan area that does affect
Mamaroneck. These alerts are often associated with hot weather. These episodes would have
the greatest impact on senior residents and those that have respiratory, heart or other problems.
Events in the Town, due to local sources, have been small and isolated and generally do not
represent a major increase in health and safety risks to local residents. These risks are related to
regional problems, rather than local sources. No further health and safety assessments and
damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
4.D.6.5 Explosions
Hazard Summary: According to the National Fire Protection Agency, an explosion is defined
as “an effect produced by the sudden, violent expansion of gases, which can be accompanied by
a shockwave or disruption, or both, of enclosing materials or structures”. Chemical changes,
such as rapid oxidation, deflagration, detonation, decomposition of molecules, or runaway
polymerization could cause an explosion. Physical changes, such as pressure tank ruptures can
also cause an explosion.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-81
Sources of information are given in Section 11, References Cited include: Conversations with
Town officials, Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department Incident Reports, National Fire
Protection Agency (NFPA) website, EPA Enviromapper website.
Profile Details: An explosion can vary in size and magnitude, from a small incident to a
catastrophic failure, causing injury and loss of life, and major property damage. Explosions can
occur at a number of sites in the Town of Mamaroneck, especially in locations where hazardous
materials are stored. Trucks carrying explosive materials are also most likely at risk for
explosion at one of the established transportation routes that traverse the Town. Metro North
Commuter tracks run through Mamaroneck, and are also used by CSX to transport hazardous
materials along the route that bisects the Town. Ruptures of natural gas mains may result in
explosion if favorable conditions exist such as an ignition source.
Few explosions that would affect the public have been reported in the last 5 years. The risk is
considered to be moderately low. No further health or safety assessments and damage analysis
will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
4.D.6.6 Transportation Accidents
Hazard Summary: A transportation accident is defined as a mishap involving one or more
conveyances on land, sea, and/or in the air that results in mass casualties and/or substantial loss
of property. Transportation accidents happen on a regular basis on most highways.
Sources of information are given in Section 11, References cited and include: Conversations
with Town Officials; TMFD Incident Type Count Reports, January 1, 2008 – December 31,
2012; The Journal News, Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch.
Profile details: Transportation accidents can occur on any roadway in the Town of
Mamaroneck. Transportation accidents occur frequently with the potential of serious injury or
death, but likely not in large numbers and generally with limited public or private property loss.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-82
Most serious accidents would be expected to occur along major transportation corridors.
Interstate-95, also known as the New England Thruway, is a major traffic artery that is heavily
travelled by passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. US-1, also known as the Boston Post Road, is
another major traffic artery that is subject to both heavy passenger and commercial vehicular
traffic. Other highly traveled roads include Weaver Street, which provides access to Scarsdale
and New Rochelle; and Palmer Avenue, which provides access to New Rochelle, Larchmont,
and the Village of Mamaroneck. Another vulnerable place for transportation accidents would be
in the Long Island Sound.
There have been an abundance of accidents that have occurred on I-95 between mile markers 9.5
and 10, particularly at the curve of mile marker 9.8, both Northbound and Southbound. The area
is a stretch of curving roadway from Mamaroneck Avenue down to Old White Plains Road. It is
reported that the surface of the curved roadway was resurfaced years ago using concrete rather
than blacktop. The road got noisier, and instead of resurfacing with blacktop, they used diamond
grinding, which cut grooves into the road that was supposed to quiet things down. When the
diamond grinding wore down, it created a smooth surface, which would become extremely slick,
especially when wet. The NYS Thruway Authority has since laid down a coating of pavement at
the 9.8 mile marker.
During the period January 1, 2008 through November 28, 2012, the TMFD reported responding
to 304 motor vehicle accidents with injuries, 20 motor vehicle accidents with no injuries, and 24
motor vehicle/pedestrian accidents.
4.D.6.7 Fires
Hazard Summary: Fire hazards result from uncontrolled combustion of materials, buildings or
other structures that threaten human life and property. Fires have occurred in residences and
commercial establishments in the Town of Mamaroneck. Based on the frequency of calls and
alarms and the likelihood that a fire would affect more than one building and that there is a
chance that serious injury or death could occur, the hazard was ranked moderately low.
Although most fires that have occurred are structural fires, there have been incidences of wildfire
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-83
hazard or brush fires. No further health and safety assessments and damage analysis will be
performed, and no mitigation measures specific to fire hazards will be proposed or evaluated.
Sources of information: Town officials; Incident Type Reports from Town of Mamaroneck
Fire Department, January 1, 2008 – December 31, 2012.
Profile Details: Fires can always occur in residences, commercial establishments, industrial
buildings, institutional buildings, and places of public assembly. Most fires occurring in the
Town of Mamaroneck are structural fires. There are limited incidences of fires occurring in
natural areas in the Town, which could be a concern as a wildfire hazard. The Town of
Mamaroneck Fire Department (TMFD) provides fire, rescue, and emergency medical response to
all areas within the unincorporated areas of the Town. These areas also make up the Town’s fire
district. The fire department consists of both full time and volunteer firefighters and officers,
and is managed by one Chief and two Deputy Chiefs.
Vulnerable areas for wildfire would include the Hommocks Conservation Areas, Leatherstocking
Trail, Premium Marsh Conservancy, Saxon Woods Park, Sheldrake River Trails, and James G.
Johnson, Jr. Conservancy. According to the TMFD, the following fires have occurred in the
Town in the last five years:
Type of Situation 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Building Fires: 14 6 11 13 21
Vehicle Fires: 4 5 6 8 2
Brush, grass, or natural vegetation Fire: 4 3 0 3 4
Other Fires: 18 20 27 16 16
Total Fires: 40 34 44 40 43
No further health and safety assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and no
mitigation measures specific to fire hazards will be proposed or evaluated.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-84
4.D.7 Human-Caused Hazards
4.D.7.1 Civil Unrest
Hazard Summary: Civil unrest may include unruly or violent crowds during public events, and
political protests. Civil unrest could include racial, ethnic or political group protests or
demonstrations. Although such events can occur any place, the likelihood of civil unrest
occurring in the Town of Mamaroneck is low, given the suburban demographics. Historically,
civil unrest has not been an issue for the Town. The local Police, Fire and Public Safety
Departments can handle the potential for civilians causing local damage. Random events can be
a potential concern. There is no history of significant civil unrest that would cause damage to
property and injury to numbers of people is low. No further health and safety assessments and
damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
Sources of information: Conversations with Town Officials.
4.D.7.2 Terrorism
Hazard Summary: Although acts of terrorism are possible anywhere in Westchester County,
this hazard would be less likely in the Town of Mamaroneck. There are no major terrorist targets
of interest identified in the Town such as key target populations, high profile historical
landmarks, airports, significant infrastructures, important facilities, critical industries or major
government institutions and structures.
There are possible targets for terrorism located in or around the Town. The Metro North tracks
run through the Town of Mamaroneck with stops in the Village of Mamaroneck and the Village
of Larchmont. Railroad facilities have been targets in recent years in European cities. The
Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities Wastewater Treatment Plant is also
located nearby in the Village of Mamaroneck. Another target is the Kensico Dam, located
further north near Valhalla. The effects of failure of the Dam are discussed in section 4.D.5.1 of
this report.
Another possible target is the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Current regulations require
evacuation planning for areas located within a ten-mile radius of nuclear facilities. The Town of
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-85
Mamaroneck is 23.65 miles from Indian Point and lies outside of this planning zone
(http://itsaboutthehudsonvalley.com/Indian-Point/25-miles.html). Legislators are currently
urging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to expand the NRC evacuation plan
requirements to include areas within fifty miles of a nuclear facility.
Because of the absence of important target facilities and key populations, this hazard was not
considered significant enough for further evaluation or analysis.
Sources of information: Conversations with Town officials; NY Times; Journal News; United
States Nuclear Regulating Commission (USNRC) website www.nrc.gov.
4.E Elimination of Hazards
Several Hazards were eliminated from a detailed risk and damage assessment and evaluation of
mitigation measures after an initial profile assessment and discussions with the Committee.
These include:
Tornadoes: Tornadoes are not a frequent hazard. Only 8 tornadoes have been documented in
Westchester County since 1958, and they are scattered geographically. None of the 8 occurred
in the Town of Mamaroneck. Although tornadoes have a moderately low hazard rating, they are
occurring more frequently than in the past. Tornadoes are also associated with other severe
storm hazards, so they were not evaluated separately from other wind hazards in this plan.
Epidemic: Should an epidemic occur, it would most likely affect the region and not just the
Town. No special mitigation measures beyond current state or county public health activities are
called for. This hazard has a moderately low hazard rating. No further health and safety
assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be
proposed or evaluated.
Extreme Temperatures: No significant property damage has been reported from heat waves in
the Town of Mamaroneck. Interruption of services and businesses is limited and primarily due
to electrical utility failures. This hazard has a moderately low hazard rating, and these risks are
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-86
generally related to regional problems. No further health and safety assessments and damage
analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
Drought: No significant property damage in the Town of Mamaroneck was reported from
drought. Interruption of services and businesses is regional and primarily due to electrical utility
failures and water shortage. Due to its low hazard rating, no further health and safety
assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be
proposed or evaluated.
Hazardous Material Releases (Fixed and In transit): The frequency of hazardous materials
distributed in the Town is an important community concern. However, the quantities involved
have not resulted in significant property damage or resulted in significant injury, illness, or
mortality to the public. These hazards have moderately low hazard ratings. No further health
and safety assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will
be proposed.
Air contamination: Events in the Town due to local sources have been small and isolated and do
not represent a major increase in health and safety risks to local residents. These risks are related
to regional problems, rather than local sources. This hazard has a low hazard rating. No further
health and safety assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and no mitigation
measures will be proposed or evaluated.
Explosions: Information provided indicates explosion hazards are primarily related to handling
and transport of fuels and are discussed under hazardous material hazards. Explosion hazards
were ranked moderately low. Therefore, no further health and safety assessments and damage
analysis will be performed, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
Fire: Building fire hazards are not considered significantly different from neighboring
communities. No further health and safety assessments and damage analysis will be performed,
and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
ETG, Inc. Section 4 Assessing the Hazard
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
4-87
Civil Unrest: Random events can be a potential concern. There is no history of significant civil
unrest that would cause damage to property and injury to numbers of people is low. This hazard
has a low hazard rating. No further health and safety assessments and damage analysis will be
performed, and no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
Terrorism: There is an absence of important target facilities and key vulnerable populations in
the Town. No further health and safety assessments and damage analysis will be performed, and
no mitigation measures will be proposed or evaluated.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-1
Section 5 - Assessing the Impacts
5.A Introduction
The possible hazards affecting the Town of Mamaroneck were identified, profiled and ranked in
Section 4 above. The rating and ranking of the hazards used the HAZNY method with input
from the local experience of the Town of Mamaroneck’s Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee. The primary purpose of the current section is to identify and assess the Town’s
assets and evaluate the impacts from these hazards.
This section is based largely on the recommended organization and methods outlined in the
FEMA “How-to Guides” and the State and Local Mitigation Planning guidance manual called
“Understanding Your Risks”, and FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, March, 2013.
These documents provide an approach to identifying hazards and estimating the losses produced
by these hazards. This section was also guided by the FEMA Activity Worksheet: “510
Floodplain Management planning” under Section 511, Credit Points, and follows the outline
given in the guides under Section 5, “Assess the Problem”.
The hazard assessment began with the identification and ranking of all hazards that affect the
Town of Mamaroneck (See Section 4.B above). The Hazards New York (HAZNY) method was
used as a tool to help identify and rank hazards based on input from the community with the
experience of emergency services professionals. The results of these analyses are shown in Table
5-1 and are discussed above in Section 4.C. The HAZNY ranking analysis includes the
probability or frequency of occurrence of a given hazard and refers to how often a hazard will
occur in the future. The HAZNY analysis distinguishes between the following frequencies of
occurrences:
Rare Event Occurs less than once every 50 years.
Infrequent Event Occurs between once every 8 years to once in 50 years.
Regular Event Occurs between once a year to once every 7 years.
Frequent Event Occurs more than once a year.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-2
Table 5-1. Summary of Hazards Scores Based on HAZNY Analysis.
HAZNY Score
Mamaroneck
High Hazard 321-400
Flood 321
Moderately High Hazard 241-320
Coastal Storm* 253
Hurricane 248
Severe Storm & Thunderstorm ** 246
Moderately Low Hazard 161-240
Dam Failure 239
Fire 232
Windstorm 230
Winter Storm 230
Transportation Accident 222
Utility Failure 221
Terrorism 219
Tornado 218
Hazmat (In Transit) 210
Extreme Temperatures 204
Earthquake 202
Oil Spill 201
Landslide 199
Explosion 192
Water Supply Contamination 182
Epidemic 179
Transportation Accident (Rail) 172
Hazmat (Fixed Site) 168
Structural Collapse 164
Low Hazard 44-160
Drought 152
Fuel Shortage 142
Radioactive Release 140
Infestation 136
Air Contamination 132
Ice Jam 123
Food Shortage 119
Fuel Oil Spill 113
____________________________________________________
* Including tropical storms, nor’easters.
** Including severe and gale force winds as well as other non-winter storms listed. Hurricanes and coastal storms
not included
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-3
No quantitative assessment was prepared for the hazards showing a low impact or risk. Where
quantitative data were available, the future likelihood of the hazard was based on the information
available. For several hazards, where the probability of future events was not quantified, a
qualitative assessment of the likelihood is based on the HAZNY criteria and an evaluation of the
current extent of the problem.
An impact and damage analysis is provided in Section 5.E for major hazards impacting the Town
of Mamaroneck. This analysis is not given for hazards evaluated in Section 5.C below that were
judged to be not significant enough, or found to have a very low probability of occurring in a
given year.
5.B Inventory of Assets
The Town of Mamaroneck is a largely built-out residential suburban community. (See Section
1.A.) The Town is primarily residential. There are some large tracts of recreational land, and
small areas of commercial development. Most commercial activity, consisting mainly of retail
and service establishments, is located in the small commercial business districts, along the
Boston Post Road, Fifth Avenue, and Myrtle Boulevard. There is virtually no manufacturing in
the Town.
Some studies have been prepared for the Town of Mamaroneck. A Master Plan for the Town of
Mamaroneck was adopted in 1966. It was reviewed, with updates added in 1986 and 1987. A
Master Plan DEIS was adopted in 1989. A Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan was prepared
and adopted for the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont in 1986, and further
updated in 1995.
The general assets of the Town are evaluated according to the property use code or the category
of the building occupied. This breakdown however does not consider the importance of impacts
on certain facilities. In addition, there are groups of assets that are evaluated in this section
including:
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-4
Critical Facilities
Key Assets
Infrastructures
Resident Populations
5.B.1 Inventory of Buildings According to Property Use
Table 5-2 provides an estimate of residential, commercial, education, recreation, government,
religious, light industrial/manufacturing and other buildings in the Town based on the Town of
Mamaroneck tax assessments. The number of structures by property use code is listed in Table
5-2. For the most current year 2013, the predominant buildings in the Town are 2,976 single
residential properties out of total 3,582 buildings. There are 76 multi-residential structures.
Commercial buildings are located in Use Class Codes 400-486. Recent tax assessment records
show a total of 507 commercial buildings. Commercial apartment buildings, cooperatives and
condominiums are also included in this class. The Town’s commercial activity is located mostly
along the Boston Post Road, Fifth Avenue, and Myrtle Boulevard. Marval Industries and Nutech
Machine Shop are the only two businesses in the Town classified as lite industrial and
manufacturing.
Recreation and Entertainment structures and facilities include 6 country club structures, Badger
Sports Club Camp, the Mamaroneck Senior Center, indoor ice rink, indoor pool, outdoor pool
club, the Sheldrake Environmental Center and Monroe Camp. Community Services include four
schools, four government and protection buildings and one religious property.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-5
Table 5-2. Residential, Commercial, Industrial and other Buildings in the Town of
Mamaroneck.
* Data provided by the Town of Mamaroneck, Office of the Town Assessor.
5.B.2 Critical Facilities
The principal critical facilities identified in the Town of Mamaroneck are given in Table 5-3.
The location of these facilities is shown in Figure 5-1. They include four schools, Town of
Mamaroneck Fire Headquarters, Larchmont/Town of Mamaroneck Volunteer Ambulance Corp,
Mamaroneck Town Center, among others.
Property
Class Code
Building Type by Property Class
Number of
Buildings*
210 Single Residential 2,976
220-283 Multi-residential 76
400-486 Commercial 507
500-590,
682
Recreation & Entertainment 12
600-615 Education 4
620 Religious 1
650-670 Government & Protection 4
714 Lite Industrial & Manufacturing 2
Total 3,582
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-6
Table 5-3. Critical Facilities in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Facility Name Facility Function Address Facility Vulnerability to
Hazards
Town of
Mamaroneck Fire HQ
/ Town EOC
Emergency Response,
Storage of Emergency
Response Vehicles &
Equipment.
205 Weaver
Street
Interruption of fire emergency
services. Interruption of emergency
& rescue services.
Larchmont/Town of
Mamaroneck
Volunteer Ambulance
Corp (LVAC)
Emergency Response,
Storage of Emergency
Response Vehicles &
Equipment.
155 Weaver
Street
Interruption of emergency medical
& rescue services.
Mamaroneck Town
Center / Town Police
HQ / Backup EOC
Emergency Response,
Storage of Emergency
Response Vehicles &
Equipment.
740 West
Boston Post
Road
Interruption of police emergency
services & communication.
Interruption of emergency & rescue
services.
Mamaroneck Town
Yard
Public Works, Central
Garage and
Maintenance Facility.
40 Maxwell
Avenue
Loss of public diesel and gas pumps
for entire town fleet, DPW vehicles,
generators, pumps, and specialized
equipment.
Larchmont/
Mamaroneck
Sanitation
Commission Facility
Garbage disposal
facility.
41 Maxwell
Avenue
Interruption of Sanitation Services.
Mamaroneck High
School
Emergency Shelter. 1000 West
Boston Post
Road
Loss of shelter to vulnerable
populations.
VFW/Mamaroneck
Senior Center
Emergency Shelter,
Cooling & Heating
Center.
1288 Boston
Post Road
Loss of shelter to vulnerable
populations.
WEAVER STNEW ENGLAND THWYMAIN STFENIMORE RDGRIFFIN AVEPALMER AVEROCKLAND AVE5TH AVEBEACH AVETHE PKYL
A
R
C
H
MON
T
A
V
E
OLD W
HITE PLAINS RD
FO REST AVE1 7
2 3 N
MURRAY AVEMYRTLE BLVDRUSHMORE AVE23S
O A K A V E
C
L
A
F
LIN A
V
ECENTER AVEWALTON AVEW BOSTON POST RDWE
S
T
S
T
PRYER LNS BARRY AVEAVON RDC
I
R
C
L
E
A
V
EHARMON DRPROSPECT AVEMAMARONECK AVEHALSTEAD AVEN CHATSWORTH AVEV IN E R D 18AJEFFERSON AVEW FLAGLER DRN
B
A
R
R
Y
A
V
E
B A R N A R D R D
M
O
N
R
O
E A
V
E GRAND ST18BMARBOURNE DRSHORE ACRES DRM O UNTAIN AVEGROVE AVESTANLEY AVEHOMMOCKS RD GROVE STO
R
IE
N
T
A A
V
E
PREMIUM PT
UNION AVE
VALLEY RDISELIN TERYORK RD
PLAIN AVECHATSWORTH AVE
EAST DRBYRON LNBOSTON POST RDBALDWIN PLWENDT AVE HOYT AVESHORE DRDANTE STMAYHEW AVE
H
A
R
RIS
O
N D
R LOCUST AVE1ST STMAPL
E AVEHALL AVE
PARK AVEHOLLY PLWI
NFI
ELD AVECORNELL STMT
P
L
E
A
S
A
NT
A
V
E3RD STO
C
E
A
N
A
V
EWOODHOLLOW LNEDG EW O O D AVEMADISON STECHO LN WINGED FOOT DRALDA RDPOTTER AVEW A R D A V EKOLBERT DRN E W S T
COLONIAL AVEB R A D F O R D R D
HOWELL AVE22HIGHVIEW STSHADOW LNRIDGE RDOLD BOSTON POST RDGLENDALE RDBRIARCLIFF RDE BOSTON POST RDCARLEON AVET R A V E R S A V E
S
A
L
E
M
D
R
FERNWOOD RDBONNIE BRIAR LNETON RDCOVE RD SD
O
G
WO
O
D
L
N OAKHURST RDCORTLAND AVEK
IL
M
E
R
R
D SAXON DRH A Z E L L N BRUCE RDTHE CRESRAILROAD WAYGLEN LNCARRIAGE HOUSE LNBEECHTREE DRBIRCH HILL LN
BRO O K STLAWN TERSKIBO LNN BROOK RDTO M PKIN S AVEVALLEY PLB
A
Y
H
E
A
D D
R
NINE ACRES LNPROTANO LNFULTON RD
HILLTOP RD
SEAHAVEN DR
GERTRUDE AVE
COVE RD WNAUTILUS LN
BEECH RD
R
O
C
K
L
A
N
D
P
L JEFFERSON STSOUTH DRDORIS RD
HARMON DR18B
2 3 S
PALMER AVEPROSPECT AVE0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000Feet
DWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 01/28/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Figure 5-1Location of Critical Facilities
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
Legend
Mu nicipa l Bo unda ries
CRITICAL FACILITIES:1 Central School2 M urray Avenue School3 Hom mocks Middle School4 Saints John & Paul Church and School5 Town of M amaroneck Fire HQ / Town EO C6 Larchm ont/Town of Mam aroneck Volunteer Ambulance Corp7 M am aroneck Town Center / Tow n Police HQ / Backup EOC8 M am aroneck Town Yard
CRITICAL INFRAS TRUCTURE:Pum p Station - B aldwin P lacePump Station - Fenimore RoadPump Station - S axon WoodsWestchester Joint Water Works Pum p Station - 687 Weaver StWater Tower - Byron LaneVillage of Larchmont Water Storage Tank - Maxwell AvenueWater Tower and Radio Antennas - W inged FootCon Edison Substation - 675 Weaver StreetSheldrake River / Larchmont Reservoir Dam
N
3
8
2
1
45
6
7
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-8
5.B.3 Key Assets
The Town of Mamaroneck has several economic, cultural and recreational facilities of concern.
Key assets in the Town are listed in Table 5-4. These include properties that, if damaged or
destroyed, would have significant cultural, economic or social impact on the Town.
Table 5-4. Key Assets in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Type of Asset Key Asset Location Priority Need
Economic/Key
Employers
Mamaroneck Union Free
School District
Town of Mamaroneck Major Employer
Town of Mamaroneck Town of Mamaroneck Major Employer
Commercial Business District The Boston Post Road,
Fifth Ave, Myrtle Ave
Major Employer
Cultural, Historical and
Natural Areas
Hommocks Conservation Area Hommocks Road Wetlands, Conservation
area
Larchmont Reservoir,
James G. Johnson, Jr
Conservatory
Larchmont Reservoir Wildlife Sanctuary,
Nature Trails
Sheldrake Environmental
Center
685 Weaver Street Nature & Conservation
Study
Leatherstocking Trail Southern end of the
Colonial Greenway
Trail
Wildlife Sanctuary,
Nature Trails, Tidal
Wetlands
Colonial Greenway Town of Mamaroneck Nature Trails, Wetlands
Premium Marsh Conservation
Area
Dillon Road and
Pryer Manor Road
Wetlands, NYS
Significant Fish and
Wildlife Habitat.
Sheldrake River Trails East Branch of the
Sheldrake River
Nature Trails, Wildlife
Sanctuary
Bonnie Briar Club 808 Weaver Street Golf Course, Wetlands
Winged Foot Club 851 Fenimore road Golf Course, Wetlands
VFW / Mamaroneck Senior
Center
1288 Boston Post Road Community Center
serving seniors, Social
Club
Hommocks Pool & Ice Rink 140 Hommocks Road Recreation
Education & Religious
(Noncritical facility) *
Central School 1100 Palmer Avenue Grade School Pre K-5
Murray Avenue School 250 Murray Avenue Grade School K-5
Hommocks Middle School 130 Hommocks
Avenue
Grade School 6-8
Saints John & Paul School
& Church
280 Weaver Street Private Grade School
K-8, Roman Catholic
Church.
* These key assets are not currently listed as critical facilities. This designation could change should
they operate as emergency shelters or operation centers.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-9
5.B.4 Infrastructure
Infrastructure needs for the Town of Mamaroneck are provided and maintained by State, County,
Town, and several private organizations (See Table 5-5). For example, Con Edison Company of
New York is responsible for supplying electrical power, maintaining the power grid and
electrical substations, and providing emergency services for downed power lines, damaged
transformers and controlling brownouts. Verizon provides telecommunication infrastructure. The
Metro-North Railroad, which maintains the rail and the Larchmont and Mamaroneck Stations
provide public rail transportation services. The Westchester County Bee Line Bus system
provides intercommunity bus transportation.
Table 5-5. Town of Mamaroneck Key Infrastructures.
Service Provider Facility Type Key Locations of Concern Importance/ Function
NY State Highway/Roads/
Streets
I-95, New England Thruway Evacuation Route
NY State Highway/Roads/
Streets
US-1, The Boston Post
Road
Evacuation Route
County/Town Roads/Streets Weaver Street Evacuation Route
County/Town Roads/Streets Palmer Avenue Evacuation Route
Westchester County Bus
Service (Bee Line)
Bus Service Inter-county & local bus
routes
Public Transportation
Metro-North Railroad Rail Service Station Plaza, Mamaroneck
Railroad Way, Larchmont
Commuter & Public
Transport
Verizon Telecommunication
Service
Town wide Telecommunications
Infrastructure
Con Edison Electric Power Service Town wide Loss of Electric Power
Sheldrake River /
Larchmont Reservoir
Dam
Flood Control Town wide Loss of Flood Control
Baldwin Place Pump
Station – Town Facility
Water Supply Baldwin Place Sewer Pump Station
Fenimore Road Pump
Station – County Facility
Water Supply Fenimore Road Sewer Pump Station
Saxon Woods Pump
Station – County Facility
Water Supply Saxon Woods Loss of Water Supply
Westchester Joint Water
Works Pump Station
Water Delivery System Town wide Loss of Water Supply
VOL Water Storage Tank
– Village of Larchmont
Water Supply Washington Square
neighborhood
Loss of Water Supply
Winged Foot Water
Tower & Radio Antennas
Water Supply &
Antenna equipment
Town wide Loss of Water Supply &
Communications
Con Edison Substation Power Service 675 Weaver Street Loss of Electric Power
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-10
5.B.5 Vulnerability of Critical Facilities and Key Infrastructures
Critical facilities and vulnerabilities in the Town of Mamaroneck are given in Table 5-3 and
include government buildings, fire and emergency response facilities, among others. The loss of
any of these from a catastrophic event would be a major setback for the Town. Critical facilities
should be designed to withstand the flood plain elevation caused by a 500-Year storm. Table 5-6
gives the vulnerabilities for the Town critical facilities and the geographical extent of the hazard.
Table 5-7 gives the vulnerabilities for the key infrastructure facilities and the geographical extent
of the hazard.
Other key facilities shown in Table 5-4 such as schools, religious institutions, major employers
and commercial businesses are important to the Town since damage to any of these would result
in loss of important services to the community. Important infrastructures shown in Table 5-5
provide needed transportation, energy, water, sewage treatment, and communication services.
The loss of the Town Center would result in the following impacts:
Interruption of services.
The loss of critical plans and management tools.
The loss of critical records.
The loss of any fire and emergency response facilities would reduce the ability of these services
to respond and help the areas of the Town that are impacted.
The loss of the electrical and telecommunications infrastructure would result in the following
problems:
The whole or partial loss of the community telephone system.
The whole or partial loss of the electrical service.
The loss of transportation signals.
Cascade impacts on other needed services, infrastructure and facilities.
The loss of any of the water towers would result in the loss of the potable water supply to the
entire Town; the loss of any of the pump stations would result in the loss of critical pressurized
water needed in emergencies, and sewage treatment facilities.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 5-11 Table 5-6. Vulnerability of Critical Facilities to Selected Hazards High HazardModerately High Hazard Moderately Low Hazard Low Hazard Critical Facility Vulnerability Flood Coastal Storm * Hurricane ** Severe Storm *** Dam Failure Fire Windstorm Winter Storm **** Trans Accident Utility Failure Terrorism Tornado Hazmat (In Transit) Extreme Temperatures Earthquake Explosion Epidemic Hazmat (Fixed Site) Drought Fuel Shortage Air Contamination Fuel Oil Spill Town of Mamaroneck Fire HQ / Town EOC Interruption of fire emergency services. Interruption of emergency & rescue services. T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C H Larchmont/Town of Mamaroneck Volunteer Ambulance Corp (LVAC) Interruption of emergency medical & rescue services. T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C H Mamaroneck Town Center / Town Police HQ / Backup EOC Interruption of police emergency services & communication. Interruption of emergency & rescue services. T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C H Mamaroneck Town Yard Loss of public diesel and gas pumps for entire Town fleet, DPW vehicles, generators, pumps, and specialized equipment. T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C H VFW/ Mamaroneck Senior Center Loss of emergency shelter T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C H * Including nor’easters. Key: T = Town Wide ** Including tropical storms C = County Wide *** Including severe and thunderstorm winds as well as other non-winter storms listed. U = Highly Unlikely **** Including snow storms and hail storms H = Hazard Localized
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 5-12 Table 5-7. Vulnerability of Key Infrastructure to Selected Hazards High HazardModerately High Hazard Moderately Low Hazard Low Hazard Key Infrastructure Vulnerability Flood Coastal Storm * Hurricane ** Severe Storm *** Dam Failure Fire Windstorm Winter Storm **** Trans Accident Utility Failure Terrorism Tornado Hazmat (In Transit) Extreme Temperatures Earthquake Explosion Epidemic Hazmat (Fixed Site) Drought Fuel Shortage Air Contamination Fuel Oil Spill I-95 (NE Thruway), US-1 (Boston Post Road), Loss of NYS Evacuation Routes T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C H Palmer Avenue, Weaver Avenue Loss of County/Town Evacuation Routes T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C H Westchester County Bus Service (Bee Line) Commuter & Public Transport Loss of Major Transportation Service T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C H Metro-North Railroad. Commuter & Public Transport Loss of major transportation thoroughfare T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C H Verizon Telecommunications Infrastructure Interruption of Telecommunications System T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U Consolidated Edison Electric Power Service Interruption of Electric Power Service T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U Sheldrake River / Larchmont Reservoir Dam Loss of Flood Control T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U Con Edison Substation Loss of Electric Power T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U Baldwin Place Pump Station Loss of Water Supply T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U Fenimore Road Pump Station Loss of Water Supply T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 5-13 High HazardModerately High Hazard Moderately Low Hazard Low Hazard Key Infrastructure Vulnerability Flood Coastal Storm * Hurricane ** Severe Storm *** Dam Failure Fire Windstorm Winter Storm **** Trans Accident Utility Failure Terrorism Tornado Hazmat (In Transit) Extreme Temperatures Earthquake Explosion Epidemic Hazmat (Fixed Site) Drought Fuel Shortage Air Contamination Fuel Oil Spill Saxon Woods Pump Station Loss of Water Supply T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U Westchester Joint Water Works Pump Station Loss of Water Supply T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U Byran Lane Water Tower Loss of Water Supply T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U VOL Water Storage Tank Loss of Water Supply T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U Winged Foot Water Tower & Radio Antennas Loss of Water Supply & Communications T T T T T H T T H T C T U T T H C H T C C U * Including nor’easters. Key: T = Town Wide ** Including tropical storms C = County Wide *** Including severe and thunderstorm winds as well as other non-winter storms listed. U = Highly Unlikely **** Including snow storms and hail storms H = Hazard Localized
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-14
5.B.5.1 Vulnerable Natural Conservation Areas
The Town of Mamaroneck maintains approximately 34% of its municipal land area as open
space. The Town is home to, and maintains, several unique conservation areas. For streams
and water bodies, please refer to Figure 4-1A.
The Hommocks Conservation Area consists of 3 acres of tidal wetlands, plus 7.6 acres of
woodland paths, salt marsh estuary, and meadow areas.
12.76 acres of the 60-acre Larchmont Reservoir – James G. Johnson, Jr. Conservancy lie in the
Town of Mamaroneck. It is a wildlife sanctuary and nature study area, with lakeside trails and
woodland paths. It is also home to the Mamaroneck Environmental Center, which houses the
Sheldrake Environmental Center, and Monroe Camp.
The Leatherstocking Trail is nearly 2 miles long and runs through the center of the Town. It
features a typical northeastern hardwood forest and occasional riverine areas.
The Colonial Greenway consists of 15 miles of trails, woods, and wetlands that connect local and
county parks in the Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Mamaroneck, Scarsdale, Eastchester, and
New Rochelle.
The Premium Marsh Conservation Area is part of the 65-acre Premium River – Pine Brook
Wetlands Complex. This wetlands complex is 10 acres, plus 8 acres of tidal wetlands, and a
New York State designated “Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat”.
The Sheldrake River Trails consists of 23 acres of woodland parcel and 7 acres of freshwater
wetlands that is owned and maintained by the Town of Mamaroneck. It is the central part of a
54-acre tract of natural woodland maintained as a conservation area for native plants and
animals.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-15
The Sether Woods Conservation area is a small parcel of approximately ½ acre in size. Donated
to the Town by the heirs of Hallie and J. Wendell Sether, the deed stipulated that the land would
be used only for conservation purposes. The land serves as an important area for flood retention.
The Revere Road Conservation area is a small ¼ acre parcel that acts as a buffer between the
NYS Thruway and neighborhood homes. The Sheldrake River also runs through the parcel.
The Old Mill site is a small parcel of land on Hilltop Road. The Sheldrake River runs through
the site and under Hilltop Road. There are no trails within the site.
5.B.5.2 Water Bodies and Wetlands
There are several important water courses in the Town that serve important purposes. The
Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers run through the Town. Approximately .75 of the Town is
located within the Mamaroneck River watershed, and .87 miles of the Mamaroneck River flows
through the Town. Approximately 1.48 miles of the Town is located within the Sheldrake River
subwatershed, and 2.13 miles of the Sheldrake River flows through the Town.
The Sheldrake Lake, at the Larchmont Reservoir stores water from the Sheldrake River, serving
as a flood control basin. Water is released through the discharge pipes at the Sheldrake Dam and
then enters the Goodliffe Pond. The Gardens Lake, also known as the “Duck Pond”, lies
adjacent to I-95 and stores water originating from the Sheldrake River.
Premium Mill Pond lies adjacent to the Long Island Sound. Storm water from the Pine Brook
empties into the Premium Mill Pond and then drains into the Long Island Sound. The Pine
Brook stream enters the Town from New Rochelle and empties into the Premium Mill Pond.
The Long Island Sound borders properties in the Premium Point section of the Town. The
majority of land within the Town lies north of the Boston Post Road, and does not border the
Sound. The Premium River runs along the southwest of Town through Premium Point, and into
the Long Island Sound. The East Creek also flows into the Long Island Sound.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-16
There are several wetlands situated on the Town’s golf courses. They can be found in the
Northwestern part of the Town at the Bonnie Briar Club, along the West branch of the Sheldrake
River; in the Northeastern part of the Town at the Winged Foot Club, on which irrigation ponds
are located; and in the Southeastern border of the Village of Mamaroneck in part of the
Hampshire Country Club, near the East Creek.
5.B.5.3 Vulnerable Populations
The population of the Town of Mamaroneck was 11,977 according to the 2010 Federal Census.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the area of the Town is approximately 3.6 square miles.
The Sheldrake River, the East Branch of the Sheldrake River and the Mamaroneck River are the
major rivers flowing through the Town. (See Section 5.B.6.2). 8.6% of the residents were under
the age of 5 and 13.2% over the age of 65. The percentage of minority populations consists of
5.3% Asian, 1.9% two or more races, and 1.1% African American. The Town of Mamaroneck is
considered to be an upper-middle income community. The annual median household income was
reported to be $136,006 and the per capita income was $79,436. About 4.3% of the resident
individuals are considered to be below the poverty level.
Portions of the Town lie in the Special Flood Hazard Areas. Vulnerable populations to storms
and flooding (Figure 5-2 and 4-2) include those residences and businesses located in the
following areas:
Inland Flooding Areas:
Adrian Circle
Bonnie Way, from Weaver Street to Addee Circle
East & West Brookside Drive
East Valley Stream Road
Fenimore Road, from Fenbrook Road to Durham Road
Forest Avenue & Weaver Street
Griffen Avenue – from Murdock Road to Carriage House Lane
Hilltop Road
Kolbert Drive
Lakeside Drive
North Brook Road
Old White Plains Road, from Deerfield Lane to Rock Ridge
Sheldrake Drive
Sheldrake Avenue
York Road & Country Club Drive
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-17
Poor Drainage Areas:
Cabbot Road
Dogwood Lane
5th Avenue & Madison Avenue
Murray Avenue & Colonial Avenue
Boston Post Road & Weaver Street
South Drive, from West Drive to Glen Eagles Drive
Coastal Flooding Areas:
Point Road (Premium Point Island)
Hommocks Road
Dillon Road
Pryer Manor Road
Wildwood Circle
Senior citizens are generally at a higher risk. The chronically ill are vulnerable since they lack
mobility. With the growing numbers of senior citizens, this vulnerability to hazards may
increase in the Town of Mamaroneck in the future.
Several vulnerability factors can affect the impact of hazards to the life, safety, and health of the
Town’s residents. These include:
Location of the population relative to the hazard (persons in flood-prone areas or
shoreline areas are at greater risk).
Age of the population (very young and elderly tend to be more vulnerable).
Current health of the population (persons with chronic illnesses are more vulnerable)
Mobility of individuals (persons who can’t walk or drive have special needs for
evacuation and are at higher risk).
Of all the hazards discussed in Section 4 and assessed below in Section 5.C, the population of the
Town of Mamaroneck in general and vulnerable populations specifically, are most at risk to
severe storm hazards such as flooding and wind damage.
WEAVER STNEW ENGLAND THWYMAIN STFENIMORE RDGRIFFIN AVEPALMER AVEROCKLAND AVE5TH AVEBEACH AVETHE PKYL
A
R
C
H
MON
T
A
V
E
OLD W
HITE PLAINS RD
FO REST AVE1 7
2 3 N
MURRAY AVEMYRTLE BLVDRUSHMORE AVE23S
O A K A V E
C
L
A
F
LIN A
V
ECENTER AVEWALTON AVEW BOSTON POST RDWE
S
T
S
T
PRYER LNS BARRY AVEAVON RDC
I
R
C
L
E
A
V
EHARMON DRPROSPECT AVEHALSTEAD AVEN CHATSWORTH AVEV IN E R D 18AJEFFERSON AVEW FLAGLER DRN
B
A
R
R
Y
A
V
E
B A R N A R D R D
M
O
N
R
O
E A
V
E GRAND ST18BMARBOURNE DRSHORE ACRES DRM O UNTAIN AVEMAMARONECK AVEGROVE AVESTANLEY AVEHOMMOCKS RD GROVE STO
R
IE
N
T
A A
V
E
PREMIUM PT
UNION AVE
VALLEY RDISELIN TERYORK RD
PLAIN AVECHATSWORTH AVE
EAST DRBYRON LNBOSTON POST RDBALDWIN PLWENDT AVE HOYT AVESHORE DRDANTE STMAYHEW AVE
H
A
R
RIS
O
N D
R LOCUST AVE1ST STMAPL
E AVEHALL AVE
PARK AVEHOLLY PLWI
NFI
ELD AVECORNELL STMT
P
L
E
A
S
A
NT
A
V
E3RD STO
C
E
A
N
A
V
EWOODHOLLOW LNEDG EW O O D AVEMADISON STECHO LN WINGED FOOT DRALDA RDPOTTER AVEW A R D A V EKOLBERT DRN E W S T
COLONIAL AVEB R A D F O R D R D
HOWELL AVE22HIGHVIEW STSHADOW LNRIDGE RDOLD BOSTON POST RDGLENDALE RDBRIARCLIFF RDE BOSTON POST RDCARLEON AVET R A V E R S A V E
S
A
L
E
M
D
R
FERNWOOD RDBONNIE BRIAR LNETON RDCOVE RD SD
O
G
WO
O
D
L
N OAKHURST RDCORTLAND AVEK
IL
M
E
R
R
D SAXON DRH A Z E L L N BRUCE RDTHE CRESRAILROAD WAYGLEN LNCARRIAGE HOUSE LNBEECHTREE DRBIRCH HILL LN
BRO O K STLAWN TERSKIBO LNN BROOK RDTO M PKIN S AVEVALLEY PLB
A
Y
H
E
A
D D
R
NINE ACRES LNPROTANO LNFULTON RD
HILLTOP RD
SEAHAVEN DR
GERTRUDE AVE
COVE RD WNAUTILUS LN
BEECH RD
R
O
C
K
L
A
N
D
P
L JEFFERSON STSOUTH DRDORIS RD
PROSPECT AVEPALMER AVEHARMON DR2 3 S
18B
0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000Feet
DWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 03/05/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Figure 5-2Frequently Flooded Streets
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
LIST OF FREQ UENTLY FLOODED STREETS:1 Adrian Circle2 East & West Brookside Dr.3 East Valley Stream Rd.4 Fenim ore Rd. - Fenbrook Rd. to Durham Rd.5 Forest Ave. & Weaver Street6 Griffen Ave. - M urdocK Rd to C arriage House Lane7 Hilltop Rd.8 Kolbert Dr.9 Lakeside Dr.10 North B rook Rd.11 O ld W hite Plains Rd. - D eerfield Lane to Rock Ridge12 Sheldrake Dr.13 Sheldrake Pl.14 York Rd. @ Country Club Drive15 Bonnie Way - Weaver St to Addee Circle16 Cabot Rd.17 5th & M adison18 Murray Ave & C olonial19 Boston Post Rd. & Weaver St.20 South Drive - West Drive to Glen Eagles Drive21 Premium Point Road22 Homm ocks R d.23 Dillon Rd.24 Pryer M anor Rd.25 W ildwood C ir.
N
Legend
Municipal Boundaries
Frequently Floo ded Streets
1
8
4
6
11
1314
7
15
20
5
18
3
222
9
10
16
17
19
22
25
23
24
24
12
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-19
5.C Assessment of Primary Hazards
The following is an assessment of probable hazards identified in Section 4 above and
vulnerability to these hazards. Based on this assessment, primary hazards are screened for a
more detailed impact assessment on community property and structures. Only some of the
hazards evaluated in Section 4 are considered a primary concern to the community. In screening
the primary hazards of concern, several criteria were used including:
Historical occurrence of a damaging event
HAZNY rating and rank
Likelihood of a damaging event
Potential extent of the hazard in the Town
Likelihood of significant damage
Severity of damage
Vulnerable populations
Impact on safety of people
Hazards considered to have a low impact rating or probable occurrence by these criteria were not
considered further for quantitative assessment of damages or for developing objectives and
mitigation measures. Therefore the focus of this plan is to assess damages only for those hazards
likely to cause significant impacts and to propose remediation measures that will provide the
greatest benefit to the community.
5.C.1 Flood Related Hazards
Flooding was rated high with a HAZNY score of 321 and rank of one. Most flooding is due to
storms, heavy or extended rainfall and snow melt. The geographical extent of the 100-Year
flood, the 500-Year flood is shown in Figure 4-2 and Map 2. These events may be compounded
from the concurrence of the moon coupled with high tide events with heavy rains and high
winds.
The probability of future flood events is high for a 100-Year flood. It has a 1% probability of
occurring in any given year. A 500-Year flood is infrequent, and has a likelihood of occurrence
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-20
of 0.2% in any given year. However, as sea levels rise, the probability of future flood events for
both 100-Year and 500-Year floods increases. (Please see section 4.D.5.8 regarding the effects
of climate change on natural hazards). Based on past events, the probability for local flooding in
the Town of Mamaroneck for any given year is very high. Maps 2 and 3 show the extent of
flooding in the Town. (See Figure 5-3.) Due to the extent and potential depth of flooding there
is a high likelihood of significant damage. Severity of damage to areas in the Town that
frequently flood could be significant. Impact on safety of people could be significant if advance
warning is insufficient and evacuation routes are blocked.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-21
Figure 5-3. Local Flooding in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Flooding after a severe rainstorm that occurred on March 2, 2007
Photo by Andrea Fleming, via Larchmont Gazette
Figure 4-2 and Map 2 show the expected extent of flooding for a 100-Year and 500-Year flood.
Vulnerable populations include those residences and businesses situated in the Town’s major
floodplains, which are located along the Sheldrake River and its tributaries, stretching from the
Northernmost part of the East Branch, which flows south from the Town border of Scarsdale;
and the West Branch, which flows from the City of New Rochelle down to the Larchmont
Reservoir and into the Village of Mamaroneck. The two branches combine into one river at
West Brookside Drive. Other floodplains are located along the Premium River in the Southwest
of the Town, the East Creek in the Southeast, and the Mamaroneck Reservoir in the Northeast.
Properties located along these areas lie within the 100-Year floodplain. Critical flooding occurs
in these areas.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-22
The impacts on health and safety from floods include injuries and deaths caused by:
Street flooding which would cut off critical emergency access and escape routes from the
Town of Mamaroneck.
Collapsing buildings from water-weakened foundations.
Falling trees caused by reduced strength of water-saturated soil.
Infiltration and inflow to storm and sanitary sewers causing backup and overflow of
infectious sanitary waste.
Drowning in low-lying flooded areas.
Exposure to waves and strong currents in rivers and shoreline areas subject to storm
surges.
The following flood impacts have been identified for the Town of Mamaroneck:
Storm water could exceed the drainage capacity of the natural and manmade drainage
systems causing flooding of basements and roads.
Groundwater levels would rise, causing flooded basements.
High groundwater levels would cause significant seepage into storm and sanitary sewers.
Clogged or ineffective storm and sanitary sewers would fail to drain floodwaters.
Surges could flood and erode natural barriers along the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck
Rivers.
Damage to buried fuel tanks, building foundations and swimming pools.
Isolation of critical facilities and Town infrastructure; The Town’s operations center and
emergency centers could be impacted or isolated.
Repetitive damage to structures in the floodplain and significant flood insurance claims.
Weakened structural strength of soil resulting in susceptibility to falling trees.
Flooding therefore is one of the major natural hazards facing the Town of Mamaroneck. Based
on this evaluation, a damage assessment for flood hazards is provided below in Section 5.D.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-23
5.C.2 Hurricane Hazards
Hurricanes ranked number 3 and were rated moderately high with a HAZNY score of 248.
Although hurricanes can produce extensive and devastating damage, the hazard was not given a
high HAZNY score due to the rarity of occurrence, as most hurricanes have been downgraded to
highly damaging tropical storm or tropical depression status by the time they have reached
Westchester County. Most damage from hurricanes is from high winds, and heavy rains. The
extent of the flooding depends on the hurricane category. The potential extent of flooding is
shown in the Map 4 folder at the end of Part I.
The high winds and heavy rains in Westchester County in recent years have resulted in floods,
downed trees and power lines. According to the NOAA, based on current weather patterns, the
National Weather Service predicts that the upcoming years will show increased hurricane
activity.
According to the United States Landfalling Hurricane Probability Project, prepared by the
Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, the probabilities of a hurricane
making landfall in Westchester County have increased between 2006 and 2013. Based on 2013
data, the probability of a named Tropical Storm hitting landfall in Westchester County in 50
years is 18.6% (from 11.3% in 2006). The 50 year probability of a hurricane with sustained
winds of 75-114 mph is 11.2% (from 3.2% in 2006), and an intense hurricane with sustained
winds over 115 mph is 5.4% (from 0.7% in 2006). (http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu).
According to 2013 Tropical Cyclone Landfall Probabilities, the probability of a named Tropical
Storm making landfall in Westchester County during the 2013 hurricane season is .6%. The
probability of a hurricane with sustained winds of 75-114 mpg making landfall in Westchester
County during the 2013 hurricane season is .3%, and an intense hurricane with sustained winds
over 115 mph making landfall in Westchester County during the 2013 hurricane season is .2%.
These landfall probabilities are based on Colorado State University’s Tropical Meteorology
Project’s 2013 Tropical Cyclone Forecast. (http://landfalldisplay.geolabvirtualmaps.com).
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-24
Should a hurricane strike the Town of Mamaroneck, the severity of flood damage throughout the
Town would be extensive. The impact on safety of people could be significant if advance
warning is insufficient and evacuation routes are blocked.
The following damage impacts from hurricanes are likely to affect the Town of Mamaroneck:
Wind-driven storm surges could raise the level of the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers,
causing extensive flood damage
The shorelines of the Town on the Long Island Sound may be inundated by wind-driven
storm surges.
Water may go overtop land barriers and be driven through storm sewers.
Substantial wind damage to homes and businesses are likely.
Substantial wind damage to boats is likely.
Downed power lines would cause power outages and a safety hazard.
Downed trees would damage homes and vehicles.
High velocity winds would damage or destroy homes and businesses.
Safety hazards from hurricanes are considered significant. Major hurricanes that strike low-lying
areas with limited egress, such as the 1938 Hurricane, can cause drowning. High velocity winds
of 74 miles per hour or more may cause significant damage to buildings and property over the
entire community and injuries and loss of life by flying debris, wind-propelled glass shards,
falling trees and tree limbs, falling poles and downed power lines.
The Town of Mamaroneck Community consists of a population of 11,977 people (2010 US
Census). Vulnerable populations include those residents and businesses along the Sheldrake
River and its tributaries, the Premium River, the East Creek, and the Mamaroneck Reservoir.
Probable causes of injury and mortality include:
Downed trees could be the cause of a few deaths and injuries in a major hurricane.
Downed power lines can cause electrocution.
Persons near the watercourses are at high risk of drowning from a storm surge.
Strong winds can blow people to the ground or into flooded areas.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-25
An increase in motor vehicle accidents is likely to occur.
Death and injury would result from wind damage to buildings and homes from broken
glass and other flying debris.
Hurricanes are one of the most damaging natural hazards facing the Town of Mamaroneck.
Based on this evaluation a detailed damage assessment for hurricanes is provided below in
Section 5.D.
5.C.3 Severe Storm and Wind Related Hazards
Coastal storm hazard was given a score of 253 in the HAZNY analysis and ranked number 2 in
importance. Severe storm events other than hurricanes also cause flooding which was discussed
previously in Section 5.C.1. These storm hazards include tropical storms, severe storms,
thunderstorms and nor’easter coastal storms. The Severe storm and thunderstorm hazard was
given a score of 246 in the HAZNY and ranked number 4 in importance.
Thunderstorms are frequently accompanied by lightning, heavy rains, and heavy winds.
Flooding could occur, which would affect the residences and businesses along the flood-prone
areas (along the Sheldrake River and its tributaries, the Premium River, the East Creek, and the
Mamaroneck Reservoir). Floods could also affect the Town’s Key Infrastructures, such as
Evacuation Routes (Interstate 95, The Boston Post Road, etc.). Another key infrastructure that
could be affected is Con Edison; severe storms could knock out power. It is difficult to
determine the extent of the vulnerability.
Severe storm events also generate high velocity wind hazards that can approach hurricane or
tornado force. It is this wind hazard that is a primary concern in this section. Tornadoes were
ranked 11th with a HAZNY score of 218, and are also included in this storm category. They are
relatively uncommon events and will not be analyzed separately. When they do strike, they can
cause extensive local damage across a narrow path. Although they periodically occur in
Westchester County, no records were found for a tornado strike in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Wind storms were ranked 7th with a HAZNY score of 230 and are also included in this storm
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-26
category. The probability of significant yearly damage from severe storms is very high. The
following severe wind concerns include:
High winds can cause structural damage to commercial buildings and homes.
Wind and waves cause erosion of the riverbanks.
Falling trees damage homes and cars, break overhead power, telephone and cable lines.
Fallen trees, utility poles and lines can block escape routes.
Wind and waves can cause structural damage to boats.
Individual severe storms tend to cause local and isolated damages, and impacts occur over a
short period of time. New structures are required to meet criteria for withstanding severe winds
as shown in Figure 4-7. Unless wind speeds approach those of a Category 1 hurricane or a class
F1 tornado, damage is expected to be light. Tropical storms, severe thunderstorms, nor’easters,
coastal storms, wind storms, and tornados will not be analyzed separately. A quantitative
damage assessment will be made, where applicable, with assessment for windstorm damage
provided below in Section 5.D.3.
5.C.4 Winter Storms, Snow and Ice
The HAZNY score for winter snowstorms tied for 7th in rank with windstorms as a moderately
high hazard with a score of 230. While major snowstorms may not occur every year, those that
do occur can cause considerable local damage. The most significant of these storms are winter
nor’easters.
Also notable are ice storms that occur occasionally which can be more damaging than
snowstorms. Damaging winter storms have a high probability of occurring every year or two
with a high likelihood of damage. They can be regarded as frequent events since they may occur
more than once a year.
The impacts associated with these winter storm events include:
Problems of heavy snow accumulation causing interruptions in private and public
transportation, schools and businesses.
Snow and ice damage to public roads and walkways.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-27
Roofs collapsing under the weight of snow.
Damage to trees in parks and on streets stemming from falling branches and blow down
of trees.
A utilities failure from breaks in overhead lines caused by weight of snow/ice and by
falling trees and limbs.
Damage to trees caused by the build-up of ice during ice storms.
Limited access to escape and rescue routes.
Health and safety impacts from winter storms, ice and snow result in breakdowns in
communication, transportation, emergency services, motor vehicle accidents, falling limbs and
power lines. Risks to people from winter storms can be significant. The key safety impacts
include:
Downed trees can cause deaths and injuries.
Downed power lines can cause electrocution.
An increase in motor vehicle accidents due to slippery roads.
Back injury and cardiac problems in residents due to shoveling snow.
Limited visibility conditions while driving.
Frost bite.
A quantitative damage assessment for winter storms will not be made. Property damage
compared with other major storm events is limited and localized. Interruption of services and
business is mostly limited to a few days or less. The primary hazards include structurally
inadequate roofs, fallen trees and limbs, downed power lines and traffic accidents. Data and
analysis are not readily available to conduct a separate analysis for snow and ice damage.
Economically these impacts fall most heavily on the Town public works and Con Edison repair
crews. Wind impacts are considered more significant than snow and ice and will be considered
is Section 5.D.3.
5.C.5 Utility Failure Problems
The hazard level associated with utility failure was ranked 9th with a HAZNY Score of 221.
Utility failures are both local in the Town of Mamaroneck and regional (from county wide to the
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-28
entire northeast). Power failures may be caused by downed power lines from wind storms,
snowstorms, ice storms, fallen trees, heat waves, power grid system failures, substation failures,
fires, or terrorism. The local concerns include downed power lines and poles caused by high
winds, ice, snow and fallen limbs and trees. The regional utility problems due to far-ranging
power grid, regional control and distribution problems are beyond the control of the local
community. Regional and local problems are also often related to heat waves. Whatever the
cause, the impacts on the community are the same. The probability of local power failures in a
given year is high. The probability of a major grid failure or brownout is high over the next
several years. The problems associated with utility failures include:
Loss of life sustaining equipment.
Loss of refrigeration and spoilage of food.
Loss of air conditioning in the summer during a heat wave.
Loss of heating in winter and freezing of water pipes.
Loss of rail service for the Town.
Traffic problems from loss of signal lights.
Economic losses for local businesses.
The summer of 2006 showed record setting peak electricity demand. On September 14, 2006,
Con Edison representatives met with several Westchester Municipal Officials to discuss Con
Edison’s less than optimal response to previous power outages, and to discuss solutions and
future plans. Con Edison agreed to work with the municipalities on improving their response to
power outages. Con Edison also announced that it would invest 1.2 billion dollars beginning in
2007 to upgrade and reinforce its electric delivery system in New York City and Westchester
County. (www.coned.com/publicissues, Con Edison).
Several storms since 2006 have knocked out power to Westchester County. Super storm Sandy
knocked out power to more than 3,332 customers in the Town of Mamaroneck, and
approximately 206,000 customers in Westchester County. After Superstorm Sandy, New York
State Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that regulators will scrutinize Con Edison’s
preparations for Sandy, as well as its subsequent attempts to restore power in New York City and
Westchester County after the storm. No further health and safety assessments and damage
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-29
analysis will be performed related to utility failures, and no mitigation measures will be proposed
or evaluated.
5.C.6. Dam Failure
Dam Failure was ranked 5th in the moderately low range with a HAZNY score of 239. Located
in Valhalla, failure of the Kensico Dam could occur for several reasons; including overtopping,
structural failure, cracking, poor maintenance, poor piping, and terrorism.
Failure of the Kensico Dam would be devastating, with little or no warning, resulting in
catastrophic damages and fatalities. Approximately nine million people would lose their water
supply. A tidal wave would ensue which would affect hundreds of thousands of people.
Countless lives would be lost, as well as structures and critical facilities in the tidal wave’s path,
which would span from White Plains through the Bronx.
The Larchmont Dam is used for conservation and recreational purposes. It also currently
provides vital flood control for downstream areas in the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of
Mamaroneck. A failure of the Larchmont Dam could cause serious and damaging flooding of
the Sheldrake River Valley from below the Dam to the Mamaroneck Harbor. Many houses
would be inundated. Several streets and roads along the river from the Sheldrake Reservoir to
the Mamaroneck Harbor could be flooded. Water flowing over roads would likely have high
velocity and could potentially wash pedestrians or vehicles downstream. The Town of
Mamaroneck is responsible for operating the dam valve on the Larchmont Dam. Mitigation
measures will be proposed and evaluated in Sections 7 and 8 of this plan.
5.C.7 Fire
Fire hazard was ranked 6th in the moderately low range with a HAZNY Score of 232.
According to incident reports from the Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department, the following
fires have occurred in the Town from January 1, 2008 until December 31, 2012:
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-30
Type of Situation 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Building Fires: 14 6 11 13 21
Vehicle Fires: 4 5 6 8 2
Brush, grass, or natural vegetation Fire: 4 3 0 3 4
Other Fires: 18 20 27 16 16
Total Fires: 40 34 44 40 43
There are approximately 509 commercial and industrial facilities (including commercial
apartment buildings) and 3,052 residential buildings in the Town of Mamaroneck (See Table 5-
2). Vulnerable fire prone locations include gas stations, restaurants and schools. Densely
developed residential areas are likely to be fire risks, including single family and multi-
residential buildings, and have the likelihood to affect more than one building. There are
approximately 2,976 single-family homes and 76 multi-residential buildings in the Town of
Mamaroneck. There are several natural areas that can be at risk for wildfire. However, there
have been minimal occurrences of wildfire in the Town. Identified fire risks and concerns in the
Town that need attention include:
Single-Family residences
Multi–family residences
Light Industry and commercial
Natural and conservation areas
Risks to human health and safety, although a major concern, appear to be controlled. Based
upon this assumption, further health and safety assessments and a damage analysis due to local
fires will not be performed.
5.C.8 Extreme Temperatures
This hazard was ranked 13th in the moderately low range with a HAZNY Score of 204. Summer
temperatures have become gradually higher in recent years and may continue to increase in the
near term. A heat event between July 4 and 6, 1999 in the New York metropolitan area had
temperatures ranging from 100 to 105 degrees F with peak at 110 degrees. This resulted in 33
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-31
fatalities in the New York metropolitan area. Rolling electrical blackouts occurred across the
region (National Climate Data Center, ncdc.noaa.gov).
In 2001, New York was hit with another heat wave, along with the rest of the east coast,
resulting in 4 deaths. Temperatures in New York City reached 103 degrees F. In 2006, the
North American Heat wave spread throughout most of the United States, killing more than 225
people. At least 32 deaths were reported in New York City. Massive blackouts occurred in the
Tri-state area and Westchester County.
In July of 2010, a hot air mass developed and settled over the New York City area.
Temperatures were in the mid to upper 90s and low 100s. The NYSDEC issued an ozone
advisory for the New York metropolitan area. The Westchester County Health Department
issued a heat advisory on July 6th due to 101-degree temperature. More than 1300 were without
power during this heat wave.
In July of 2011, the New York City area was hit with another heat wave which lasted for 8 days.
Temperatures in New York City reached 104 degrees, and 11 deaths were reported.
In July of 2013, Westchester County saw 7 consecutive days with temperatures in the mid 90s.
According to Con Edison, electric usage fell short of its all time peak, reaching 13,161 MW
during this heat wave. The all-time record of electric peak usage was 13,189 MW, which
occurred on July 22, 2011.
Since most homes are air-conditioned there is a growing tendency for power failures and
brownouts to occur during the warmest weeks of the year. The primary impact of high
temperatures is the increased electrical demand and its stress on electrical utilities (see Utility
Failure Section 5.C.5 above). Additional concerns are related to health and safety of people
sensitive to heat stress and air pollution (see Section 5.C.12). Heat-related problems have a high
probability of occurring in the future. Specific structure or facility damage related to high
temperatures is limited. In extremely hot weather roads and bridges can buckle. An increase in
safety risks to pedestrians and car passengers is probable.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-32
The July 4-6, 1999 heat event resulted in 33 fatalities in the New York metropolitan area. Four
deaths in the region were attributed to an August 2001 excessive heat event. 32 deaths in New
York City resulted from the heat event in 2006. 11 deaths in New York City resulted from the
heat event in 2011. Health impacts from elevated temperatures depend on the population of
people sensitive to heat stress. For example, senior citizens are at greater risk for heat stroke.
The chronically ill are vulnerable to sudden high temperature heat waves. With the growing
populations of the senior citizens in Westchester County, this is the sort of problem that could
increase in the Town of Mamaroneck in the future. Although limited, there is a moderate to low
likelihood that the elderly and chronically ill would be impacted.
There is no significant property damage from heat waves. Interruption of services and
businesses is limited and primarily due to electrical utility failures. Health and safety of
vulnerable populations is a concern. Based on this assessment, further health and safety
assessment and a damage analysis from extreme temperatures will not be performed nor will
mitigation measures be proposed or evaluated for this hazard.
5.C.9 Hazardous Material Releases
This hazard covers materials, which, if released or if not used in a safe manner, could pose a
threat to people, property and the environment. This hazard was evaluated from two
perspectives. The release of hazardous materials during transit ranked 12th and was rated a
moderately low score of 210. Released from fixed locations, hazardous materials were rated
moderately low with a HAZNY Score of 168 and a rank of 21.
Trucks carrying hazardous materials are likely most at risk at one of the established
transportation routes that traverse the Town of Mamaroneck, including Interstate 95, and Route
US-1, also known as The Boston Post Road, which runs parallel to the Long Island Sound.
Metro-North commuter tracks run through the Town. These same tracks are also used
periodically by CSX to transport hazardous materials through the Town.
Based on the probable sources and quantities of hazardous materials stored and used in the Town
of Mamaroneck, the likelihood of significant damage or injury is low from the release of
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-33
hazardous materials from a fixed site. The potential releases from small businesses would likely
be small quantities and would have a limited local impact.
Releases may occur from activities such as dry cleaning, auto repair and repainting, gasoline and
home fuel distributors, marina activities, home building and maintenance services, compressed
gas distributors, painting and cleaning and small quantity home use. The following problems
from release of hazardous materials include:
Releases from accidents during handling of chemicals.
Spill of materials during use.
Accidental air emission
Release of toxic chemicals during a fire or explosion.
Release from improper storage or disposal.
Release from a truck in an accident.
Rail car accident.
The frequency of hazardous materials distributed in the Town of Mamaroneck is an important
community concern. However, the quantities involved would not generally result in significant
property damage or result in significant injury, illness or mortality to the public.
Based on this assessment, further health and safety assessment and a damage analysis from
hazardous material releases (fixed or in transit) will not be performed and mitigation measures
will not be proposed or evaluated.
5.C.10 Explosion
Explosion hazard was ranked in the moderately low range with a HAZNY Score of 192 and a
rank of 17. Fueling activities at gasoline stations and marinas, and natural gas use in homes are
risks. Handling and refilling gas cylinders at a local compressed gas distributor requires
adherence to strict safety procedures. Accidents from use of flammable solvents in paint shops
can cause explosions. Accidents from use of natural gas or propane at commercial and industrial
facilities are a concern.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-34
The problem is sporadic and the likelihood and magnitude is considered low. However,
explosions though low in occurrence can cause major damage to a facility and surrounding
properties and can injure or kill people. At present the Town of Mamaroneck Fire and Police
Departments oversee the protection of the community from these hazards and provide emergency
fire response for sites with potentially explosive hazards.
Based on this assessment, further health and safety assessment and a damage analysis from
explosion hazards will not be performed and mitigation measures will not be proposed or
evaluated.
5.C.11 Oil Spills
Oil spills were ranked 15th in the moderately low range with a HAZNY score of 201. Fuel oil
spills were ranked 30 in the low range with a HAZNY Score of 113. Fuel oil spills during
transport within or through the Town of Mamaroneck or during filling operations, can impact the
health and safety of its residents Trucks carrying fuels are likely most at risk on the commercial
roads. No significant releases that have affected the pubic and required evacuation have been
occurred in the Town. The primary concern would be fire and explosion incidents. There are no
major fuel oil storage or processing facilities in the Town. Therefore, the magnitude and severity
of the hazard is expected to be limited to local areas in the Town.
Oil spills can also occur as a result of failed underground storage tanks at gas stations and home-
heating oil businesses. Other than fuel/oil services at local gas stations and heating oil
businesses, there are no significant commercial or industrial oil storage or transfer facilities in
the Town of Mamaroneck. Fuel oil spills can also occur as a result of fuel transportation and
delivery. Flooding can cause fuel tanks to become buoyant causing oil spills. Fuel oil spills can
cause contamination of groundwater and surface water resources. Incidences of oil spills have
occurred in the Town. According to the Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department Incident Type
Reports, there were 29 incidents of “oil or other combustible liquid spill” during the period
January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012. Spills within the Town are most likely to be local and
their impacts small.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-35
Although these are important environmental contamination issues that could result in local
property damage, this hazard would result in limited damage to buildings and limited injury,
illness or mortality. Based on this assessment, further health and safety assessment and damage
analysis from oil spills will not be performed nor will mitigation measures be proposed or
evaluated.
5.C.12 Air Contamination
This hazard was ranked in the low range ranking 27th with a HAZNY Score of 132. No major
industrial sources of air pollution were identified within the Town of Mamaroneck. The Town of
Mamaroneck is within the USEPA Non Attainment area that has been designated for ozone. This
means that the regional baseline air quality does not meet USEPA requirements and that certain
activities with the potential for causing air pollution are not permitted. Therefore, there is a very
high probability for the occurrence of air contamination problems. These problems include:
Air contamination resulting from commercial and light industrial/manufacturing
businesses.
Air contamination resulting from local homes or sources using wood burning fireplaces
and stoves in winter.
Local contamination resulting from outside regional sources.
Local automobile emissions in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Local diesel emissions in the Town of Mamaroneck from trucks, busses, and
diesel/electric hybrid trains.
Regional truck transport and commuter travel through the area and its perimeter and
surrounding areas.
Air contamination events in the Town of Mamaroneck due to local sources are small and isolated
and do not represent a major increase in health and safety risks to local residents. The primary
health and safety concern is among the elderly, infirmed and sensitive individuals with
respiratory problems. The Town strives to prevent air contamination by enforcing regulations,
such as their anti-idling law. These risks are related to regional problems rather than local
sources.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-36
These problems, though important air pollution issues, would not result in significant property
damage or result in significant injury, illness or mortality. Based on this assessment, further
safety assessment and a damage analysis from air contamination will not be performed nor will
mitigation measures be proposed or evaluated.
5.C.13 Earthquakes
This hazard was ranked 14th in the moderately low hazard range and has a HAZNY Score of
202. Chances of an earthquake occurring in the Town of Mamaroneck are low. None of the
3,582 structures in the Town are particularly at risk. Earthquakes in excess of 5.0 on the Richter
Scale are extremely rare in the Northeast while events of lower magnitude occur periodically and
minor damage may occur. According to the USGS, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) rating
for the Town of Mamaroneck is 3.78%g. This rating places the Town in a low risk category for
earthquakes. According to the Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network (LCSN) of
Columbia University, no earthquakes have been reported with a magnitude greater than 5 since
1884 in the Greater New York City area. However, in October 1985, an earthquake occurred in
Westchester County which was centered in Ardsley and measured 4.0 on the Richter Scale.
There have been other minor earthquakes reported in the White Plains and Dobbs Ferry areas. In
addition, tremors were felt in Westchester County from an earthquake that occurred on August
23, 2011 and measured 5.8 on the Richter Scale. The epicenter was Northwest of Richmond,
Virginia. There is no particular elevated safety risk linked to earthquakes of Richter Scale 5.0 or
less.
In 2008 the USGS updated their National Seismic Hazard Maps. The peak ground acceleration
(PGA) rating for the Westchester County ranges between 3– 4%g, and represents a moderately
low risk category for earthquakes (See Figure 4-8). All reported events in Westchester County
have been minor with no significant damage or injuries. Based on this information, there is a
low probability that a damaging earthquake would occur in the Town of Mamaroneck.
However, a study published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America analyzed
383 earthquakes from 1677 to 2007 in a 15,000 square mile area around New York City, along
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-37
with new data. The study suggests a pattern of subtle, yet active faults, which increases the risk
of earthquake to the New York City area.
Although earthquakes are an infrequent occurrence in the New York City area, the risk is greater
due to the extremely high concentration of people and infrastructure. The population is denser
than in more earthquake-prone areas. In the event a damaging earthquake did occur in the area,
the losses would be far more catastrophic.
Based upon research in this study, an earthquake with a Magnitude-5 is predicted to occur every
100 years. In addition, it is estimated that a Magnitude-6 will occur every 670 years, and a
Magnitude-7 will occur every 3,400 years (The corresponding probabilities of occurrence in any
50-Year period would be 7% and 1.5%, respectively).
In addition, the study has uncovered new seismic zones that have not previously been identified,
thereby increasing the risk of a damaging earthquake in the area. For example, a newly
discovered seismic zone was identified which runs from Stamford, CT, to Peekskill, NY. This
zone runs less than one mile north of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. In addition, the
Ramapo Seismic Zone, that runs from Eastern Pennsylvania to the Mid-Hudson Valley, passes
within two miles northwest of Indian Point, placing the power plant in a very precarious position.
Indian Point sits on the banks of the Hudson River in Buchanan, New York. It is situated 23.65
miles from Mamaroneck, and was built to withstand a Magnitude-7 on the Mercalli Scale, or 6.1
on the Richter Scale.
The higher-level events could cause substantial damage to structures that are not specifically
designed to withstand earthquakes. Beyond damage to structures there would also be damage to
underground utilities.
FEMA has run vulnerability assessment studies using HAZUS-MH software. Damage analysis
from earthquakes will be discussed in section 5.D.4.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-38
5.C.14 Terrorism
Terrorism was ranked in the moderately low range with a HAZNY score of 219 and a rank of 10.
As discussed in Section 4.D.7, this human caused hazard would be low risk in the Town of
Mamaroneck since there are no real major terrorist targets of interest identified in the Town.
Key target populations, high profile historical landmarks, airports, significant regional
infrastructures, important manufacturing facilities, critical industries or key government
institutions and structures are not present in the Town. The commuter rail stations in the
Villages of Mamaroneck and Larchmont were identified as possible targets, but they are part of
only one of several commuter lines feeding into the greater metropolitan area. Another potential
target is the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Current regulations require evacuation planning
for areas located within a 10 mile radius of nuclear facilities. Mamaroneck lies 23.65 miles from
Indian Point, and is outside of the evacuation planning zone. Legislators are currently urging the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to expand the NRC evacuation plan requirements to
include areas within fifty miles of a nuclear facility. Another potential target is the Kensico
Dam located in Valhalla. Because of the absence of important target facilities and key
vulnerable populations, this hazard will not be considered for further evaluation or analysis.
5.C.15 Epidemic
Epidemics are a moderately low risk in the Town of Mamaroneck. Epidemic hazard was ranked
19th in the moderately low range with a HAZNY score of 179. Based on the hazard profile given
in Section 4.D.5.3, epidemics are a real concern but rare or infrequent. Epidemics are more likely
to be a regional problem than a local one.
No special mitigation measures beyond current state or county public health activities are called
for. These issues are currently handled by the Westchester County Department of Health. Based
on this assessment, further health and safety assessment and a damage analysis from these
hazards will not be performed and potential mitigation measures will not be evaluated.
5.C.16 Other Hazards
The following hazards were rated as low hazards and were ranked the lowest. They are not
expected to cause significant damage or have substantial health or safety impacts. They are either
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-39
rare events - occurring less than once every 50 years or infrequent events occurring between
once every 8 years to once in 50 years. They have a low likelihood of causing a significant
damaging event and the extent of the hazard in the Town of Mamaroneck is limited. They are
unlikely to have any significant impact on the critical facilities, infrastructure, local economics,
or key cultural or historical resources. They could also be more of a regional problem than a
local one. These hazards judged to have a low impact or risk include:
Radiological releases
Fuel Shortage
Food Shortage
Further health and safety assessment and a damage analysis from these hazards will not be
performed and potential mitigation measures will not be evaluated.
5.D Impact and Damage Analysis of Major Hazards on Town Facilities
5.D.1 Vulnerability and Value of Buildings Subject to Hazards
The Town of Mamaroneck is essentially a residential community and about 85 percent of the
total buildings are single-family and multi-family residences (see Table 5-8). Commercial
properties, including apartment buildings, represent about 14% of the buildings in the Town.
Table 5-8. Residential, Commercial, Industrial and other Buildings Potentially Exposed to
Hazards in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Property
Class Code
Building Type by Property Class
Total Number of
Buildings *
% of Total
Buildings
200-210 Single Residential 2,976 83.08%
215-283 Multi-Residential 76 2.12%
400-486 Commercial 507 14.15%
500-590, 682 Recreation & Entertainment 12 0.34%
600-615 Community Services & Education 4 0.11%
620 Religious 1 0.03%
650-670 Health, Government & Protection 4 0.11%
714 Lite Industrial/Manufacturing 2 0.06%
Total 3,582
* Data provided by Town of Mamaroneck Assessor’s office.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-40
The valuation of the buildings at risk is based on the Town of Mamaroneck’s tax assessments.
The Town of Mamaroneck completed a town-wide revaluation in 2013 and all properties are
assessed at 100% of full market value. Therefore, the Residential Assessment Ratio (RAR) to
determine the value of residential properties for the Town of Mamaroneck is 100%, and the
Equalization Rate for the Town of Mamaroneck is 100%. The Town tax assessment information
is given in Table 5-9. The total valuation of all occupied buildings in the Town of Mamaroneck
is approximately $2,725.8 million. For the purpose of this assessment, residential and multi-
residential were combined. Since the total number of properties was small, community services,
education, religious and government services were combined. Apartment buildings are assigned
to a commercial code. Recreation, entertainment and Sports facilities were combined with
commercial properties since these activities have similar commercial functions in the
community.
Table 5-9 also shows the percentages of building numbers exposed to hazards by occupancy
type. About 86% of the value is residential and multi-residential property. About 11% of the
exposed value is from commercial properties. About 3% of the exposed value is from Education,
Religious, Government, and Protection Services.
Table 5-10 shows the replacement value of buildings exposed to hazards by occupancy type.
Property values were based on the assessed value of the property and the tax assessment rate of
100% in Table 5-9. HAZUS-MH estimates a total replacement value of structures in the Town
of Mamaroneck (excluding contents) to be approximately $1,170.4 million dollars. HAZUS
output parameters use 2006 dollars. This figure was converted from 2006 dollars to 2013 dollars
using the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis’ Consumer Price Index
(www.minneapolisfed.org). Please refer to Section 5.D.2 for more information on the HAZUS
Flood Model and Damage Analysis.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-41
Table 5-9. Town of Mamaroneck Property Tax Assessments and Property Values. *
Property
Occupancy
Code
Building Type by
Property Class
Total
Number
Buildings
Total
Assessed
Value $
Average
Property
Value $
%
Total
Value
200-210 Single Residential 2,976 2,289,695,070 769,387 84.0
220-283 Multi-Residential 76 53,497,500 703,914 1.96
400-486 Commercial 507 268,210,760 529,015 9.84
500-590, 682 Recreation &
Entertainment
12
33,240,000 12,370,000 1.22
600-615 Community Services
& Education
4
61,320,000 15,330,000 2.25
620 Religious 1 12,370,000 12,370,000 0.45
640-670 Health, Government
& Protection
4
7,026,000 1,756,500 0.26
710 Lite Industrial/
Manufacturing
2
440,000 220,000 0.02
Total 3,582 2,725,799,330
100
* Data provided by Town of Mamaroneck Town Assessor’s office.
Table 5-10. Building Exposure by Occupancy type. *
Property Class Code
Occupancy Class
Total Value
Properties *
Replacement
Value **
210 Single Residential 2,289,695,070 1,138,951,149
220-283 Multi-Residential 53,497,500 26,610,984
400-486 Commercial 268,210,760 133,414,688
500-590 Recreation & Entertainment 33,240,000 16,534,401
600-615,682 Community Services & Education 61,320,000 30,502,090
620 Religious 12,370,000 6,153,145
640-670 Health, Government & Protection 7,026,000 3,494,907
710 Industrial 440,000 218,867
Total 2,725,799,330 $1,355,880,230
* Based on data provided by Town of Mamaroneck Town Assessor’s Office.
** Based on data provided by HAZUS-MH.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-42
5.D.1.1 Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a Federal program created by Congress in 1968
to mitigate future flood losses nationwide through sound, community-enforced building and
zoning ordinances and to provide access to affordable, federally-backed flood insurance
protection for property owners. The NFIP is designed to provide an insurance alternative to
disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their
contents caused by floods. The NFIP is administered by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Participation in the NFIP is based on a voluntary agreement between local communities and the
Federal Government that states that if a community will adopt and enforce a floodplain
management ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction in Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs), the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the
community as a financial protection against flood losses.
Under the NFIP program, construction in floodplains is acceptable provided that floors are
elevated to minimize the risk of damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes Federally-backed flood
insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in these communities. In
addition to providing flood insurance and reducing flood damages through floodplain
management regulations, the NFIP identifies and maps the Nation's floodplains. Mapping flood
hazards creates broad-based awareness of the flood hazards and provides the data needed for
floodplain management programs.
The Town of Mamaroneck participates in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. The
Town is registered as Community Identification Number (CIN) #360917, and intends to continue
its participation. The Town of Mamaroneck actively implements and enforces its Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, and Uniform Building Codes.
The Town follows recommendations from its Master Plan and updates, Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan and updates, Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont
Waterfront Revitalization Program, and the Upper Sheldrake River and Larchmont Reservoir
Hydrology Report. Please refer to Sections 7 and 8 for NFIP compliant mitigation action items.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-43
5.D.1.1.a Flood Insurance Claims
There was limited information available on insurance claims data for the Town of Mamaroneck.
According to the NFIP, as of 09/30/2013, there are currently 287 flood insurance policies for the
Town. The total insurance coverage is $84,699,100 and since 1978 there were 546 claims made
for $4,784,317. However, these flood insurance claims are likely underreported and actual flood
damages are probably higher. (http://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov).
The Town of Mamaroneck has a total of forty-one repetitive loss properties. As of July 31,
2013, twenty-one properties are located in the A Zone and have had repetitive loss payments
totaling $687,430.74. $563,299.11 of this amount represented building coverage and
$124,131.63 was for contents coverage. Twenty properties situated in the B,C,X zones had
repetitive loss payments of $497,282.95. $384,266.89 represented building coverage, and
$113,016.06 was paid for contents coverage. The combined repetitive loss payments totaled
$1,184,713.69; $947,566.00 was paid for building coverage, and $237,147.69 was paid for
contents coverage. Thirty-nine of the repetitive loss properties were single-family homes, one
was a 2-4 family home, and one was a non-residential property.
FEMA defines a repetitive loss property as any insurable building for which two or more claims
of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any
rolling ten-Year period since 1978.
The Town of Mamaroneck has only one severe repetitive loss property, located in the AE Zone
with total building coverage loss payments of $137,886.42. FEMA defines a severe repetitive
loss property as a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and:
• That has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000
each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or
• For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been
made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the
market value of the building.
• For both cases above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any
ten-year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-44
5.D.1.2 100-Year and 500-Year Flood Hazards
The 100-Year flood is defined as the base flood standard and the 500-Year flood is a probable
worst-case. Flood levels for these events are summarized in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for
the Town of Mamaroneck, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), September
15, 1989; and in the Flood Insurance Study for Westchester County, NY (All jurisdictions),
September 28, 2007. Inundation floods from hurricanes, which may cause more severe wave
surges, are evaluated in Section 5.D.3.1.
The Town has been exposed to both coastal and riverine flooding. The risk of the most severe
flooding in the Town of Mamaroneck is located along the Sheldrake River and its tributaries, the
Premium River, the East Creek, and around the Mamaroneck Reservoir. The most severe
riverine floods have been associated with the heavy rains from storms or landfalling hurricanes
originating in the Caribbean Sea. Wind-driven storms particularly from hurricanes and
Nor’easters cause severe flooding and backup of storm water (See Map 3 at end of Part I).
The Town of Mamaroneck was divided into zones, each having a specific flood potential or
hazard. Each zone was assigned one of the following flood insurance zone designations:
Flood
Insurance
Zone
Description
Zone A Corresponds to the 1-percent annual chance floodplains that are determined by detailed
methods. No Base flood elevations determined.
Zone AE Corresponds to the 1-percent annual chance floodplains that are determined by detailed
methods. Base flood elevations determined.
Zone V Corresponds to the 1-percent annual chance coastal floodplains that have additional
hazards associated with storm waves. Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave
action); No Base flood elevations determined.
Zone VE Corresponds to the 1-percent annual chance coastal floodplains that have additional
hazards associated with storm waves. Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave
action); Base flood elevations determined.
Zone X Corresponds to areas outside the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, areas within the
0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, and to areas of 1-percent annual chance flooding
where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from
the 1-percent annual chance flood by levees. No base flood elevations or depths are shown
within this zone.
Source: Flood Insurance Rate Maps 36119C0332F 36119C0334F, 36119C0342F, 36119C0351F,
36119C0353F, 36119C0361F, Town of Mamaroneck, New York, Westchester County. FEMA.
September 28, 2007.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-45
Because of the expanse of the area, there are five transected base flood elevation measurements
for the 100-Year flood for the Sheldrake River, and three for the East Branch Sheldrake River
shown on the FIRM Maps. Elevation reference marks were measured, resulting in several
different base flood elevations along each flooding source. Base flood elevations are shown for
these cross sections of the 100-Year flood spanning the Town of Mamaroneck.
Base flood elevations are shown below for the cross sections of the 100-Year flood spanning
throughout the Town of Mamaroneck along the Sheldrake and East Branch Sheldrake Rivers:
Flooding Source
Cross Section:
Sheldrake River
Base Flood Water
Surface Elevation
A 32.2
B 59.9
C 74.3
D 78.8
E 80.2
Flooding Source
Cross Section:
East Branch
Sheldrake River
Base Flood Water
Surface Elevation
A 62.4
B 78.3
C 97.4
Source: Flood Insurances Study (FIS), Westchester County, NY (All jurisdictions). Effective
September 28, 2007; and,
FIS Study # 36119CV001A; Flood Insurance Study (FIS), Town of Mamaroneck, New York.
Revised September 15, 1989. Community # 360917.
For purposes of this assessment, the referenced base flood elevations were averaged to determine
the mean base flood elevation for each zone. Therefore, the mean base flood elevation in the
100-Year flood plains is 70.4 feet.
The impacts of flooding from 100-Year and 500-Year events were assessed counting buildings
on properties for the various categories of property use (Maps 1 and 5) (i.e. residential,
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-46
commercial, industrial and community services). Counts made using overlays for each of the
two flood zones from Map 2, and information supplied from the Town are summarized on Table
5-11. Based on the average assessed value for each property type the total assessed value for
each category was estimated and is given in Table 5-12. The total dollar value can be viewed as
the amount of the total property and buildings at risk. This value does not represent the actual
damages or losses of the property since in most cases only a portion of the building is damaged
from a flood.
Table 5-11 shows that about 8.6% and 9.3% of the properties in the Town of Mamaroneck would
be at risk from a 100-Year and a 500-Year flood event, respectively. The major impacts would
be from flooding of single residential homes. For the 100-Year flood, the total value of
properties at risk from damage in the Town is about $344 million (Table 5-12). The 500-Year
flood resulted in a risk of about $363 million (Table 5-12). This compares to a total adjusted
property value of about $2,725.8 million.
There is a large potential loss values for these two classes of floods. Loss values for combined
single and multi-residential homes are about $211.6 million and $230.8 million respectively.
Combined commercial and industrial capital risks are also substantial at about $12.2 million for
both 100 and 500-Year events. Community services (comprised of schools and other educational
facilities) face a risk with about $46 million.
Table 5-11. Number of Buildings in the Town of Mamaroneck Subject to Flood Hazards*
Category Single &
Multi
Residential
Commercial/
Industrial
Recreation &
Entertainment
Community
Services**
Total
Properties
at Risk
%
Properties
at Risk
100-Year Flood 275 23 6 3 307 8.6
500-Year Flood*** 300 23 6 3 332 9.3
Total Town
Properties
3,052 509 12 9 3,582
* Information supplied by the Town of Mamaroneck Assessor’s Office.
** Includes education, government, other community services and religious facilities.
*** Total properties in the100-Year and 500-Year floodplain
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-47
Table 5-12 Value of Buildings and Properties in the Town of Mamaroneck Subject To Flood
Hazards
Flood Zone
Property Classes
Number of
Structures
Impacted*
Average
Property
Value**
($1,000)
Total Value
at Risk
($1,000)
100-Year Single & Multi Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Recreation & Entertainment
Community Services***
275
23
6
3
769.4
529
12,370
15,330
211,585
12,167
74,220
45,990
Totals 307 343,962
500-Year**** Single & Multi Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Recreation & Entertainment
Community Services***
300
23
6
3
769.4
529
12,370
15,330
230,820
12,167
74,220
45,990
Totals 332 363,197
* Estimates based on information supplied by the Town of Mamaroneck.
** Based on assessed rates given in Table 5-9. Includes the market value of the property and structure.
*** Schools & other educational facilities.
****Number of structures is inclusive of 100-Year flood.
5.D.2. HAZUS Flood Model and Damage Analysis
A Level 1 HAZUS-MH model analysis was performed to analyze the risk and vulnerability of a
flood hazard in the Town of Mamaroneck, using HAZUS-MH, Version 2.1 software. Scenarios
were run to evaluate potential economic and social losses resulting from the 100- and 500-Year
floods. It calculated a basic estimate of flood losses based on national databases and using the
default data in the model, such as general building stock, demographics, and essential facilities.
The default demographic data in HAZUS-MH, based on the 2000 U.S. Census, was used for
analysis. The valuation of general building stock and the loss estimates determined in the Town
of Mamaroneck were based on the default general building stock database provided in HAZUS-
MH The general building stock valuations provided in HAZUS-MH are estimated Replacement
Cost Values from RS Means, 2006, which has a level of accuracy acceptable for planning
purposes.
Since the HAZUS model uses data derived from several databases with varying assumptions, the
results in Tables 5-13 through 5-16 and in the Attachments included in Appendix 3 of this
Hazard Mitigation Plan may differ from the data provided by the Town of Mamaroneck in
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-48
Tables 5-8 through 5-10. For example the number of residential houses and commercial
buildings differ in part due to different sources of the data, use of regional model estimates for
local town parameters, property class codes, and dates the data were collected.
According to HAZUS-MH, it is estimated that 214 people will be displaced and 432 people will
seek temporary shelter in a 100-Year flood event, representing 1.87% and 3.78% of the Town
population, respectively. For the 500-Year event, HAZUS-MH estimates 257 people will be
displaced and 518 will seek temporary shelter representing 2.25% and 4.53% of the Town
population, respectively.
Table 5-13. Estimated Persons Displaced from Flood and Seeking Short-term Public
Shelter.
Displaced
People
People Seeking
Temporary Shelter
100-Year 214 432
500-Year 257 518
There are 307 buildings located in the 100-Year flood zone, representing 8.6% of the total
buildings in the Town of Mamaroneck. 208 buildings, or 5.5% of the total buildings lie in the
500-Year (including those in the 100-Year zone) flood zone. (See Table 5-14). 480 residential
buildings, or 13.4% of total residential buildings, lie within the 100- and 500- year flood zones.
26 commercial/industrial buildings, or .75% of all commercial buildings, are located in the 100-
and 500- year flood zones. Please refer to Table 5-11 for a breakdown of buildings in the flood
zones by occupancy type.
Table 5-14. Number of Buildings in 100- and 500-Year Flood Zones*
Total Town
Buildings
Buildings
% Total
100-Year 3,582 307 8.6
500-Year 3,582 208 5.5
* Based on building counts provided by the Town of Mamaroneck.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-49
HAZUS-MH MR2 divides building losses into two categories. Direct building losses represent
the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the buildings and its contents.
Business interruption losses consist of the losses associated with the inability to operate a
business due to the damage sustained during a flood. Temporary living expenses for those
people who are displaced from their homes due to flood are also included in business
interruption losses. HAZUS-MH estimated the total economic loss for the flood. Table 5-15
summarizes these losses (including business interruption and building losses) as a result of the
100- and 500-Year flood events. The estimated business interruption loss for the 100-Year
flood event is approximately $.15 million, and it is $.18 million for the 500-Year flood event.
The estimated total loss for the 100-Year flood event is approximately $31.2 million, or about
2.7% of the Town of Mamaroneck’s building stock replacement value. The estimated total loss
for the 500-Year flood event is approximately $38.1 million, or about 3.3% of the Town’s
building stock replacement value. In the 100-Year flood event, total building-related commercial
losses represented 55% of the total losses. In the 500-Year event, commercial losses represented
56% of the losses.
HAZUS-MH estimates the damage that could incur to essential facilities resulting from the 100-
and 500-Year flood events. It is estimated that none of the essential facilities are vulnerable and
should not experience any structural damage as a result of the 100- and 500-Year flood events.
They are not estimated to have any loss of functionality either.
According to FEMA’s HAZUS-MH 2.1 Flood Model Technical Manual
(http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=5120), the “damage states” are derived from
the percent damage to the building. 1-10% damage is considered slight, 11-50% damage is
considered moderate, and 51-100% is considered substantial damage. HAZUS estimated the
building counts that would incur these damages. It is estimated that about 39 buildings would be
at least moderately damaged in a 100-Year flood event, with no buildings being destroyed,
compared to 41 buildings moderately damaged and 2 buildings destroyed in a 500-Year flood
event. Table 5-16 summarizes the expected building damage by general occupancy.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-50
Table 5-15. Building-related Economic Loss Estimates from Flood ($1,000).
100-Year
Category Area Residential Commercial Other Total
Building Loss
Building 8.30 4.62 0.10 13.02
Content 5.22 11.90 0.55 17.67
Inventory 0.00 0.34 0.01 0.35
Subtotal 13.52 16.86 0.66 31.04
Business Interruption Income 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06
Relocation 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02
Rental Income 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Wage 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.07
Subtotal 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.15
Total 13.53 17.00 0.66 31.19
500-Year
Building Loss Building 9.93 6.08 0.14 16.15
Content 6.16 14.51 0.68 21.34
Inventory 0.00 0.44 0.01 0.44
Subtotal 16.09 21.01 0.82 37.93
Business Interruption Income 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06
Relocation 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.03
Rental Income 0.00
0.01 0.00 0.01
Wage 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.08
Subtotal 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.18
Total 16.10 21.18 0.83 38.11
Table 5-16. Expected Building Damage from Flood by General Occupancy.
1-
10%
11-
20%
21-
30%
31-
40%
41-
50% Substantial Total
100-
Year Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 0 11 15 8 5 0 39
Total 0 11 15 8 5 0 39
500-
Year Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 0 5 15 8 13 2 43
Total 0 5 15 8 13 2 43
HAZUS estimates that a total of 1,514 tons of debris would be generated in the 100-Year flood.
Of this amount, finishes would comprise 69% of the total, followed by structure, which would
comprise 18%; foundations would comprise the remainder. This would require an estimated 61
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-51
truckloads (assuming 25 tones/truck) to remove the debris that was generated by the 100-Year
flood. It is estimated that a total of 3,519 tons of debris would be generated in the 500-Year
flood. Of this amount, finishes would comprise 43%, followed by structure, which would
comprise 33% of the total; foundations would comprise the remainder. It is estimated that it
would require 141 truckloads to remove the debris generated by the 500-Year flood.
5.D.3 Valuation Assessment of Wind Storms
The Town of Mamaroneck is highly vulnerable to wind damage from hurricanes, nor’easters,
thunderstorms and other significant wind events. In severe storms, the Town is subject to
damaged roofs, siding, windows, utility poles, and trees as well as total building losses. The
most significant storm events that cause the greatest damage to the region are remnants of
hurricanes. Tornados, because of their low frequency are not as likely to strike the Town of
Mamaroneck although their potential for destruction is high. The following section provides a
detailed damage and economic assessment of hurricane wind damages and economic impacts in
the Town of Mamaroneck.
5.D.3.1 HAZUS Hurricane Model and Damage
Hurricane impacts from wind were assessed using FEMA’s HAZUS ®MH 2.1 model. HAZUS
is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation computer model that was developed by FEMA and the
National Institute of Building Sciences. The model was used in conjunction with Esri’s ArcGIS
software, version 10.0. The HAZUS Hurricane Model provides estimates of the economic losses
from hurricane force winds. The damage and loss estimates can be used to plan and propose
efforts to mitigate or reduce risks from wind damage, reduce disaster payments and to prepare
for emergency response and recovery in the event of a damaging event.
Two runs of the model were used in this assessment: a user-defined historical model and a
probabilistic analysis of impacts for different strength hurricanes. The historical model was
given worst-case storm parameters as an example of a hurricane that could strike the Town of
Mamaroneck directly. The model parameters used were those defined in Section 9.3 of the
HAZUS Users Manual for Hurricanes. The HAZUS probabilistic model evaluates risks of future
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-52
impacts from hurricanes for several hurricane wind speeds and return periods (i.e. probability of
an occurrence in a year).
Since the HAZUS model uses data derived from several databases with varying assumptions, the
results in Tables 5-17 through 5-21 and in the Attachments included in Appendix 3 of this
Hazard Mitigation Plan may differ from the data provided by the Town of Mamaroneck in
Tables 5-8 through 5-10. For example the number of residential houses and commercial
buildings differ in part due to different sources of the data, use of regional model estimates for
local town parameters, property class codes, and dates the data were collected.
The HAZUS historical model represents a probable worse-case Category 3 hurricane that could
strike the Town and would be similar to those storms listed in Table 4-6 and Figure 4-5 except it
would track through Mamaroneck (Figure 5-4). Although the storms may begin as Category 3 or
4 hurricanes, they historically deteriorate quickly to Category 1 when they hit land or track closer
to the coast, thus avoiding major inland damage for the Westchester County region. Since a
Category 4 storm would be a rare event and Category 5 storms are unlikely to reach as far north
as New York, a Category 3 Hurricane with maximum 1 minute sustained winds ranging of 102
mph is considered as the most probable worst-case scenario.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-53
Figure 5-4. HAZUS Historical Model projected track for a hypothetical hurricane through
Mamaroneck NY with 120 mph winds.
The model results in Table 5-17 show what could have happened if this model hurricane track
struck the Town of Mamaroneck with full force sustained winds of 120 mph with peak 3-second
gusts of 143 mph. The model’s assumptions and detailed output from the HAZUS historical
model is given as an Attachment in Appendix 3. A hurricane of this size could destroy over 378
homes and severely damage 468 more. About 12% or 406 of the homes would escape some
damage. A similar type of considerable wind damage could be caused by a tornado rated as F2
but the damages would be over a narrow band of the Town rather than covering the entire area.
The HAZUS probabilistic model was run to evaluate possible future impacts of hurricanes on the
Town of Mamaroneck. Using the HAZUS program, probabilities of damage, expected
building losses, expected contents losses, and expected loss‐of‐use are computed for
different classes of building use for several probable hurricanes and peak wind gusts.
Results of these analyses are given in Tables 5‐18 and 5‐19.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-54
Table 5-17. Potential Damage to the Town of Mamaroneck Buildings from a Category 3
Hurricane. (120 MPH Sustained Winds) *
Occupancy Class
No Damage Minor Damage Moderate Damage Severe Damage Destruction
Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%)
Commercial/Industrial 46 13.29 72 20.80 118 34.10 106 30.64 4 1.16
Education/Community Services 1 13.66 1 19.99 2 34.72 2 31.54 0 .09
Religious 2 12.69 4 26.12 5 35.04 4 25.90 0 .25
Residential 406 12.01 1,082 32.04 1,044 30.91 468 13.86 378 11.18
Total 455 1,158 1,170 580 382
* % and count of Damaged buildings were estimated using the HAZUS Historical Model.
Table 5-18 shows the probabilistic model results for building damages associated with four
hurricane “return periods” and peak wind gusts (maximum 3-second wind speed). A return
period of 100 years for example, corresponds to a 1% chance per year in the Town of
Mamaroneck of exceeding the computed total direct loss shown for the 100-Year event. These
periods and winds are specific to the Town. Areas closer or more distant from the coastline will
have different values. A 200-Year return event would be in the mid range of a Category 2 storm.
A 500-Year return event would be in the lower range of a Category 3 storm having maximum 1-
minute sustained winds of 111 mph. This storm would have a probability of 0.2% striking the
area in a year. A return period of 1000 years is a rare storm event and is not presented in Tables
5-18 and 5-19. Also the 10 and 20-Year events are not summarized since the model results show
either no or minor damages from these more frequent storms. The peak wind gust speeds are
estimated by HAZUS for each of the return periods. These wind speeds are the estimated
maximum 3-second gusts in open terrain at 10m above ground at the center of each census tract
used in the model. The wind gust speeds and return periods are within the ranges of Category 1,
2 and 3 storms. Detailed output from the HAZUS probabilistic model for all return periods is
given in the Attachments in Appendix 3.
The data used in the model were from the Town of Mamaroneck US Census tracts that are part
of the model’s database. The default conditions were applied to the model, which included
information describing the building use inventory, essential facilities, tree coverage, and surface
roughness. For the purposes of this hazard mitigation plan, this simplified approach was judged
to be sufficient.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-55
Using formulas programmed in HAZUS, damage probabilities, expected building losses,
expected contents losses, and expected loss-of-use were estimated for different class uses of
buildings. The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on regional census and
economic parameters. The area of the Town of Mamaroneck is approximately 3.56 square miles.
There are over four thousand households in the Town, which had a total population of 11,429
people in 2 census tracts (Based on the 2000 Census Bureau data used by the HAZUS Model).
There are an estimated 3,744 buildings in the region with a total building replacement value,
excluding contents, of about 1,170 million dollars (Table 5-9). Approximately 90% of the
buildings (and 86% of the building value) are associated with residential housing.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-56
Table 5-18. Probabilistic Building Damage Risks from Hurricanes that Could Strike the Town
of Mamaroneck.
Table 5-18 Notes:
* Return period, peak wind and % impacts are from HAZUS probabilistic model for hurricane damage for the
Town of Mamaroneck.
** Residential includes single and multifamily. Commercial/Industrial includes Agriculture.
Table 5-18 summarizes the expected building damage by hurricane event and general property class in
the Town of Mamaroneck. Based on HAZUS percentage estimates, about 259 buildings will suffer
from minor damage to destruction from a 200-Year event. This is about 6.9% of the total number of
buildings in the Town. There are an estimated 169 buildings, or 4.5% of the total number of Town
buildings, that will be moderately damaged in a 500-Year event. In contrast, a 50-Year event showed
3,729 or over 99.5% of the buildings would have no significant wind damage compared to 2,841 or
75.9% unharmed from a 500-Year event.
Return
Period
(Yrs.)*
Degree of Wind Damage
Property Class**
None Minor Moderate Severe Destruction
Damage
Count
(%)
Impact
Damage
Count
(%)
Impact
Damage
Count
(%)
Impact
Damage
Count
(%)
Impact
Damage
Count
(%)
Impact
50 Commercial/Industrial 345 99.71 1 0.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Education/Community 6 99.48 0 0.52 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Religious 14 99.59 0 0.40 0 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00
Residential 3,365 99.61 12 0.36 1` 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 3,729 14 1 0 0
100 Commercial/Industrial 341 98.42 5 1.42 0 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.00
Education/Community 6 98.58 0 1.39 0 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00
Religious 14 98.69 0 1.27 0 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00
Residential 3,299 97.65 70 2.09 9 0.26 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 3,659 76 9 0 0
200 Commercial/Industrial 329 95.04 15 4.23 2 0.65 0 0.08 0 0.00
Education/Community 6 95.75 0 4.06 0 0.18 0 0.00 0 0.00
Religious 13 95.47 1 4.34 0 0.18 0 0.01 0 0.00
Residential 3,096 91.64 244 7.21 38 1.14 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 3,444 259 41 1 0
500 Commercial/Industrial 284 81.97 47 13.73 13 3.65 2 0.65 0 0.00
Education/Community 5 83.66 1 13.62 0 2.61 0 0.11 0 0.00
Religious 12 82.47 2 15.03 0 2.39 0 0.11 0 0.00
Residential 2,541 75.22 672 19.91 156 4.62 6 0.17 3 0.08
Total 2,841 723 169 8 3
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-57
The hardest hit would be residential buildings. The greatest amount of damage is to wooden
structures and the HAZUS model estimated that about 59% of the buildings in the town are
constructed of wood. The strong winds of a 500-Year return storm would impact about 36% of
these wooden structures but about 2 buildings, or less than 0.1% of the wooden structures would
be destroyed. The model estimated that 37 households would be displaced from their homes as a
result of a 500-Year hurricane and about 7 people in the Town population will likely need
temporary public shelters. (See Attachments in Appendix 3.)
Building losses are divided into two categories: direct property damage losses and business
interruption losses. The direct property damage or capital losses include the estimated costs to
repair or replace the damage to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are
the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during
the hurricane. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those
people displaced from their homes because of the hurricane.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-58
Table 5-19. HAZUS Hurricane Probabilistic Model – Property Damage Capital Losses
(X $1,000)
Return
Year Losses
Residential
*
Commercial
/Industrial Others
Total
Capital
Losses
50 Building 811.18 19.07 2.42 832.67
Contents 13.27 0.00 0.00 13.27
Inventory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 824.45 19.07 2.42 845.93
100 Building 3,022.70 77.46 11.01 3,111.16
Contents 201.40 6.62 0.27 208.29
Inventory 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.19
Subtotal 3,224.10 84.23 11.31 3,319.63
200 Building 7,108.61 230.99 41.30 7,380.90
Contents 682.85 28.93 5.61 717.39
Inventory 0.00 1.00 0.21 1.21
Subtotal 7,791.46 260.92 47.11 8,099.50
500 Building 19,243.22 916.77 116.01 20,326.00
Contents 3,990.28 227.27 35.93 4,253.49
Inventory 0.0 9.21 1.68 10.89
Subtotal 23,233.50 1,153.25 203.62 24,590.37
* Residential includes single and multi-residential properties; Commercial includes Industrial;
Others includes Community Services, Educational, Governmental, and Religious Facilities.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-59
Table 5-20. HAZUS Hurricane Probabilistic Model - Business Interruption Losses
(X $1,000)*
Return
Year Losses Residential Commercial
/Industrial
Community
Services
Total
Interruption
Losses
50 Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Relocation 6.60 0.14 0.01 6.76
Rental 9.58 0.00 0.00 9.58
Wage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 16.19 0.14 0.01 16.34
100 Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Relocation 120.76 1.49 0.09 122.35
Rental 80.64 0.00 0.00 80.64
Wage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 201.40 1.49 0.09 202.98
200 Income 0.00 22.30 10.96 33.26
Relocation 220.92 26.55 7.20 254.66
Rental 184.46 15.25 0.71 200.41
Wage 0.00 23.60 25.76 49.36
Subtotal 405.38 87.70 44.63 537.69
500 Income 0.00 132.80 23.52 156.31
Relocation 880.73 150.39 26.32 1,057.44
Rental 526.71 84.55 2.04 613.30
Wage 0.00 123.19 55.29 178.48
Subtotal 1,407.44 490.93 107.17 2,005.53
* Residential includes single and multi-residential properties; Commercial includes Industrial; Others
includes Community Services, Educational, Governmental, and Religious Facilities.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-60
Table 5-21. HAZUS Hurricane Probabilistic Model – Summary of Economic Losses
(X $1,000)
Return Year
Total
Interruption
Losses
Total Capital
Losses
Total Town
Losses
50 16.34 845.93 862.27
100 202.98 3,319.63 3,522.61
200 537.69 8,099.50 `8,637.19
500 2,005.53 24,590.37 26,595.90
Tables 5-19, 5-20, and 5-21 summarize the losses associated with the building damage for the
hurricane events with return periods of 50 years through 500 years. The total economic loss
estimated by HAZUS MH-2 for a 500-Year return hurricane is nearly $26.6 million dollars. The
total capital property damage costs were about $25 million dollars with about $2 million of the
estimated losses due to the interruption of business in the Town. The largest capital loss, $23.2
million, was to residential buildings, which accounted for 94.5% of the total capital losses. The
HAZUS model showed just less than $846 thousand in damages for a 50-Year event.
HAZUS estimates the amount of debris generated by a hurricane. Four general types of debris
are evaluated by the model: brick/wood, reinforced concrete/steel, eligible tree debris, and other
tree debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling
equipment required to handle the debris. A total of 2,163 tons of debris will be generated from
wind damage during a 200-Year event. Brick and wood comprises 42% of the total debris,
eligible tree debris comprises 41% of the total debris, other tree debris comprises 17% of the
total debris, and reinforced concrete and steel comprise of 0% of the total debris. The building
debris alone (brick, other tree debris, concrete and steel) generated by the hurricane will require
36 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris. The number of Eligible Tree Debris
truckloads will depend on how the 852 tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed.
The volume of tree debris generally ranges from about 4 cubic yards per ton for chipped or
compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards per ton for bulkier, uncompacted debris.
There are a few essential facilities of concern (see Section 5.B.2). The HAZUS model estimates
that loss-of-use time for any of these facilities is expected to be less than one day.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-61
Although HAZUS can provide comprehensive loss estimates, uncertainties are inherent in any
model methodology. The next hurricane that may strike the Town of Mamaroneck could be quite
different from any model hurricane included in this hurricane analysis. The results of this model
analysis for Mamaroneck should not be considered a prediction or forecast of future hurricanes
but viewed as an indication of what possible hurricanes in the future may do. This probabilistic
hurricane analyses can be used to develop estimates of long-term “annualized losses” as well as
the expected distribution of losses based on “return period losses”. These damage estimates
reflect the expected hurricane tracks and intensities that may likely occur in Mamaroneck. There
are significant uncertainties in the results due to the limited history of hurricane observations,
limited knowledge of actual local building characteristics, use of simplified modeling
assumptions, and other local socio-economic factors. A probabilistic analysis has statistical
uncertainties that need to be considered when interpreting the model results.
5.D.4 Valuation Assessment of Earthquakes
An earthquake is a rare event in the Town of Mamaroneck but can cause impacts and losses to
the Town’s structures and facilities. The overall hazard ranking determined by the Hazard
Mitigation Planning Committee for this hazard is moderately low. The following vulnerability
assessment emphasizes that earthquakes are a hazard of concern. Existing and future mitigation
efforts should continue to be developed and employed that will enable the study area to be
prepared for these events when they occur. Possible mitigation actions would include public
awareness/ education and reviewing State and local building codes with respect to earthquakes.
In 2008, FEMA reported a study using the HAZUS Estimated Software called “HAZUS-MH
Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States”. The study showed that New
York State ranked 4th in annualized earthquake losses, and 26th in annualized earthquake loss
ratio (annualized loss as a fraction of replacement value of building stock). Annualized
Earthquake Loss was determined to be $95,185,000, while Annualized Earthquake Loss Ratio
was $67 per million.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-62
In addition, FEMA ran a vulnerability assessment study using HAZUS-MH software which
indicated counties most vulnerable to earthquake hazards. The following maps depict the
annualized earthquake losses by county, factoring in soil classifications from the NEHRP
(National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program). Figure 5-5 shows the annualized earthquake
loss for New York State to be $61,638,517, and the annualized earthquake loss for Westchester
County to be $1,498,958. Figure 5-6 shows the Per Capita Annual Earthquake Loss for
Westchester County to be estimated at $1.01 - $2.00. Figure 5-7 shows the annualized
earthquake loss per square mile to be estimated at $500.01 - $10,000.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 5-63 Figure 5-5. Annualized Earthquake Loss
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 5-64 Figure 5-6. Per Capita Annualized Earthquake Loss.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 5-65 Figure 5-7. Annualized Earthquake Loss Per Square Mile.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-66
5.D.4.1 Earthquake HAZUS Model and Damage Analysis
A probabilistic assessment was conducted for the 100-, 500- and 2,500-Year mean return periods
(MRP) through a Level 1 analysis in HAZUS-MH Version 2.1 to analyze the earthquake hazard
for the Town of Mamaroneck. The HAZUS-MH analysis evaluates the statistical likelihood that
a specific event will occur and what consequences will occur. A 100-Year MRP event is an
earthquake with a 1% chance that the mapped ground motion levels (PGA) will be exceeded in
any given year. For a 500-Year MRP, there is a 0.2% chance the mapped PGA will be exceeded
in any given year. For a 2,500-Year MRP, there is a 0.04% chance the mapped PGA will be
exceeded in any given year.
HAZUS-MH calculates its basic estimates of losses based on national databases and using the
default data in the model, such as general building stock, demographics, and essential facilities.
The default demographic data in HAZUS-MH, based on the 2002 U.S. Census, was used for
analysis. The valuation of general building stock and the loss estimates determined in the Town
of Mamaroneck were based on the default general building stock database provided in HAZUS-
MH The general building stock valuations provided in HAZUS-MH are estimated Replacement
Cost Values from RS Means, 2006, which has a level of accuracy acceptable for planning
purposes.
Since the HAZUS model uses data derived from several databases with varying assumptions, the
results in Tables 5-22 through 5-28 and in the Attachments included in Appendix 3 of this
Hazard Mitigation Plan may differ from the data provided by the Town of Mamaroneck in
Tables 5-8 through 5-10. For example the number of residential houses and commercial
buildings differ in part due to different sources of the data, use of regional model estimates for
local town parameters, property class codes, and dates the data were collected.
HAZUS estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The
casualties are broken down into four severity levels that describe the extent of the probable
injuries:
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-67
Severity Level:
1. Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed.
2. Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening.
3. Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not promptly
treated.
4. Victims are killed by the earthquake.
The casualty estimates are provided for three times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM, and 5:00 PM.
These times represent the periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their
peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate assumes that the residential occupancy load is at
maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate assumes that the educational, commercial, and industrial sector
loads are at maximum, and 5:00 PM represents peak commuting time. See Table 5-22 which
summarizes the injuries and casualties for the 100-, 500-, and 2500- year events.
Table 5-22. Earthquake Casualty by Time of Day.
Time Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Totals
100-Year 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0
500-Year 2:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0
2500-Year 2:00 AM 10 2 0 0 12
2:00 PM 8 1 0 0 9
5:00 PM 8 1 0 0 9
Subtotal 26 4 0 0 30
HAZUS estimated the number of households that would be displaced from their homes, as well
as the number of people in the household that would require the short-term use of a public
shelter. There were no displaced households in the 100-Year event. 40 households would be
displaced, and 20 people would require the use of a public shelter in a 2500-Year event. Table 5-
23 summarizes displaced households and people that would seek shelter for the different mean
return periods.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-68
Table 5-23. Earthquake Shelter Requirements.
MRP Displaced
Households
People Requiring
Short Term public Shelter
100-Year 0 0
500-Year 1 0
2500-Year 40 20
Fires often occur after an earthquake. HAZUS used a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate
the number of ignitions and the amount of burnt area. For 100-, 500-, and 2500-Year events the
model estimates that there will be 0 ignitions, and no people will be displaced from fire.
HAZUS estimated the amount of debris that would be generated by the earthquake. The model
breaks the debris into two general categories: brick/wood and reinforced concrete/steel. This
distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to
handle the debris. The 100-Year and 500-Year events were estimated not to generate any
significant amount of debris, requiring no truckloads (assuming 25 tons/truck) to remove the
debris generated from the earthquake. The 2500-Year event would generate .01 million tons of
debris, with 61% of the total consisting of brick/wood. It would require 400 truckloads
(assuming 25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake.
Entire building stock is considered at risk and exposed to the earthquake hazard. The potential
general building stock damage extent was evaluated. Evaluations were made based on the
degree of structural damage. Damage parameters used were: None, Slight, Moderate, Extensive,
and Complete. According to FEMA’s HAZUS-MH 2.1 User Manual
(www.fema.gov/library/viewrecord.do?id=5120), examples of Structural Damage State
definitions are as follows:
Slight: Small plaster or gypsum board cracks at corners of door and window openings and wall-
ceiling intersections; small cracks in masonry chimneys and masonry veneer.
Moderate: Large plaster or gypsum-board cracks at corners of door and window openings; small
diagonal cracks across shear wall panels exhibited by small cracks in stucco and gypsum wall
panels; large cracks in brick chimneys; toppling of tall masonry chimneys.
Extensive: Large diagonal cracks across shear wall panels or large cracks at plywood joints;
permanent lateral movement of floors and roof; toppling of most brick chimneys; cracks in
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-69
foundations; splitting of wood sill plates and/or slippage of structure over foundations; partial
collapse of room-over-garage or other soft-story configurations; small foundations cracks.
Complete: Structure may have large permanent lateral displacement, may collapse, or be in
imminent danger of collapse due to cripple wall failure or the failure of the lateral load resisting
system; some structures may slip and fall off the foundations; large foundation cracks.
Table 5-22 summarizes this damage by building type for the 100-, 500-, and 2500-Year events.
Table 5-25 summarizes this damage by general occupancy type.
Table 5-24. Expected Earthquake Building Damage by General Building Type (All Design
Levels)
None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Count* % Count % Count % Count % Count %
100-Year Wood 2,867 76.58 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Steel 165 4.42 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Concrete 65 1.75 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Precast 11 0.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
RM 59 1.59 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
URM 576 15.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
MH 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
TOTAL 3,744 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
500-Year Wood 2,767 77.49 88 0.64 12 36.65 1 15.07 0 0.00
Steel 157 4.40 6 4.43 2 6.64 0 5.62 0 2.83
Concrete 62 1.75 2 1.71 1 2.08 0 0.96 0 0.24
Precast 10 0.27 0 0.32 0 0.92 0 1.58 0 0.10
RM 56 1.58 2 1.33 1 3.11 0 3.50 0 0.00
URM 518 14.51 39 28.17 16 50.61 3 73.28 0 96.83
MH 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
TOTAL 3,570 138 32 4 0
2500-Year Wood 2,033 80.91 619 76.87 195 55.79 20 28.97 1 11.34
Steel 97 3.86 31 3.89 29 8.30 7 10.72 1 8.88
Concrete 37 1.49 13 1.67 12 3.43 2 3.67 0 2.20
Precast 5 0.21 2 0.22 2 0.66 1 1.60 0 0.66
RM 36 1.43 9 1.09 11 3.06 4 5.86 0 1.34
URM 304 12.10 131 16.27 100 28.76 33 49.18 8 75.57
MH 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
TOTAL 2,513 805 349 67 10
Note:
RM: Reinforced Masonry
URM: Unreinforced Masonry
MH: Manufactured Housing
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 5-70 Table 5-25. Expected Earthquake Building Damage by General Occupancy Type None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %100-Year Commercial/Industrial346 9.24 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 5 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Religion 14 0.37 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Residential 3,378 90.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL 3,744 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 500-Year Commercial/Industrial325 9.13 15 10.53 5 15.64 1 17.63 0 14.70 Education 6 0.16 0 0.17 0 0.24 0 0.26 0 0.28 Religion 13 0.37 1 0.44 0 0.66 0 0.80 0 0.82 Residential 3,225 90.34 122 88.85 27 83.46 2 81.30 0 84.19 TOTAL 3,570 138 32 4 0 2500-Year Commercial/Industrial201 7.99 739.1355 15.91 14 21.61 2 19.92 Education 4 0.14 1 0.15 1 0.27 0 0.34 0 0.34 Religion 9 0.34 3 0.36 2 0.54 1 0.77 0 0.79 Residential 2,300 91.53 72890.36290 83.27 52 77.28 8 78.95 TOTAL 2,513 805 349 67 10 * Commercial/Industrial includes Agriculture
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-71
Building losses are divided into two categories. Direct building losses represent the estimated
costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the buildings and its contents. Business
interruption losses consist of the losses associated with the inability to operate a business due to
the damage sustained during an earthquake. Table 5-26 summarizes the estimated annualized
earthquake general building stock losses for both direct building losses (capital stock losses) and
business interruption losses (income losses). Total building stock related losses were zero for the
100-Year event, about 3 million for the 500-Year event, and almost 53 million for the 2500-Year
event. This figure represents approximately 4.7 percent of the Town of Mamaroneck’s building
stock replacement value.
All critical facilities in the Town of Mamaroneck are considered exposed and vulnerable to the
earthquake hazard. See section 5.B for a complete list of the critical facilities in the Town.
HAZUS estimated the probability that the essential facilities would sustain damages as a result of
the earthquake events from different mean return periods. For all three mean return periods,
HAZUS did not estimate a significant impact on the Town’s essential facilities, estimating that
no facilities would significantly lose functionality.
HAZUS divides lifeline inventory into two categories: transportation and utility lifeline systems.
Should an earthquake occur, it is possible that ground failure could cause damage to
transportation and utility lifeline systems. HAZUS considers seven transportation systems that
include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry, and airports; as well as six utility systems
that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude and refined oil, electric power, and
communications. The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 253 million dollars. The
inventory includes over 20 kilometers of highways, 13 bridges, and 147 kilometers of pipes.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-72
Table 5-26. Estimated Annualized Earthquake Building Stock Losses. (X $1,000)*
MRP
Category Area Residential
Commercial/
Industrial Other Total
100-Year Income Losses Wage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capital-Related 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rental 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Relocation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capital Stock Losses Structural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Non-Structural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Content 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Inventory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
500-Year Income Losses Wage 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09
Capital-Related 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08
Rental 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.12
Relocation 0.15 0.06 0.01 0.23
Subtotal 0.22 0.28 0.02 0.52
Capital Stock Losses Structural 0.45 0.09 0.02 0.56
Non-Structural 1.41 0.27 0.04 1.71
Content 0.34 0.14 0.02 0.49
Inventory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Subtotal 2.19 0.49 0.07 2.76
2500-Year Income Losses Wage 0.03 1.25 0.03 1.32
Capital-Related 0.01 1.15 0.01 1.18
Rental 0.89 0.62 0.01 1.52
Relocation 2.06 0.91 0.17 3.14
Subtotal 2.99 3.94 0.22 7.15
Capital Stock Losses Structural 5.09 1.31 0.22 6.62
Non-Structural 22.72 4.12 0.64 27.48
Content 8.49 2.43 0.39 11.31
Inventory 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.09
Subtotal 36.30 7.94 1.26 45.50
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-73
Regional transportation and distribution of materials may be interrupted due to an earthquake
event. HAZUS calculated damage estimates to the different components of the Town of
Mamaroneck’s transportation systems. Its assessment analyzed such components as segments,
bridges, tunnels, and facilities to the Town’s highways, railways, and bus systems. It is
estimated that a 2500-Year event would cost .7 million dollars in damages to the Town of
Mamaroneck’s transportation system. Table 5-27 summarizes the economic losses to the
Town’s transportation system for a 100-, 500-, and 2500-Year event.
Table 5-27. Transportation System Economic Losses from Earthquake. (X $1,000)
100-Year 500-Year 2500-Year
System
Component
Inventory
Value
Economic
Loss
% Loss
Ratio
Economic
Loss
% Loss
Ratio
Economic
Loss
% Loss
Ratio
Highway Segments 153.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bridges 91.70 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.71
Tunnels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 245.10 0.00 0.00 0.70
Railways Segments 8.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bus Facilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 253.20 0.00 0.00 0.70
Utility systems may be damaged due to an earthquake event. A 100-Year event would not cause
any damage, a 500-Year event would not cause any significant damage. In a 2500-Year event,
the damage ratio (ratio of repair to replacement cost) for the Town’s potable water supply system
is .61%. Table 5-28 summarizes the economic losses to the Town’s Utility system for a 100-,
500-, and 2500-Year event.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-74
Table 5-28. Utility System Economic Losses from Earthquake. (X $1,000)
100-Year 500-Year 2500-Year
System
Component
Inventory
Value
$
Economic
Loss
%
Loss
Ratio
$
Economic
Loss
%
Loss
Ratio
$
Economic
Loss
%
Loss
Ratio
Potable Water Pipelines
Facilities
Dist. Lines
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.61
Subtotal 1.48 0.00 0.00
Wastewater Pipelines
Facilities
Dist. Lines
Subtotal
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.52
Natural Gas Pipelines
Facilities
Dist. Lines
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
Subtotal 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oil Systems Pipelines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities
Subtotal
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Electric Power Facilities
Subtotal
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Communication Facilities
Subtotal
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.00
Total 2.96 0.00 0.00 0.02
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-75
5.E Valuation Assessment of Other Hazards
The damage to structures for the other hazards was not quantitatively evaluated. Damage was
judged to be small for these hazards compared to flooding, wind damage, and earthquakes. Also,
these hazards were judged to be rare, improbable or not significant to the Town of Mamaroneck.
Further data needs to be collected on these hazards to review and evaluate probable extent of
impacts if they are judged to be significant. This additional information would be used to
develop future mitigation strategies if needed.
The following hazards were discussed above in Section 5.C and are not expected to have a major
impact on properties, people, critical facilities or other key facilities in The Town of
Mamaroneck. These include:
Air Contamination
Civil Unrest
Hazardous Material Release
Oil Spill
Radiological Release
5.F Natural and Beneficial Functions
Wind, water, ice and snow are part of natural storm events affecting the Town. They are
significant events and affect the near-shore shifting of channels, erosion and redistribution and
shifting of rivers, lakes, and streams. The Town is home to and maintains several conservation
areas, floodplains, and wetlands. There are a number of areas for natural habitats, wetlands and
marsh plants and grasses in the Town. Approximately 766 acres, or 34% of its municipal land
area is classified as Open Space/Conservation Land, including dedicated preserves, open spaces,
and areas with easements that restrict development. Please refer to sections 5.B.6.1 and 5.B.6.2
for detailed descriptions of the Town’s vulnerable natural conservation areas, water bodies, and
wetlands.
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-76
5.G Land Use Development, Redevelopment and Population Trends
The current population in the Town of Mamaroneck is 11,977 according to the 2010 US Census.
It is seen as a mature suburban community with an established land use pattern. The
socioeconomically diverse population has increased by about 8% over the last 10 years. Housing
is varied, consisting of apartment buildings, coops, condominiums, typical suburban homes,
historic colonials, and multi-million dollar estates. Although primarily residential, the Town
enjoys some large tracts of recreational land and small areas of commercial development along
the Boston Post Road and 5th Avenue. The Town is pretty much built out. There is a new
apartment building in development on Byron Place. In addition, the Town recently rezoned
about 54 acres of land in their business and service zone. There is the potential for up to 300
additional residential housing units to be built as a result of the new zoning.
The Town intends to enforce its Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Stormwater Management
and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, and Uniform Building Codes, in any new
development or redevelopment project it undertakes.
5.H Potential Sites for Temporary Housing Units and for Relocating/Rebuilding
Housing Units
The NYS Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services Hazard Mitigation
Planning Standards 3a require the identification of sites for the placement of temporary housing
units to house residents should they be displaced by disaster, for communities that contain a 100-
year floodplain.
The following possible temporary housing unit locations have been identified:
Saxon Woods Park Picnic Ground Parking lot, located off Mamaroneck Avenue
Memorial Park, located at Myrtle Boulevard and Baldwin Place
Parking Lot #1, located at Myrtle Boulevard and Vine Street
Park, located at Madison Avenue and Fifth Avenue
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-77
The NYS DHSES Hazard Mitigation Planning Standards 3b require the identification of
potential sites within the community suitable for relocating houses out of the floodplain or
building new houses once properties in the floodplain have been razed. A significant portion of
the Town is fully developed. However, there are potential sites within the Town suitable for
relocating houses. In an effort to provide increased housing opportunities, the Town in 2013
amended its zoning code to permit multi-family housing in the business and service districts.
The former zones B and SB are now designated BR and SBR. These zones are in the Boston
Post Road corridor and in the Washington Square area. See appendix 4 for letter from the Town
of Mamaroneck’s Local Floodplain Administrator.
5.I Summary of the Impacts on the Community
Of all of the probable hazards that are likely to cause damage to the Town of Mamaroneck, the
ones that cause flooding and high winds are most significant. These hazards include hurricanes,
nor’easters, coastal storms, severe thunderstorms and winter storms. These are the events that
have the potential to impact the entire community to the highest possible degree.
The next major flooding hazard in terms of probable consequences and costliness is the flooding
from an inadequate storm drainage infrastructure. The road, street and basement flooding
resulting from these problems are costly.
Flooding damages can be substantial but they do not have the same damaging impact as high
wind events due to hurricanes. All of the other hazards listed in Section 5.D and discussed in
Section 5.B have been addressed in this plan and are of concern. They have the potential for
serious impact. However, none of these hazards, under the most probable circumstances would
cause the same level of damage or would result in the loss of life to the same degree as floods
and wind damage.
All of these other hazards are likely to impact the community to some degree and should be
addressed. However, the issues deriving from wind and water hazards should be addressed as
the first priority. With primarily the issues connected with wind and water hazards, there are
ETG, Inc. Section 5 – Assessing The Impacts
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
5-78
many safety and economic benefits that would result from planning mitigation activities that
focus on these issues. These are discussed in Section 7 of this plan.
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-1
Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
6.A Setting Mitigation Goals
Identifying, profiling and assessing hazards that are likely to cause significant harm to the Town
of Mamaroneck was presented in Sections 4 and 5. The next step is to identify planning goals
which will guide the development of mitigation actions. The Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee, with the consultant’s input and review by the community, proposed the following
goals and objectives for developing mitigation measures that are presented in Section 7. The
goals listed below are a consensus of the committee and the Town Administration and were
available for review and comment by the public. Five hazard mitigation goals were proposed for
implementing the Town mitigation measures. These goals include:
1. Decrease hazards from flooding.
2. Protect the community from catastrophic disasters to avoid loss of life and injury.
3. Protect public and private property and infrastructure from catastrophic disasters.
4. Protect natural resources and the environment.
5. Involve the community, partners and stakeholders in mitigation measures.
The primary hazards of concern identified in Section 4 are flooding and damage from major
storms such as coastal storms, thunder storms, severe rain storms, Nor’easters, tropical storms
and hurricanes. These hazards have the potential for serious impact, and would likely cause
frequent or severe damage or harm to people from major storms that cause flooding and wind
damage. Goals that were not directly linked to hazard mitigation issues such as purely economic
and development goals or capital construction project goals were excluded. The proposed goals
represent the major issues and aims of the community and consider significant hazards and their
impacts. These goals are broad and inclusive of technological and human-caused hazards.
These five principal goals consider the existing resources and capabilities of the Town
government and strive to reduce vulnerabilities and mitigate hazards having significant risks.
These goals will be evaluated in future updates of this Plan. (See Section 9.) Each of the goals
established encompass the primary hazards of concern.
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-2
6.A.1 Goals for Reduction of Vulnerabilities
Each goal is intended to reduce hazard risks and vulnerabilities that were discussed in Section 5,
Assess the Impacts. The hazards of concern were discussed in detail in Section 4 and low risk
items were eliminated from further evaluation in Section 5. Several hazards that contribute to
the major hazard of flooding and wind damage were selected for further evaluation and
assessment. These hazards include:
Coastal storms
Winter storms
Utility Failure
Tornados
Wind storms
Severe Rain Storms
Thunderstorms
Extreme Temperatures
Ice Storms
Vulnerabilities to these hazards include people, Town buildings, infrastructures and public and
private property. Vulnerabilities to people include Town residents, visitors, commuters, travelers
and Town workers who are potentially impacted by these hazards. Vulnerabilities of structures
include critical facilities, private homes and businesses. Vulnerabilities of public and private
property include trees, vehicles and land. Infrastructures include power distribution systems,
roads, bridges, rail transportation, storm water systems. (See Section 5 for vulnerability details.)
1. The first goal (Decrease hazards from flooding) is intended to protect people and
property in flood prone areas that were identified in Sections 4 and 5. This goal focuses
on the mitigation of impacts from flooding on vulnerable properties, structures and
people. Areas in the Town of Mamaroneck are known to flood frequently in several
areas. (See Section 4, Figure 4-2 and Figure 5-2.) This goal is aimed to mitigate impacts
related to water damage through upgrading drainage and sewage systems, and
improvement of roads. Portions of the existing sewer and storm drain system are more
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-3
than 100 years old. In addition, significant structural defects in the storm and sanitary
sewer systems could impact the entire system.
The second goal (Protect the community from catastrophic disasters to avoid loss of life and
injury) is intended to cover any hazard that has the potential to cause catastrophic impacts to the
Town. Protecting the safety of the public in the community is of prime concern. This goal
includes impacts from natural as well as man-caused hazards. Multiple government services
may be involved that include emergency operations command, police, fire and emergency
response units, Town administration and Town communications centers as well as State and
Federal resources.
The third goal (Protect public and private property and infrastructure from catastrophic
disasters) is intended to cover any hazard that has the potential to cause catastrophic damage to
public and private property, buildings, homes and infrastructures. It is also intended to protect
vulnerable businesses and critical facilities from loss of use from any hazard including impacts
from natural and man-caused hazards. These impacts may require multiple government services
that include response from emergency units, police, and fire department, Town administration
resources as well as State and Federal agencies.
The fourth goal (Protect natural resources and the environment) includes protecting valuable
resources such as open space, parks, streams, ponds, wetlands, air quality, water quality,
environmentally sensitive areas, land use as well as hazardous waste and municipal waste.
Preparing for global warming impacts is a significant concern in this goal. Potential changes may
already be beginning as flooding, coastal storm surges, thunder storms and warmer temperatures
in recent decades seem to indicate. Information on environmentally sensitive areas in the Town
is discussed in “A History of Conservation in the Town of Mamaroneck 1948-2006” (Wittner,
2007).
The fifth goal (Involve the community, partners and stakeholders in mitigation measures)
emphasizes the importance of community and stakeholder involvement in protecting lives, safety
and property. Effective public communication and action is critical in implementing this
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-4
mitigation goal. Partners include participating neighbors, agencies and groups that share the
same problem. Stakeholder involvement includes maintaining inter-jurisdiction involvement of
neighboring communities and interagency coordination of mitigation measures. By involving
stakeholders and upgrading existing programs, certain mitigation actions can be efficient and
cost effective.
6.A.2 Strategy for Objectives
The Town Hazard Mitigation Committee evaluated several specific objectives for each of the
five general primary goals discussed above. These objectives offer a strategy for identifying and
proposing mitigation measures presented in Section 7 that meet these established goals. The
primary objectives for each goal are listed in Table 6-1. These objectives and the proposed
mitigation activities listed in Section 7 comply with relevant criteria provided in FEMA
guidance. These criteria include technical, political, legal, economic, environmental, social and
administrative evaluation criteria.
The objectives proposed are intended to fulfill at a minimum the following evaluation criteria:
Technical - Develop technically feasible mitigation efforts
- Be effective in reduction of long-term losses, impacts and risks
- Be effective in minimizing secondary losses
- Be effective in solving the problem and not only the symptoms.
- Eliminate actions that will not technically meet the goals.
Political - Acceptable to and supported by community politicians
- Have full support of the Town Board and Administration
- Involve political leaders in the planning process
- Have support and involvement of stakeholders
- Have public support and involvement
Legal - Have legal authority to undertake an action
- Meet all applicable regulatory requirements
- Define the roles of the Village, Town, County, State and Federal governments
- Provide a legal basis for mitigation actions
- Assure laws, regulations, ordinances, and resolutions are in place
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-5
- Identify liabilities for an action or lack of an action
- Consider needs for legal counsel
Economic - Develop affordable and cost-effective mitigation efforts
- Obtain budget and funding for an action
- Provide economic costs and benefits of a mitigation action
- Have minimal burden to the tax base or local economy
Environmental - Improve environmental quality
- Identify and evaluate environmental impacts
- Comply with all environmental laws and regulations
- Benefit the environment
Social - Improve the quality of life and reduce neighborhood impacts.
- Include public support and involvement
- Consider effects on selected segments of the population
- Be compatible with present and future community values
- Consider cultural impacts on the community
Administrative - Provide resources and staffing to implement proposed actions
- Have jurisdiction and capability necessary to implement an action
- Have jurisdiction to accomplish activities in a timely manner
- Have jurisdiction to maintain and manage the mitigation measure
The objectives presented are not mutually exclusive and may apply to one or more goals. (See
Table 6-2.) For example, several objectives listed under the second goal “Protect the community
from catastrophic disasters” can also apply to “Decrease the impacts from flood hazards”. For
simplicity, objectives are listed once under a primary goal. Each of the objectives discussed
below form the basis for the mitigation measures presented and discussed in detail in Section 7.
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-6
Table 6-1. Hazard Mitigation Goals and Primary Objectives – Town of Mamaroneck, NY
1. Decrease the Hazards from flooding.
1.1. Prevent flooding from the Long Island Sound (coastal flooding), and riverine flooding from the
rivers, brooks and tributaries that run through the Town.
1.2. Identify and eliminate inflow and infiltration problems through repair and maintenance of pipes.
1.3. Correct storm and sanitary sewer backup problems from floods.
1.4. Repair and enlarge the storm water collection and drainage system.
1.5. Control sediment disposition and erosion.
2. Protect the community from catastrophic disasters to avoid loss of life and injury.
2.1. Increase community awareness of emergency procedures.
2.2. Maintain, improve and ensure the efficient operation of early warning, notification and
communication systems.
2.3. Develop, update and integrate emergency action plans and coordinate with Red Cross and other
agencies.
2.4. Reduce impacts of hazards on vulnerable populations.
2.5. Ensure continuity of government operations, emergency services, and essential facilities during and
immediately after disaster and hazard events.
3. Protect public and private property and infrastructure from catastrophic disasters.
3.1. Identify Critical Facilities, buildings, and infrastructure subject to damage and loss.
3.2. Reduce impacts of hazards on homes, businesses, and institutions.
3.3. Manage hazard impacts through planning.
3.4. Become a member of the Community Rating System.
4. Protect natural resources and the environment.
4.1. Protect and preserve open space and environmentally sensitive and critical areas.
4.2. Protect and restore natural lands and features that serve to mitigate losses.
4.3. Incorporate hazard considerations into land-use planning and natural resource management.
4.4. Encourage hazard mitigation measures that result in the least adverse effect on the natural
environment.
4.5. Identify climate change impacts on the community.
5. Involve the community, partners and stakeholders in mitigation measures.
5.1. Strengthen inter-jurisdiction and interagency communication, coordination, and partnerships to foster
hazard mitigation actions or projects.
5.2. Evaluate impacts using engineering analyses and studies of water courses impacting the community.
5.3. Coordinate mitigation planning with neighboring communities.
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-7
Table 6-2. Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Objectives with their Corresponding
Goals
GOAL STATEMENTS
OBJECTIVE STATEMENTS
1.
Decrease
Flooding
2.
Protect the
Community
from
Disasters
3.
Protect
Public and
Private
Property/
Infrastructure
4.
Protect
Natural
Resources/
Environment
5.
Promote
Community,
Partners and
Stakeholders
1-1 Prevent flooding from coastal
waters, streams, lakes and ponds *X x x x
1-2 Identify and eliminate inflow
and infiltration problems through
repair and maintenance of pipes.
*X x x
1-3 Correct storm and sanitary
sewer backup problems from floods *X x x x
1-4 Repair and enlarge the storm
water collection and drainage
system
*X x x x
1-5 Control sediment disposition
and erosion *X x x
2-1 Increase community awareness
of emergency procedures x *X x
2-2 Maintain, enhance and ensure
the efficient operation of early
warning, notification and
communication systems
x *X x
2-3 Develop, integrate, and update
emergency action plans and
coordinate with Red Cross and
other agencies.
*X x
2-4 Reduce impacts of hazards on
vulnerable populations x *X x
2-5 Ensure continuity of
government operations, emergency
services, and essential facilities *X x x
*X – Primary Objective
x – Secondary Objective
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-8
OBJECTIVE STATEMENTS
1.
Decrease
Flooding
2.
Protect the
community
from
Disasters
3.
Protect
Property/
Infrastructure
from
Disasters
4.
Protect
Environment/
Natural
resources
5.
Promote
Community,
Partners and
Stakeholder
s
3-1 Protect Critical Facilities,
buildings, and infrastructure from
damage and loss
x *X
3-2 Reduce impacts of hazards on
homes, businesses, and institutions
x x *X x
3-3 Manage hazard impacts
through planning x *X x
3.4 Become a member of the
Community Rating System x *X
4-1 Protect and preserve open space
and environmentally sensitive and
critical areas.
x *X
4-2 Protect and restore natural
lands and features that serve to
mitigate losses
x *X
4-3: Incorporate hazard
considerations into land-use
planning and natural resource
management
x
*X x
4-4 Prepare for climate change
impacts on the community x x *X x
5.1 Strengthen inter-jurisdiction,
coordination and partnerships *X
5.2 Evaluate impacts using
engineering analysis and studies
x *X
5.3 Coordinate mitigation planning
with neighboring communities
x x *X
*X – Primary Objective for the goal.
x – Secondary objective for the goal.
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-9
If the nature or magnitude of risks change, goals and objectives will be evaluated to assure that
they address current and future conditions. An evaluation process will be implemented to assess
whether the current resources are appropriate for implementing the Plan. An assessment will be
made of the outcomes of mitigation actions and the roles of participating agencies and other
partners identified in this Plan.
6.B. Mitigation Objectives by Goal
6.B.1 Decrease Hazards from Flooding
This goal is a focus of major concern for the community since flooding is so frequent and
destructive. The following objectives are intended to meet this goal. These include:
1. Prevent flooding from the Long Island Sound (coastal flooding), and riverine flooding
from rivers, brooks and tributaries that run through the Town.
2. Identify and eliminate inflow and infiltration problems through repair and maintenance of
pipes.
3. Correct storm and sanitary sewer backup problems from floods.
4. Improve the storm water collection and drainage system.
5. Control sediment deposition and erosion.
Flooding is the most significant hazard for the damage it does in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Important to this goal is the mitigation of flooding from Long Island Sound, streams running
through the Town such as the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers and smaller brooks and
tributaries that run through the Town. Preventative mitigation measures for flood control would
reduce the hazard to the Town. Mitigating impacts from flood hazards is needed in high risk
areas which exceed the 100-year/500-Year flood zone levels. Correcting problems in the storm
and sanitary sewer systems would help meet this goal by having more drainage capacity and
effective removal of storm water. Overflow problems of the sanitary system should be corrected
and improved. Actions that prevent sewer backup need to be developed. Actions that would
eliminate the inflow and infiltration problems would meet this objective.
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-10
The community needs to identify the mitigation activities that require development of plans and
implement such plans. Preparing a set of plans for flood control would include improving storm
water collection and drainage and implement measures to control sediment deposition and
erosion.
6.B.2 Protect the Community from Catastrophic Disasters to Avoid Loss of Life
and Injury
Avoiding loss of life and injury from disasters is a central goal for the Town. This goal is also
aimed at mitigating losses through various property protection activities before, during and after
a hazardous event occurs. Technological and man-caused hazards discussed in Sections 4 and 5
also apply and may be evaluated in future updates to this plan.
Primary objectives to “Protect the community against catastrophic disasters” include:
1. Enhance the community’s awareness of emergency procedures.
2. Maintain, enhance and ensure the efficient operation of early warning, notification and
communication systems.
3. Develop, integrate, and update emergency action plans and coordinate with Red Cross
and other agencies.
4. Reduce impacts of hazards on vulnerable populations.
5. Ensure continuity of government operations, emergency services, and essential facilities.
during and immediately after disaster and hazard events.
Enhancing residents’ awareness requires effective communication between the Town officials
and the community. Such an action would include receiving communication during a hazard
event through a reverse 911 call. The objective for heightened public awareness requires
involvement at several levels of government. It involves using mass media, email, newspapers,
churches, community groups and other organizations.
One of the major objectives is to ensure that adequate planning is conducted and updated to
avoid loss of life and injuries during a major storm or other hazardous events by having a well-
prepared and approved emergency response and escape plan. Action plans should identify
appropriate staff, required training and the necessary equipment and supplies to meet response
needs. Town residents need to be aware of emergency procedures to assure that basic emergency
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-11
services are not disrupted and that emergency services are not disrupted so that people in need of
emergency services get them during a hazardous event.
Having a fully compliant and updated National Incident Management System (NIMS) and
implementation plans in place is a critical first step. Without a clear definition of roles, available
services and resources in the Town, implementation of effective emergency response is limited.
Having effective warning systems is a key to communication with the community.
6.B.3 Protect Public and Private Property and Infrastructure from Catastrophic
Disasters
This goal is aimed at mitigating losses through various property protection activities before a
hazardous event occurs. Protecting residential property from catastrophic disasters is also
included. This goal focuses on protecting the Town from major losses. Severe storms are noted
for the damage they can do in the Town of Mamaroneck. (See Sections 4 and 5.)
Three prime objectives related to this goal are:
1. Protect Critical Facilities, buildings, and infrastructure from damage and loss.
2. Reduce impacts of hazards on homes, businesses, and institutions.
3. Manage catastrophic impacts through emergency planning.
Critical facilities, commercial and residential buildings and associated infrastructures need to be
protected from hazards to assure that basic Town services for healthcare, police, transportation,
government, fire and emergency services are not disrupted and that people in need of emergency
services get them during a major hazardous event. Mitigation measures that reduce impacts on
homes, businesses and institutions also need to be identified and implemented. Town storm
water collection systems need to be reviewed and expanded to control excess storm water.
Developing comprehensive emergency plans are needed to prepare for impacts from catastrophic
events. These emergency plans are required by FEMA.
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-12
6.B.4 Protect Natural Resources and the Environment.
The objectives for environmental and resource protection will help conserve resources that are
important for preserving open space, plants, wildlife, fish, sensitive ecosystems and wetlands.
Four objectives have been developed to help meet this goal.
1. Protect and preserve open space and protect environmentally sensitive and critical areas.
2. Protect and restore natural lands and features that serve to mitigate losses.
3. Incorporate hazard considerations into land-use planning and natural resource
management.
4. Prepare for climate change impacts on the community.
Actions that protect and preserve open space and protect environmentally sensitive and critical
areas are important for flood control. Depending on the location, actions proposed may involve
a variety of measures such as vegetation management, acquisition of impacted properties and
structures, redirecting flood water and other methods to restore natural features.
Hazard mitigation actions may require land-use planning and management of natural resources.
Any measure proposed must have minimal adverse impact on the natural environment.
6.B.5 Involve the Community, Partners and Stakeholders in Identifying and
Implementing Mitigation Measures.
Three specific objectives were developed that relate to this goal:
1. Strengthen inter-jurisdiction and interagency communication, coordination, and
partnerships to foster hazard mitigation actions or projects.
2. Evaluate impacts using engineering analyses and studies of water courses impacting the
community.
3. Coordinate with neighboring communities.
Inter-jurisdiction and interagency communication and coordination needs to be strengthened.
Partnerships are needed to foster hazard mitigation projects. Since many downstream structures
and people could be impacted by mitigation projects in the Town of Mamaroneck, such projects
need the cooperation of affected jurisdictions.
ETG, Inc. Section 6 - Setting Goals and Objectives
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
6-13
Additional engineering analyses and water course studies impacting the Town will likely be
required and updated. Such activities may be needed prior implementing a mitigation measure.
Existing programs, projects or studies need to be integrated in this Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Westchester County Department of
Planning need to be involved.
The above goals and objectives provide a focus for proposing mitigation activities. Section 7
provides a variety mitigation activities and actions intended to meet the goals and objectives
outlined above.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 1
Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
7.A Planning Process and Strategy
FEMA provides guidance on developing a hazard mitigation strategy which serves as a long-
term blueprint for reducing potential losses that were identified in the risk assessment (Section 5)
of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. There are three components to this strategy:
Develop long-term goals and objectives to achieve positive outcomes (Section 6).
Identify specific activities and actions (Section 7) that local government agencies or
departments, community organizations, neighboring participants, stakeholders and others
can take to reduce the risks of identified hazards in Sections 4 and 5.
Develop an Action Plan (Section 8) that prioritizes each action, identifies who is
responsible for that action and how and when it will be implemented.
With the Town’s and the Committee’s help, the principal goals and objectives were assembled as
part of this strategy. The next step identifies specific actions the community can take to meet
these objectives. To accomplish this, detailed mitigative actions or activities were assembled
that are cost-effective, feasible and meet the goals and objectives specified above.
Tables 7-1 through 7-5 in Section 7.B below summarize proposed actions and associated details
for each of the five proposed goals discussed. These details include:
Action/Activity Strategy – Activity or mitigation measure proposed.
Action Type – Local plans and regulations, structure/infrastructure projects, natural
systems protection, education awareness programs, and emergency response projects.
Primary Objective – The most appropriate objective from the Goals listed in Table 6-1.
Hazards Mitigated – Flooding, utility failure, wind storm, drought and other hazards.
Location – General description of area covered such as “Town-wide”, “Multi-
jurisdictional”, “Special flood hazard areas (SFHA)”, “Critical facilities” and/or “Hazmat
facilities”
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 2
Priority – Represents the importance of implementing an action. A rating of 1 is high, 2
is medium or 3 is a low priority for implementing the task.
Benefit – Effectiveness or value of the action in meeting its goal.
Cost Estimate – An amount which considers local government and contractor costs to the
nearest $1,000. (See Section 7.A.3 for details.) Detailed cost estimates will be prepared
once the scope of the project is defined and funding sources are identified.
This Section proposes mitigation activities that would reduce the impact of hazardous events that
could occur in the Town. This process provides a consistent approach for Town, Village,
County, State and Federal governments to work effectively and efficiently together with
stakeholders to prepare for, respond to and recover from a hazardous event regardless of cause,
size or complexity. These objectives are specified under the National Incident Management
System (NIMS).
As discussed in Sections 4 and 5, the primary hazard of concern in the Town of Mamaroneck is
flooding. The fact that flooding is rated as the most serious hazard (see Table 4-5) is due to a
variety of storm hazards such as coastal storms, thunderstorms, nor’easters, tropical storms and
hurricanes that threaten the Town almost every year and any one of these events can have a
devastating impact. For example, the hazard scorings (Table 4-5) show hurricanes as a
moderately high hazard. This rating is due to the fact that Category 3 and 4 hurricanes, the most
hazardous, are the least encountered, while tropical storms are more frequent and cause less wind
damage but do cause large-scale flooding. Mitigation measures for hurricane hazards in this
section are therefore covered primarily as a flood hazard. These hazards often have secondary
effects such as fallen trees, utility failure, dam failure, transportation accidents, water supply
contamination and structural collapse. The principal hazards considered in Section 4 for
mitigation measures include:
High Hazards
Floods
Moderately High Hazards
Coastal Storms (including tropical storms, nor’easters)
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 3
Hurricanes
Severe Storms (including thunderstorms)
Storm Surge and Wave Action
Moderately Low Hazards
Dam Failure
Tornado
Utility Failure
Fires (Structural)
Hazmat
Other natural hazards like heat waves and earthquakes, technological hazards and man-caused
events such as terrorism were evaluated in Section 4 of this Plan. However, these do not have
the same frequency or level of impact as flooding.
7.A.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The proposed mitigation measures must help meet the goals, objectives and the criteria outlined
in this Plan. The five primary goals are:
1. Decrease hazards from flooding.
2. Protect the community from catastrophic disasters to avoid loss of life and injury.
3. Protect public and private property and infrastructure from catastrophic disasters.
4. Protect environmental and natural resources.
5. Involve the community, partners, and stakeholders in identifying and implementing
mitigation measures.
As discussed previously these objectives are not mutually exclusive and may apply to other goals
in addition to the primary goals listed. Likewise, a mitigation action may help meet several
objectives. (See Section 6 Table 6-2.) The recommended actions will be discussed in the
proposed action plan developed in Section 8.
7.A.2 Mitigation Action Categories
Each mitigation action can be classified according to FEMA guidance under one of several
action or activity categories:
Local Plans and Regulations
Structure and Infrastructure Projects
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 4
Natural Systems Protection
Education and Awareness Programs
Development of Local Plans and Regulations is a strategy that reduces the impacts from hazards,
avoids or limits personal harm and decreases the loss of property value. These actions include
administrative or regulatory measures by government authorities to help keep problems from
getting worse. Tables 7-1 through 7-5 indicate these types of activities as ‘Planning’. These
measures include planning, zoning, building codes, fire codes, laws, regulations, conservation
activities and “greening” the code. Information on environmentally sensitive areas in the Town
is discussed in “A History of Conservation in the Town of Mamaroneck 1948-2006” (Wittner,
2007). Improved zoning, codes and plans will discourage future development in flood plains,
wetlands or Town areas prone to flooding.
Structure and Infrastructure Projects affect the way land, buildings and infrastructures are
developed or modified to protect them from a hazard. An item is identified as ‘Structure’ to
indicate it is a Structure and Infrastructure Projects Activity. These measures are strategies
associated with the goals and objectives that protect property from damage or loss of property
value. Property owners may protect buildings and properties by retrofitting structures, acquiring
properties in safe areas, relocating facilities or elevating structures. This strategy may include
projects such as elevating roads, renovating storm and sanitary sewers, or building retaining
walls that direct floodwaters away from an area.
Natural Systems Protection reduces damage and losses to natural environmental systems by
preserving or restoring the functions of the natural system. These measures are intended to
mitigate sediment accumulation, erosion, stream flow problems and wetland loss. The Town has
limited open space and natural areas. Natural resource protection works to preserve or restore
natural areas and the natural function of a floodplain. These activities may also include
management of vegetation, water quality, ponds or wetlands. Each proposed Natural System
Protection Measure is identified as ‘Natural’.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 5
Education and Awareness Programs involve informing, educating, soliciting input and advising
the community. This includes informing elected officials, property owners and stakeholders
concerning actions in the proposed plan. These are activities that help save lives and protect
property through an informed community. They include public meetings, Web Page productions,
local public television, outreach programs and newspaper notices. ‘Education’ in Tables 7-1
through 7-5 indicates Education and Awareness Program activities. These activities may be
performed at various times and may be associated with several mitigation items.
Emergency Response Activities involve activities that prevent or reduce impacts prior to or
during a hazard event. This includes training exercises, rescue operations, accident prevention,
communications, fire response, ambulance service, first aid, and similar activities. Note: As of
July 2008, Emergency Services is no longer listed as a Mitigation Action category. Emergency
Response activities are, however, listed in the Tables further in this section notated with the
separate action type of “Emergency Response”.
7.A.3 Estimating Activity Item Costs
Detailed specifications for each activity item are not within the scope of this Hazard Mitigation
Plan but will be submitted with specific future proposals for work and grant applications. The
proposed activities represent a brief summary or conceptual plan for work items. Most costs in
this plan cannot be quantified at this stage of planning. A detailed cost estimate will be prepared
after the scope of a project is defined and funding sources are identified. The estimated costs
given in this Plan will be used to evaluate the cost-benefit summary for each proposed activity.
The Plan’s cost is based on experience of the Town’s staff, size and scope of the activity, known
unit costs for similar activities or estimates based on engineering guides. These estimates may
have a margin of error of +/- 25% and represent a value in current 2014 dollars. The cost
estimates include local government staff and contractor costs to implement the project or
program. A qualitative evaluation will be used to evaluate project costs and benefits. The cost
to individual property owners may be substantially higher depending on the local site conditions.
Costs will be presented as low, medium or high.
Low: Less than $25,000
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 6
Low Medium: $25,000 - $50,000
Medium: $50,000 - $100,000
Medium High: $100,000 - $500,000
High: $500,000 - $1,000,000
Very High: Over $1,000,000
7.A.4 Setting Priorities
A priority is assigned to each Activity Item shown in Tables 7-1 to 7-5. Priorities are qualified
as High, Medium and Low and are assigned a score of 1 (high), 2 (medium) or 3 (low). High or
Priority 1 activities are considered the most urgent or important projects to start with. Only three
priority categories were chosen to keep decision-making easier and to promote consensus among
the Committee. Section 8 will provide a detailed ranking of each action item. As the Plan is
implemented these priorities are expected to change based on resource availability, funding, new
information, and future community needs. Some activity items that may have already started
will continue as a top priority. In addition, many of the activities are dependent on other
activities and have a higher priority. Many of the proposed items require outside grants or other
assistance and may be delayed due to availability of funding.
In this Plan we discuss the process and strategies used to develop and prioritize the mitigation
activities to protect the community against the primary hazards identified. In Section 7.B we
identify and organize the possible activities according to the goals and objectives. The proposed
mitigation activities are each given a general order of priority. Activities will be sorted in
Section 8 by priority. The mitigation activity items and associated objectives are given for each
goal along with their applicable hazards. All proposed activities, priorities and costs were
reviewed by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and were made available to the
community for comment and final approval by the Town Board.
Evaluating priorities were based on several criteria which include:
Social acceptability
Technical feasibility
Administrative capability
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 7
Political support
Legal authority
Economically affordable and cost-effective
Environmentally beneficial
Funding resources and availability of funding were also important considerations. Actions that
can be done using available in-house resources have a high priority. Projects with available
funding sources from FEMA or the State would also be given a high priority.
Activities that were most cost-effective were rated higher. A high priority activity has maximum
benefits relative to the costs even though in most cases, a quantitative estimate of benefits in
dollars cannot always be made. Qualitative judgments of benefits relative to cost were made
based on the benefits listed for the objects at risk and damage estimates that are given in Section
5. Projects having high costs and a high benefit such as a high risk reduction would also have a
higher priority. High-cost items having a lower benefit would have a lower priority. A low-cost
item though important, may be given a lower priority because there were fewer direct property
and safety benefits to the Town. These activities were proposed, reviewed and evaluated by the
Committee, Town officials and the Consultant.
7.A.5 Capability and Resources
The Town of Mamaroneck will have the responsibility, jurisdiction, capability and authority to
administer and implement the mitigation actions proposed below. In some instances, a
neighboring community or agency may have jurisdiction that requires a joint Memorandum of
Understanding or a partnership of shared resources to implement the activity. The Town official
in charge of a project will be responsible for interfacing with the public and neighboring
jurisdictions, Westchester County, USACE, NYS OEM, FEMA or other agencies identified in
Section 3. Officials for the Town that administer these projects are shown in Figure 1-3 in
Section 1 and discussed further in Section 8.D Capabilities and Resources. In many cases, the
Town does not have financial or human resources to prepare the plans, studies and engineering
designs, or implement public outreach and conduct the construction required for many of the
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 8
activities proposed. External agency funding for consultants, engineers and contractors will be
needed to successfully implement this Hazards Mitigation Plan.
7.B Proposed Mitigation Actions
Numerous possible mitigation activities were identified and screened by the Committee and
Town officials. There were 30 mitigation activities identified that met one of the five mitigation
goals. The proposed activities are listed by their primary goal in Tables 7-1 through 7-5. Each
proposed mitigation activity is summarized with its action/activity strategy, action type, primary
objective, hazard mitigated, location, priority, benefits and cost estimate. These goals, objectives
and benefits are consistent with and incorporate several criteria listed in Section 6.A and 7.A.4.
The proposed mitigation actions are consistent with the recommendations developed in the Town
of Mamaroneck’s Master Plan and its updates, and their Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program and amendments. Sections 4 and 5 of this Hazard Mitigation Plan provide the technical
support for these proposed activities. In addition, where applicable, those actions that are
intended to aid the community with continued National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
compliance are indicated.
7.B.1 Goal 1 - Decrease the Hazards from Flooding
Since the major hazard is flooding, plans to meet Goal 1 will attempt to reduce impacts from
storms. Protection of people and properties from floods is first and foremost. Meeting this goal
and its five objectives depends on having all planning tools in place, all needed resources ready
and all emergency personnel trained. The Town has identified a number of related actions that will
result in a reduction of flooding. Table 7-1 lists the proposed mitigation activities, objectives,
priorities, hazards mitigated and the potential benefits to promote this goal. These activity items
are discussed in the following sections.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 7- 9 Table 7-1a. Goal 1: Proposed Activities to Decrease the Hazards from Flooding. **** *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response **Activity may also meet other goals and objectives – see Table 6-2. Number for goal and objective from Table 6-1. # For primary hazards included see Page 7-2, Sect. 7A **** These items are intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. Action/Activity Strategy Action Type * Primary Objective ** Hazards Mitigated# Location Priority *** Benefits Cost Estimate Comments 1. Upgrade existing stormwater management systems Planning 1.4 Improve the stormwater collection and drainage system Flooding Town-wide High High Medium $75,000 needed for consultant and Town staff 2. Launch an aggressive year- round stream maintenance program on rivers and waterways Natural 1.1 Prevent flooding from coastal waters, rivers and brooks Flooding Town-wide, Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) Medium Medium Medium Repetitive Loss Properties 3. With Larchmont, retrofit the Sheldrake River Dam to include automated spillway valve control, stream level monitoring, a Flood Early Warning System with automatic notification Structure 1.1 Prevent flooding from coastal waters, rivers and brooks Flooding Multi-jurisdictional SFHA High High High Repetitive Loss Properties 4. Involve home and business owners in a program to flood-proof their basements and other areas of their building that flood Planning 1.1 Prevent flooding from coastal waters, rivers and brooks Flooding SFHA High High Low Repetitive Loss Properties ****
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 7- 10 Table 7-1b. Goal 1: Proposed Activities to Decrease the Hazards from Flooding. **** *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response **Activity may also meet other goals and objectives – see Table 6-2. Number for goal and objective from Table 6-1. # For primary hazards included see Page 7-2, Sect. 7.A. **** These items are intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. Action/Activity Strategy Action Type * Primary Objective ** Hazards Mitigated # Location Priority *** Benefits Cost Estimate Comments 5. Improve stormwater management by updating obsolete stormwater drainage infrastructure Structure 1.4 Improve the storm water collection and drainage system Flooding Town-wide High High Medium - High Repetitive Loss Properties 6. Replace/upgrade Town-owned sewage pump stations Structure 1.3 Correct storm and sanitary sewer backup problems from floods Flooding Town-wide High High Medium 7. Develop, implement and manage the Town Community Rating System (CRS) Planning 3.4 TOM to become a member of the Community Rating System Flooding Town-wide High High Low to medium Repetitive Loss Properties
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 11
7.B.1.1 Upgrade Existing Stormwater Management Systems
Upgrading existing stormwater management systems is a planning action for improving the
stormwater collection and drainage system and is intended to reduce flooding hazards Town-
wide. Activities include mitigating losses in repetitive flood areas, inspecting/maintaining
drainage systems, and acquiring, relocating or retrofitting flood-prone structures. Updating the
plans is a Community Rating System (CRS) activity which has a high priority and high benefits
for a medium cost of $75,000 in Town staff and consultant fees. This project would need part of
its funding from public money. This activity is also considered under the Federal and State
requirements known as Stormwater Phase II permits for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4).
7.B.1.2 Launch an Aggressive Year- round Stream Maintenance Program on Rivers and
Waterways
A year-round stream maintenance program on rivers and waterways is intended to prevent
Town-wide flooding. This may include clearing debris and brush along the banks. This activity
is primarily concerned with the Sheldrake, Premium and Mamaroneck Rivers and other
waterways shown in Figures 4-1.A and 4-2. This is a natural systems protection action. It has a
medium priority with medium benefits and a medium cost of $50,000 to $100,000. The program
would count as a CRS activity for SFHA and Repetitive Loss Properties.
7.B.1.3 With Larchmont, Retrofit the Sheldrake River Dam to Include Automated
Spillway Valve Control, Stream Level Monitoring, a Flood Early Warning System
with Automatic Notification.
This action is a structure and infrastructure project which would control flooding from local
rivers, streams and improve the stormwater collection and drainage system for the Sheldrake
River Dam. In conjunction with the Village of Larchmont, this is a multi-jurisdictional activity
which involves Repetitive Loss Properties in neighboring areas. The project has a high priority,
high benefit and a high cost ($500,000 to $1,000,000). This CRS project with the Village of
Larchmont is intended to help mitigate flooding in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). The
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 12
Community Rating System credits activities that protect life and property during a flood through
enhanced flood early warning and response programs.
7.B.1.4 Involve Home and Business Owners in a Program to Flood-Proof their Basements
and other Areas of their Building that Flood
This Planning activity will help prevent flooding of buildings from coastal waters, rivers and
streams. It is a CRS activity for Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) and Repetitive Loss
Properties. This activity has a high priority, high benefit and a low cost of $25,000. This activity
would have a high cost to benefit ratio.
7.B.1.5 Improve Stormwater Management by Updating Obsolete Stormwater Drainage
Infrastructure
This structure and infrastructure action is intended to improve the stormwater collection,
drainage and storage capacity Town-wide to mitigate flooding. This project is given a high
priority with high benefits and medium – high costs of $100,000 to $500,000. This action
strategy is a CRS activity.
7.B.1.6 Replace/Upgrade Town-Owned Sewage Pump Stations
Replacing and upgrading Town-owned sewage pump stations is structure/infrastructure project
which would correct storm and sanitary sewer backup problems from floods. It has a high
priority with high benefits at a medium cost of $50,000 to $100,000.
7.B.1.7 Develop Implement and Manage the Town Community Rating System (CRS)
This activity is intended to develop implement and manage the Town Community Rating System
(CRS). To become a member of the Community Rating System, the Town must file required
CRS documentation and establish an accurate inventory of Repetitive Loss Properties. Other
activities include public information on reducing flood hazards and purchasing flood insurance,
mapping and regulations, flood damage reduction and early warning and response programs to
protect life and property. This action has a high priority with high benefits at a low-medium cost
of $25,000 to $50,000.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 13
7.B.2 Goal 2 - Protect the Community from Catastrophic Disasters to Avoid
Loss of Life and Injury
Avoiding loss of life and injury from disasters is a central goal for the Town. This goal is also
aimed at mitigating losses through various property protection activities before, during and after
a hazardous event occurs. Technological and man-caused hazards discussed in Sections 4 and 5
also apply and may be evaluated in future updates to this plan. Tables 7-2a, b and c list the
proposed mitigation activities, objectives, priorities, hazards mitigated and the potential benefits
to promote this goal.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 7- 14 Table 7-2a. Goal 2: Proposed Activities to Protect Community from Catastrophic Disasters to Avoid Loss of Life and Injury. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency - Emergency Response **Activity may also meet other goals and objectives – see Table 6-2. Number for goal and objective from Table 6-1. # For primary hazards included see Page 7-2, Sect. 7.A. **** These items are intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. Action/Activity Strategy Action Type * Primary Objective ** Hazards Mitigated # Location Priority *** Benefits Cost Estimate Comments 1. Town-wide public education and awareness campaign on hazard mitigation and All-Hazard emergency preparedness Education 2.1 Increase the community awareness of emergency procedures All Hazards Town-wide High High Low **** 2. Upgrade Emergency Management Plans including protocols for preparation, response, recovery and post-event mitigation for hazards and hazard materials sites Planning 2.5 Update disaster plans and coordinate with Red Cross and other agencies All Hazards Town-wide Medium Medium Low - Medium 3. Establish a facility and protocol for an Alternate Seat of Government (ASOG) Planning 2.6 Ensure government operations, emergency services, and essential facilities during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event All Hazards Multi-jurisdictional Medium Medium Medium – High 4. Acquire modern emergency communication systems for a multi-jurisdictional radio, interoperability program to enhance communications Emergency Response 2.2 Maintain, improve and ensure the efficient operation of early warning, notification and communication systems All Hazards Town-wide Medium High Medium-High
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 7- 15 Table 7-2b. Goal 2: Proposed Activities to Protect Community from Catastrophes to Avoid Loss of Life and Injury. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency - Emergency Response **Activity may also meet other goals and objectives – see Table 6-2. Number for goal and objective from Table 6-1. # For primary hazards included see Page 7-2, Sect. 7.A. Action/Activity Strategy Action Type * Primary Objective ** Hazards Mitigated # Location Priority *** Benefits Cost Estimate Comments 5. Provide Emergency Operations training to Town, School Emergency Services, Red Cross and Law Enforcement staff Emergency Response 2.5 Update disaster plans and coordinate with Red Cross and other agencies All Hazards Town-wide Critical Facilities High High Low 6. Obtain funding for supplies and equip-ment needed in a dis-aster such as gener-ators and pumps Emergency Response 2.4 Reduce impacts of hazards on vulnerable populations All Hazards Town-wide Medium High Medium -High 7. Create and main-tain a database of special-needs indi-viduals and Con Ed LSE customers who voluntarily provide that information Emergency Response 2.4 Reduce impacts of hazards on vulnerable populations. All Hazards Town-wide Medium Medium Low 8. Obtain emergency traffic control devices such as message boards, Jersey barriers and portable signs Emergency Response 2.2 Maintain, improve and ensure efficient operation of early warning notification and communication systems All Hazards Town-wide High High Medium
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 16
7.B.2.1 Town-wide Public Education and Awareness Campaign on Hazard Mitigation and
All-Hazard Emergency Preparedness
The focus of this action type is public education with the objective of enhancing community
awareness of emergency procedures. This Town-wide effort covers all hazards. This activity has
been given a high priority with a high benefit for a low cost $25,000.
7.B.2.2 Upgrade Emergency Management Plans Including Protocols for Preparation,
Response, Recovery and Post-event Mitigation for Hazards and Hazard Materials
Sites
This planning action involves revising local plans and regulations to bring them to current
protocols for emergency preparedness, response, recovery and post-event mitigation for all
hazards including hazardous materials sites, spills or releases. The Town will coordinate with
regulatory agencies, first responders and the Red Cross. This Town-wide activity has a medium
priority, a medium benefit, a low cost of $25,000 and is highly feasible.
7.B.2.3 Establish a Facility and Protocol for an Alternate Seat of Government (ASOG)
This planning activity is intended to establish a facility and protocol for an Alternate Seat of
Government (ASOG) during a disaster. This will ensure government operations, emergency
services, and essential facilities during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event. This
multi-jurisdictional activity covers all hazards and has a medium priority with medium benefits
and a medium to high estimated cost $100,000 to $500,000.
7.B.2.4 Acquire Modern Emergency Communications Systems for a Multi-jurisdictional
Radio, Interoperability Program to Enhance Communications
The Town needs to acquire modern equipment for First Responders to enhance and ensure the
efficient operation of emergency services such as early warning and notification of hazards. The
activity type is Emergency Response for all hazards Town-wide. It has a high benefit to the
community at a medium high cost of $100,000 to $500,000. Pending funding the task is highly
feasible and is given a medium priority of two.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 17
7.B.2.5 Provide Emergency Operations Training to Town, School Emergency Services,
Red Cross and Law Enforcement Staff
This emergency response activity is intended to provide emergency operations training to Town,
school emergency services, Red Cross and law enforcement staff. This activity is for all hazards
Town-wide, especially critical facilities. It has a high priority and benefits at a low cost of
$25,000.
7.B.2.6 Obtain Funding for Supplies and Equipment Needed in a Disaster Such as
Generators and Pumps
The Town needs supplies and equipment to respond to a disaster. This includes generators and
pumps. This activity will serve to ensure efficient operation of equipment during emergencies
and reduce impacts on vulnerable populations. This emergency response action will cover all
hazards Town-wide. It is a feasible activity with a medium priority of two, a high benefit and
medium high cost of $100,000 to $500,000.
7.B.2.7 Create and Maintain a Database of Special-Needs Individuals and Con Ed LSE
Customers Who Voluntarily Provide that Information
A database of special-needs individuals and Con Ed Life-Sustaining Equipment (LSE) customers
who voluntarily provide that information would be helpful during a hazard event. It would help
reduce impacts of hazards on vulnerable populations. This emergency response action is Town-
wide for all hazards. It is a medium feasible action, with medium benefits at a low cost of less
than $25,000. It is given a priority of two based on this assessment.
7.B.2.8 Obtain Emergency Traffic Control Devices Such as Message Boards, Jersey
Barriers and Portable Signs
Emergency traffic control devices such as message boards, Jersey barriers and portable signs, are
an aid in responding to all hazards emergencies Town-wide. The primary objective is to
maintain, improve and ensure efficient operation of early warning notification and
communication systems. The activity is highly feasible, with a high benefit and medium cost
($25,000 - $100,000). It has been given a high priority of one.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 18
7.B.3 Goal 3 - Protect Public and Private Property and Infrastructure from
Catastrophic Disasters
This goal is aimed at mitigating losses through various property protection activities before a
hazardous event occurs. Protecting residential property from catastrophic disasters is also
included. This goal focuses on protecting the Town from major losses. Severe storms are noted
for the damage they can do in the Town of Mamaroneck. (See Sections 4 and 5.) Tables 7-3 a, b
and c list the proposed mitigation activities, objectives, priorities, hazards mitigated and the
potential benefits to promote this goal.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 7- 19 Table 7-3a. Goal 3: Proposed Activities to Protect Public/Private Property and Infrastructure from Catastrophic Disasters. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency- Emergency Response **Activity may also meet other goals and objectives – see Table 6-2. Number for goal and objective from Table 6-1. # For primary hazards included see Page 7-2, Sect. 7.A. **** These items are intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. Action/Activity Strategy Action Type * Primary Objective ** Hazards Mitigated # Location Priority *** Benefits Cost Estimate Comments 1.Maintain and upgrade GIS Mapping Program Planning 3.3 Manage hazard impacts through planning All Hazards Town-wide High High Low - Medium 2. Assist Town bus-nesses with drafting emergency prepared-ness, business continuity and Home-land Security plans Planning 3.3 Manage hazard impacts through planning. All Hazards Town-wide Low Medium Low 3. Educate residents, business owners and contractors on flood mitigation strategies, damage prevention and safety, flood insurance and flood loss Education 3.2 Reduce impacts of hazards on homes, businesses and institutions Flooding Town-wide Repetitive Loss Properties Low High Low - Medium CRS Activity **** 4. Maintain a database of all residents and businesses that use bulk propane storage tanks as a gas source Planning 3.3 Manage hazard impacts through planning Explosions Town-wide Medium Medium Low 5. Coordinate with Con Ed of NY to determine if upgrades are necessary to protect the local natural gas/electric delivery infrastructure Structure 3.1 Protect critical facilities, buildings, and infrastructure from damage and loss Severe weather Town-wide Low Medium Low (Con Ed costs high)
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 7- 20 Table 7-3b. Goal 3: Proposed Activities to Protect Public/Private Property and Infrastructure from Catastrophic Disasters. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response **Activity may also meet other goals and objectives – see Table 6-2. Number for goal and objective from Table 6-1. # For primary hazards included see Page 7-2, Sect. 7.A. **** These items are intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. Action/Activity Strategy Action Type * Primary Objective ** Hazards Mitigated# Location Priority *** Benefits Cost Estimate Comments 6. Obtain and increase, fire sprinkler ordinances, alarm systems and ensure all critical facilities, historical sites and apartment build-ings are in compliance with modern building codes Planning 3.1 Protect critical facilities, buildings, and infrastructure from damage and loss Structural Collapse and Fire Critical Facilities Town-wide High High Low-Medium 7. Conduct a discrete confidential evaluation of potential targets and security measures at critical and high risk locations Planning 3-1 Protect critical facilities, buildings, and infrastructure from damage and loss Terrorism Town-wide High High Low 8. Identify homes, busi-nesses, public facilities and historic sites that would benefit from raising structures above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Planning 3.2 Reduce impacts of hazards on homes businesses and institutions Flooding SFHA, Repetitive Loss Properties Medium Medium Low **** 9. Work with owners of Repetitive Loss Properties to identify ways the buildings can be modified to reduce insurance claims Planning 3.4 Become a member of the Community Rating System Flooding SFHA and Repetitive Loss Properties Medium Medium Low ****
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 21
7.B.3.1 Maintain and Upgrade GIS Mapping Program
The GIS Mapping Program is a planning tool that helps track and map flood-prone areas and
locations of critical facilities Town-wide. Upgrading activities include mapping areas not shown
on FIRM maps, preserving open space, enforcing higher regulatory standards, protecting natural
flood plain functions and managing storm water. It has a high benefit and a low to medium cost
of about $25,000. It is a highly feasible action with high priority of one.
7.B.3.2 Assist Town Businesses with Drafting Emergency Preparedness, Business
Continuity and Homeland Security Plans
The Town will assist local businesses with drafting emergency preparedness, business continuity
and homeland security plans. The objective of this action is to manage all hazard impacts Town-
wide through planning. This feasible action has a medium benefit for a low cost of less than
$25,000 and has a priority of three.
7.B.3.3 Educate Residents, Business Owners and Contractors on Flood Mitigation
Strategies, Damage Prevention and Safety, Flood Insurance and Flood Loss
This is an educational awareness program with the objective of reducing impacts of hazards on
homes, businesses and institutions. It is important to educate the Town’s residents, business
owners and contractors on ways to reduce flood damage and to promote the purchase of flood
insurance. These activities also provide necessary data to insurance agents for accurate flood
insurance rating. Public information activities include maintaining elevation certificates,
providing map information, conducting outreach projects about flood hazards, disclosing
information about hazards, providing information and advice about flood protection, and
providing assistance for flood protection. This is a CRS activity that targets repetitive loss
properties. It has high benefit at a low-medium cost of $25,000 to $50,000. This feasible
strategy has a high priority of one.
7.B.3.4 Maintain a Database of all Residents and Businesses that Use Bulk Propane
Storage Tanks as a Gas Source
Maintaining a database of all residents and businesses that use bulk propane storage tanks as a
gas source will help manage hazard impacts through planning. This Town-wide action will
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 22
lessen the risk of explosions and fires. This has a medium benefit at a low cost under $25,000
and has a priority of two.
7.B.3.5 Coordinate with Consolidated Edison Co. of NY to Determine if any Upgrades are
Necessary to Protect Local Natural Gas and Electric Delivery Infrastructure
The Town should coordinate with Consolidated Edison Co. of NY to determine if any upgrades
are necessary to protect the local natural gas and electric delivery infrastructure from severe
storms. This structure/infrastructure project will protect critical facilities, buildings, and
infrastructure Town-wide from damage and loss due to explosions and fire, and help reduce
impacts of storm hazards on homes, businesses and institutions during power outages. The
benefits are medium and costs to the Town are low since Consolidated Edison does the
evaluation and work. It has been given a low priority of three.
7.B.3.6 Obtain and Increase Fire Sprinkler Ordinances and Alarm Systems, and Ensure
that Critical Facilities, Historical Sites, and Apartment Buildings are in Full
Compliance with Modern Building Codes
The Town needs to strengthen Fire Sprinkler ordinances and alarm systems in public buildings.
This Town-wide planning action would protect critical facilities, buildings, and infrastructure
Town-wide from damage and loss due to fire and structural collapse. The benefits of this
feasible action are high and the costs are low-medium ($25,000 to $50,000). It has a high
priority of one.
7.B.3.7 Conduct a Discrete Confidential Evaluation of Potential Targets and Security
Measures at Critical and High Risk Locations Around Town
This planning action type is to conduct a discrete confidential evaluation of potential targets and
security measures at critical and high risk locations around the Town. The primary objective is
to protect critical facilities, buildings, and infrastructure from damage and loss due to terrorism.
This highly feasible strategy has a high benefit at a low cost (less than $25,000). It has a high
priority of one.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 23
7.B.3.8 Identify Homes and Businesses, Public Facilities and Historic Sites that Would
Benefit from Raising Structures Above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
This planning action identifies homes and businesses, public facilities and historic sites that
would benefit from raising structures above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). It is intended to
reduce impacts of flood hazards on homes, businesses and institutions in Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHA) and for Repetitive Loss Properties. It is considered to have a medium benefit and
a low cost less than $25,000. This CRS activity is feasible and has a priority of two.
7.B.3.9 Work with Owners of Repetitive Loss Properties to Identify Ways the Buildings
Can Be Modified to Reduce Insurance Claims
This planning action involves working with owners of Repetitive Loss Properties to identify
ways the buildings can be modified to reduce insurance claims. The primary objective is to
become a member of the Community Rating System and to mitigate flooding in SFHA and
Repetitive Loss Properties. The benefits are considered medium and the cost is low (less than
$25,000). This CRS activity is feasible and has a priority of two.
7.B.4 Goal 4 - Protect Natural Resources and the Environment
The objectives for environmental and resource protection will help conserve resources that are
important for preserving open space, plants, wildlife, fish, sensitive ecosystems and wetlands.
Actions that protect and preserve open space and protect environmentally sensitive and critical
areas are important for flood control. Depending on the location, actions proposed may involve
a variety of measures such as vegetation management, acquisition of impacted properties and
structures, redirecting flood water and other methods to restore natural features.
Hazard mitigation actions may require land-use planning and management of natural resources.
Any measure proposed must have minimal adverse impact on the natural environment. Table 7-
4 lists the proposed mitigation activities, objectives, priorities, hazards mitigated and the
potential benefits to promote this goal.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 7- 24 Table 7-4. Goal 4: Proposed Activities to Protect Natural Resources and the Environment. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response **Activity may also meet other goals and objectives – see Table 6-2. Number for goal and objective from Table 6-1. # For primary hazards included see page 7-2, Sect. 7.A. **** These items are intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. Action/Activity Strategy Action Type * Primary Objective ** Hazards Mitigated # Location Priority *** Benefits Cost Estimate Comments 1. Enhance and protect coastal zones Planning, Natural Systems Protection 4.1 Protect and preserve open space and environmentally sensitive and critical areas. Flooding, Erosion Coastal High High Medium 2. Strengthen land-use and development regulations and Special Flood Hazard Areas Planning 4.3 Incorporate hazard considerations into land-use planning and natural resource management. Flooding Town-wide Medium Medium Low **** 3. Coordinate with Westchester Co. to reduce brush fire hazards in conservation areas and parks Natural 4.1 Protect and preserve open space and environmentally sensitive and critical areas. Wildfire Town-wide Low Medium Low
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 25
7.B.4.1 Enhance and Protect Coastal Zones
This planning and natural systems protection action is needed to protect and preserve open space
and environmentally sensitive and critical areas of the coastal zone. It is intended to mitigate
flooding and erosion of the Town’s coastal zone. This feasible action has a high priority with
high benefits and a medium cost of $50,000 to $100,000.
7.B.4.2 Strengthen Land-Use and Development Regulations and Special Flood Hazard
Area to Limit Future Development
This planning action strengthens land-use and development regulations and Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) to limit future development. The primary objective is to incorporate
hazard considerations into land-use planning and natural resource management to mitigate
Town-wide flooding. The benefits of this action are medium and the costs are low (less than
$25,000). It is feasible and has a priority of two.
7.B.4.3 Coordinate with Westchester County. to Reduce Brush Fire Hazards in
Conservation Areas and Parks
This action type is natural systems protection. The Town plans to coordinate with Westchester
County to reduce brush fire hazards in conservation areas and parks. The primary objective is to
protect and preserve open space and environmentally sensitive and critical areas Town-wide
form wildfires. This feasible action has medium benefits and the costs are low (less than
$25,000). It has a medium priority of two.
7.B.5. Goal 5 - Involve the Community, Partners, and Stakeholders in
Mitigation Measures.
Inter-jurisdiction and interagency communication and coordination need to be strengthened.
Partnerships will improve hazard mitigation projects. Since many downstream structures and
people could be impacted in the Town of Mamaroneck, such projects require the cooperation of
affected jurisdictions.
Additional engineering analyses and water course studies will likely be required and updated
before a mitigation measure is implemented. Existing programs, projects or studies should be
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 26
integrated into this Hazard Mitigation Plan. Agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and Westchester County Department of Planning need to be involved. Table 7-5 lists the
proposed mitigation activities, objectives, priorities, hazards mitigated and the potential benefits
to promote this goal.
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 7- 27 Table 7-5. Goal 5: Involve Community, Partners, and Stakeholders in Mitigation Measures. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response **Activity may also meet other goals and objectives – see Table 6-2. Number for goal and objective from Table 6-1. # For primary hazards included see Page 7-2, Sect. 7.A. **** These items are intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. Action/Activity Item Action Type * Primary Objective ** Hazards Mitigated # Location Priority *** Benefits Cost Estimate Comments 1. Draft a Town-wide Evacuation Plan Planning 5.3 Coordinate mitigation planning with neighboring communities All Hazards Multi-jurisdictional Medium Medium Low 2. Coordinate with NYSDEC and Village of Larchmont to conduct periodic in-depth inspections of the Sheldrake Dams. Expand on existing Dam Failure Contingency Plans Planning 5.1 Strengthen inter-jurisdiction and inter-agency communication, coordination and partnerships to foster Hazard mitigation actions and projects Dam Failure Critical Facilities Multi-jurisdictional High High Low - Medium 3. Study and begin a dredging project on the Sheldrake River, Larchmont Reservoir, and areas where streams converge Natural Systems 5.3 Coordinate mitigation planning with neighboring communities Flooding Multi- jurisdictional Low High High ****
ETG, Inc. Section 7 - Review of Mitigation Activities
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
7- 28
7.B.5.1 Draft a Town-wide Evacuation Plan
The Town will draft a Town-wide Evacuation Plan as a planning action type. They will
coordinate mitigation planning of all hazards with neighboring communities and Westchester
County. This multi-jurisdictional activity has medium benefits at a low cost of less than
$25,000. It is feasible and has a priority of two.
7.B.5.2 Coordinate with NYSDEC and the Village of Larchmont to Conduct Periodic In-
Depth Inspections of the Sheldrake Dams. Expand on Existing Dam Failure
Contingency Plans
In this planning action the Town will coordinate with NYSDEC and the Village of Larchmont to
conduct periodic in-depth inspections of the Sheldrake Dams and expand on existing Dam
Failure Contingency Plans. This objective will strengthen inter-jurisdiction and inter-agency
communication, coordination and partnerships to foster hazard mitigation actions and projects.
The hazard of concern is the effect of dam failure on critical facilities. The benefits are high and
costs low (less than $25,000). This CRS activity has a high priority of one.
7.B.5.3 Study and Begin a Dredging Project on the Sheldrake River, Larchmont
Reservoir, and Areas Where Streams Converge
This natural systems action is to study and dredge the Sheldrake River, Larchmont Reservoir,
and areas where streams converge. This CRS activity will coordinate flood mitigation planning
with neighboring communities. This feasible action has a high priority of one and high benefits.
The cost estimate is high ($500,000 to $1,000,000).
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 1
Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
8.A Introduction
This Draft Action Plan summarizes mitigation strategies applicable to the Town of
Mamaroneck’s potential hazards identified in Section 4, and the vulnerable properties and
populations discussed in Section 5. The Action Plan provides a process for implementing the
mitigation activities that were identified in Section 7 (See Tables 7-1 to 7-5) based on the goals
and objectives discussed in Section 6. The action items recommended in this plan focus on
hazards due to flooding and severe storm events discussed in Sections 4 and 5. This Action Plan
proposes mitigation activities that provide interoperability and compatibility among Federal,
State and local capabilities and improves coordination and cooperation between public and
private entities in a variety of hazardous incident management activities as required by FEMA
under the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The priorities established in Section 7
assure that the most serious problems with cost effective solutions are addressed as soon as
possible. The Town’s Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee also considered several other
hazards that are of concern. The recommended actions were reviewed with the Town
Administration and the Planning Committee and presented to the public.
Criteria for acceptable mitigation actions and priorities
The proposed mitigation actions in Section 7.B meet FEMA’s criteria for developing mitigation
actions and priorities. (See Sections 6.A and 7.A.) The criteria include activities that are
Socially acceptable to the community,
Technically feasible,
Protective of or beneficial to the environment,
Backed by legal authority,
Consistent with current laws and
Consider economic benefits and costs.
Current community needs were also considered which are acceptable to political decision
makers, town representatives, stakeholders, and the public.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 2
This Action Plan identifies tasks that will be implemented first and outlines a strategy for
implementation of each item. This Section discusses the components of the Action Plan:
Type/ Priority Order
Action Item
Relative Cost Benefit/Objectives
Lead/Administrative Responsibility
Resources
Schedule/Duration
Source of Funding
Many proposed activities are dependent on funding from County, State or Federal grants. (See
Table 8-1.) Some activities may require involvement of Westchester County, several State
agencies, various Federal agencies, private stakeholders and civic organizations as discussed in
Section 3. Some of these proposed actions require more than a year to complete. Some projects
may have already started or are in early planning stages and have been integrated into this plan
where applicable. Some projects may require multi-jurisdictional cooperation and funding.
The proposed items and priorities can change over time as new information or funding becomes
available. There may be a change in priorities due to availability of town resources, community
sentiment or availability of funding. Some activities may gain or lose political or community
support.
This Action Plan, therefore, is a working document, which is expected to change in response to
varying conditions and needs. The activities are summarized in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 in the
order of their implementation. In the near-term the focus will be on implementation of priority 1
items in Table 8-2. Priority 2 and 3 items will be evaluated each year and implemented as
funding and resources become available. Updating the Plan and evaluating priorities will be done
as items are completed or priorities change as described in Section 10.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 3
8.B Administrative Responsibility for Action Items
Following review and approval by FEMA, the Town Board must approve the Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan before it can be implemented. This process is documented above in Section 9.
This Plan will be implemented and administered by the Town of Mamaroneck through the Town
Administrator who reports to the Town Supervisor and Town Board. Various Town departments
will be responsible for the proposed mitigation activities. (See Figure 1-3 Town Organization
Chart and www.townofmamaroneck.org/departments.html ) Depending on the type, scope,
funding and staff resources needed for a project and funding, a specific Town department or a
hired consultant may implement a specific project. In some cases, the Town Administrator may
appoint a qualified staff member who will have the authority to administer one or more of the
proposed mitigation activities. A management plan consisting of a detailed scope of work, cost
plan, work breakdown, task responsibilities and project schedule will be prepared for each
project as an amendment to this Plan. In some cases, a project may consist of more than one
related activity.
The Town Administrator will coordinate with Town departments, the Hazard Mitigation
Committee (HMC), the Emergency Management Committee (EMC), neighboring jurisdictions,
stakeholder agencies and organizations, community groups and funding agencies. All completed
action items will be done in accordance with the scope of work, regulatory requirements, planned
schedule and budget. The Town Administrator will be responsible for approval and expenditure
of project funds. The Multi-Hazard Planning Committee and the Town Board will monitor the
progress, accomplishments and budgets of the projects as described in Section 10 of this Plan.
Five categories of mitigation activities are included as “Action Type” in Tables 8-2 through 8-4.
The type of action will in part define the type of technical and administrative team required to
implement and supervise a project. These categories were discussed in detail in Section 7.A.2
and include:
• Local Plans and Regulations • Education and Awareness Programs
• Structure and Infrastructure Projects • Emergency Response
• Natural Systems Protection
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 4
8.C Action Plan Priority Groups
The primary strategy for implementing the Plan is to follow the proposed priorities. The activity
items in this Plan were organized into three priority groups in Section 7.A.4. The priorities, 1
(high), 2 (medium) and 3 (low) were approved by the Planning Committee. A priority is
associated with each action item as shown in Tables 8-2 through 8-4. As the Plan is
implemented these priorities may change and be reevaluated based on availability of funding,
new information, future community needs and support, stakeholder support, workloads in
specific departments and availability of staff resources.
The implementation of “Priority-Order” in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 is a tentative order for the
start and implementation of an activity within a priority group. It is advisable to spread the work
among the different departments so that one group such as the Building Department is not
overloaded in a given year.
The schedules listed in Tables 8-2 through 8-4 are general and flexible given the uncertainties in
available funding resources. (See Section 8.D below.) Thus the year and duration of an activity
do not include specific start or end dates. In the text for each activity the general time of year for
starting and completion is given. Detailed schedules will be provided when detailed scopes of
work or specifications are prepared for each activity.
Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and Environmental considerations
were applied to all of the activity items in Section 7. Funding and available resources were
important considerations for setting implementation order. Actions that can be done using
available resources or having identified sources of funds have a higher preference. Action items
requiring time for procurement of internal or external funds and staff resources would likely be
planned for a future time and have a lower priority of urgency but should not be considered as
less important in achieving a goal or objective.
High priority activity items emphasize high benefits relative to the costs of the project. Benefits
and costs for each of the proposed actions are given in Section 7.B. Due to the preliminary nature
of the activity costs and qualitative assessment of benefits, qualitative judgments of costs vs.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 5
benefits were made. For example, the higher priority tasks are those that can be done with low
costs relative to high benefits received (e.g. Prepare a Comprehensive Evacuation Plan). Projects
having high costs and high benefits (e.g. Storm Drainage Control) would have a lower priority
because of the high costs and length of time to complete the project. Items which have few
significant long-term mitigation benefits to the community, would be given a lower priority.
Future updates to this plan will utilize more detailed cost-benefit evaluation. These assessments
will consider FEMA Guidance 386-5, Using Benefit Cost Review in Mitigation Planning.
(www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/resources.shtm)
8.D Capabilities and Resources
The Town of Mamaroneck will have the responsibility, jurisdiction, capability and authority to
administer and implement most of the mitigation activities proposed below.
(http://www.townofmamaroneck.org/administrator/assets/2009_annual_report.pdf )
Various volunteer boards and Commissions will provide input and oversight for several projects.
Town departments that will administer and or implement a mitigation activity include:
Town Administrator
Fire Department (FD)
Police Department (PD)
Building and Plumbing Department
o Code Enforcement
o Land Use and Zoning
o Building Permits
o Inspections
o Erosion Control Permits
o Various Permits, Reviews and Applications
Highway and Engineering Department
o Road Maintenance
o Park Maintenance
o Sanitary and Storm Sewer Maintenance
o Streetlights, Signs and Tree Maintenance
Ambulance District
o Emergency Response
o Ambulance Service
o Community Emergency Response Team
o Emergency Medical Services
Conservation Department
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 6
Community Services and Housing
Boards and Commissions (Volunteer Committees)
o Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC)
o Emergency Management Committee (EMC)
o Coastal Zone Management Commission
o Planning Board
In some instances a neighboring community or other agency may have jurisdiction that requires a
joint Memorandum of Understanding to implement an activity. The Town official in charge of a
project will be responsible for interfacing with the public and appropriate neighboring
jurisdictions, the County, USACE, NYS OEM, FEMA or other agencies identified in Section 3.
Responsible officials for the town that may administer these projects are shown in Figure 1-3 in
Section 1.
In several cases, the Town does not have the financial or human resources to prepare the plans,
studies, and engineering designs or to implement public outreach and construction required for
many of the activities proposed. Therefore, external agency funding for consultants, engineers
and contractors may be needed to successfully implement this Hazards Mitigation Plan.
8.E Funding Strategy and Sources
Estimating costs for the mitigation actions was discussed in Section 7.A.3. Best professional
judgment and experience were used to provide an approximate cost for each action proposed.
Some costs are included in the annual Town budget and require approval of the Town Board.
Many of the proposed projects will need to be funded through Federal, State or County grants.
The cost estimates are assumed to have a +/- error of 25%. The minimum costs for a project was
assigned a value of $25,000. Many activities can be done using in-house resources or supported
by a consultant.
Available and potential funding sources were reviewed from the State Hazard Mitigation Plan
and Web Pages of the various funding agencies. Summaries of major funding sources that are
available to the Town of Mamaroneck are listed in Table 8-1. Identifying specific sources of
funding for each activity in Table 8-2 through Table 8-4 is tentative and complex. There are
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 7
numerous agency programs and these change each year depending on legislative appropriations,
new regulations and laws, competition for funds and agency priorities. The funding sources
identified are not a guarantee for that source or for a particular time frame.
Table 8-1 identifies Federal and State agencies that fund activities proposed in mitigation plans.
The most significant source of funds is from FEMA. These are obtained through grant
applications administered through NYS OEM. Westchester County has a grant bonding program
for Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants. Several other agencies are identified that provide
funding for related environmental, capital construction, dredging, and engineering projects.
The Town will provide funding support for those projects that are recommended. For example
the Town Board may appropriate a capital improvement budget for upgrading or retrofitting
Town-owned critical facilities. Specific operating budgets such as the Highway and Building
Departments can include supply costs, salaries and consultant fees to complete some mitigation
activities. Existing staff time can be used as “in-kind” match to Federal or State funding.
Community volunteers can contribute effort to certain activities such as serving on committees
or review of plans and documents.
8.F Mitigation Action Implementation
The proposed mitigative actions were summarized in Section 7 and the plans for implementing
them are discussed below for each of the three priority groups identified. The following activity
summaries and tables provide information for each action which include:
Priority order of each action item,
Relative benefit
Approximate costs,
Lead administrative responsibility,
Approximate schedule, duration or time frame
Possible funding sources
Resources needed to complete the work.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 8- 8 Table 8-1. Potential Funding Sources for Mitigation Activities. Federal, Funding Sources Program Description Agency Reference/Contact* Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Provides grants to States and communities for pre- disaster mitigation planning and projects to help reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to structures insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program. Aimed to reduce repetitive losses. FEMA through NYS OEM http://www.fema.gov/about/divisions/mitigation/mitigation.shtm http://www.NYS OEM.state.ny.us/programs/mitigation/ National Flood Insurance Program Formula grants to States to assist FEMA communities to comply with NFIP floodplain management requirements (Community Assistance Program). FEMA http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/ Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Provides grants to States and communities for planning and projects providing long-term hazard mitigation measures following a major disaster declaration. Projects are to reduce risks to lives and properties from natural hazards. Enables mitigation measures to be implemented during recovery form a disaster. Projects may include acquiring, retrofitting or relocating structures; constructing localized flood controls; or constructing safe rooms. FEMA through NYS OEM http://www.fema.gov/about/divisions/mitigation/mitigation.shtm http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/ http://www.NYS OEM.state.ny.us/programs/mitigation/ Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Competitive Grant Program Grants to States and communities for planning and projects that provide long-term hazard disaster mitigation measures prior to an event. FEMA through NYS OEM http://www.fema.gov/about/divisions/mitigation/mitigation.shtm http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/ http://www.NYS OEM.state.ny.us/programs/mitigation/ National Dam Safety Program Technical assistance, training, and grants to help improve State dam safety programs. . FEMA http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/damfailure/ndsp.shtm National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Training, planning and technical Program assistance under grants to States or local jurisdictions FEMA; DOI-US Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Program Coordinator: (703) 648-6785 http://www.nehrp.gov/ Disaster Housing Program Emergency assistance for housing and mortgage and rental assistance. (MRA). Covers disaster-related needs and necessary expenses not covered by insurance. These may include replacement of personal property, and transportation, medical, dental and funeral expenses. Loans are also available for property loss and economic injury. FEMA http://www.fema.gov/hazard/dproc.shtm Public Assistance Program (Infrastructure) Grants to States and Communities to repair damaged infrastructure and public facilities and help restore services following disasters. Mitigation funding is available for work related to damaged components of the eligible building or structure. FEMA through NYS OEM http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/index.shtm Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Reduction or elimination of flood damage under the NFIP that have one or more claims. Acquisition, demolition or relocation of severe repetitive loss properties. FEMA through NYS OEM http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/rfc/ * Web site addresses as of November 2013. For changed address or additional sources conduct a search on the listed agency’s home page, or http://www.grants.gov/ or search http://www.google.com
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 8- 9 Table 8-1. (Continued) Potential Funding Sources for Mitigation Activities. Program Description Agency Reference/Contact* Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants Grants to States to implement non-point source programs, including support for non- structural watershed resource restoration activities. EPA Office of Water Chief, Non-Point Source Control Branch (202) 260-7088. 7100 Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Provides technical and financial assistance for relief from imminent hazards in small watersheds, and to reduce vulnerability of life and property in small watershed areas damaged by severe natural hazards. USDA –NRCS National Office -(202) 690-0848 Watersheds and Wetlands Division: (202) 720-3042 Disaster Mitigation Planning and Technical Assistance Technical and planning assistance grants for capacity building and mitigation project activities focusing on creating disaster resistant jobs and workplaces. Department of Commerce (DOC), Economic Development Administration (EDA): (800) 345-1222 www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/Investments.xml Disaster Recovery Initiative Grants to fund gaps in available recovery assistance after disasters (including mitigation) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Planning and Development Grant Programs Divisions in their respective HUD field offices or HUD Community Planning and Development: 202-708-2605 Section 108 Loan Guarantee Enables states and local governments participating in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program to obtain federally guaranteed loans for disaster distressed areas. HUD Office of Community Planning and Development Grant Programs 202-708-3587 Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act Resources for small flood damage reduction projects DOD-US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) Emergency Management contact in USACE field office Post Disaster Economic Recovery Grants and Assistance Grant Funding to assist with the long-term economic recovery of firms, industries and communities adversely affected by disasters. Department of Commerce (DOC) - Economic Development Administration (EDA), EDA Headquarters, Disaster Recovery Coordinator 202-482-6225 School Renovation, Idea and Technology Grant Grant funding for eligible school renovation and emergency response measures. US Department of Education Public Housing Modernization Reserve for Disasters and Emergencies Funding to Public housing agencies for modernization needs resulting from natural disasters (including elevation, flood proofing and retrofits) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Director, Office of Capital Improvements 202-708-1640 Surface Transportation Program Funding for safety and transportation enhancements. Enhancements include a broad range of safety education, environmental and historically related activities. US Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration FHWA Wetlands Reserve Program Financial and technical assistance to protect and restore wetlands through easements and restoration agreement USDA – NRCS National Policy Coordinator NCRS Watersheds and Wetlands Division 202-720-3042 Physical Disaster Loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loans Disaster loans to non-farm, private sector owners of disaster damaged property for uninsured losses. Small Business Administration (SBA) National Headquarters Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance: (202 205-6734 National Estuary Program Long Island Sound Preservation (LIS Stewardship Commission) Established by Congress in 1987 to improve the quality of estuaries of national importance. For LIS, implementation priorities are habitat restoration, watershed management, disposal of dredged materials, and public education and involvement on Long Island Sound issues. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Estuary Program
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 8- 10 Table 8-1. (Continued) Potential Funding Sources for Mitigation Activities. * Web site addresses as of November 2013. For changed address or additional sources conduct a search on the listed agency’s home page, or http://www.grants.gov/ or search http://www.google.com/.New York State Funding Sources Program Description Agency Reference/Contact* NY State Emergency Management Office (NYS OEM) Funding for mitigation planning and project activity through FEMA. See items under Federal funding sources. New York State Office of Emergency Management (OEM) www.dhses.ny.gov/grants/ Appropriations through the Governor’s Office Funding for mitigation planning and project activity through special appropriations through the Governor’s Office New York State Office of the Governor Environmental Protection Fund Funding to support many of the State’s environmental needs. Including development and mitigation related planning initiatives and acquisition projects for conserving open. New York State Department of State (DOS), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) Hudson River Estuary Grants Program Grants available to municipalities located within the geographic boundaries of the Hudson River Estuary and associated shore lands. Grants for education projects; open space planning, inventory and acquisition, or river access; community conservation and river stewardship; watershed planning. Hudson River Valley Greenway Albany, 12224 (518) 473-3835 Email: hrvg@hudsongreenway.state.ny.us http://www.hudsongreenway.state.ny.us/funding/funding.htm Empire State Flood Recovery Grant Program Loans for various projects. Discounted Small Business Loans; Small Business Loans/Lines of Credit. Empire State Development Corporation 633 Third Avenue New York, 10017 (800) 782-8369 Westchester Co. Flood Task Force Grant Bonding Westchester Co. Flood Action Task Force planning.westchestergov.com/flood-action-task-forceNew York State Office of Homeland Security Grants Supports projects for emergency response, terrorism and other Homeland Security activities. Office of Homeland Security, Albany 518-402-2227 www.security.state.ny.us/grants.html https://grants.security.state.ny.us/AccessNotice.jsp New York State Historic Preservation Grant Program Funds are available from the Environmental Protection Fund of 1993(EPF) for acquisition, development, and improvement of parks, historic properties and Heritage Area resources. Preservation projects may include restoration, preservation, rehabilitation, protection, reconstruction or archeological interpretation of a historic property. New York State Historic Preservation Office nysparks.state.ny.us/shpo/grants/ Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Community improvements through planning, preservation and redevelopment of important waterfront resources and brownfields. Assistance includes Environmental Protection Fund and Quality Communities Grant Program. New York State Department of State (DOS) Division of Coastal Resources http://nyswaterfronts.com/grantopps.asp
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 11
Each action item will be administered and managed by the Town’s Administrator Office or a
Lead Department designated by the Administrator. (See Section 8.D above and Figure 1-3.) The
Town Administrator will be the primary contact for projects involving neighboring jurisdictions
such as the Village of Larchmont and the Village of Mamaroneck. Where in-house Town
resources are limited, a consultant or contractor may be hired to implement the project under a
lead Town Supervisor or Lead Department. The Town Administrator or designee will have
overall responsibility for managing and implementing the items in this Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Schedules will be prepared to identify key tasks and milestones. The Time Frame proposed in
this plan should be viewed as a recommendation and will be modified once the scope of work is
detailed and funding is approved. Any FEMA funded projects are not likely be started earlier
than several months following submittal of the FEMA approval of this Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Town-budgeted actions can begin as soon as approval of the Town Board is obtained.
Costs will be updated to reflect any increases or decreases. The project status will be updated
quarterly as the program progresses. The funding received depends on the grants available at the
time. Therefore, the funding sources listed in Tables 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4 are suggested sources and
may change with time and an agency’s budget.
The “Priority” listed in each Table is a proposed implementation sequence for the start of an
action. Information for each activity and its primary goal and objective is given in Section 7.B.
The total estimated cost for priority 1, 2 and 3 action items is given at the bottom for each
priority. Priority one items in general will be implemented first where feasible.
Program management tasks will be the responsibility of the Town Administrator and will be
reviewed regularly by the Town Board. Additional reviews by Town Volunteer Boards and
Commissions may be required for oversight and review. Day-to-day supervision of activities,
actions and projects will be performed by qualified supervisory staff assigned by the Town
Administrator.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 12
Mitigation Action items noted in this section are depicted in the tables and text to follow. In
accordance with Standard 5 of the NYS DHSES Hazard Mitigation Planning Standards, full
project descriptions using templates prepared by FEMA Region II can be found in Appendix 4.
The Town has completed some previous mitigation projects. Mitigation Action items that have
been previously completed include:
Implementing a Hazard Emergency Notification System
Gardens Lake Dredging / Bypass Valve Project
Murray Avenue Drainage Improvement Project
Full project descriptions of previously mitigated projects using templates prepared by FEMA
Region II can also be found in Appendix 4.
8.F.1 Implementation of Priority 1 Mitigation Actions
Group 1 priority action items are listed in Table 8-2. These items have a high benefit relative to
costs and a high need to be implemented. Some of these activities may need to be completed
prior to starting other activities. The “Priority Order” in Table 8-2 is a tentative implementation
order for the start of an action. Other information can be found for each activity and goal in
Section 7.B in discussions associated with Tables 7-1 through 7-6. The total estimated cost for
these 14 Priority 1 items ranges from a low of $975,000 to a high of $2,175,000.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 8- 13 Table 8- 2a. Priority 1 Action Items Implementation – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Plan. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response ** Action Item – See Section 7 for details. **** May include other Department Services listed in Section 8.D. Action Type* Priority-Item*** Action Item ** Benefits Cost per $1,000 Lead/Administrative Responsibility **** Schedule / Duration Funding Sources Planning 1-1 Upgrade existing stormwater management systems High $75 Highway Dept., Building Dept. Complete in 1 year Town Budget & FEMA/County Grants Structure 1-2 With Larchmont, retrofit the Sheldrake River Dam to include automated spillway valve control, stream level monitoring, a Flood Early Warning System with automatic notification High $500 - $1,000 Highway Dept., Building Dept. 12 mos. following funding FEMA, State or County Grant Planning 1-3 Involve home and business owners in a program to flood-proof their basements and other areas of their building that flood High $25 Building Dept. 1 year following funding Town Budget Structure 1-4 Improve stormwater management by updating obsolete stormwater drainage infrastructure High $100 - $500 Highway Dept. 1 year following funding NYS DEC or County Grant Structure 1-5 Replace/upgrade Town-owned sewage pump stations High $50 - $100 Highway Dept. 1 year following funding FEMA or NYSDEC Planning 1-6 Develop, implement and manage the Town Community Rating System (CRS) High $25 - $50 Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC) 1 year after Plan approval Town Budget
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 8- 14 Table 8- 2b. Priority 1 Action Items Implementation – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Plan. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response ** Action Item – See Section 7 for details. **** May include other Department Services listed in Section 8.D. # Joint effort with Village of Mamaroneck and Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW). Town-Shared cost. Action Type* Priority-Item*** Action Item ** Benefits Cost per $1,000 Lead/Administrative Responsibility**** Schedule / Duration Funding Sources Education 1-7 Town-wide public education and awareness campaign on hazard mitigation and All- Hazard emergency preparedness High $25 Emergency Management Committee (EMC) 1 year following funding Town Budget Emergency Response 1-8 Provide Emergency Opera-tions training to Town, School Emergency Services, Red Cross and Law Enforcement staff High $25 Emergency Management Committee (EMC) Begin after Plan approval, annually Town Budget Emergency Response 1-9 Obtain emergency traffic control devices such as message boards, Jersey barriers and portable signs High $50 - $100 Highway Dept. 1 year following funding FEMA Planning 1-10 Maintain and upgrade GIS Mapping Program High $25 - $50 Town Administrator (Joint Project, see note below #) 6 months following funding Combination of Town Budget, Co. State and Federal grants Planning 1-11 Obtain and increase, fire sprinkler ordinances, alarm systems and ensure all critical facilities, historical sites and apartment buildings are in comp-liance with modern building codes High $25 - $50 Fire Dept. Begin 2 Years after approval, complete 1 yr. FEMA NYS OEM
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 8- 15 Table 8- 2c. Priority 1 Action Items Implementation – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Plan. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response ** Action Item – See Section 7 for details. **** May include other Department Services listed in Section 8.D. # Joint effort in progress with Village of Mamaroneck and Westchester Co. Joint Water Works (WJWW). Town Shared cost. Action Type* Priority- Item*** Action Item ** Benefits Cost per $1,000 Lead/Administrative Responsibility **** Schedule / Duration Funding Sources Planning 1-12 Conduct a discrete confidential evaluation of potential targets and security measures at critical and high risk locations High $25 Emergency Management Committee (EMC) & Police Dept. Begin 1 year after Plan approval, finish 1 yr. FEMA Planning, Natural Systems Protection 1-13 Enhance and protect coastal zones High $50 - $100 Conservation Dept. Begin 1 year after Plan approval Town Budget, Co., NYSDEC and Federal grants Planning 1-14 Coordinate with NYSDEC and Village of Larchmont to conduct periodic in-depth inspections of the Sheldrake Dams. Expand on existing Dam Failure Contingency Plans High $25 -$50 Building Dept. Highway Dept. Engineer Begin 1 year after approval, complete 1 yr. NYS OEM NYSDEC
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 16
8.F.1.1 Upgrade Existing Stormwater Management Systems
Upgrading existing stormwater management systems is a planning action for improving the
storm water collection and drainage system and is intended to reduce flooding hazards Town-
wide. An updated plan is very effective for preventing property loss due to flooding. The Plan
content includes mitigating losses in repetitive flood areas, inspecting/maintaining drainage
systems, and processes for acquiring, relocating or retrofitting flood-prone structures. Updating
the plans is a credited Community Rating System (CRS) activity. It is also intended to aid the
community with continued NFIP compliance. The upgraded plan has a high priority and high
benefits for a medium cost of $25,000 in Town support and $50,000 in consultant fees for a total
of $75,000. This activity is also considered under the Federal and State requirements known as
Stormwater Phase II permits for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4).
An independent consultant would be hired to supplement efforts by Town’s Public Works
employees. Flood mitigation planning grants should be sought from County, State and Federal
agencies in cooperation with neighboring communities.
The Town Highway and Engineering Department will have the lead administrative responsibility
and funding would be authorized from the Town budget for planned Town costs and consultant
costs. This activity would be done within one year following authorization of internal and
consultant resources.
8.F.1.2 With Larchmont, Retrofit the Sheldrake River Dam to Include Automated
Spillway Valve Control, Stream Level Monitoring, a Flood Early Warning System
with Automatic Notification
This action type is a structure and infrastructure project which would control flooding from
rivers. This multi-jurisdictional activity involves the Repetitive Loss Properties in neighboring
Towns and has a high priority. This CRS project with the Village of Larchmont is intended to
help mitigate flooding in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA).
The Highway Department will have administrative responsibility for this action with assistance
from the Building Department. It has a high cost estimate of $500,000 to $1,000,000. Funding
would need to be obtained from Federal, State or County grants. The project would have a high
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 17
benefit in controlling floods. The project would be completed within 6 months of award of the
grant.
8.F.1.3 Involve Home and Business Owners in a Program to Flood-Proof their Basements
and other Areas of their Building that Flood
This Planning activity will help prevent flooding of buildings from coastal waters, rivers and
streams. It is a CRS activity for Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) and Repetitive Loss
Properties. It is also intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. This
activity has a high priority, high benefit and a low cost.
The Building Department will have administrative responsibility for this action. The activity has
an estimated cost of $25,000. Funding would be obtained from the Town budget with the
approval of the Town Board. The project would have a high benefit in controlling floods. The
project would be completed within one year of the project’s approval.
8.F.1.4 Improve Stormwater Management by Updating Obsolete Stormwater Drainage
Infrastructure
This infrastructure action is intended to improve the stormwater collection and drainage Town-
wide and to mitigate flooding. This project is given a high priority with high benefits and
medium high costs of $100,000 to $500,000. This action strategy is a CRS activity. It is also
intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. Aspects of this action will
require MS4 reporting compliance for the NYSDEC.
The Highway Department will have lead responsibility for this project. The project would be
completed within one year of the project’s funding. A grant would need to be obtained from
NYSDEC or County resources.
8.F.1.5 Replace/Upgrade Town-owned Sewage Pump Stations
Replacing and upgrading Town-owned sewage pump stations is structure/infrastructure project
which would correct storm and sanitary sewer backup problems from floods. It has a high
priority with high benefits at a medium cost.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 18
The Highway Department will have lead responsibility for this project which is expected to cost
about $50,000-$100,000 and take about a year to complete. It will require funding resources
through a FEMA or NYSDEC grant.
8.F.1.6 Develop, Implement, and Manage the Town Community Rating System (CRS).
This activity is intended to develop, implement and manage the Town Community Rating
System (CRS). It is also intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. To
become a member of the Community Rating System, the Town must file required CRS
documentation and establish an accurate inventory of Repetitive Loss Properties. Other
activities include public information on reducing flood hazards and purchasing flood insurance,
mapping and regulations, flood damage reduction and early warning and response programs to
protect life and property. This action has a high priority with high benefits at a low - medium
cost between $25,000 and $50,000.
The lead responsibility would be the Town’s Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC). In-house
resources including the Highway and Building Departments will be used to implement this
activity using Town Board approved funding. This activity will take about one year to complete.
8.F.1.7 Town-wide Public Education and Awareness Campaign on Hazard Mitigation and
All-Hazard Emergency Preparedness
The focus of this action type is public education with the objective of enhancing community
awareness of emergency procedures. This Town-wide effort covers all hazards. The Town has
given this action a high priority with a high benefit for a low cost of $25,000 which could come
from the Town budget with Board approval. Services can be provided by Town staff. The
Emergency Management Committee (EMC) will serve as the Lead/Administrator. The project
will take approximately 1 year following funding.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 19
8.F.1.8 Provide Emergency Operations Training to Town, School Emergency Services,
Red Cross and Law Enforcement Staff
This emergency response activity is intended to provide emergency operations training to Town,
school emergency services, Red Cross and law enforcement staff. This activity is for all hazards
Town-wide, especially critical facilities. The cost is low ($25,000).
The Lead/Administrative responsibility will be the Emergency Management Committee (EMC).
This action will begin after the Plan is approved and will be repeated annually. Funding will be
from the Town Budget pending Board approval.
8.F.1.9 Obtain Emergency Traffic Control Devices such as Message Boards, Jersey
Barriers and Portable Signs
Emergency traffic control devices such as message boards, Jersey barriers and portable signs, are
an aid in responding to all hazards emergencies Town-wide. The primary objective of this action
is to maintain, enhance and ensure efficient operation of early warning notification and
communication systems. The activity is highly feasible, with a high benefit and medium cost
($50,000 - $100,000). It has been given a high priority of one.
The Lead/Administrative responsibility will be the Highway Department. The schedule/duration
for this action item will be one year following funding from FEMA.
8.F.1.10 Maintain and Upgrade a GIS Mapping Program
A GIS Mapping Program will help track and map flood-prone areas and locations of critical
facilities Town-wide. It will assist in managing all hazard impacts through planning. Mapping
and regulations provide increased protection to new development. Activities include mapping
areas not shown on FIRM maps, preserving open space and enforcing higher regulatory
standards, protecting natural flood plain functions and managing storm water. It has a high
benefit and a low to medium cost of about $25,000 to $50,000. It is a highly feasible action with
high priority of one.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 20
8.F.1.11 Obtain and Increase Fire Sprinkler Ordinances, Alarm Systems and Ensure all Critical
Facilities, Historical Sites and Apartment Buildings are in Compliance with Modern
Building Codes
The Town needs to strengthen Fire Sprinkler ordinances and alarm systems in public buildings,
critical facilities, historical sites, new and renovated structures and apartment buildings. This
Town-wide planning action type would protect infrastructure Town-wide from damage and loss
due to fire. The benefits of this feasible action are high and the costs are low to medium
($25,000 to $50,000). It has a high priority of one.
The Lead/Administrative responsibility for this activity is the Fire Department. This activity will
begin two years after the Plan is approved and be completed within a year. Funding will be
requested from FEMA and NYS OEM.
8.F.1.12 Conduct a Discrete Confidential Evaluation of Potential Targets and Security
Measures at Critical and High Risk Locations
This planning action is to conduct a discrete evaluation of potential targets and security measures
at critical and high risk locations around the Town. The primary objective is to protect critical
facilities, buildings, and infrastructure from damage and loss due to terrorism. This highly
feasible strategy has a high benefit at a low cost ($25,000). It has a high priority of one.
The EMC and Police Department will have the administrative responsibility for this action. It
will begin one year following Plan approval and finished in one year pending a FEMA grant.
8.F.1.13 Enhance and Protect Coastal Zones
This planning and natural systems protection action is needed to protect and preserve open space
and environmentally sensitive and critical areas of the coastal zone. It is intended to mitigate
flooding and erosion of the Town’s coastal zone. This feasible action has a high priority with
high benefits and a medium cost of $50,000 to $100,000. The Town Conservation Department
will have lead responsibility for this action.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 21
8.F.1.14 Coordinate with NYS DEC and Village of Larchmont to Conduct Periodic In
Depth Inspections of the Sheldrake Dams. Expand on Existing Dam Failure
Contingency Plans
In this planning action the Town will coordinate with NYSDEC and the Village of Larchmont to
conduct periodic in-depth inspections of the Sheldrake Dams and expand on existing Dam
Failure Contingency Plans. This objective will strengthen inter-jurisdiction and inter-agency
communication, coordination and partnerships to foster hazard mitigation actions and projects.
The hazard of concern is the effect of dam failure on critical facilities. The benefits are high and
costs low-medium ($25,000 to $50,000). This CRS activity has a high priority of one.
The Administrative responsibility will be the Building Department and the Highway Department
Engineer. The activity will begin two years after the Plan is approved and be completed within
one year. Funding will be requested from NYS OEM and NYSDEC.
8.F.2 Implementation of Priority 2 Mitigation Actions
Group 2 priority action items are listed in Table 8-3 and are a (2) priority. Some of these action
items have relatively high costs but also have high benefits. Priority group 2 contains tasks that
protect property, human health and personal safety. The implementation priority (Priority Order)
in Table 8-3 is a tentative order for the start of an activity. Other relevant information can be
found for each activity in Section 7.B. Mitigation actions were summarized for each of the six
listed goals associated with Tables 7-1 through 7-6. The total estimated cost for the priority 2
proposed action items ranges from a low of $525,000 to a high of $1,800,000.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 8- 22 Table 8- 3a. Priority 2 Action Items Implementation – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Plan. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response ** Action Item – See Section 7 for details. Action Type* Priority Item*** Action Item ** Benefits Cost per $1,000 Lead/Administrative Responsibility Schedule / Duration Funding Sources Natural Systems 2-1 Launch an aggressive year- round stream maintenance program on rivers and waterways Medium $50 - $100 Highway and Engineering Dept. 1 yr. after Plan approval, finish in 1 yr. FEMA NYS OEM Planning 2-2 Upgrade Emergency Management Systems including protocols for preparation, response, recovery and post-event mitigation for hazards and hazard materials sites Medium $25 - $50 Emergency Management Committee (EMC) 1 yr. after Plan approval FEMA NYS OEM Planning 2-3 Establish a facility and protocol for an Alternate Seat of Government (ASOG) Medium $100 -$500 Town Administrator/ Emergency Management Committee (EMC) Begin 1 yr. after funding Complete in 6 mos. FEMA Emergency Response 2-4 Acquire modern emergency communication systems for a multi-jurisdictional radio, interoperability program to enhance communication High $100 - $500 Town Administrator/ EMC, Ambulance District and Police Dept. Begin 1 yr. after funding Complete in 6 mos. FEMA NYS OEM Emergency Response 2-5 Obtain funding for supplies and equipment needed in a disaster such as generators and pumps High $100 - $500 EMC with Police and Fire Depts. Begin 1 yr. after funding Complete in 1 yr. FEMA NYS OEM
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 8- 23 Table 8- 3b. Priority 2 Action Items Implementation – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Plan. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency – Emergency Response ** Action Item – See Section 7 for details. Action Type* Priority Item*** Action Item ** Benefits Cost per $1000 Lead/Administrative Responsibility Schedule / Duration Funding Sources Emergency Response 2-6 Create and maintain a database of special-needs individuals and Con Ed LSE customers who voluntarily provide that information Medium $25 Emergency Management Committee (EMC) 2 yrs. after Plan approval, finish in 1 yr. Town Budget Planning 2-7 Maintain a database of all residents and businesses that use bulk propane storage tanks as a gas source Medium $25 Fire Department After Plan approval Repeat annually Town Budget Planning 2-8 Identify homes and businesses, public facilities, historic sites that would benefit from raising structures above BFE (CRS) Medium $25 Building Dept. 2 yrs. after Plan approval Com-plete in 1 yr. Town Budget Planning 2-9 Work with owners of Repetitive Loss Properties to identify ways the buildings can be modified to reduce insurance claims (CRS) Medium $25 Building Dept. 1 yr. after approval Town Budget Planning 2-10 Strengthen land-use and development regulations in Special Flood Hazard Areas Medium $25 Building Dept. After Plan approval, Com-plete in 1 yr. Town Budget Planning 2-11 Draft a Town-wide Evacuation Plan Medium $25 EMC Police Dept. After Plan approval Com-plete in 1 yr. FEMA NYS OEM
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 24
8.F.2.1 Launch an Aggressive Year-Round Stream Maintenance Program on Rivers and
Waterways
A year- round stream maintenance program on rivers and waterways is intended to prevent
Town-wide flooding. This activity is primarily concerned with the Sheldrake River as well as
other waterways. It is a natural systems protection action. It has a medium priority with medium
benefits and a medium cost of $50,000 - $100,000. The program would count as a CRS activity
for Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and Repetitive Loss Properties. It is also intended to aid
the community with continued NFIP compliance.
The Lead/Administrative responsibility will be the Highway Department. Funding will be
requested from FEMA or NYS OEM. The action will begin one year after Plan approval and
finish in one year pending approval of funding.
8.F.2.2 Upgrade Emergency Management Systems Including Protocols for Preparation,
Response, Recovery and Post-Event Mitigation for Hazards and Hazard Materials
Sites
This planning action involves revising plans and regulations to bring them to current protocols
for preparedness, response, recovery and post-event mitigation for all hazards and hazardous
materials sites. An emergency services plan will aid in more effective response to an incident at
a site. The Town should coordinate with other agencies including the Red Cross. This Town-
wide activity has a medium priority, a medium benefit and a low-medium cost of $25,000 to
$50,000. The Lead responsibility will be the Emergency Management Committee (EMC). This
action will take about one year following Plan approval. Funding will be requested from FEMA
and NYS OEM. This planning action type will help to develop, integrate and/or enhance
emergency action plans for hazardous materials facilities. It will prevent and/or reduce property
damage and injury due to HAZMAT spills/releases.
8.F.2.3 Establish a Facility and Protocol for an Alternate Seat of Government (ASOG)
This planning activity is intended to establish a facility and protocol for an Alternate Seat of
Government (ASOG) during a disaster. This will ensure government operations, emergency
services, and essential facilities during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event. This
multi-jurisdictional activity covers all hazards and has a medium priority with medium benefits
and a medium - high estimated cost of $100,000 to $500,000.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 25
The Emergency Management Committee (EMC) will provide the administrative responsibility
for this activity. The work will begin one year after funding and be completed within six months.
Funding will be requested from FEMA.
The Lead/Administrative responsibility will be the Ambulance District with support from the
EMC and Police Department. The activity will begin one year after the Plan is approved and be
completed within one year. A grant would need to be obtained from or FEMA.
8.F.2.4 Acquire Modern Emergency Communication Systems for a Multi-jurisdictional
Radio, Interoperability Program to Enhance Communication
The objective of this emergency response activity is to maintain, enhance and ensure the efficient
operation of early warning, notification and communication systems. Installing a VHF radio
repeater system for the Ambulance District and Volunteer Ambulance Corps is an emergency
action type covering all hazards. This multi-jurisdictional activity has a high benefit at a
medium-high cost ($100,000 - $500,000) and is a highly feasible activity. Based on feasibility,
benefits and costs, this activity is given a priority of two.
The Lead/Administrative responsibility will be the Town Administrator, Emergency
Management Committee (EMC), Ambulance District and Police Department. Outside resources
will include a contractor for installing the electronic equipment. The work will begin one year
after funding and be completed within six months. Funding will be requested from NYS OEM
or FEMA.
8.F.2.5 Obtain Funding for Supplies and Equipment Needed in a Disaster such as
Generators and Pumps
The Town needs supplies and equipment to respond to a disaster. This includes generators and
pumps. The benefits of this activity will maintain, improve and ensure efficient operation of
equipment during emergencies. This emergency response action will cover all hazards Town-
wide. It is a feasible activity with a medium priority, high benefit and medium high cost of
$100,000 to $500,000.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 26
The EMC in conjunction with the Police Department and Fire Department will have the
administrative responsibility for this action. The action will begin one year after Plan approval
and finish within one year pending FEMA or NYS OEM funding.
8.F.2.6 Create and Maintain a Database of Special-Needs Individuals and Con Ed LSE
Customers who Voluntarily Provide that Information
A database of special-needs individuals and Con Ed LSE customers who voluntarily provide that
information would be helpful during a hazard event. It would help reduce impacts of hazards on
vulnerable populations. This emergency response action is Town-wide for all hazards. It is a
medium feasible action, with medium benefits at a low cost of $25,000. It is given a priority of
two based on this assessment.
The Lead/Administrative responsibility for this activity is the EMC. This activity will begin two
years after the Plan is approved and be completed within a year. Funding will be from the Town
Budget pending Board approval.
8.F.2.7 Maintain a Database of All Residents and Businesses that use Bulk Propane
Storage Tanks as a Gas Source
Maintaining a database of all residents and businesses that use bulk propane storage tanks as a
gas source will help manage hazard impacts through planning. This Town-wide action will
lessen the risk of explosions and fires. This has a medium benefit at a low cost $25,000 and has
a priority of two.
The Lead/Administrative responsibility for this activity is the Fire Department. This action will
begin after the Plan is approved and will be repeated annually. Funding will be from the Town
Budget pending Board approval.
8.F.2.8 Identify Homes and Businesses, Public Facilities, Historic Sites that would Benefit
from Raising Structures Above BFE
This planning action identifies homes and businesses, public facilities and historic sites that
would benefit from raising structures above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). It is intended to
reduce impacts of flood hazards on homes, businesses and institutions in Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHA) and for Repetitive Loss Properties. It is also intended to aid the community with
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 27
continued NFIP compliance. It is considered to have a medium benefit and a low cost less than
$25,000. This CRS activity is feasible and has a priority of two.
The Building Department will have administrative responsibility for this action. This activity
will begin two years after the Plan is approved and be completed within a year. Funding will be
from FEMA and the Town Budget pending Board approval.
8.F.2.9 Work with Owners of Repetitive Loss Properties to Identify Ways Buildings can
be Modified to Reduce Insurance Claims
This planning action involves working with owners of Repetitive Loss Properties to identify
ways their buildings can be modified to reduce insurance claims. The primary objective is to
become a member of the Community Rating System and to mitigate flooding in SFHA and
Repetitive Loss Properties. It is also intended to aid the community with continued NFIP
compliance. The benefits are considered medium and the cost is low ($25,000). This CRS
activity is feasible and has a priority of two.
The Building Department will have administrative responsibility for this action. This activity
will begin one year after the Plan is approved and will be completed within a year. Funding will
be from the Town Budget pending Board approval.
8.F.2.10 Strengthen Land-Use and Development Regulations in Special Flood Hazard
Areas
This planning action strengthens land-use and development regulations in Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHA) to limit future development. The primary objective is to incorporate hazard
considerations into land-use planning and natural resource management to mitigate Town-wide
flooding. It is also intended to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. The
benefits of this action are medium and the costs are low ($25,000). It is feasible and has a
priority of two.
The Building Department will have administrative responsibility for this action. It will begin one
year after the Plan is approved and be completed within a year. Funding will be from the Town
Budget pending Board approval.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 28
8.F.2.11 Draft a Town-wide Evacuation Plan
The Town will draft a Town-wide Evacuation Plan as a planning action type. They will
coordinate mitigation planning of all hazards with neighboring communities and Westchester
County. This multi-jurisdictional activity has medium benefits at a low-medium cost of $25,000
to $50,000. It is feasible and has a priority of two.
The EMC and Police Department will have the administrative responsibility for this action. This
activity will begin after the Plan is approved and be completed within a year. Funding will be
requested from FEMA and NYS OEM.
8.F.3 Implementation of Priority 3 Mitigation Actions
Group 3 Priority items are listed in Table 8-4. The total estimated cost for these six (6) items
ranges from a low of $600,000 to a high of $1,125,000.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final 8- 29 Table 8- 4. Priority 3 Action Items Implementation – Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Plan. *Action Type: Planning – Local Plans and Regulations Structure – Structure and Infrastructure Projects ***Priority: Natural - Natural Systems Protection Education – Education Awareness Programs 1 – High 2 – Medium 3 – Low Emergency - Emergency Response ** Action Item – See Section 7 for details. Action Type* Priority Item*** Action Item ** Benefits Cost per $1000 Administrative Responsibility Schedule / Duration Funding Sources Planning 3-1 Assist Town businesses with drafting emergency preparedness, business continuity and Homeland Security plans Medium $25 Emergency Management Committee (EMC) 1 yr. after Plan approval Finish in 1 yr. Town Budget Education 3-2 Educate residents, business owners and contractors on flood mitigation strategies, damage prevention and safety, flood insurance and flood loss Medium $25 - $50 Town HMC Begin after Plan approval Repeat yearly Town Budget Structure 3-3 Coordinate with Con Ed Co. of NY to determine if any upgrades are necessary in the local natural gas and electric delivery infrastructure Medium $25 Town Administrator Schedule Con Ed. after Plan approval Town Budget Con Ed. Natural Systems 3-4 Coordinate with Westchester Co. to reduce brush fire hazards in conservation areas and parks Medium $25 Fire Dept. Begin after Plan approval, Annually Town Budget Natural Systems 3-5 Study and begin a dredging project on the Sheldrake River, Larchmont Lake and areas where streams converge High $500 - $1,000 Town Administrator, Highway Dept. Project on hold Funding source not yet identified
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 30
8.F.3.1 Assist Town Businesses with Drafting Emergency Preparedness, Business
Continuity and Homeland Security Plans
The Town will assist local businesses with drafting emergency preparedness, business continuity
and homeland security plans. The objective of this action is to manage all hazard impacts Town-
wide through planning. This feasible action has a medium benefit with a low cost of $25,000
and a priority of two. The Lead/Administrative responsibility for this activity is the EMC. The
schedule/duration for this action item will be one year following funding from the Town Budget
pending Board approval. It will begin one year following Plan approval and finished in one year.
8.F.3.2 Educate Residents, Business Owners, and Contractors on Flood Mitigation
Strategies, Damage Prevention, and Safety, Flood Insurance and Flood Loss
This is an educational awareness program with the objective of reducing impacts of hazards on
homes, businesses and institutions. It is important to educate the Town’s residents, business
owners and contractors on ways to reduce flood damage and to promote the purchase of flood
insurance. These activities also provide data to insurance agents for accurate flood insurance
rating. Public information activities include maintaining elevation certificates, providing map
information, conducting outreach projects about flood hazards, disclosing information about
hazards, providing information and advice about flood protection, and providing assistance for
flood protection. This is a CRS activity that targets repetitive loss properties. It is also intended
to aid the community with continued NFIP compliance. It has high benefit at a low-medium cost
of $25,000 to $50,000. This strategy is given a low priority of three since it may be merged with
other CRS activities and may not require separate funding.
The lead responsibility would be the Town’s Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC). This action
will begin after the Plan is approved and will be repeated annually. Funding will be from the
Town Budget pending Board approval.
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 31
8.F.3.3 Coordinate with Consolidated Edison Co. of NY to Determine if any Upgrades are
Necessary to Protect Local Natural Gas and Electric Delivery Infrastructure
The Town should coordinate with Consolidated Edison Co. of NY to determine if any upgrades
are necessary to protect the local natural gas and electric delivery infrastructure from severe
storms. This structure/infrastructure project will protect critical facilities, buildings, and
infrastructure Town-wide from damage and loss due to explosions and fire, and help reduce
impacts of storm hazards on homes, businesses and institutions during power outages. The
benefits are medium and costs to the Town are low since Consolidated Edison does the
evaluation and work. It has been given a low priority of three.
The benefits are medium and costs to the Town are low ($25,000) since Consolidated Edison
does the evaluation and work ($500,000 - $1,000,000). The activity will be scheduled with Con
Ed following Town Board approval. The Town Administrator will have lead responsibility.
8.F.3.4 Coordinate with Westchester Co. to Reduce Brush Fire Hazards in Conservation
Areas and Parks
This action type is natural systems protection. The Town plans to coordinate with Westchester
County to reduce brush fire hazards in conservation areas and parks. The primary objective is to
protect and preserve open space and environmentally sensitive and critical areas Town-wide
from wildfires. This feasible action has medium benefits and the costs are low ($25,000). It has
a low priority of three.
The Lead/Administrative responsibility for this activity is the Fire Department. This action will
begin after the Plan is approved and will be repeated annually. The FD will implement this
activity using Town Board approved funding.
8.F.3.5 Study and Begin Dredging Project on the Sheldrake River, Larchmont Lake and
Areas where Streams Converge
This natural systems action is to study and dredge the Sheldrake River, Larchmont Lake and
areas where streams converge. This CRS activity will coordinate flood mitigation planning with
neighboring communities. It is also intended to aid the community with continued NFIP
ETG, Inc. Section 8 – Draft Action Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
8- 32
compliance. This feasible action has a low priority of three and moderate benefits. The cost
estimate is high ($500,000 to $1,000,000). Dredging of water bodies in the Town and
neighboring jurisdictions has not been done due to limited funding. There are no immediate
plans to proceed with dredging actions at this time. The Town Administrator and Highway
Department will have the lead administrative responsibility.
8.G Next Steps
The above action plan emphasizes implementation of the proposed mitigation activities based on
priorities that consider costs and benefits as well as Social, Technical, Administrative, Political,
Legal, Economic and Environmental considerations. Once the Town officials review and accept
this Action Plan, there are two additional steps needed to complete this Flood Plain Management
and Hazard Mitigation Plan. They are:
Section 9 – Adopt the Plan; and
Section 10 - Implement, Maintain, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan
Prior to the official adoption of the plan, the Town will submit the Plan to NYS OEM for review
and comment. NYS OEM will forward the Plan to FEMA for their comments. Upon receipt of
the agencies’ comments, the Plan will be revised. All required changes will be incorporated and
resubmitted for final review and approval by NYS OEM and FEMA.
ETG, Inc. Section 9 Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
9-1
Section 9 - Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the
Plan
Pending final approval of this Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan by FEMA, the Mamaroneck Town
Board will officially adopt the Plan as documented below in Section 10. This Section begins
with the implementation of the Plan, discusses how the plan will be maintained and evaluates the
progress and the process of Plan revisions. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee,
described in Section 1-D and Figure 1-4, under direction of the Chairman, will review and
monitor the progress of the Plan. The Town Board is responsible for approving the
implementation of the Plan and any substantial revisions. Current officials of the Town or the
Committee including the Committee Chairman, Town Administrator, Superintendent of
Highways, Community Services Director, Building Department, and Fire and Police
Departments, or other Town officials and consultants appointed by the Supervisor or the Board
will be responsible for administering or managing specific projects proposed in Section 8.
This Plan is considered an active document. Once the Plan is approved and implemented, the
Planning Committee will maintain the Plan through periodic review of the schedule, preparation
of detailed plans or specifications for funded activities, monitor the Plan’s progress and evaluate
the Plan’s successes. As this Plan is implemented, the Committee will review and evaluate any
additional agencies, organizations, contributors or stakeholders that are needed to advise and
participate in a particular activity.
9.A Plan Implementation Process
9.A.1 Plan Administration
The Committee Chairman (currently the Ambulance District Coordinator) will be responsible for
the administration of the Plan. The Chairman will assure that the Plan is implemented;
maintained, and evaluated for its effectiveness, and that it is updated in a timely manner. Plan
updates will be added as Attachments to this present Plan. The progress of the work activities
ETG, Inc. Section 9 Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
9-2
will be monitored; the schedule tracked in monthly activity progress reports and reviewed by the
Committee Chairman.
The Committee Chairman will be responsible for:
Monitoring and maintaining project budgets,
Scheduling and coordinating committee meetings,
Meetings or conference calls with funding agencies,
Informing and coordinating stakeholders and;
Keeping community members informed.
The Committee Chairman will work closely with the Committee and the Town Board to assure
that they are fully informed of progress on activities. The Chairman will assure that quarterly
progress reports and updates are provided to the Committee and to funding agencies via
NYSDHSES by the end of the first week of each month. The quarterly progress report should
contain the following information to help monitor the program:
Grant Program
Activity item(s) covered
Reporting Period
Town Program Administrator
Funding Agency
Type of Plan
Plan Status
Key deliverable reports, plans, design drawings or studies
Activity technical progress
Key meetings, phone conferences or site visits
Key Successes
Problems encountered
Schedule Status and Progress
Budget Status
Evaluation of the Plan’s effectiveness
ETG, Inc. Section 9 Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
9-3
Each Activity Leader or Manager will be responsible for the successful implementation of their
project or activity item. Their primary responsibilities include:
Managing the activity’s budget,
Maintaining the schedule,
Monitoring and oversight of the work,
Assuring adherence to the scope of work or specifications,
Informing the Committee Chairman of progress or problems.
Informing the Town Board on key project issues and progress.
9.A.2 Public Participation
Improving the public participation program is a key goal of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. The
Mamaroneck community will continue to be notified of all important project activities, reports,
public meetings and recommendations through the expanded Town Website. Notifications will
also include news bulletins and public notices that are published in the local newspaper. The
Activity Leader for each specific project will be responsible for communicating with the public.
The Town web page will be updated and will include items related to the mitigation plan.
http://www.townofmamaroneck.org
At a minimum one public meeting a year will be held to address the status and progress of this
Hazard Mitigation Plan. All annual reports, technical reports, plan updates and amendments will
be available at the Town Hall and online for public review and input.
The public participation program for this Hazard Mitigation Plan was described in Section 2 of
this Plan. Residents actively participated and provided input in public meetings and expressed
concerns verbally and in writing about the street and home flooding they face with major rain
storms. Strong interest and concern was shown by the community.
The public will continue to be involved in the revision and updating process. Meeting notices
will be advertised and published. The Committee Chairman, staff, and elected Board Members
will continue to meet and discuss hazard issues with the community and impacted residents.
ETG, Inc. Section 9 Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
9-4
Public meetings on key issues will continue and notices and progress will be published in local
papers. The Town will continue to post updates on their Website:
http://www.townofmamaroneck.org The Town will also send e-mail updates to individuals that
request them. These meetings can be accessed through LMC-TV the local public access
television station. They can be viewed on Cablevision channel 76 or Verizon channel 35. The
Board meetings can be viewed online at www.lmc-tv.org Videos on Demand, Town meetings.
The Committee Chairman will be responsible for implementing, scheduling and coordinating
public involvement and assuring that the website is operating and updated. Public comments
will be responded to and integrated into the Plan as they are received or with each five-year
update. Updates will be submitted three months prior to the due date to allow for review and
comment.
9.A.3 Incorporation with Other Plans and Activities
The Town of Mamaroneck has also cited other related or ongoing projects and draft plans as part
of this Hazards Mitigation Plan. These projects and plans include:
Town Emergency Response/Operations Plan
Comprehensive Flood Action Plan – 2009 Phase
Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin Flood Risk Management Reevaluation Study
Phase II Stormwater Management Plan
Comprehensive Plan – Town of Mamaroneck September 2011 (adopted February 2012)
Town of Mamaroneck Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Draft September 2011
Dam Emergency Action Plan
Several of these activities are discussed in Sections 7 and 8 and involve the same Town officials
who served on the Planning Committee and were responsible for developing this Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
MS4 Program: Federal and state stormwater regulations (MS4 regulations) are under the
responsibility of the Highway and Engineering Department. This Plan provides for control of on-
site stormwater and is a NYSDEC and EPA program. Required permit measures include public
ETG, Inc. Section 9 Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
9-5
participation, outreach and involvement; illicit discharge and elimination; runoff controls; and
pollution prevention. The MS4 requirements are being integrated into this Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Town Emergency Response/Operations Plan: The Town has prepared a Working Copy of an
Emergency Response Plan. The revision of this plan needs to be integrated with the State and
Westchester County plans. This Plan has leaders and responsibilities assigned, but needs the
capabilities to respond to a variety of incidents and hazards discussed in this Multi-Hazards
Mitigation Plan. The Town’s Emergency Response Plan needs to be updated and will include
coordination with Village, County and State Offices as discussed in Section 7.B.2 and 8.F.7.
The Fire Department is responsible for the revision and completion of this plan. Completion of
this activity has been identified as action item in this plan.
In addition to these projects, several proposed local planning mechanisms incorporate the Plan
requirements, address the Plan’s goals and objectives, provide Town resources, tap into
stakeholder interests and include volunteer assistance. The projects listed below do not require
capital funded items and several may require Memoranda of Understanding for government
agencies, stakeholders and volunteer organizations. They include:
Prepare a comprehensive Evacuation Plan
Obtain certification in the CRS Program
Evaluate and upgrade Town building and fire codes
Update the Town Emergency Response Plan
Prepare a Comprehensive Evacuation Plan: This activity is the primary responsibility of the
Mamaroneck Police with assistance of the Fire Department. The Police Chief is expected to
oversee completion of this Plan. The Town Board will review and adopt the document and assure
that it meets all FEMA/NIMS requirements. Several neighboring communities such as
Larchmont, Scarsdale, Rye and the Village of Mamaroneck in Westchester County need to be
incorporated in planning this document. The Red Cross or other volunteer relief organizations
are expected to be involved in the planning.
ETG, Inc. Section 9 Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
9-6
Obtain Certification in the CRS Program: This application for the CRS Program will also
require the Town to perform flood plain preventative activities. Formal approval of this Multi-
Hazards Mitigation Plan is a prerequisite for the CRS approval. This activity will be
implemented using existing Town resources. Many of the elements of the Town’s MS4’s
Stormwater Quality Improvement Program discussed above are the same as the requirements in
the CRS Program and could be integrated with that activity.
Evaluate and Upgrade Town Building, Fire and Zoning Codes: The Building Department
will be responsible for administering this activity and implementing updated codes, as may be
approved by the Codes Council under the auspices of the New York State Department of State.
This activity will need matching funds from the Town budget and in-kind services. The updated
codes will be documented in a set of recommendations for the Town Board to review and
approve.
Update the Town Emergency Response Plan: This activity will require coordination and
cooperation between various Federal, State, and County agencies and the Town for responding to
all hazards facing the Town. The Fire Department would manage and administer activity as in
kind services under the general operating budget. Input and assistance from stakeholders and
volunteer organizations will be needed.
9.B Monitoring and Evaluating the Plan
The Planning Committee will monitor and document the progress of the Plan’s recommended
mitigation activities. Progress reports will be prepared and submitted quarterly by the
Committee Chairman. A sample form of a progress report is provided in the Appendix of this
Plan. This progress report will track planned costs, schedules and milestones, Plan successes,
work status, and next steps. Status of individual mitigation project actions, risk assessments, and
suggested Plan revisions will be evaluated as noted in the Appendix.
ETG, Inc. Section 9 Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
9-7
The status report will also include any periodic monitoring reports by involved agencies or
organizations implementing the proposed actions. An annual report will be prepared that
highlights the mitigation activities completed or in progress.
9.C Plan Maintenance Process
A review of the Plan will be conducted annually or with the occurrence of a significant change.
Annual committee reviews will be completed by the 31st of January of each year. The
Supervisor and Town Board will be informed of the Plan’s progress. A yearly summary report,
which evaluates progress of the Plan, will also be submitted by the end of January of each year to
the Planning Committee and funding agencies via NYSDHSES. The Committee Chairman will
be responsible for assuring that the Plan’s effectiveness is evaluated.
The Committee will review monthly and annual reports to evaluate the Plan’s implementation
progress. The Committee Chairman will provide the Committee with updates on the completion
of the Plan Action Items. The community will be informed of the Plan’s progress through the
Town Web Pages http://www.townofmamaroneck.org and in annual public meetings.
9.D Evaluate Plan Effectiveness
The Planning Committee will review the Quarterly Reports to evaluate the Plan’s effectiveness
and to determine if objectives are being achieved. This evaluation will be included as part of
periodic reports submitted by the Town’s Administrator when activities are completed. The
Planning Committee and the Town Board will be provided with all reports, updates on hazard
vulnerability or changes in estimated property losses. One measure of the effectiveness is the
successful completion of work activities, the number of recommendations implemented and
specific action plans accepted.
Estimating the losses avoided can be used as an indicator of success. This is an estimate of costs
that would have occurred if mitigation actions were not taken. Participation in the National
Flood Insurance Program can be followed and any information on number of participants and
claims will be examined as an indicator of success.
ETG, Inc. Section 9 Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
9-8
The Committee Chairman will be responsible for assuring that Activity Leaders and participating
agencies prepare periodic progress reports including the various parameters to measure the
progress of the actions and action completion dates.
9.E Revising the Plan
The Town of Mamaroneck is committed to reviewing and updating the Plan every five years. By
September of the third year of the program, the Town will begin a review and update of changes
in development, recent hazard events, the hazards originally identified, the risk assessment,
estimated losses, new studies and technologies and results of recent disasters. The Committee
also needs to review any changes in local, State or Federal laws, policies, plans, funding and
socioeconomic factors in the Town. Original goals, objectives and mitigation activities need to
be reviewed and updated. Following this review and update, the findings will be incorporated
into a revised Plan.
The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee will be responsible for reviewing all updates
to the Plan. The updates will be submitted by the Committee Chairman and will incorporate any
annual changes to the scope of work such as newly identified activities or hazards, any expansion
or deletion of currently planned activities or changes in costs or schedules. Any significant
changes in scope, costs or schedule are to be approved by the Town Board.
Changes in property development will be evaluated. Any new projects or measures will be
examined and potential losses estimated and evaluated. Over a five-year period there may be
applicable changes in local, state, or federal requirements, policies and funding. This may
require updating the goals, objectives and actions. The update may require changing a current
mitigation measure or implementing a measure for different hazard or loss prevention.
The review of the Plan shall be completed by March of the 5th year of the Plan. A draft revised
plan will be submitted to NYSDHSES by May of the 5th year of the Plan for review and
comment, revised and then forwarded in July to FEMA for review and comment. After receipt
ETG, Inc. Section 9 Implement, Maintain, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
9-9
of comments from FEMA in September, the Town will revise the draft within two months and
submit it to NYSDHSES and FEMA in December for approval.
ETG, Inc. Section 10 Adoption of the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
10-1
Section 10 - Adoption of the Plan
10.A Formal Town Government Process
A resolution was officially accepted by the Board of the Town of Mamaroneck NY giving the
appointed Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (see Fig.1-4) and a planning consultant, full
authority to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan that will:
Carry out identification of hazards,
Assess the hazards risks and impacts,
Establish goals and objective for mitigating the hazards,
Identify mitigation measures,
Prepare a mitigation plan, and
Implement the Plan.
Key activities are presented in Table 1-3. On March 20, 2013 the Town Board authorized
contracting ETG Inc. to prepare the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
On April 2, 2013 The Town Administrator and Planning Committee had a “kickoff” meeting
with the consultant ETG to discuss the scope of the project and information needed from the
Town Departments and Planning Committee.
On December 9, 2013 copies of the first draft of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan were provided
to the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee for their review and comments.
10.B Official Public Participation:
Documentation of the public participation program and Hazards Mitigation Planning Committee
is presented in Section 1.E and Section 2 of this Plan.
Public Meetings: A notice for the first public meeting was published. The first meeting was
scheduled for December 18, 2013 at 8:00 PM in the Town Hall meeting room. (See Appendix for
a copy of the announcement.
ETG, Inc. Section 10 Adoption of the Plan
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
10-2
A second public meeting was held March 19, 2014 in conjunction with the Town Board to
present and review the contents of the Draft Final Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. (See Appendix
for a copy of the announcement).
10.C Adoption of the Final Plan
At a meeting on August 13, 2014 of the Town Board, a motion was made and seconded to adopt
the following resolution:
ETG, Inc. Section 11 References Cited
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
11-1
Section 11 – References Cited
1. Accuweather, www.accuweather.com/
2. Annals of Internal Medicine, “The Resurgence of West Nile Virus. December 4, 2012.
3. Association of State Dam Safety Officials, http://new.damsafety.org
4. Bergen County Skywarn,, http://www.bergenskywarn.org/
5. Centers For Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov
6. Climate Science Watch Website, www.climatesciencewatch.org
7. Coastal Resilience Website, http://coastalresilience.org
8. Colorado State University, Tropical Meteorology Project. http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu
9. Collins, M. (1997), Assessment of New York City’s Reservoirs, Dams, and Aqueducts.
NYCDEP and FBI.
10. Conrail website, http://www.conrail.com/
11. Consolidated Edison, “Report on Preparation and System Restoration Performance –
Hurricane Irene”. November 14, 2011.
12. Consolidated Edison, Westchester County Severe Wind and Rain Storm, January 18-22,
2006. www.dps.state.ny.us/conediso-january2006stormreport.pdf
13. Consolidated Edison, www.coned.com/publicissues .
14. Daily Mirror, “Storm Damage, Town by Town”. Page 3 & 17. September 23, 1938
15. The Earth Institute at Columbia University. “Earthquakes may endanger more than thought;
Nuclear Power Plant seen as Particular Risk”, August 21, 2008.
16. FEMA, Flood Insurance Study, 36119CV001A, Westchester County, NY (All Jurisdictions).
September 28, 2007.
17. FEMA, Flood Insurance Study, Town of Mamaroneck, NY, Westchester County. Revised
September 15, 1989.
ETG, Inc. Section 11 References Cited
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
11-2
18. FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Westchester County, New York, Town of
Mamaroneck. 36119C0332F, 36119C0334F, 36119C0342F, 36119C0351F, 36119C0353F,
361190361F. Federal Emergency Management Agency, September 28, 2007.
19. FEMA, “HAZUS99 Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States”.
September 2000. FEMA (2000), Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Public Law 106-390.
20. FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Part III. 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206.
Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; Interim Final Rule.
Federal Register, Tuesday February 26, 2002.
21. FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning: How–to Guides. FEMA 386:1-5, 2001-2007.
22. FEMA, FEMA Example Plans. National Flood Insurance Program, Community Rating
System. Federal Emergency Management Agency, March 2003.
23. FEMA, Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide. October 2011.
24. FEMA, Local Mitigation Planning Handbook . March 2013.
25. FEMA, Multi-Year Flood Hazard Identification Plan (MHIP), Appendix D FY03-04 Funding
Calculations for Adjusted Risk Value, www.fema.gov/pdf/fhm/mh_app_d.pdf. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, November, 2004.
26. FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program, Bureaunet Reports. http://
http://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov
27. FEMA, Wind Zones. http://www.fema.gov/safe-rooms/wind-zones-united-states
28. Insurance Journal (2006), www.insurancejournal.com/ news/east/2006/01/12/6416.htm
January 12, 2006.
29. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, “Tsunami, The Great Waves”, 2nd edition.
2012.
30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website. www.ipcc.ch
31. The Journal News. Newspaper and website. http://www.lohud.com.
32. Larchmont Gazette (Archives) website. www.larchmontgazette.com
33. Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch website. www.larchmont.patch.com
34. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Website, http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/ .
ETG, Inc. Section 11 References Cited
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
11-3
35. Los Angeles Times, “West Nile Virus May Get Worse as Climate Gets Hotter”. September
10, 2012.
36. Mamaroneck Daily Voice website. www.mamaroneck.dailyvoice.com
37. The Mamaroneck Review website. www.mamaroneckreview.com
38. Metro-North Website, http://www.mta.info/
39. National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center. www.nch.noaa.gov
40. National Weather Service, Hurricane Page, National Weather Service,
http://hurricanes.noaa.gov/
41. National Drought Mitigation Center Website. http:// http://drought.unl.edu
42. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program website. http://trhmp.tsunami.gov
43. The Nature Conservancy, Coastal Resilience Project. www.coastalresilience.org
44. NY State Climate Action Council, “New York State Climate Action Plan
Interim Report”, November 9, 2010. http://www.nyclimatechange.us/InterimReport.cfm .
45. NYSC, New York City Climate Office. Central Park Climate Summary.
http://nysc.eas.cornell.edu/newyork_c20.html .
46. NCDC/NOAA (2012), Billion Dollar U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters, National Climate
Data Center, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events .
47. NCDC/NOAA, National Climate Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov
48. The New York Times website. http://www.nytimes.com .
49. NY State Building Code.
50. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense
United States Hurricanes from 1851 to 2010. National Hurricane Center, August 2011.
www.aoml.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf
51. NOAA, Major Hurricane Tracks, Historical Hurricane Tracks,
http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/.
52. NOAA Tsunami website. www.tsunami.noaa.gov
53. NOAA West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center website.
http://oldwcatwc.arh.noaa.gov
ETG, Inc. Section 11 References Cited
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
11-4
54. NOAA, NESDIS, NCDC, Storm Event Records
55. NY State Climate Action Council, “New York State Climate Action Plan
Interim Report”, November 9, 2010. http://www.nyclimatechange.us/InterimReport.cfm
56. NYC Weather & Storm Blog website. www.severeweathervideo.com
57. NYCEM. Estimating Earthquake Losses for the Greater New York City Area, FEMA
HAZUS-MH Study for the greater NYC area.
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/resaccom/01-SP01/rpa_pdfs/16dargusha.pdf
58. The New York City-area Consortium for Earthquake-loss Mitigation (NYCEM).
http://www.nycem.org
59. New York State Climate Action Council, “New York State Climate Action Plan Interim
Report”. November 9, 2010. www.nyclimatechange.us/interimreport.cfm
60. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Climate Change Information
Resources website. www.dec.ny.gov/energy
61. New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission, (NYSDPC)
http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem
62. Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA), “Confronting Climate Change in the US
Northeast – New York”. www.climatechoices.org
63. NYSERDA, “Responding to Climate Change in New York State”, Technical Report 11-18.
November 2011.
64. NYSOEM, New York State Standard Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011.
http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/mitigation/plan.cfm
65. NYSOEM Wind Zones of New York State,
http://www.semo.state.ny.us/programs/mitigation/windzone.cfm
66. Pfaff, Steve, National Weather Service, “East Coast Tsunami Threats” Presentation.
www.er.noaa.gov.ilm/stormready/tsunami/player.html
67. Research News & Science Facts website, www.currentresults.com/weather/new-york/
68. Soundview Rising website. www.risingmediagroup.com/soundviewnews.html
69. Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database (SHELDUS). www.sheldus.org
ETG, Inc. Section 11 References Cited
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
11-5
70. Sykes, Lynn R. et al. “Observations and Tectonic Setting of Historic and Instrumentally
Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York City – Philadelphia Area”, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America. August, 2008, 98: 1696-171.
71. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as
amended.
72. Tornado Project Online, http://www.tornadoproject.com
73. Town of Mamaroneck website, www.townofmamaroneck.org
74. Town of Mamaroneck, Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. 2003.
75. Town of Mamaroneck, Master Plan Update, Phase 1. 1986.
76. Town of Mamaroneck, Master Plan Update, Phase 2. 1987.
77. Town of Mamaroneck, Master Plan DEIS. 1989
78. Town of Mamaroneck, Sheldrake River Watershed Hydrolic Study. 1991.
79. Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Approved November 1995.
80. United States Landfalling Hurricane Probability Project. http://www.e-transit.org/hurricane/.
81. USEPA, “Climate Change Indicators in the United States” EPA 430-R-10-007, April 2010.
www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html .
82. USEPA Enviromapper, http://maps.epa.gov/enviromapper/
83. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, National Seismic Hazard Maps,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/interactive/cmaps/
85. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, http://www.usgs.gov/
86. USDOT, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Website, http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat
87. U.S. Census Bureau, Census (2010). Profile of General Demographic Characteristics,
Mamaroneck, NY, http://factfinder2.census.gov
88. United States Department of Homeland Security, Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment Guide, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide. First Edition. April 2012.
89. United States Global Change Research Program Website, www.globalchange.gov
ETG, Inc. Section 11 References Cited
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
11-6
90. United States Nuclear Regulating Commission Website (UANRC). www.nrc.gov
91. Village of Larchmont, Westchester County, NY. Pine Brook Drainage Study (Draft),
January 2008.
92. Village of Larchmont, NY. Emergency Action Plan, Larchmont Dam, Larchmont Water
Company Dam #2, 2010.
93. Westchester County, “Climate Change and Sustainability”.
http://climatechange.westchestergov.com
94. Westchester County Department of Planning, “Stormwater Reconnaissance Plan for the
Coastal Long Island Sound Watershed, Westchester County, NY. August 2013
95. Westchester County Department of Planning, “Flooding and Land Use Planning: A Guidance
Document for Municipal Officials and Planners”. June 2010.
96. Westchester County Department of Planning, “Controlling Polluted Stormwater, A
Management Plan for the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor”.
January 2001.
97. Westchester County Department of Planning, and Watershed Advisory Committee 5.
“Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound, A Management Plan for the
Watersheds of Stephenson Brook, Burling Brook, Pine Brook and Larchmont Harbor”. June
1997.
98. Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District, “Final Report on the Upper
Sheldrake River and Larchmont Reservoir”. January 1985.
99. Westchester County GIS, http://giswww.westchestergov.com/westchester/emap/wc1.htm
100. Westchester County Health Department website, http://health.westchestergov.com .
101. Wittner, Phyllis, “A History of Conservation in the Town of Mamaroneck 1948-2006”.
August 2007.
ETG, Inc. Section 12 - Acronyms and Glossary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
12-1
Section 12 – Acronyms and Glossary
Acronyms
ANSI – American National Standards Institute
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
CRS - Community Rating System
DMA 2000 - Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
EOC – Emergency Operations Center
ETG - Environmental Technology Group, Inc.
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS - Flood Insurance Study
FMAP - Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
GIS - Geographical Information System
Haz-Mat – Hazardous Materials operation or incident
HAZNY - Hazards New York, Computer process for identifying and ranking hazards
HAZUS - Hazards United States, GIS-based software tool developed by FEMA for estimating
losses from various hazards
HMGP - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
LCSN – Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network of Columbia University.
LISWIC - Long Island Sound Watershed Intermunicipal Council
NCDC - National Center for Disaster Control
NFIP - National Flood Insurance Program
NIMS – National Incidence Management System
NOAA - National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NWS – National Weather Service.
NYC DEP - New York City Department of Environmental Protection
NYCEM – New York City Earthquake Mitigation
NYS - New York State
NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOT - New York State Department of Transportation
NYSOEM - New York State Office of Emergency Management
PDM - Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program
PGA - Peak Ground Acceleration
SEQRA – State Environmental Quality Review Act
SLOSH - A tidal flood inundation zone caused by a hurricane
USACE – U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
USDOT - United States Department of Transportation
USGS – United States Geological Survey
TMFD - Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department
ETG, Inc. Section 12 - Acronyms and Glossary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
12-2
Glossary of Technical and Planning Terms
100-Year (or Base) Flood: A flood event that statistically has a 1 out of 100 (or one percent)
chance of being equaled or exceeded on a specific watercourse in any given year. A flood event
of this magnitude is often used to determine if flood insurance is either advisable or required on a
property. It is also known as the Base Flood.
500-Year Flood: A flood event that statistically has a 1 out of 500 (or 0.2 percent) chance of
being equaled or exceeded on a specific watercourse in any given year.
Air contamination: Air contamination is the result of emissions chemicals from industry,
transportation into the air.
Base Flood: the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
It is also known as 100-year flood. The Base Flood has been adopted by the National Flood
Insurance Program as the basis for mapping, insurance rating and regulating new construction.
Base Flood Elevation (BFE): A base flood elevation (BFE) is the height of the base flood,
usually in feet, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988, or other datum referenced in the Flood Insurance Study report, or the
depth of the base flood, usually in feet, above the ground surface. It is shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
Base Map: Map of the community that depicts cultural features (roads, railroad, bridges, dams,
culverts, etc.), drainage features, and the corporate limits.
Blizzard: Low temperatures, winds 35 mps or more, and sufficient falling and or blowing snow
to reduce visibility to ¼ mile or less for a duration of at least three hours.
Civil Unrest: The unruly or violent crowds during public events, and political protests.
Coastal Storm: Non-tropical storm that produce gale-force winds and precipitation in the form
of heavy rain or snow and includes Nor’easters and severe winter low-pressure systems.
Community Rating System (CRS): A program created by FEMA to provide new incentive for
activities that reduce flood losses and support the sale of flood insurance. Any community
participating in the NFIP may apply for CRS classification by demonstrating that it is
implementing floodplain management and public information activities that exceed the minimum
requirements of the NFIP. Once qualified, the community benefits by obtaining flood insurance
premium rate credits for its residents. The credits vary by the level of activities undertaken by the
community.
Dam Failure: A dam failure is the collapse or failure of an impoundment that causes
downstream flooding.
Disaster: An occurrence of a natural catastrophe, technological accident, or human-caused
event that has resulted in severe property damage, deaths, and/or multiple injuries.
ETG, Inc. Section 12 - Acronyms and Glossary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
12-3
Drought: A prolonged period of limited precipitation affecting the supply and quality of water.
Earthquakes: A sudden motion or trembling of the ground that is caused by abrupt
displacement of rock masses under the earth’s surface.
Emergency: Any occasion or instance such as a hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, tidal wave,
tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, fire, explosion, nuclear
accident, or any other natural or man-made catastrophe that warrants action to save lives and to
protect property, public health, and safety.
Emergency Operating Center: The protected site from which State and local civil government
officials coordinate, monitor, and direct emergency response activities during an emergency.
Emergency Operations Center (EOC): The physical location at which the coordination of
information and resources to support domestic incident management activities normally takes
place. An EOC may be a temporary facility or may be located in a more central or permanently
established facility, perhaps at a higher level of organization within a jurisdiction. EOCs may be
organized by major functional disciplines (e.g., fire, law enforcement, and medical services), by
jurisdiction (e.g., Federal, State, regional, county, city, tribal), or some combination thereof.
Epidemic: The occurrence or outbreak of disease in a large number of individuals or proportion
of human or animal populations.
Explosions: An explosion is a sudden and violent release of energy from chemical reaction,
ignition of a fuel, gas under pressure or nuclear reaction.
Extreme Temperatures: Extended periods of excessive cold or hot weather with a serious
impact on human populations, particularly the elderly and/or persons with respiratory ailments.
Federal Insurance Administration (FIA): This organizational unit administers the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which was created by Congress in 1968 in response to the
rising cost of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of
damage caused by floods.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): The agency reporting directly to the
President and responsible for identifying and mitigating natural and man-made hazards.
Fire Hazard: Uncontrolled combustion of materials, buildings or other structures that threaten
human life and property
Flood: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land
areas from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation of
runoff or surface waters from any source or (3) from intense and severe rainfall.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): A map on which the 100- and 500-year floodplains,
BFEs, and risk premium zones are delineated to enable insurance agents to issue accurate flood
insurance policies to homeowners in communities participating in the NFIP.
ETG, Inc. Section 12 - Acronyms and Glossary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
12-4
Flood Insurance Study (FIS): An examination, evaluation, and determination of the flood
hazards, and if appropriate, the corresponding water-surface elevations.
Floodplain: The area adjoining a watercourse that may be covered by floodwater during a
flood. Storm runoff and flood events may cause alterations in the floodplain.
Flood Zone: An area shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that reflects the severity or
type of flooding. (See also Zones A, B, C and X below.)
Fuel Oil Spill: Release of any liquid fuels that when involved in an accident and released in
sufficient quantities, poses a risk to people's health, safety, and/or property.
Geographic Information System (GIS): System of computer hardware, software, and
procedures designed to support the capture, management, manipulation, analysis, modeling, and
display of spatially referenced data for solving complex planning and management problems.
Goals: General guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They are usually broad
policy-type statements, long term in nature, and represent broad outcomes.
Hazard: A source of potential danger or an adverse condition.
Hazard Event: A specific occurrence of a particular hazard.
Hazard Mitigation: Any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life
and property from hazards or reduce the potential for damage to a facility or structure from a
disaster event.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) gives grants to State and local governments for long-term hazard mitigation measures
after a major disaster declaration.
Hazardous Material: Any substance or material that when involved in an accident and released
in sufficient quantities, poses a risk to people's health, safety, and/or property. These substances
and materials include explosives, radioactive materials, flammable liquids or solids, combustible
liquids or solids, poisons, oxidizers, toxins, and corrosive materials.
Hazardous Material Release: Release of any substance or material that when involved in an
accident and released in sufficient quantities, poses a risk to people's health, safety, and/or
property. These substances and materials include explosives, radioactive materials, flammable
liquids or solids, combustible liquids or solids, poisons, oxidizers, toxins, and corrosive
materials.
Hazard Profile: A description of the characteristics of a hazard including its magnitude,
duration, frequency, probability and extent.
Hurricane: A tropical cyclone, formed in the atmosphere over warm ocean areas, in which
wind speeds reach 74 miles per hour or more and blow in a large spiral around a relatively calm
ETG, Inc. Section 12 - Acronyms and Glossary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
12-5
center or "eye". Circulation is counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in
the Southern Hemisphere.
Incident: An occurrence or event, natural or human-caused that requires an emergency response
to protect life or property. Incidents can, for example, include major disasters, emergencies,
terrorist attacks, terrorist threats, wild land and urban fires, floods, hazardous materials spills,
nuclear accidents, aircraft accidents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, war-
related disasters, public health and medical emergencies, and other occurrences requiring an
emergency response.
Infrastructure: Facilities serving the public and a community such as communication
structures, public water supplies, sewage treatment facilities, electric power systems and
transmission structures, transportation systems, navigable waterway facilities, dams and other
vital services.
Landslides: Downward movement of a slope and materials under the force of gravity.
Major Disaster: Any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water,
wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide,
snowstorm, or drought) or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion in any part of the
United States that, in the determination of the President, causes damage of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under the Stafford Act to supplement the efforts
and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in
alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused.
Mitigation: The activities designed to reduce or eliminate risks to persons or property or to
lessen the actual probability, potential effects or consequences of an incident. Mitigation
measures may be implemented prior to, during, or after an incident.
Multi-Hazard Plan: A plan that includes both natural and manmade emergencies and disasters.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): The Federal program, created by an act of
Congress in 1968, that makes flood insurance available to residents in flood prone communities
that enact satisfactory floodplain management regulations.
Objectives: Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals.
Unlike goals, objectives are specific and have measurable outcomes.
Preparedness: Those activities, programs, and systems that exist before an emergency and that
are used to support and enhance response to an emergency or disaster.
Resources: Personnel and major items of equipment, supplies, and facilities available or
potentially available for assignment to incident operations and for which status is maintained.
Resources are described by kind and type and may be used in operational support or supervisory
capacities at an incident or at an EOC.
ETG, Inc. Section 12 - Acronyms and Glossary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
12-6
Response: Activities to address the immediate and short-term effects of an emergency or
disaster.
Risk: The likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury, death
or damage.
Stafford Act: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 100-707,
signed into law November 23, 1988; amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, PL 93-288. A
Federal statute designed to supplement the efforts of the affected States and local governments in
expediting the rendering of assistance, emergency services, and the reconstruction and
rehabilitation of devastated areas.
Snow Storm: A storm that deposits heavy snow which amounts to 12 inches in 12 hours or less.
Stakeholder: Groups or individuals including businesses, private organizations, agencies, and
citizens that will be affected in any way be an action or policy.
Storm Surge: A dome of sea water created by the strong winds and low barometric pressure in
a hurricane that causes severe coastal flooding as the hurricane strikes land.
Terrorism: The use of--or threatened use of criminal violence against civilians or civilian
infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct
confrontation. Emergency management is typically concerned with the consequences of terrorist
acts directed against large numbers of people (as opposed to political assassination or hijacking,
which may also be considered "terrorism".
Thunderstorm: Storms accompanied by lightning, thunder, strong winds and heavy rain.
Other associated dangers of thunderstorms include tornadoes, strong winds, hail, and flash
flooding. Flash flooding is responsible for more fatalities—more than 140 annually—than any
other thunderstorm-associated hazard.
Tornado: A local atmospheric storm, generally of short duration, formed by winds rotating at
very high speeds, usually in a counter-clockwise direction. The vortex, up to several hundred
yards wide, is visible to the observer as a whirlpool-like column of winds rotating about a hollow
cavity or funnel. Winds may reach 300 miles per hour or higher.
Tropical Storm: A tropical cyclone, formed in the atmosphere over warm ocean areas, in which
wind speeds are less than 74 miles per hour.
Utility Failure: Utility Failure refers to periodic cessation of electrical or communication
services due to adverse weather conditions, human error or mechanical failure.
US Geological Survey (USGS): The Federal agency responsible for nationwide civilian
mapping projects and standards development.
Vulnerability: Exposure or susceptibility of an asset or community to damage or harm.
ETG, Inc. Section 12 - Acronyms and Glossary
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
12-7
Watershed: An area from which water drains into a lake, stream or other body of water. A
watershed is also often referred to as a basin, with the basin boundary defined by a high ridge or
divide, and with a lake or river located at a lower point.
Wildfire: An uncontrolled fire including trees, brush, or grass involving a substantial land area
which has the potential to threatening human life and property.
Wind Storm: Storms accompanied by strong gale force or stronger winds that may or may not
be accompanied with precipitation. These winds may be associated with tornadoes,
thunderstorms, Nor’easters, tropical storms, and hurricanes.
Winter Storm: A storm system in winter that deposits snow, sleet or freezing rain, with a
significant impact on transportation systems and public safety. This includes snow storms and
blizzards.
Zoning: The division of land within a community or local jurisdiction into zones of allowable
types and intensities of land use.
Zone A (unnumbered): Zone A is a Special Flood Hazard Area identified by FEMA that is
subject to inundation from a 100-year flood event. Because detailed hydraulic analyses have not
been performed, no base flood elevation or depths are shown. Mandatory flood insurance
requirements apply.
Zone AE and A1-30: Special Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by the 100-year flood
determined by a Flood Insurance Study (FIS). Base flood elevations are shown within these
zones and mandatory flood insurance requirements apply. (Zone AE is used on newer maps in
place of Zones A1-30.)
Zone AH: Special Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by 100-year shallow flooding
(usually areas of ponding) with average depths between one and three feet. Base flood elevations
derived from detailed hydraulic analyses are shown in this zone. Mandatory flood insurance
requirements apply.
Zone AO: Special Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by 100-year shallow flooding,
usually resulting from sheet flow on sloping terrain, with average depths between one and three
feet. Average flood depths derived from detailed hydraulic analyses are shown within this zone.
Mandatory flood insurance requirements apply.
Zone B, C and X: Areas that have been identified in a community flood insurance study as
having moderate or minimal hazard from flooding. Buildings or other improvements in these
zones could be flooded by severe, concentrated rainfall, in the absence of adequate drainage
systems. Flood insurance is available in participating communities, but it is not required in these
zones. (Zone X is used on newer maps in place of Zones B and C.)
Zone D: Unstudied areas where flood hazards are undetermined but where flooding is possible.
No mandatory flood insurance requirements apply, but coverage is available in participating
communities.
ETG, Inc.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
Folded Pocket Maps
DWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 01/28/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Map 1Aerial Photo
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
0 1,5 00 3,0 00 4,5 00 6,0 00Feet
WEAVER STNEW ENGLAND THWYMAIN STFENIMORE RDGRIFFIN AVEPALMER AVEROCKLAND AVE5TH AVEBEACH AVETHE PKYL
A
R
C
H
MON
T
A
V
E
OLD W
HITE PLAINS RD
FO REST AVE1 7
2 3 N
MURRAY AVEMYRTLE BLVDRUSHMORE AVE23S
O A K A V E
C
L
A
F
LIN A
V
ECENTER AVEWALTON AVEW BOSTON POST RDWE
S
T
S
T
PRYER LNS BARRY AVEAVON RDC
I
R
C
L
E
A
V
EHARMON DRPROSPECT AVEHALSTEAD AVEN CHATSWORTH AVEV IN E R D 18AJEFFERSON AVEW FLAGLER DRN
B
A
R
R
Y
A
V
E
B A R N A R D R D
M
O
N
R
O
E A
V
E GRAND ST18BMARBOURNE DRSHORE ACRES DRM O UNTAIN AVEGROVE AVESTANLEY AVEHOMMOCKS RD GROVE STO
R
IE
N
T
A A
V
E
PREMIUM PT
UNION AVE
VALLEY RDISELIN TERYORK RD
PLAIN AVECHATSWORTH AVE
EAST DRBYRON LNBOSTON POST RDBALDWIN PLWENDT AVE HOYT AVESHORE DRMAMARONECK AVEDANTE STMAYHEW AVE
H
A
R
RIS
O
N D
R LOCUST AVE1ST STMAPL
E AVEHALL AVE
PARK AVEHOLLY PLWI
NFI
ELD AVECORNELL STMT
P
L
E
A
S
A
NT
A
V
E3RD STO
C
E
A
N
A
V
EWOODHOLLOW LNEDG EW O O D AVEMADISON STECHO LN WINGED FOOT DRALDA RDPOTTER AVEW A R D A V EKOLBERT DRN E W S T
COLONIAL AVEB R A D F O R D R D
HOWELL AVE22HIGHVIEW STSHADOW LNRIDGE RDOLD BOSTON POST RDGLENDALE RDBRIARCLIFF RDE BOSTON POST RDCARLEON AVET R A V E R S A V E
S
A
L
E
M
D
R
FERNWOOD RDBONNIE BRIAR LNETON RDCOVE RD SD
O
G
WO
O
D
L
N OAKHURST RDCORTLAND AVEK
IL
M
E
R
R
D SAXON DRH A Z E L L N BRUCE RDTHE CRESRAILROAD WAYGLEN LNCARRIAGE HOUSE LNBEECHTREE DRBIRCH HILL LN
BRO O K STLAWN TERSKIBO LNN BROOK RDTO M PKIN S AVEVALLEY PLB
A
Y
H
E
A
D D
R
NINE ACRES LNPROTANO LNFULTON RD
HILLTOP RD
SEAHAVEN DR
GERTRUDE AVE
COVE RD WNAUTILUS LN
BEECH RD
R
O
C
K
L
A
N
D
P
L JEFFERSON STSOUTH DRDORIS RD
PROSPECT AVEPALMER AVEHARMON DR2 3 S
18B
0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000Feet
DWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 01/28/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4-2100 and 500-Year Floodplain
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
Legend
FEMA Flood Mapping
100 Year Flood Line
500 Year Flood Line
2
7
1
6
5
4
3
PRINCIPA L RIVER BASIN S: 1 Sheldrake River2 East Branch of Sheldrake River3 East Creek4 West Branch of Sheldrake River5 Premium River6 Pinebro ok River7 Mamaroneck Reservoir
WEAVER STNEW ENGLAND THWYMAIN STFENIMORE RDGRIFFIN AVEPALMER AVEROCKLAND AVE5TH AVEBEACH AVETHE PKYL
A
R
C
H
MON
T
A
V
E
OLD W
HITE PLAINS RD
FO REST AVE1 7
2 3 N
MURRAY AVEMYRTLE BLVDRUSHMORE AVE23S
O A K A V E
C
L
A
F
LIN A
V
ECENTER AVEWALTON AVEW BOSTON POST RDWE
S
T
S
T
PRYER LNS BARRY AVEAVON RDC
I
R
C
L
E
A
V
EHARMON DRPROSPECT AVEHALSTEAD AVEN CHATSWORTH AVEV IN E R D 18AJEFFERSON AVEW FLAGLER DRN
B
A
R
R
Y
A
V
E
B A R N A R D R D
M
O
N
R
O
E A
V
E GRAND ST18BMARBOURNE DRSHORE ACRES DRM O UNTAIN AVEGROVE AVESTANLEY AVEHOMMOCKS RD GROVE STO
R
IE
N
T
A A
V
E
PREMIUM PT
UNION AVE
VALLEY RDISELIN TERYORK RD
PLAIN AVECHATSWORTH AVE
EAST DRBYRON LNBOSTON POST RDBALDWIN PLWENDT AVE HOYT AVESHORE DRMAMARONECK AVEDANTE STMAYHEW AVE
H
A
R
RIS
O
N D
R LOCUST AVE1ST STMAPL
E AVEHALL AVE
PARK AVEHOLLY PLWI
NFI
ELD AVECORNELL STMT
P
L
E
A
S
A
NT
A
V
E3RD STO
C
E
A
N
A
V
EWOODHOLLOW LNEDG EW O O D AVEMADISON STECHO LN WINGED FOOT DRALDA RDPOTTER AVEW A R D A V EKOLBERT DRN E W S T
COLONIAL AVEB R A D F O R D R D
HOWELL AVE22HIGHVIEW STSHADOW LNRIDGE RDOLD BOSTON POST RDGLENDALE RDBRIARCLIFF RDE BOSTON POST RDCARLEON AVET R A V E R S A V E
S
A
L
E
M
D
R
FERNWOOD RDBONNIE BRIAR LNETON RDCOVE RD SD
O
G
WO
O
D
L
N OAKHURST RDCORTLAND AVEK
IL
M
E
R
R
D SAXON DRH A Z E L L N BRUCE RDTHE CRESRAILROAD WAYGLEN LNCARRIAGE HOUSE LNBEECHTREE DRBIRCH HILL LN
BRO O K STLAWN TERSKIBO LNN BROOK RDTO M PKIN S AVEVALLEY PLB
A
Y
H
E
A
D D
R
NINE ACRES LNPROTANO LNFULTON RD
HILLTOP RD
SEAHAVEN DR
GERTRUDE AVE
COVE RD WNAUTILUS LN
BEECH RD
R
O
C
K
L
A
N
D
P
L JEFFERSON STSOUTH DRDORIS RD
PROSPECT AVEPALMER AVEHARMON DR2 3 S
18B
0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000Feet
DWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 01/28/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Figure 4-4Hurricane Inundation Zones
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
Legend
Hur ricane Inundation Zones
0
1
2
3
4
WEAVER STNEW ENGLAND THWYMAIN STFENIMORE RDGRIFFIN AVEPALMER AVEROCKLAND AVE5TH AVEBEACH AVETHE PKYL
A
R
C
H
MON
T
A
V
E
OLD W
HITE PLAINS RD
FO REST AVE172 3 N
MURRAY AVEMYRTLE BLVDRUSHMORE AVE23S
O A K A V E
C
L
A
F
LIN A
V
ECENTER AVEWALTON AVEW BOSTON POST RDWE
S
T
S
T
PRYER LNS BARRY AVEAVON RDC
I
R
C
L
E
A
V
EHARMON DRPROSPECT AVEHALSTEAD AVEN CHATSWORTH AVEV IN E R D 18AJEFFERSON AVEW FLAGLER DRN BARRY AVE
B A R N A R D R D
M
O
N
R
O
E A
V
E GRAND ST18BMARBOURNE DRSHORE ACRES DRM O UNTAIN AVEMAMARONECK AVEGROVE AVESTANLEY AVEHOMMOCKS RD GROVE STO
R
IE
N
T
A A
V
E
PREMIUM PT
UNION AVE
VALLEY RDISELIN TERYORK RD
PLAIN AVECHATSWORTH AVE
EAST DRBYRON LNBOSTON POST RDBALDWIN PLWENDT AVE HOYT AVESHORE DRDANTE STMAYHEW AVE LOCUST AVEMAPL
E AVEHALL AVE
PARK AVEHOLLY PLWI
NFI
ELD AVECORNELL STMT
P
L
E
A
S
A
NT
A
V
ESHERWOOD DR3RD STO
C
E
A
N
A
V
EWOODHOLLOW LNEDG EW O O D AVEMADISON STECHO LN WINGED FOOT DRALDA RDPOTTER AVEW A R D A V EKOLBERT DRN E W S T
COLONIAL AVEB R A D F O R D R D
HOWELL AVE22HIGHVIEW STSHADOW LNRIDGE RDOLD BOSTON POST RDGLENDALE RDBRIARCLIFF RDCARLEON AVET R A V E R S A V E
S
A
L
E
M
D
R
FERNWOOD RDBONNIE BRIAR LNETON RDCOVE RD SD
O
G
WO
O
D
L
N OAKHURST RDCORTLAND AVEK
IL
M
E
R
R
D SAXON DRH A Z E L L N
D E A N E P L BRUCE RDTHE CRESRAILROAD WAYGLEN LNCARRIAGE HOUSE LNBEECHTREE DRBIRCH HILL LN
BRO O K STLAWN TERSKIBO LNN BROOK RDTO M PKIN S AVEVALLEY PLB
A
Y
H
E
A
D D
R
NINE ACRES LNPROTANO LNFULTON RD
HILLTOP RD
SEAHAVEN DR
GERTRUDE AVE
COVE RD WNAUTILUS LN
BEECH RD
R
O
C
K
L
A
N
D
P
L JEFFERSON STDORIS RD
HARMON DR2 3 S
PALMER AVEPROSPECT AVE18BDWN BY: YSCHK BY: JBSCALE: AS SHO WNDATE: 01/28/14
Town of MamaroneckMulti-H azard Mitigation Plan
Map 4Land Use Designations
Basemap Information by Westchester County GIS
N
0 1,750 3,500 5,250 7,000Feet
Legend
Town of Mam aroneck BoundaryParcel B ased Land Use 2009 Agricultural CategoriesCemeteriesCommercial-RetailCommon Land Hom eowner s AssociationHigh D ensity ResidentialInstitutional and Public AssemblyInterior Water BodiesLow D ensi ty ResidentialManufacturing, Industrial, WarehouseMedium Hi gh Density ResidentialMedium Low Density ResidentialMixed UseNature PreservesOffice and Resear chPrivate R ecreationPublic Parks, Par kway LandsTransportation, Com m unication, UtilitiesVacant/U ndevelopedWater Supply Lands
ETG, Inc.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
APPENDICES
Attachments and Supporting Documents
ETG, Inc.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
Appendix 1.
HAZNY Analysis
TOWN%OF%MAMARONECK%HAZARDS%RATINGS%
HAZNY%Analysis%
!
Background%Summary!
!
!!On!July!18,!2013!the!Town!of!Mamaroneck,!NY!conducted!a!hazard!analysis!using!the!
automated!program,!HAZNY&(Hazards!New!York).!!HAZNY!was!developed!by!the!American!Red!
Cross!and!the!New!York!State!Emergency!Management!Office.!
The!results!of!this!hazard!analysis!are!presented!in!this!report.!!
!
HAZNY&Process%
&&HAZNY&is!an!automated!interactive!spreadsheet!that!asks!specific!questions!on!
potential!hazards!in!a!community!and!records!and!evaluates!the!responses!to!these!questions.!
HAZNY&also!includes!historical!and!expert!data!on!selected!hazards.!!HAZNY&is!designed!
specifically!for!groups,!rather!than!individual!use.!!The!Town!of!Mamaroneck,!NY!assembled!a!
group!of!local!officials!to!consider!and!discuss!the!questions!and!issues!raised!by!the!HAZNY!
program.!!Representatives!from!the!Environmental!Technology!Group,!Inc.!(ETG)!facilitated!the!
meeting!and!recorded!the!results.!
!
The%HAZNY%Score%Results%
The!Group!analyzed!hazards!potentially!affecting!the!Town!of!Mamaroneck,!NY.!!HAZNY&rated!
each!hazard!based!on!the!Group's!assessment!and!assigned!a!numerical!value.!!
These!values!are!categorized!as!follows:!!
%321%to%400%%HIGH%HAZARD%
%241%to%320%%MODERATELY%HIGH%HAZARD%
%161%to%240%%MODERATELY%LOW%HAZARD%
%44%to%160%LOW%HAZARD%
!
The!Group!rated!the!possible!hazards!as!follows:!
!
!
Hazard Rating
FLOOD 321
COASTAL STORM 253
HURRICANE 248
SEVERE STORM & THUNDER 246
DAM FAILURE 239
FIRE 232
WINDSTORM 230
WINTER STORM (SEVERE) 230
TRANS ACCIDENT HIGHWAY 222
UTILITY FAILURE 221
TERRORISM 219
TORNADO 218
HAZMAT (IN TRANSIT) 210
EXTREME TEMPS 204
EARTHQUAKE 202
OIL SPILL 201
LANDSLIDE 199
EXPLOSION 192
WATER SUPPLY CONTAMINATION 182
EPIDEMIC 179
TRANS ACCIDENT RAIL 172
HAZMAT (FIXED SITE) 168
STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE 164
DROUGHT 152
FUEL SHORTAGE 142
RADIOLOGICAL RELEASE 140
INFESTATION 136
AIR CONTAMINATION 132
ICE JAM 123
FOOD SHORTAGE 119
FUEL OIL SPILL 113
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
HAZARDS THAT OCCUR WITH NO
WARNING*
DAM FAILURE
FIRE
TRANS ACCIDENT HIGHWAY
UTILITY FAILURE
TERRORISM
HAZMAT (IN TRANSIT)
EARTHQUAKE
OIL SPILL
LANDSLIDE
EXPLOSION
TRANS ACCIDENT RAIL
HAZMAT (FIXED SITE)
STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE
RADIOLOGICAL (IN TRANSIT)
AIR CONTAMINATION
FUEL OIL SPILL
!
*!No!warning!was!selected!from!the!Onset!Tab.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
HAZARDS THAT OCCUR MOST
OFTEN*
COASTAL STORM
SEVERE STORM & THUNDER
FIRE
WINTER STORM (SEVERE)
TRANS ACCIDENT HIGHWAY
!
• A!frequent!event!was!selected!on!frequency!Tab.!
!
!
!
!
HAZARDS THAT PRESENT THE GREATEST THREAT TO
LIFE*
DAM FAILURE
TERRORISM
WATER SUPPLY CONTAMINATION
!
*Serious!injury!and!death!in!large!or!extremely!large!numbers!was!selected!from!the!Impact!
Tab.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Hazard(s)%rated%as%high:%FLOOD%
FLOOD:%321,!High!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Regular!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Hours!Warning!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Two!to!Three!Days!!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Severe!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Severe!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
Hazard(s)%rated%as%moderately%high:%FLOOD,%COASTAL%STORM,%HURRICANE,%SEVERE%STORM%&%
THUNDER%
COASTAL%STORM:%253,!Moderately!High!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Frequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Days!Warning!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Two!to!Three!Days!!!
Recovery%Time:%!Three!Days!to!One!Week!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Moderate!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
HURRICANE:%248,!Moderately!High!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Regular!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Days!Warning!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!One!Day!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Severe!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
SEVERE%STORM%&%THUNDER:%246,!Moderately!High!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Small!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Frequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Hours!Warning!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!Three!Days!to!One!Week!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Moderate!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
Hazard(s)%rated%as%moderately%low:%DAM%FAILURE,%FIRE,%WINDSTORM,%WINTER%STORM%
(SEVERE),%TRANS%ACCIDENT%HIGHWAY,%UTILITY%FAILURE,%TERRORISM,%TORNADO,%HAZMAT%
(IN%TRANSIT),%EXTREME%TEMPS,%EARTHQUAKE,%OIL%SPILL,%LANDSLIDE,%EXPLOSION,%WATER%
SUPPLY%CONTAMINATION,%EPIDEMIC,%TRANS%ACCIDENT%RAIL,%HAZMAT%(FIXED%SITE),%
STRUCTURAL%COLLAPSE%
DAM%FAILURE:%239,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Small!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!to!Large!Numbers!
!•!Severe!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Severe!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
FIRE:%232,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Single!Location!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Unlikely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Frequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Moderate!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
WINDSTORM:%230,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Regular!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Hours!Warning!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!One!to!Two!Weeks!!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Moderate!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
WINTER%STORM%(SEVERE):%230,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Frequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Days!Warning!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Two!to!Three!Days!!!
Recovery%Time:%!Three!Days!to!One!Week!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
TRANS%ACCIDENT%HIGHWAY:%222,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Single!Location!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Frequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
UTILITY%FAILURE:%221,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Small!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Regular!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!One!Day!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!One!to!Two!Days!!!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
TERRORISM:%219,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!to!Large!Numbers!
!•!Moderate!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
TORNADO:%218,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!An!Infrequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Hours!Warning!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!One!to!Two!Weeks!!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Severe!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
HAZMAT%(IN%TRANSIT):%210,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Small!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!An!Infrequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
EXTREME%TEMPS:%204,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Regular!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Days!Warning!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Four!days!to!One!Week!
Recovery%Time:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Moderate!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
EARTHQUAKE:%202,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Moderate!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
OIL%SPILL:%201,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Several!Locations!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Unlikely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Regular!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!Three!Days!to!One!Week!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
LANDSLIDE:%199,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Single!Location!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Severe!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Severe!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
EXPLOSION:%192,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Single!Location!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Unlikely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Severe!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Severe!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
WATER%SUPPLY%CONTAMINATION:%182,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Hours!Warning!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Two!to!Three!Days!!!
Recovery%Time:%!Three!Days!to!One!Week!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!to!Large!Numbers!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
EPIDEMIC:%179,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!An!Infrequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!More!Than!One!Week!Warning!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!More!Than!One!Week!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
TRANS%ACCIDENT%RAIL:%172,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Small!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!One!to!Two!Weeks!!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
HAZMAT%(FIXED%SITE):%168,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Several!Locations!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!An!Infrequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
STRUCTURAL%COLLAPSE:%164,!Moderately!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Single!Location!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!One!Day!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Moderate!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
Hazard(s)%rated%as%low:%DROUGHT,%FUEL%SHORTAGE,%RADIOLOGICAL%RELEASE,%INFESTATION,%
AIR%CONTAMINATION,%ICE%JAM,%FOOD%SHORTAGE,%FUEL%OIL%SPILL%
DROUGHT:%152,!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!An!Infrequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!More!Than!One!Week!Warning!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!More!Than!One!Week!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Moderate!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
FUEL%SHORTAGE:%142,!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Likely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!More!Than!One!Week!Warning!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!More!Than!One!Week!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
RADIOLOGICAL%RELEASE:%140,!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Single!Location!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Unlikely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!Several!Hours!Warning!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!More!Than!One!Week!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
INFESTATION:%136,!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Unlikely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!More!Than!One!Week!Warning!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!More!Than!One!Week!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!More!Than!Two!Weeks!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
AIR%CONTAMINATION:%132,!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Several!Locations!
Cascade%Effects:%!Some!Potential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!
Recovery%Time:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!is!Likely,!but!not!in!Large!Numbers!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
ICE%JAM:%123,!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Several!Locations!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Unlikely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!An!Infrequent!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!More!Than!One!Week!Warning!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!Four!days!to!One!Week!
Recovery%Time:%!Three!Days!to!One!Week!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
FOOD%SHORTAGE:%119,!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Throughout!a!Large!Region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Unlikely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!More!Than!One!Week!Warning!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!More!Than!One!Week!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!One!to!Two!Weeks!!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
FUEL%OIL%SPILL:%113,!Low!Hazard!
Potential%Impact:%!Single!Location!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascade%Effects:%!Highly!Unlikely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frequency:%!!A!Rare!Event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Onset:%!!No!Warning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hazard%Duration:%!One!Day!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Recovery%Time:%!Less!Than!One!Day!!!!!!!
Impact:%
!•!Serious!Injury!or!Death!Unlikely!
!•!Little!or!No!Damage!to!Private!Property!!!!!!
!•!Little!or!No!Structural!Damage!to!Public!Facilities!
!
ETG, Inc.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Draft Final
Appendix 2.
Documents, Meetings and Notices
L
GK>»J «.V»**V
Agenda
Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting
Environmental Technology Group (ETG), Consultants
June 18, 2013, 2:30 p.m.
• The role of the Committee in developing the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan;
o Provide input for development of the Plan
o Review and comment for draft Hazard Mitigation Plan
• The contents and scope of the Plan;
• Updated schedule for preparing, reviewing and approval of the Plan;
• Identifying all hazards (natural and man-made) that may impact the Town/Village;
• Committee input for Rating and ranking these hazards using the HAZNY program.
• Future Committee Meetings
o Setting Goals and objectives
o Identifying and prioritizing mitigation measures
o Developing an action plan
!
!
!
Town%of%Mamaroneck%–%June%18,%2013%–%2:30%p.m.%
Minutes%Hazard%Mitigation%Planning%Committee%Meeting%
%
Jim!Brower!of!ETG!began!with!an!introduction!of!the!Agenda!and!discussed!the!handout!for!the!Table!of!
Contents.!
Public!Meetings:!!There!are!usually!2!but!there!can!be!more.!
Stakeholders!and!other!agencies!should!be!informed!and!involved!early!in!the!planning!process.!
The!hazards!covered!will!be!screened!and!limited!to!the!ones!that!most!directly!impact!the!Town.!
Cost!estimates!will!be!provided!for!each!mitigation!measure!proposed!and!will!identify!where!the!
funding!comes!from.!
Stephen!Altieri!suggested!that!climate!change!information!be!included!in!the!Plan.!!FEMA!encourages!
this.!!Jim!Brower!stated!that!ETG!plans!to!do!this.!!It!was!done!for!the!Village!of!Mamaroneck!and!is!
available!on!their!web!site.!
The!first!Public!Meeting!will!be!in!September!usually!in!conjunction!with!an!open!Board!Meeting.!
Mr.!Altieri!suggested!a!separate!work!session!meeting!about!the!Plan.!
A!second!Public!Meeting!will!be!in!early!December!or!January!to!avoid!holidays.!
Jim!Brower!reviewed!New!York!State’s!HAZNY!screening!process.!!Bill!Seevers!explained!what!FEMA!
considers!as!hazards.!!The!HAZNY!guide!gives!you!a!quantitative!score!for!ranking.!
Mike!Liverzani!will!send!Jim!Brower!the!HAZNY!rating!prepared!for!the!Town!in!a!previous!report.!
Other!discussions!in!the!Plan!may!include!Land!Use!and!Coastal!Zones.!
The!Committee!will!meet!again!in!about!3!weeks.!
The!meeting!was!adjourned!at!3:30!p.m.!
Respectfully!submitted,!
Marijke!Brower!
!!
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee Meeting 2
ETG, Inc
ETG,%Inc%July%17,%2013
Setting'Goals'and'Objectives''
The Planning Committee, with input from the consultant and the community, sets principal goals
and objectives for developing mitigative measures.
Criteria for Setting Goals:
Goals are sufficiently broad to encompass the hazards evaluated.
e.g. Protect residents from catastrophic disasters.
Goals are derived from primary hazards of concern.
e.g. Avoid impacts from severe flooding.
Goals are intended to reduce hazard vulnerabilities.
e.g. Vulnerabilities include people, Town structures and property.
Goals that are purely economic, development or capital construction goals are excluded.
e.g. Enhance job growth.
Omit Goals that are not a high a priority or do not clearly reduce future vulnerability to a hazard.
Example Goals:
1. Avoid and reduce the impacts from severe flood hazards.
2. Protect the community from catastrophic disasters.
3. Avoid loss of life and injury.
4. Protect public and private property and infrastructure from catastrophic disasters.
5. Involve the community in identifying and implementing mitigation measures.
6. Protect environmental and natural resources.
7. Heighten preparedness and response efforts for Hazards.
8. Become a member of the Community Rating System (CRS) Program.
9. Promote mitigation efforts through existing programs and partnerships.
10. Prepare for climate change impacts on the Mamaroneck community.$
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee Meeting 2
ETG, Inc
Criteria for Setting Objectives:
Objectives pertain to specific identified hazards and goals.
Objectives provide a strategy for identifying mitigation measures that meet the established goals.
Objectives refer to specific structures and solutions.
Objectives need not be mutually exclusive and may apply to one or more goals.
Example Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives:
1. Avoid and reduce the impacts from flood hazards.
1.1. Prevent flooding from streams, lakes, and ponds that run through the Town.
1.2. Identify and eliminate inflow and infiltration problems.
1.3. Correct storm and sanitary sewer backup problems from floods.
1.4. Improve the storm water collection and drainage system.
1.5. Control sediment deposition and erosion.
1.6. Manage flood impact problems through planning.
2. Protect the community from catastrophic disasters to avoid loss of life and injury.
2.1. Enhance the community awareness of emergency procedures.
2.2. Maintain, enhance and ensure the efficient operation of early warning, notification and
communication systems.
2.3. Develop, integrate, and/or enhance emergency action plans.
2.4. Reduce impacts of hazards on vulnerable populations.
2.5. Update disaster plans and coordinate with other agencies.
2.6. Ensure continuity of government operations, emergency services, and essential facilities during
and immediately after disaster and hazard events.
3. Protect public and private property and infrastructure from catastrophic disasters.
3.1. Protect critical facilities, buildings, and infrastructure from damage and loss.
3.2. Reduce impacts of hazards on homes, businesses, and institutions.
3.3. Manage hazard impacts through planning.
4. Protect environmental and natural resources.
4.1. Protect and preserve open space and environmentally sensitive and critical areas.
4.2. Protect and restore natural lands and features that serve to mitigate losses.
4.3. Incorporate hazard considerations into land-use planning and natural resource management.
5. Encourage hazard mitigation measures that result in the least adverse effect on the natural
environment. Promote mitigation efforts through existing programs and partnerships.
5.1. Strengthen inter-jurisdiction and interagency communication, coordination, and partnerships to
foster hazard mitigation actions or projects.
5.2. Evaluate impacts using engineering analyses and studies of water courses impacting the
community.
5.3. Coordinate with neighboring communities.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee Meeting 2
ETG, Inc
The objectives are intended to fulfill the following criteria:
• Social - Improve the quality of life and reduce neighborhood impacts.
- Include public support and involvement.
- Consider effects on selected segments of the population.
- Be compatible with present and future community values.
- Consider cultural impacts on the community.
• Technical - Develop technically feasible mitigation efforts.
- Effective in reduction of long-term losses, impacts and risks.
- Effective in minimizing secondary losses.
- Effective in solving the problem and not only the symptoms.
• Administrative - Provide resources and staffing to implement proposed actions.
- Jurisdiction and capability necessary to implement an action.
- Ability to accomplish activities in a timely manner.
- Ability to maintain and manage the mitigation measure.
• Political – Be acceptable to and supported by the community.
- Have full support of the Town Board and Administration.
- Involve political leaders in the planning process.
- Support and involvement of stakeholders.
• Legal - Legal authority to undertake an action.
- Meet all applicable regulatory requirements.
- Define the roles of Village, Town, County, State and Federal governments.
- Provide a legal basis for mitigative actions.
- Assure laws, regulations, ordinances, and resolutions are in place.
- Identify liabilities for an action or lack of an action.
- Consider needs for legal counsel.
• Economic - Develop affordable and cost-effective mitigation efforts.
- Obtain budget and funding for an action.
- Economic costs and benefits of a mitigative action.
• Environmental - Improve environmental quality.
- Identify and evaluate environmental impacts.
- Comply with all environmental laws and regulations.
- Benefit the environment with a mitigative action.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee Meeting 2
ETG, Inc
Setting Goals
1. _________________________________________________________
2. _________________________________________________________
3. _________________________________________________________
4. _________________________________________________________
5. _________________________________________________________
$
%%
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee Meeting 2
ETG, Inc
Goal 1. _________________________________________
Objectives
1. _______________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________
4. _______________________________________________
Goal 2. _________________________________________________
Objectives
1. _______________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________
4. _______________________________________________
Goal 3. _________________________________________________
Objectives
1. _______________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________
4. _______________________________________________
Goal 4. _________________________________________________
Objectives
1. _______________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________
4. _______________________________________________
Goal 5. _______________________________________
Objectives
1_______________________________________________
2_______________________________________________
3_______________________________________________
4_______________________________________________
Town%of%Mamaroneck%
Hazard%Mitigation%Planning%Committee%7%Meeting%Minutes%
September%26,%2013,%2:00%pm!
Town!of!Mamaroneck!
HMPC!Meeting!Minutes!
VHR!–!TOM,!Page 1 of 1!
%
A!meeting!of!the!Hazard!Mitigation!Planning!Committee!took!place!at!the!Town!
Center,!740!West!Boston!Post!Road,!Mamaroneck,!NY!on!September!26th,!2013,!at!
2:00!pm.!!
!
Attendance:!Steve!Altieri!(TOM),!Jim!Brower!(ETG),!Marijke!Brower!(ETG),!Ronald!
Carpaneto!(TOM),! Paul! Creazzo! (TOM),! Connie! Green! ODonnell! (TOM),! Lou!
Martirano! (TOM),! Michael! Liverzani! (TOM),! Valerie! Rifkin! (ETG),! Joseph! Russo!
(TOMFD).!
!
The!purpose!of!this!meeting!was!to!confirm!that!the!Town!of!Mamaroneck!approved!
of!the!Proposed!Goals!&!Objectives!that!were!discussed!at!the!July!18th!committee!
meeting!and!to!discuss!setting!mitigation!activities!to!correspond!to!those!goals!and!
objectives.!
!
Steve!Altieri!requested!that!we!add!the!word!“rivers”!to!Goal/Objective!1.1,!so!it!
should!read!“Prevent!flooding!from!coastal!waters,!rivers,!streams,!lakes,!and!ponds!
that!impact!the!Town”.!!This!was!noted!and!will!be!changed.!!Notwithstanding!that!
one!revision,!the!Town!has!approved!the!Goals!and!Objectives.!
!
Jim! Brower! distributed! a! handout! of! proposed! hazard! mitigation! activities! for!
Section!7!of!the!plan.!!!The!proposed!activities!are!initially!based!upon!the!activities!
listed!in!the!Town’s!prior!draft!plan!from!2010,!yet!streamlined!and!condensed!to!
follow! FEMA’s! preferred! formula.! ! The! committee! discussed! these! activities! and!
agreed! to!further!review!the! listed! mitigation! strategies,! and! note! any! changes,!
additions,! or! deletions!they! may! have.! ! Mike! Liverzani!will! collect! the! written!
comments! from! the! committee! and!scan/email!them! to! Jim! Brower! and! Valerie!
Rifkin!to!revise!the!mitigation!activities.!!!
!
Steve!Altieri!stated!that!he!would!like!to!have!our!first!draft!of!Section!7!of!the!plan!
completed!so!he!can!submit!it!to!the!Town!Board!prior!to!their!October!16th!work!
session!meeting,!in!order!to!approve!the!mitigation!strategies!at!that!meeting.!!!He!
directed!the!planning!committee!to!complete!their!comments!and!give!them!to!Mike!
Liverzani! by! the! middle! of! next! week!(Wednesday,! October! 2,! 2013).!!These!
comments!are!required!by!ETG!in!order!to!complete!Section!7.!!!
!
Valerie!Rifkin!agreed!to!attend!the!October!16th!Town!Board!work!session!meeting!
to!answer!any!questions!the!board!may!have.!
!
Steve! Altieri! requested! that! ETG! distribute! all! future! handout! materials! to! the!
planning!committee!via!email!prior!to!future!meetings.!!ETG!will!email!all!future!
handouts!to!Mike!Liverzani,!who!will!distribute!to!the!planning!committee!prior!to!
any!future!meetings.!
!
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
Notice of Public Meeting
To Solicit Public Input
For the preparation of a
Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan (PDHMP)
For the Town of Mamaroneck, NY
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Time: 8:00 PM
Place: 740 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
All interested parties are invited to attend a Public Meeting hosted by the Town of
Mamaroneck Board and the Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee, which includes contractual, elected, appointed and citizen representatives to
assist and contribute in the preparation of an All Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Town of
Mamaroneck.
The Town is preparing this Pre-Disaster Plan with a grant from the Department of
Homeland Security / Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) in the
amount of $65,900. Additional administrative oversight and technical assistance is being
provided by the NYS Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Services, Office of
Emergency Management (NYS OEM), and the Westchester County Office of Emergency
Management.
It is anticipated that a plan will be prepared in draft from the comments and
considerations presented by the Committee Members and interested citizens in the Town
of Mamaroneck community. A second Public Meeting will be held in early 2014 for
additional public input and comment on the draft plan, before it is considered ready for
submission to NYS OEM and FEMA.
For further information, or if you have any questions, please call Michael
Liverzani at (914) 381-7838.
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
Notice of Public Meeting
To Solicit Public Input
For the preparation of a
Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan (PDHMP)
For the Town of Mamaroneck, NY
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Time: 8:00 PM
Place: 740 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
All interested parties are invited to attend a Public Meeting hosted by the
Town of Mamaroneck Board and the Town of Mamaroneck Hazard Mitigation
Planning Committee, which includes contractual, elected, appointed and citizen
representatives to assist and contribute in the preparation of an All Hazard
Mitigation Plan for the Town of Mamaroneck.
The Town is preparing this Pre-Disaster Plan with a grant from the
Department of Homeland Security / Federal Emergency Management
Association (FEMA) in the amount of $66,900. Additional administrative
oversight and technical assistance is being provided by the NYS Division of
Homeland Security & Emergency Services , Office of Emergency Management
(NYS OEM), and the Westchester County Office of Emergency Management.
A Plan has been prepared in draft from the comments and considerations
presented by the Committee Members and interested citizens in the Town of
Mamaroneck community. This is a second public meeting seeking additional
public input and comment on the draft plan. A draft copy of this All-Hazard
Mitigation Plan is currently available on the Town of Mamaroneck website:
www.townofmamaroneck.org. A printed copy is available for review at the Town
office, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY.
For further information, or if you have any questions, please call Michael
Liverzani at (914) 381-7838.
1of2
http://larchmont.patch.com/
Larchmont-Mamaroneck PATCH
News | Government
Town Works to Prevent Flooding and Other Hazards
Posted by Lanning Taliaferro (Editor) , February 27, 2014 at 07:51 AM
Comment00
NaN
More
With spring flooding always a possibility, Mamaroneck town officials are putting
finishing touches on a hazard mitigation plan they commissioned after Superstorm
Sandy.
The first draft of the plan can be read and downloaded on the town's website.
Flooding was identified as the town's top problem by the consulting firm writing the
plan, Environmental Technology Group Inc. of Hauppauge.
In fact, Town Supervisor Nancy Seligson told The Mamaroneck Daily Voice that crews
are cleaning catch basins and lowering the reservoir to be ready in case of heavy spring
rains and snow melt.
2of2
The plan, following FEMA guidelines, looks at past and probable future hazards
and develops ways to protect citizens, businesses, properties and infrastructures in the
Town of Mamaroneck.
Its five major goals, developed with the Hazard Mitigation Committee, are:
1. Avoid and reduce hazards from flooding.
2. Protect the community from catastrophic disasters to avoid loss of life and injury.
3. Protect public and private property and infrastructure from catastrophic disasters.
4. Protect environmental and natural resources.
5. Involve the community, partners, and stakeholders in identifying and
implementing mitigation measures.
It will be discussed at the Town Board meeting March 19.
1of2
MultiͲHazardMitigationPlan
NancySeligson
Comments
February14,2014
Ingeneral,I’mconcernedthatthePlandoesn’tspeaktosmallenvironmentaleffortssuchasgreen
infrastructure,toaddressfloodmitigationandstormwaterrunoff.TheMultiͲHazardMitigationPlan
givesustheopportunitytooutline,highlightandprioritizeawiderangeofactivitiestoaddresshazards
totheTown.I’minterestedinincludingspecifichighlightsandpriorities.
IknowfrommyexperienceapplyingfortheConsolidatedFundingApplicationgrantslastyear(and
otheradvocacyactivitiesthroughoutmycareer)thatreferencingTownplanningdocumentsisan
importantapplicationassettoshowthecontextandsupportfortherequest.Wecanhaveamuch
strongerapplicationifwecanpointtoanapprovedTownplanningdocumentthatcallsforthat
measure.Asanexample,ifwewanttoapplyforfundingforaraingardenasagreeninfrastructure
measurewewouldbeabletocitetheTown’sAllHazardMitigationPlanasformalsupportfortheeffort.
ManyotheractionscouldbesupportedthroughthePlanaswellifweincludeawiderrangeofefforts.
Myspecificcommentsfollow:
1. Page6Ͳ1,under5HazardMitigationgoals
I’mnotsurewhat“avoid”hazardsfromfloodingmeans.Don’twemeandecreasehazardsfrom
flooding?
2. Page6Ͳ2under6.A.1
Howcanfloodsbeahazardthatcontributestothehazardofflooding?
3. Page6Ͳ6,#2
Changethewordenhancetoimproveorincrease
#3
Identifycriticalfacilities
#4
Identifyclimatechangeimpactsonthecommunity
4. Page6Ͳ7table
1Ͳ2NotjustIandI,butshouldincluderepairandmaintenanceofpipes
1Ͳ4Whatdoesimprovestormwatercollectionanddrainagesystemmean?Thereshouldbe
specificactions.
5. Page6Ͳ9
6.Band6.B.1don’tincludefloodingfromLongIslandSound
2of2
6.
page6Ͳ11
6.B.3Thelanguageof“Stormwaterconveyancesneedtobereviewedforexpansionand
enhancementofstormwater”isthewronglanguage.Thereshouldbespecificactions.
7. Page7Ͳ4
7.A.2PleaseaddgreeningthecodetothefirstparagraphwithinLocalPlansandRegulations.
Addthewordrenovatingtostormandsanitarysystems
8. Page7Ͳ8
7.B.1.1Idon’tthink“plan”istherighttermforUpgradingexistingstormwatermanagement
plans.
9. Page7Ͳ9
7.B.1.2Whatistheyearroundstormmaintenanceprogramforriversandwaterways?
Ihaveseveralmorespecificcomments,buthaverunoutoftime.Iwilltrytogetthemtoyouinthenext
fewdays.
Thankyou!
Nancy
1 of 2
Draft Hazard Mitigation submission:
Table 1-2 needs correction- not aligned properly.
Paragraph 1.B.1- should mention that the Town Of Mamaroneck (TOM) had a Hazard
Mitigation Plan and law prior to current requirement.
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee- why weren’t the Environmental Coordinator or Town
staff Engineer included. They both deal with flooding and other hazards frequently.
Conservation listed as Town dept. that will administer and/or implement a mitigation activity-
why not include from beginning on Committee? Luckily Russo wears 2 hats as Fire Chief and
Town Inspector.
P.3-2- Add Long Island Sound Watershed Intermunicipal Council to list of stakeholders and
Participating Interests
P 3-6 References: add dates 1986 and 1995 to Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
reference.
P 3-7- add Coastal Zone Management Commission to list asked to review Draft Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
4-1- Clarify history. The TOM was officially created in 1788 by the NYS legislature. However,
the TOM was purchased in 1661, had its first Town meeting in 1697 and started keeping
Minutes.
Sect. 4D,5; Tables 4-2, 4.E chart P. 4-7. Premium should be added. Difficult to separate Town
only when bi or tri-munic. Flooding.
P. 4-18 add Premium-Pine Brook to list of places in paragraph 1.
P.4-19- add Premium River to Flood Extent.
P. 4-21, 4-35, and 5-15 Pryor =Pryer. Add Dogwood Lane (resident Pogostin house).
See chart 4-4 page 4-29
Noreaster 2007 mentioned on 4-37 add Premium-Pine Brook
Has the Village of Larchmont seen sections on Reservoir flooding-dam? See 7-32 item 7M5.4
Considering the role of the Reservoir dam in Hazard Mitigation, should a change in ownership
be proposed?
P5-15 Assets- why wasn’t Hommocks included? Land donated to TOM- also see 5-29.
5C-12- air contamination should TOM anti-idling law be mentioned?
2 of 2
Does 7.B.1.2 page 7-9 include Premium?
See chart 7-1 pg. 7-11 who are CRS members?
Table 5-4- Key assets
Location Premium Marsh Conservation Area- Dillon and Pryer Manor Rd.
Submitted by Phyllis Wittner, Member Emeritus Coastal Zone Management Commission
ETG, Inc.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
Appendix 3.
HAZUS-MH: Sample Model Output
3.1 Hurricane Event Report
3.1.1 Hurricane Gloria Historical Model
Event Report
3.1.2 Probabilistic Model Event Report
(Quick Assessment Report)
(100 Year Return Period)
(500 Year Return Period)
(1000 Year Return Period)
3.2 Earthquake Event Report
3.2.1 Historical Model Event Report
3.2.2 Probabilistic Model Event Report
(100 Year Return Period)
(500 Year Return Period)
(1000 Year Return Period)
3.3 Flood Event Report
3.3.1 Probabilistic Model Event Report
(100 Year Return Period)
(500 Year Return Period)
ETG, Inc.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3.1 Hurricane Event Report
3.1.1 Hurricane Gloria Historical Model
Event Report
3.1.2 Probabilistic Model Event Report
(Quick Assessment Report)
(100 Year Return Period)
(500 Year Return Period)
(1000 Year Return Period)
Hazus-MH: Hurricane Event Report
Region Name:
Hurricane Scenario:
Print Date: Monday, September 09, 2013
TOM-Hurricane
Disclaimer:
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific Hurricane. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory data.
GLORIA
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building Inventory 4
3
General Building Stock
Essential Facility Inventory
Hurricane Scenario Parameters 5
Building Damage 6
General Building Stock
Essential Facilities Damage
Induced Hurricane Damage 8
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Economic Loss
8
Building Losses
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
9
10
11
Page 2 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
General Description of the Region
- New York
Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide
a methodology and software application to develop multi -hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates
would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from
multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.
The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the
following state(s):
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region .
The geographical size of the region is 3.56 square miles and contains 2 census tracts. There are over 4
thousand households in the region and has a total population of 11 ,429 people (2000 Census Bureau data). The
distribution of population by State and County is provided in Appendix B .
There are an estimated 3 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding
contents) of 1,170 million dollars (2006 dollars). Approximately 90% of the buildings (and 86% of the building
value) are associated with residential housing.
Page 3 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
General Building Stock
Building Inventory
Hazus estimates that there are 3,744 buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of
1,170 million (2006 dollars). Table 1 presents the relative distribution of the value with respect to the general
occupancies. Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County.
1,170,354
1,003,191
130,641
13,482
17,919
2,711
2,410
0
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Religious
Government
Education
Total
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Tot
85.7%
0.2%
11.2%
0.2%
0.0%
1.2%
1.5%
100.0%
Table 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type
Essential Facility Inventory
For essential facilities, there are no hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of no beds. There are 4
schools, 1 fire stations, no police stations and no emergency operation facilities.
Page 4 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Hurricane Scenario
Hazus used the following set of information to define the hurricane parameters for the hurricane loss estimate
provided in this report.
Max Peak Gust in Study Region:59 mph
GLORIAScenario Name:
Type:Historic
Page 5 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Building Damage
General Building Stock Damage
Hazus estimates that about 0 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 0% of the total number
of buildings in the region. There are an estimated 0 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The definition of
the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 6 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual. Table 2 below
summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 3 summarizes the
expected damage by general building type.
Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
None DestructionSevereModerateMinor
Occupancy (%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
0 0 0 0 14Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 99.83
0 0 0 1 283Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 99.78
0 0 0 0 6Education 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 99.77
0 0 0 0 0Government 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0 0 0 48Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 99.76
0 0 0 0 14Religion 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 99.81
0 0 0 2 3,376Residential 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 99.93
0 0 0 3 3,741Total
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Building Type
Building
Type
None DestructionSevereModerateMinor
(%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
Concrete 76 0 0 0 0 99.69 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Masonry 636 2 0 0 0 99.71 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00
MH 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Steel 165 0 0 0 0 99.75 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wood 2,867 0 0 0 0 99.98 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 6 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Essential Facility Damage
Before the hurricane, the region had no hospital beds available for use. On the day of the hurricane, the model
estimates that 0 hospital beds (0%) are available for use. After one week, none of the beds will be in service .
By 30 days, none will be operational.
Table 4: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Classification
Expected
Loss of Use
< 1 day
# Facilities
Probability of
Complete
Damage > 50%
Probability of at
Least Moderate
Damage > 50%Total
1 0 1 0Fire Stations
4 0 4 0Schools
Page 7 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Induced Hurricane Damage
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the hurricane. The model breaks the debris into
four general categories: a) Brick/Wood, b) Reinforced Concrete /Steel, c) Eligible Tree Debris, and d) Other Tree
Debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle
the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 4 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, 0 tons (0%) is Other
Tree Debris. Of the remaining 4 tons, Brick/Wood comprises 100% of the total, Reinforced Concrete /Steel
comprises of 0% of the total, with the remainder being Eligible Tree Debris. If the building debris tonnage is
converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 0 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the
building debris generated by the hurricane. The number of Eligible Tree Debris truckloads will depend on how
the 0 tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed. The volume of tree debris generally ranges from
about 4 cubic yards per ton for chipped or compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards per ton for bulkier ,
uncompacted debris.
Social Impact
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the
hurricane and the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters .
The model estimates 0 households to be displaced due to the hurricane. Of these, 0 people (out of a total
population of 11,429) will seek temporary shelter in public shelters.
Page 8 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the hurricane is 0.0 million dollars, which represents 0.00 % of the total
replacement value of the region’s buildings .
Building-Related Losses
The building related losses are broken into two categories: direct property damage losses and business
interruption losses. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage
caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability
to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the hurricane. Business interruption losses also
include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the hurricane.
The total property damage losses were 0 million dollars. 0% of the estimated losses were related to the business
interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up
over 100% of the total loss. Table 4 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building
damage.
Table 5: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Thousands of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialResidentialAreaCategory
Property Damage
0.00 0.00 0.00 21.04Building 21.04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Content 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Inventory 0.00
21.04 0.00 0.00Subtotal 21.04 0.00
Business Interruption Loss
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Income 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12Relocation 0.12
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Rental 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Wage 0.00
0.12 0.00 0.00Subtotal 0.12 0.00
21.16 0.00 0.00Total 21.16
Total
0.00
Page 9 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
New York
Westchester-
Page 10 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
ResidentialPopulation
Building Value (thousands of dollars)
Non-Residential Total
New York
Westchester 11,429 1,003,191 1,170,354 167,163
11,429Total 1,170,354 1,003,191 167,163
11,429Study Region Total 1,170,354 1,003,191 167,163
Page 11 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Quick Assessment Report
September 9, 2013
Area (Square Miles)
Number of Census Tracts
Regional Statistics
Number of People in the Region
Scenario Results
Number of Residential Buildings Damaged
TotalDestructionSevereModerateMinorReturn Period
0 0 0 010 0
0 0 0 220 2
0 0 1 1250 13
0 0 9 70100 79
0 0 38 244200 282
3 6 156 672500 837
16 30 335 1,0281000 1,408
Number of Buildings Damaged
DestructionSevereModerateMinorReturn Period Total
0 0 0 0 010
3 3 0 0 020
15 14 1 0 050
85 76 9 0 0100
300 259 41 1 0200
903 723 169 8 3500
1,539 1,112 373 37 161000
Shelter Requirements
Short Term Shelter (#People)Displaced Households (#Households)Return Period
0 010
0 020
0 050
1 0100
8 1200
37 7500
89 171000
Economic Loss (x 1000)
ReturnPeriod
Property Damage (Capital Stock) Losses
Residential Total
Business Interruption
(Income) Losses
10 0 0 0
20 0 0 0
50 824 846 16
100 3,224 3,320 203
200 7,791 8,099 538
500 23,234 24,590 2,006
1000 51,630 55,289 5,316
24 285 266Annualized
TOM-Hurricane
Probabilistic
General Building Stock
Study Region :
Scenario :
Occupancy Building Count Dollar Exposure ($ K)
Residential
Total
Other
Commercial
3,378
284
82
3,744
1,003,191
130,641
36,522
1,170,354
11,429
4
2
Disclaimer:
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using HAZUS loss estimation methodology software which is based on current scientific and
engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique. Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in
this report and the actual social and economic losses following a specific Hurricane. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory data.
Hazus-MH: Hurricane Event Report
Region Name:
Hurricane Scenario:
Print Date: Monday, September 09, 2013
TOM-Hurricane
Disclaimer:
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific Hurricane. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory data.
Probabilistic 100-year Return Period
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building Inventory 4
3
General Building Stock
Essential Facility Inventory
Hurricane Scenario Parameters 5
Building Damage 6
General Building Stock
Essential Facilities Damage
Induced Hurricane Damage 8
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Economic Loss
8
Building Losses
Appendix A : County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
9
10
11
Page 2 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
General Description of the Region
- New York
Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide
a methodology and software application to develop multi -hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates
would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from
multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.
The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the
following state(s):
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region .
The geographical size of the region is 3.56 square miles and contains 2 census tracts. There are over 4
thousand households in the region and has a total population of 11 ,429 people (2000 Census Bureau data). The
distribution of population by State and County is provided in Appendix B .
There are an estimated 3 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding
contents) of 1,170 million dollars (2006 dollars). Approximately 90% of the buildings (and 86% of the building
value) are associated with residential housing.
Page 3 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
General Building Stock
Building Inventory
Hazus estimates that there are 3,744 buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of
1,170 million (2006 dollars). Table 1 presents the relative distribution of the value with respect to the general
occupancies. Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County.
1,170,354
1,003,191
130,641
13,482
17,919
2,711
2,410
0
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Religious
Government
Education
Total
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Tot
85.7%
0.2%
11.2%
0.2%
0.0%
1.2%
1.5%
100.0%
Table 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type
Essential Facility Inventory
For essential facilities, there are no hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of no beds. There are 4
schools, 1 fire stations, no police stations and no emergency operation facilities.
Page 4 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Hurricane Scenario
Hazus used the following set of information to define the hurricane parameters for the hurricane loss estimate
provided in this report.
ProbabilisticScenario Name:
Type:Probabilistic
Page 5 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Building Damage
General Building Stock Damage
Hazus estimates that about 9 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 0% of the total number
of buildings in the region. There are an estimated 0 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The definition of
the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 6 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual. Table 2 below
summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 3 summarizes the
expected damage by general building type.
Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy : 100 - year Event
None DestructionSevereModerateMinor
Occupancy (%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
0 0 0 0 14Agriculture 0.00 0.04 1.57 0.18 98.21
0 0 0 4 280Commercial 0.00 0.00 1.42 0.16 98.42
0 0 0 0 6Education 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.03 98.58
0 0 0 0 0Government 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0 0 1 47Industrial 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.05 98.52
0 0 0 0 14Religion 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.04 98.69
0 0 9 70 3,299Residential 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.26 97.65
0 0 9 76 3,659Total
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Building Type : 100 - year Event
Building
Type
None DestructionSevereModerateMinor
(%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
Concrete 75 1 0 0 0 98.04 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.03
Masonry 610 22 6 0 0 95.60 3.40 0.00 0.00 1.00
MH 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Steel 162 2 0 0 0 98.38 1.44 0.00 0.01 0.17
Wood 2,819 47 2 0 0 98.28 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.06
Page 6 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Essential Facility Damage
Before the hurricane, the region had no hospital beds available for use. On the day of the hurricane, the model
estimates that 0 hospital beds (0%) are available for use. After one week, none of the beds will be in service .
By 30 days, none will be operational.
Table 4: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Classification
Expected
Loss of Use
< 1 day
# Facilities
Probability of
Complete
Damage > 50%
Probability of at
Least Moderate
Damage > 50%Total
1 0 1 0Fire Stations
4 0 4 0Schools
Page 7 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Induced Hurricane Damage
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the hurricane. The model breaks the debris into
four general categories: a) Brick/Wood, b) Reinforced Concrete /Steel, c) Eligible Tree Debris, and d) Other Tree
Debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle
the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 999 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, 199 tons (20%) is
Other Tree Debris. Of the remaining 800 tons, Brick/Wood comprises 39% of the total, Reinforced
Concrete/Steel comprises of 0% of the total, with the remainder being Eligible Tree Debris. If the building debris
tonnage is converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 13 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to
remove the building debris generated by the hurricane. The number of Eligible Tree Debris truckloads will
depend on how the 484 tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed. The volume of tree debris
generally ranges from about 4 cubic yards per ton for chipped or compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards
per ton for bulkier, uncompacted debris.
Social Impact
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the
hurricane and the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters .
The model estimates 1 households to be displaced due to the hurricane. Of these, 0 people (out of a total
population of 11 ,429) will seek temporary shelter in public shelters.
Page 8 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the hurricane is 3.5 million dollars, which represents 0.30 % of the total
replacement value of the region’s buildings .
Building-Related Losses
The building related losses are broken into two categories: direct property damage losses and business
interruption losses. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage
caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability
to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the hurricane. Business interruption losses also
include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the hurricane.
The total property damage losses were 4 million dollars. 0% of the estimated losses were related to the business
interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up
over 97% of the total loss. Table 4 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building
damage.
Table 5: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Thousands of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialResidentialAreaCategory
Property Damage
72.39 5.07 11.01 3,111.16Building 3,022.70
6.46 0.16 0.27 208.29Content 201.40
0.12 0.03 0.03 0.19Inventory 0.00
3,224.10 78.96 5.26Subtotal 3,319.63 11.31
Business Interruption Loss
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Income 0.00
1.45 0.04 0.09 122.35Relocation 120.76
0.00 0.00 0.00 80.64Rental 80.64
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Wage 0.00
201.40 1.45 0.04Subtotal 202.98 0.09
3,425.49 80.42 5.30Total 3,522.62
Total
11.41
Page 9 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
New York
Westchester-
Page 10 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
ResidentialPopulation
Building Value (thousands of dollars)
Non-Residential Total
New York
Westchester 11,429 1,003,191 1,170,354 167,163
11,429Total 1,170,354 1,003,191 167,163
11,429Study Region Total 1,170,354 1,003,191 167,163
Page 11 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Hazus-MH: Hurricane Event Report
Region Name:
Hurricane Scenario:
Print Date: Monday, September 09, 2013
TOM-Hurricane
Disclaimer:
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific Hurricane. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory data.
Probabilistic 500-year Return Period
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building Inventory 4
3
General Building Stock
Essential Facility Inventory
Hurricane Scenario Parameters 5
Building Damage 6
General Building Stock
Essential Facilities Damage
Induced Hurricane Damage 8
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Economic Loss
8
Building Losses
Appendix A : County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
9
10
11
Page 2 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
General Description of the Region
- New York
Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide
a methodology and software application to develop multi -hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates
would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from
multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.
The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the
following state(s):
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region .
The geographical size of the region is 3.56 square miles and contains 2 census tracts. There are over 4
thousand households in the region and has a total population of 11 ,429 people (2000 Census Bureau data). The
distribution of population by State and County is provided in Appendix B .
There are an estimated 3 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding
contents) of 1,170 million dollars (2006 dollars). Approximately 90% of the buildings (and 86% of the building
value) are associated with residential housing.
Page 3 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
General Building Stock
Building Inventory
Hazus estimates that there are 3,744 buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of
1,170 million (2006 dollars). Table 1 presents the relative distribution of the value with respect to the general
occupancies. Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County.
1,170,354
1,003,191
130,641
13,482
17,919
2,711
2,410
0
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Religious
Government
Education
Total
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Tot
85.7%
0.2%
11.2%
0.2%
0.0%
1.2%
1.5%
100.0%
Table 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type
Essential Facility Inventory
For essential facilities, there are no hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of no beds. There are 4
schools, 1 fire stations, no police stations and no emergency operation facilities.
Page 4 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Hurricane Scenario
Hazus used the following set of information to define the hurricane parameters for the hurricane loss estimate
provided in this report.
ProbabilisticScenario Name:
Type:Probabilistic
Page 5 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Building Damage
General Building Stock Damage
Hazus estimates that about 180 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 5% of the total
number of buildings in the region. There are an estimated 3 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The
definition of the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 6 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual .
Table 2 below summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 3
summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy : 500 - year Event
None DestructionSevereModerateMinor
Occupancy (%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
0 0 1 2 11Agriculture 0.26 2.11 16.34 4.36 76.93
0 2 10 39 233Commercial 0.00 0.65 13.73 3.65 81.97
0 0 0 1 5Education 0.00 0.11 13.62 2.61 83.66
0 0 0 0 0Government 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0 2 6 40Industrial 0.03 0.52 13.15 3.18 83.11
0 0 0 2 12Religion 0.00 0.11 15.03 2.39 82.47
3 6 156 672 2,541Residential 0.08 0.17 19.91 4.62 75.22
3 8 169 723 2,841Total
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Building Type : 500 - year Event
Building
Type
None DestructionSevereModerateMinor
(%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
Concrete 61 12 3 0 0 80.36 15.25 0.00 0.09 4.30
Masonry 451 117 69 1 0 70.63 18.36 0.06 0.19 10.77
MH 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Steel 136 20 7 2 0 82.39 12.32 0.01 1.06 4.22
Wood 2,210 570 80 5 2 77.07 19.88 0.08 0.18 2.80
Page 6 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Essential Facility Damage
Before the hurricane, the region had no hospital beds available for use. On the day of the hurricane, the model
estimates that 0 hospital beds (0%) are available for use. After one week, none of the beds will be in service .
By 30 days, none will be operational.
Table 4: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Classification
Expected
Loss of Use
< 1 day
# Facilities
Probability of
Complete
Damage > 50%
Probability of at
Least Moderate
Damage > 50%Total
1 0 1 0Fire Stations
0 0 4 0Schools
Page 7 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Induced Hurricane Damage
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the hurricane. The model breaks the debris into
four general categories: a) Brick/Wood, b) Reinforced Concrete /Steel, c) Eligible Tree Debris, and d) Other Tree
Debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle
the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 5,145 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, 731 tons (14%)
is Other Tree Debris. Of the remaining 4,414 tons, Brick/Wood comprises 59% of the total, Reinforced
Concrete/Steel comprises of 0% of the total, with the remainder being Eligible Tree Debris. If the building debris
tonnage is converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 104 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to
remove the building debris generated by the hurricane. The number of Eligible Tree Debris truckloads will
depend on how the 1,803 tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed. The volume of tree debris
generally ranges from about 4 cubic yards per ton for chipped or compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards
per ton for bulkier, uncompacted debris.
Social Impact
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the
hurricane and the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters .
The model estimates 37 households to be displaced due to the hurricane. Of these, 7 people (out of a total
population of 11 ,429) will seek temporary shelter in public shelters.
Page 8 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the hurricane is 26.6 million dollars, which represents 2.27 % of the total
replacement value of the region’s buildings .
Building-Related Losses
The building related losses are broken into two categories: direct property damage losses and business
interruption losses. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage
caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability
to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the hurricane. Business interruption losses also
include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the hurricane.
The total property damage losses were 27 million dollars. 1% of the estimated losses were related to the
business interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which
made up over 93% of the total loss. Table 4 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the
building damage.
Table 5: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Thousands of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialResidentialAreaCategory
Property Damage
838.74 78.03 166.01 20,326.00Building 19,243.22
192.54 34.73 35.93 4,253.49Content 3,990.28
5.43 3.78 1.68 10.89Inventory 0.00
23,233.50 1,036.71 116.54Subtotal 24,590.37 203.62
Business Interruption Loss
131.37 1.43 23.52 156.31Income 0.00
143.62 6.77 26.32 1,057.44Relocation 880.73
83.62 0.93 2.04 613.30Rental 526.71
121.36 1.83 55.29 178.48Wage 0.00
1,407.44 479.96 10.96Subtotal 2,005.53 107.17
24,640.94 1,516.67 127.49Total 26,595.90
Total
310.79
Page 9 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
New York
Westchester-
Page 10 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
ResidentialPopulation
Building Value (thousands of dollars)
Non-Residential Total
New York
Westchester 11,429 1,003,191 1,170,354 167,163
11,429Total 1,170,354 1,003,191 167,163
11,429Study Region Total 1,170,354 1,003,191 167,163
Page 11 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Hazus-MH: Hurricane Event Report
Region Name:
Hurricane Scenario:
Print Date: Monday, September 09, 2013
TOM-Hurricane
Disclaimer:
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific Hurricane. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory data.
Probabilistic 1000-year Return Period
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building Inventory 4
3
General Building Stock
Essential Facility Inventory
Hurricane Scenario Parameters 5
Building Damage 6
General Building Stock
Essential Facilities Damage
Induced Hurricane Damage 8
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Economic Loss
8
Building Losses
Appendix A : County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
9
10
11
Page 2 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
General Description of the Region
- New York
Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide
a methodology and software application to develop multi -hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates
would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from
multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.
The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the
following state(s):
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region .
The geographical size of the region is 3.56 square miles and contains 2 census tracts. There are over 4
thousand households in the region and has a total population of 11 ,429 people (2000 Census Bureau data). The
distribution of population by State and County is provided in Appendix B .
There are an estimated 3 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding
contents) of 1,170 million dollars (2006 dollars). Approximately 90% of the buildings (and 86% of the building
value) are associated with residential housing.
Page 3 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
General Building Stock
Building Inventory
Hazus estimates that there are 3,744 buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of
1,170 million (2006 dollars). Table 1 presents the relative distribution of the value with respect to the general
occupancies. Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County.
1,170,354
1,003,191
130,641
13,482
17,919
2,711
2,410
0
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Religious
Government
Education
Total
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Tot
85.7%
0.2%
11.2%
0.2%
0.0%
1.2%
1.5%
100.0%
Table 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type
Essential Facility Inventory
For essential facilities, there are no hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of no beds. There are 4
schools, 1 fire stations, no police stations and no emergency operation facilities.
Page 4 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Hurricane Scenario
Hazus used the following set of information to define the hurricane parameters for the hurricane loss estimate
provided in this report.
ProbabilisticScenario Name:
Type:Probabilistic
Page 5 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Building Damage
General Building Stock Damage
Hazus estimates that about 427 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 11% of the total
number of buildings in the region. There are an estimated 16 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The
definition of the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 6 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual .
Table 2 below summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 3
summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy : 1000 - year Event
None DestructionSevereModerateMinor
Occupancy (%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
0 1 1 4 8Agriculture 0.76 4.77 26.11 10.03 58.33
0 6 30 65 183Commercial 0.02 2.12 22.91 10.68 64.26
0 0 1 1 4Education 0.00 0.99 23.08 9.61 66.32
0 0 0 0 0Government 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 1 5 11 31Industrial 0.10 2.00 21.91 10.52 65.47
0 0 1 4 9Religion 0.00 0.77 25.38 8.39 65.45
16 30 335 1,028 1,970Residential 0.47 0.88 30.43 9.91 58.31
16 37 373 1,112 2,205Total
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Building Type : 1000 - year Event
Building
Type
None DestructionSevereModerateMinor
(%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
Concrete 47 18 11 1 0 61.41 23.53 0.00 0.95 14.12
Masonry 342 166 122 6 2 53.53 26.05 0.32 0.95 19.15
MH 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Steel 106 33 20 5 0 64.46 20.24 0.04 3.19 12.07
Wood 1,727 896 207 25 14 60.20 31.23 0.48 0.87 7.21
Page 6 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Essential Facility Damage
Before the hurricane, the region had no hospital beds available for use. On the day of the hurricane, the model
estimates that 0 hospital beds (0%) are available for use. After one week, none of the beds will be in service .
By 30 days, none will be operational.
Table 4: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Classification
Expected
Loss of Use
< 1 day
# Facilities
Probability of
Complete
Damage > 50%
Probability of at
Least Moderate
Damage > 50%Total
1 0 1 0Fire Stations
0 0 4 0Schools
Page 7 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Induced Hurricane Damage
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the hurricane. The model breaks the debris into
four general categories: a) Brick/Wood, b) Reinforced Concrete /Steel, c) Eligible Tree Debris, and d) Other Tree
Debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle
the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 10,475 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, 1,500 tons
(14%) is Other Tree Debris. Of the remaining 8,975 tons, Brick/Wood comprises 57% of the total, Reinforced
Concrete/Steel comprises of 1% of the total, with the remainder being Eligible Tree Debris. If the building debris
tonnage is converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 208 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to
remove the building debris generated by the hurricane. The number of Eligible Tree Debris truckloads will
depend on how the 3,774 tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed. The volume of tree debris
generally ranges from about 4 cubic yards per ton for chipped or compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards
per ton for bulkier, uncompacted debris.
Social Impact
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the
hurricane and the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters .
The model estimates 89 households to be displaced due to the hurricane. Of these, 17 people (out of a total
population of 11 ,429) will seek temporary shelter in public shelters.
Page 8 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the hurricane is 60.6 million dollars, which represents 5.18 % of the total
replacement value of the region’s buildings .
Building-Related Losses
The building related losses are broken into two categories: direct property damage losses and business
interruption losses. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage
caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability
to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the hurricane. Business interruption losses also
include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the hurricane.
The total property damage losses were 61 million dollars. 1% of the estimated losses were related to the
business interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which
made up over 92% of the total loss. Table 4 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the
building damage.
Table 5: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Thousands of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialResidentialAreaCategory
Property Damage
2,101.39 217.31 387.02 42,668.77Building 39,963.04
686.55 121.13 110.88 12,585.45Content 11,666.89
18.10 12.59 4.46 35.14Inventory 0.00
51,629.93 2,806.03 351.03Subtotal 55,289.36 502.36
Business Interruption Loss
169.65 2.36 28.50 200.65Income 0.15
386.18 21.98 63.98 3,364.10Relocation 2,891.95
216.98 2.56 4.60 1,511.82Rental 1,287.68
169.14 3.03 66.64 239.15Wage 0.35
4,180.13 941.94 29.92Subtotal 5,315.72 163.72
55,810.06 3,747.98 380.96Total 60,605.07
Total
666.08
Page 9 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
New York
Westchester-
Page 10 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
ResidentialPopulation
Building Value (thousands of dollars)
Non-Residential Total
New York
Westchester 11,429 1,003,191 1,170,354 167,163
11,429Total 1,170,354 1,003,191 167,163
11,429Study Region Total 1,170,354 1,003,191 167,163
Page 11 of 11Hurricane Event Summary Report
ETG, Inc.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3.2 Earthquake Event Report
3.2.1 Historical Model Event Report
3.2.2 Probabilistic Model Event Report
(100 Year Return Period)
(500 Year Return Period)
(1000 Year Return Period)
Hazus-MH: Earthquake Event Report
Region Name:
Earthquake Scenario:
Print Date:
Disclaimer:
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground
motion data.
TOM-Earthquake
HistoricalNYEpienter4582
September 09, 2013
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user’s study region.
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building and Lifeline Inventory 4
3
Building Inventory
Critical Facility Inventory
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Earthquake Scenario Parameters 6
Direct Earthquake Damage 7
Buildings Damage
Critical Facilities Damage
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Induced Earthquake Damage 11
Fire Following Earthquake
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Casualties
Economic Loss
12
Building Losses
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
Long-term Indirect Economic Impacts
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
13
Page 2 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software
application to develop earthquake losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state
and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from earthquakes and to prepare for emergency response
and recovery.
The earthquake loss estimates provided in this report was based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the following
state(s):
General Description of the Region
New York
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region.
The geographical size of the region is 3.56 square miles and contains 2 census tracts. There are over 4 thousand
households in the region which has a total population of 11,429 people (2002 Census Bureau data). The distribution of
population by State and County is provided in Appendix B.
There are an estimated 3 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of
1,170 (millions of dollars). Approximately 90.00 % of the buildings (and 86.00% of the building value) are associated with
residential housing.
The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be 253 and 0 (millions of dollars) ,
respectively.
Page 3 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus estimates that there are 3 thousand buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 1,170
(millions of dollars) . Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County.
Building and Lifeline Inventory
Building Inventory
In terms of building construction types found in the region, wood frame construction makes up 77% of the building inventory.
The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types.
Critical Facility Inventory
Hazus breaks critical facilities into two (2) groups: essential facilities and high potential loss facilities (HPL). Essential
facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. High
potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites.
For essential facilities, there are 0 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 0 beds. There are 4 schools, 1 fire
stations, 0 police stations and 0 emergency operation facilities. With respect to high potential loss facilities (HPL), there
are 1 dams identified within the region. Of these, 0 of the dams are classified as ‘high hazard’. The inventory also includes
0 hazardous material sites, 0 military installations and 0 nuclear power plants.
Within Hazus, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven (7)
transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry and airports. There are six (6) utility
systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power and communications. The
lifeline inventory data are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 253.00 (millions of dollars). This inventory includes over 20 kilometers of
highways, 13 bridges, 147 kilometers of pipes.
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Page 4 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 1: Transportation System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations/
# Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Bridges 13 91.70 Highway
Segments 9 153.40
Tunnels 0 0.00
245.10 Subtotal
Bridges 0 0.00 Railways
Facilities 0 0.00
Segments 1 8.10
Tunnels 0 0.00
8.10 Subtotal
Bridges 0 0.00 Light Rail
Facilities 0 0.00
Segments 0 0.00
Tunnels 0 0.00
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Bus
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Ferry
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Port
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Airport
Runways 0 0.00
0.00 Subtotal
Total 253.20
Page 5 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 2: Utility System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations /
Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Potable Water Distribution Lines 1.50 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 1.50
Waste Water Distribution Lines 0.90 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.90
Natural Gas Distribution Lines 0.60 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.60
Oil Systems Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Electrical Power Facilities 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Communication Facilities 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Total 3.00
Page 6 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Earthquake Scenario
Hazus uses the following set of information to define the earthquake parameters used for the earthquake loss estimate
provided in this report.
Scenario Name
Latitude of Epicenter
Earthquake Magnitude
Depth (Km)
Attenuation Function
Type of Earthquake
Fault Name
Historical Epicenter ID #
Longitude of Epicenter
Probabilistic Return Period
Rupture Length (Km)
Rupture Orientation (degrees)
HistoricalNYEpienter4582
Historical
NA
NA
NA
Central & East US (CEUS 2008)
10.00
5.20
44.03
-74.31
NA
4582
Page 7 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Building Damage
Hazus estimates that about 0 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 0.00 % of the buildings in the
region. There are an estimated 0 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. The definition of the ‘damage states’ is
provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus technical manual. Table 3 below summarizes the expected damage by
general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4 below summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Building Damage
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
None Slight
Count (%)Count
Moderate Extensive
(%)Count
Complete
(%)Count Count (%)(%)
Agriculture 14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0 0 0
Commercial 284 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.59 0 0 0
Education 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0 0 0
Government 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Industrial 48 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 0 0 0
Other Residential 343 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.16 0 0 0
Religion 14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0 0 0
Single Family 3,035 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.06 0 0 0
Total 3,744 0 0 0 0
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Design Levels)
Extensive
Count
Complete
(%)Count(%)Count
Moderate
(%)Count
Slight
(%)Count
None
(%)
Wood 2,867 0 0 0 0 76.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Steel 165 0 0 0 0 4.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Concrete 65 0 0 0 0 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Precast 11 0 0 0 0 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RM 59 0 0 0 0 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
URM 576 0 0 0 0 15.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MH 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total
*Note:
RM Reinforced Masonry
URM Unreinforced Masonry
Manufactured HousingMH
0 3,744 0 0 0
Page 8 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the region had 0 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates
that only 0 hospital beds (0.00%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the
earthquake. After one week, 0.00% of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 0.00% will be operational.
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Total
Damage > 50%
At Least Moderate
# Facilities
Complete
Damage > 50%
Classification With Functionality
> 50% on day 1
Hospitals 0 0 0 0
Schools 4 0 0 4
EOCs 0 0 0 0
PoliceStations 0 0 0 0
FireStations 1 0 0 1
Page 9 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Table 6 provides damage estimates for the transportation system.
Table 6: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems
Number of Locations
Locations/With at Least
After Day 7After Day 1
With Functionality > 50 %
Damage
With CompleteSystemComponent
Mod. DamageSegments
Highway Segments 9 0 0 9 9
Bridges 13 0 0 13 13
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Railways Segments 1 0 0 1 1
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Light Rail Segments 0 0 0 0 0
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Bus Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Ferry Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Port Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Airport Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Runways 0 0 0 0 0
Tables 7-9 provide information on the damage to the utility lifeline systems. Table 7 provides damage to the utility system
facilities. Table 8 provides estimates on the number of leaks and breaks by the pipelines of the utility systems. For electric
power and potable water, Hazus performs a simplified system performance analysis. Table 9 provides a summary of the
system performance information.
Note: Roadway segments, railroad tracks and light rail tracks are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only. If ground
failure maps are not provided, damage estimates to these components will not be computed.
Page 10 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 7 : Expected Utility System Facility Damage
With at Least with Functionality > 50 %
After Day 7After Day 1
With Complete
Damage
System
# of Locations
Moderate Damage
Total #
Potable Water 0 0 0 0 0
Waste Water 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
Oil Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Electrical Power 0 0 0 0 0
Communication 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8 : Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific)
System
Breaks
Number of
Leaks
Number of
Length (kms)
Total Pipelines
Potable Water 74 0 0
Waste Water 44 0 0
Natural Gas 30 0 0
Oil 0 0 0
Potable Water
Electric Power
Total # of
Households At Day 3 At Day 7 At Day 30
Number of Households without Service
Table 9: Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance
At Day 90
4,269 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
At Day 1
Page 11 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Fire Following Earthquake
Fires often occur after an earthquake. Because of the number of fires and the lack of water to fight the fires, they can often
burn out of control. Hazus uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the number of ignitions and the amount of burnt
area. For this scenario, the model estimates that there will be 0 ignitions that will burn about 0.00 sq. mi 0.00 % of the
region’s total area.) The model also estimates that the fires will displace about 0 people and burn about 0 (millions of
dollars) of building value.
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the earthquake. The model breaks the debris into two
general categories: a) Brick/Wood and b) Reinforced Concrete/Steel. This distinction is made because of the different types
of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 0.00 million tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Brick/Wood comprises
0.00% of the total, with the remainder being Reinforced Concrete/Steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to an estimated
number of truckloads, it will require 0 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake.
Induced Earthquake Damage
Page 12 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake and
the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 0
households to be displaced due to the earthquake. Of these, 0 people (out of a total population of 11,429) will seek
temporary shelter in public shelters.
Casualties
Hazus estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The casualties are broken down
into four (4) severity levels that describe the extent of the injuries. The levels are described as follows;
· Severity Level 1:Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed.
· Severity Level 2:Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening
· Severity Level 3:Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not
promptly treated.
· Severity Level 4:Victims are killed by the earthquake.
The casualty estimates are provided for three (3) times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These times represent the
periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate
considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial
and industrial sector loads are maximum and 5:00 PM represents peak commute time.
Table 10 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for this earthquake
Social Impact
Page 13 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 10: Casualty Estimates
Level 4Level 3Level 2Level 1
0Commercial 0 0 02 AM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
0Single Family 0 0 0
0 0 0 0Total
0Commercial 0 0 02 PM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
0Single Family 0 0 0
0 0 0 0Total
0Commercial 0 0 05 PM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
0Single Family 0 0 0
0 0 0 0Total
Page 14 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the earthquake is 0.00 (millions of dollars), which includes building and lifeline related
losses based on the region's available inventory. The following three sections provide more detailed information about these
losses.
Building-Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct
building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The
business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained
during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced
from their homes because of the earthquake.
The total building-related losses were 0.00 (millions of dollars); 0 % of the estimated losses were related to the business
interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 0 % of
the total loss. Table 11 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Table 11: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialOther
Residential
Area Single
Family
Category
Income Losses
Wage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capital-Related 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rental 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Relocation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capital Stock Losses
Structural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Non_Structural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Content 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Inventory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 15 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
For the transportation and utility lifeline systems, Hazus computes the direct repair cost for each component only. There are
no losses computed by Hazus for business interruption due to lifeline outages. Tables 12 & 13 provide a detailed breakdown
in the expected lifeline losses.
Hazus estimates the long-term economic impacts to the region for 15 years after the earthquake. The model quantifies this
information in terms of income and employment changes within the region. Table 14 presents the results of the region for
the given earthquake.
Table 12: Transportation System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
System Loss Ratio (%)Economic LossInventory ValueComponent
Highway Segments 153.39 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 91.70 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
245.10 Subtotal 0.00
Railways Segments 8.12 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
8.10 Subtotal 0.00
Light Rail Segments 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Bus Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Ferry Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Port Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Airport Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Runways 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
253.20 Total 0.00
Page 16 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 13: Utility System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
Component Inventory Value Economic LossSystem Loss Ratio (%)
Potable Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
1.50 Distribution Lines 0.00$0.00
1.48 Subtotal $0.00
Waste Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.90 Distribution Lines 0.00$0.00
0.89 Subtotal $0.00
Natural Gas 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.60 Distribution Lines 0.00$0.00
0.59 Subtotal $0.00
Oil Systems 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Electrical Power 0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Communication 0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Total 2.96 $0.00
Table 14. Indirect Economic Impact with outside aid
(Employment as # of people and Income in millions of $)
LOSS Total %
Page 17 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Westchester,NY
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Page 18 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
TotalNon-ResidentialResidential
Building Value (millions of dollars)
PopulationCounty NameState
New York
Westchester 11,429 1,003 167 1,170
11,429 1,003 167 1,170Total State
Total Region 11,429 1,003 167 1,170
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
Page 19 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus-MH: Earthquake Event Report
Region Name:
Earthquake Scenario:
Print Date:
Disclaimer:
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground
motion data.
TOM-Earthquake
probabilistic 100yr
September 09, 2013
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user’s study region.
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building and Lifeline Inventory 4
3
Building Inventory
Critical Facility Inventory
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Earthquake Scenario Parameters 6
Direct Earthquake Damage 7
Buildings Damage
Critical Facilities Damage
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Induced Earthquake Damage 11
Fire Following Earthquake
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Casualties
Economic Loss
12
Building Losses
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
Long-term Indirect Economic Impacts
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
13
Page 2 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software
application to develop earthquake losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state
and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from earthquakes and to prepare for emergency response
and recovery.
The earthquake loss estimates provided in this report was based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the following
state(s):
General Description of the Region
New York
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region.
The geographical size of the region is 3.56 square miles and contains 2 census tracts. There are over 4 thousand
households in the region which has a total population of 11 ,429 people (2002 Census Bureau data). The distribution of
population by State and County is provided in Appendix B.
There are an estimated 3 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of
1,170 (millions of dollars). Approximately 90.00 % of the buildings (and 86.00% of the building value) are associated with
residential housing.
The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be 253 and 0 (millions of dollars) ,
respectively.
Page 3 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus estimates that there are 3 thousand buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 1,170
(millions of dollars) . Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County.
Building and Lifeline Inventory
Building Inventory
In terms of building construction types found in the region, wood frame construction makes up 77% of the building inventory.
The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types.
Critical Facility Inventory
Hazus breaks critical facilities into two (2) groups: essential facilities and high potential loss facilities (HPL). Essential
facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. High
potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites.
For essential facilities, there are 0 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 0 beds. There are 4 schools, 1 fire
stations, 0 police stations and 0 emergency operation facilities. With respect to high potential loss facilities (HPL), there
are 1 dams identified within the region. Of these, 0 of the dams are classified as ‘high hazard’. The inventory also includes
0 hazardous material sites, 0 military installations and 0 nuclear power plants.
Within Hazus, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven (7)
transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry and airports. There are six (6) utility
systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power and communications. The
lifeline inventory data are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 253.00 (millions of dollars). This inventory includes over 20 kilometers of
highways, 13 bridges, 147 kilometers of pipes.
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Page 4 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 1: Transportation System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations/
# Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Bridges 13 91.70 Highway
Segments 9 153.40
Tunnels 0 0.00
245.10 Subtotal
Bridges 0 0.00 Railways
Facilities 0 0.00
Segments 1 8.10
Tunnels 0 0.00
8.10 Subtotal
Bridges 0 0.00 Light Rail
Facilities 0 0.00
Segments 0 0.00
Tunnels 0 0.00
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Bus
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Ferry
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Port
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Airport
Runways 0 0.00
0.00 Subtotal
Total 253.20
Page 5 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 2: Utility System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations /
Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Potable Water Distribution Lines 1.50 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 1.50
Waste Water Distribution Lines 0.90 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.90
Natural Gas Distribution Lines 0.60 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.60
Oil Systems Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Electrical Power Facilities 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Communication Facilities 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Total 3.00
Page 6 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Earthquake Scenario
Hazus uses the following set of information to define the earthquake parameters used for the earthquake loss estimate
provided in this report.
Scenario Name
Latitude of Epicenter
Earthquake Magnitude
Depth (Km)
Attenuation Function
Type of Earthquake
Fault Name
Historical Epicenter ID #
Longitude of Epicenter
Probabilistic Return Period
Rupture Length (Km)
Rupture Orientation (degrees)
probabilistic 100yr
Probabilistic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
NA
100.00
NA
Page 7 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Building Damage
Hazus estimates that about 0 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 0.00 % of the buildings in the
region. There are an estimated 0 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. The definition of the ‘damage states’ is
provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus technical manual. Table 3 below summarizes the expected damage by
general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4 below summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Building Damage
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
None Slight
Count (%)Count
Moderate Extensive
(%)Count
Complete
(%)Count Count (%)(%)
Agriculture 14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0 0 0
Commercial 284 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.59 0 0 0
Education 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0 0 0
Government 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Industrial 48 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 0 0 0
Other Residential 343 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.16 0 0 0
Religion 14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0 0 0
Single Family 3,035 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.06 0 0 0
Total 3,744 0 0 0 0
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Design Levels)
Extensive
Count
Complete
(%)Count(%)Count
Moderate
(%)Count
Slight
(%)Count
None
(%)
Wood 2,867 0 0 0 0 76.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Steel 165 0 0 0 0 4.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Concrete 65 0 0 0 0 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Precast 11 0 0 0 0 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RM 59 0 0 0 0 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
URM 576 0 0 0 0 15.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MH 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total
*Note:
RM Reinforced Masonry
URM Unreinforced Masonry
Manufactured HousingMH
0 3,744 0 0 0
Page 8 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the region had 0 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates
that only 0 hospital beds (0.00%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the
earthquake. After one week, 0.00% of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 0.00% will be operational.
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Total
Damage > 50%
At Least Moderate
# Facilities
Complete
Damage > 50%
Classification With Functionality
> 50% on day 1
Hospitals 0 0 0 0
Schools 4 0 0 4
EOCs 0 0 0 0
PoliceStations 0 0 0 0
FireStations 1 0 0 1
Page 9 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Table 6 provides damage estimates for the transportation system.
Table 6: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems
Number of Locations
Locations/With at Least
After Day 7After Day 1
With Functionality > 50 %
Damage
With CompleteSystemComponent
Mod. DamageSegments
Highway Segments 9 0 0 9 9
Bridges 13 0 0 13 13
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Railways Segments 1 0 0 1 1
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Light Rail Segments 0 0 0 0 0
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Bus Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Ferry Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Port Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Airport Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Runways 0 0 0 0 0
Tables 7-9 provide information on the damage to the utility lifeline systems. Table 7 provides damage to the utility system
facilities. Table 8 provides estimates on the number of leaks and breaks by the pipelines of the utility systems. For electric
power and potable water, Hazus performs a simplified system performance analysis. Table 9 provides a summary of the
system performance information.
Note: Roadway segments, railroad tracks and light rail tracks are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only. If ground
failure maps are not provided, damage estimates to these components will not be computed.
Page 10 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 7 : Expected Utility System Facility Damage
With at Least with Functionality > 50 %
After Day 7After Day 1
With Complete
Damage
System
# of Locations
Moderate Damage
Total #
Potable Water 0 0 0 0 0
Waste Water 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
Oil Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Electrical Power 0 0 0 0 0
Communication 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8 : Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific)
System
Breaks
Number of
Leaks
Number of
Length (kms)
Total Pipelines
Potable Water 74 0 0
Waste Water 44 0 0
Natural Gas 30 0 0
Oil 0 0 0
Potable Water
Electric Power
Total # of
Households At Day 3 At Day 7 At Day 30
Number of Households without Service
Table 9: Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance
At Day 90
4,269 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
At Day 1
Page 11 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Fire Following Earthquake
Fires often occur after an earthquake. Because of the number of fires and the lack of water to fight the fires, they can often
burn out of control. Hazus uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the number of ignitions and the amount of burnt
area. For this scenario, the model estimates that there will be 0 ignitions that will burn about 0.00 sq. mi 0.00 % of the
region’s total area.) The model also estimates that the fires will displace about 0 people and burn about 0 (millions of
dollars) of building value.
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the earthquake. The model breaks the debris into two
general categories: a) Brick/Wood and b) Reinforced Concrete/Steel. This distinction is made because of the different types
of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 0.00 million tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Brick/Wood comprises
0.00% of the total, with the remainder being Reinforced Concrete/Steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to an estimated
number of truckloads, it will require 0 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake.
Induced Earthquake Damage
Page 12 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake and
the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 0
households to be displaced due to the earthquake. Of these, 0 people (out of a total population of 11 ,429) will seek
temporary shelter in public shelters.
Casualties
Hazus estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The casualties are broken down
into four (4) severity levels that describe the extent of the injuries. The levels are described as follows;
· Severity Level 1:Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed.
· Severity Level 2:Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening
· Severity Level 3:Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not
promptly treated.
· Severity Level 4:Victims are killed by the earthquake.
The casualty estimates are provided for three (3) times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These times represent the
periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate
considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial
and industrial sector loads are maximum and 5:00 PM represents peak commute time.
Table 10 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for this earthquake
Social Impact
Page 13 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 10: Casualty Estimates
Level 4Level 3Level 2Level 1
0Commercial 0 0 02 AM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
0Single Family 0 0 0
0 0 0 0Total
0Commercial 0 0 02 PM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
0Single Family 0 0 0
0 0 0 0Total
0Commercial 0 0 05 PM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
0Single Family 0 0 0
0 0 0 0Total
Page 14 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the earthquake is 0.00 (millions of dollars), which includes building and lifeline related
losses based on the region's available inventory. The following three sections provide more detailed information about these
losses.
Building-Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct
building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The
business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained
during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced
from their homes because of the earthquake.
The total building-related losses were 0.00 (millions of dollars); 0 % of the estimated losses were related to the business
interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 0 % of
the total loss. Table 11 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Table 11: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialOther
Residential
Area Single
Family
Category
Income Losses
Wage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capital-Related 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rental 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Relocation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capital Stock Losses
Structural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Non_Structural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Content 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Inventory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 15 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
For the transportation and utility lifeline systems, Hazus computes the direct repair cost for each component only. There are
no losses computed by Hazus for business interruption due to lifeline outages. Tables 12 & 13 provide a detailed breakdown
in the expected lifeline losses.
Hazus estimates the long-term economic impacts to the region for 15 years after the earthquake. The model quantifies this
information in terms of income and employment changes within the region. Table 14 presents the results of the region for
the given earthquake.
Table 12: Transportation System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
System Loss Ratio (%)Economic LossInventory ValueComponent
Highway Segments 153.39 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 91.70 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
245.10 Subtotal 0.00
Railways Segments 8.12 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
8.10 Subtotal 0.00
Light Rail Segments 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Bus Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Ferry Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Port Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Airport Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Runways 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
253.20 Total 0.00
Page 16 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 13: Utility System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
Component Inventory Value Economic LossSystem Loss Ratio (%)
Potable Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
1.50 Distribution Lines 0.00$0.00
1.48 Subtotal $0.00
Waste Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.90 Distribution Lines 0.00$0.00
0.89 Subtotal $0.00
Natural Gas 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.60 Distribution Lines 0.00$0.00
0.59 Subtotal $0.00
Oil Systems 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Electrical Power 0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Communication 0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Total 2.96 $0.00
Table 14. Indirect Economic Impact with outside aid
(Employment as # of people and Income in millions of $)
LOSS Total %
Page 17 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Westchester,NY
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Page 18 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
TotalNon-ResidentialResidential
Building Value (millions of dollars)
PopulationCounty NameState
New York
Westchester 11,429 1,003 167 1,170
11,429 1,003 167 1,170Total State
Total Region 11,429 1,003 167 1,170
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
Page 19 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus-MH: Earthquake Event Report
Region Name:
Earthquake Scenario:
Print Date:
Disclaimer:
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground
motion data.
TOM-Earthquake
Probabilistic 500yr
September 09, 2013
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user’s study region.
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building and Lifeline Inventory 4
3
Building Inventory
Critical Facility Inventory
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Earthquake Scenario Parameters 6
Direct Earthquake Damage 7
Buildings Damage
Critical Facilities Damage
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Induced Earthquake Damage 11
Fire Following Earthquake
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Casualties
Economic Loss
12
Building Losses
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
Long-term Indirect Economic Impacts
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
13
Page 2 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software
application to develop earthquake losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state
and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from earthquakes and to prepare for emergency response
and recovery.
The earthquake loss estimates provided in this report was based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the following
state(s):
General Description of the Region
New York
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region.
The geographical size of the region is 3.56 square miles and contains 2 census tracts. There are over 4 thousand
households in the region which has a total population of 11 ,429 people (2002 Census Bureau data). The distribution of
population by State and County is provided in Appendix B.
There are an estimated 3 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of
1,170 (millions of dollars). Approximately 90.00 % of the buildings (and 86.00% of the building value) are associated with
residential housing.
The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be 253 and 0 (millions of dollars) ,
respectively.
Page 3 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus estimates that there are 3 thousand buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 1,170
(millions of dollars) . Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County.
Building and Lifeline Inventory
Building Inventory
In terms of building construction types found in the region, wood frame construction makes up 77% of the building inventory.
The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types.
Critical Facility Inventory
Hazus breaks critical facilities into two (2) groups: essential facilities and high potential loss facilities (HPL). Essential
facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. High
potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites.
For essential facilities, there are 0 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 0 beds. There are 4 schools, 1 fire
stations, 0 police stations and 0 emergency operation facilities. With respect to high potential loss facilities (HPL), there
are 1 dams identified within the region. Of these, 0 of the dams are classified as ‘high hazard’. The inventory also includes
0 hazardous material sites, 0 military installations and 0 nuclear power plants.
Within Hazus, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven (7)
transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry and airports. There are six (6) utility
systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power and communications. The
lifeline inventory data are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 253.00 (millions of dollars). This inventory includes over 20 kilometers of
highways, 13 bridges, 147 kilometers of pipes.
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Page 4 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 1: Transportation System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations/
# Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Bridges 13 91.70 Highway
Segments 9 153.40
Tunnels 0 0.00
245.10 Subtotal
Bridges 0 0.00 Railways
Facilities 0 0.00
Segments 1 8.10
Tunnels 0 0.00
8.10 Subtotal
Bridges 0 0.00 Light Rail
Facilities 0 0.00
Segments 0 0.00
Tunnels 0 0.00
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Bus
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Ferry
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Port
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Airport
Runways 0 0.00
0.00 Subtotal
Total 253.20
Page 5 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 2: Utility System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations /
Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Potable Water Distribution Lines 1.50 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 1.50
Waste Water Distribution Lines 0.90 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.90
Natural Gas Distribution Lines 0.60 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.60
Oil Systems Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Electrical Power Facilities 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Communication Facilities 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Total 3.00
Page 6 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Earthquake Scenario
Hazus uses the following set of information to define the earthquake parameters used for the earthquake loss estimate
provided in this report.
Scenario Name
Latitude of Epicenter
Earthquake Magnitude
Depth (Km)
Attenuation Function
Type of Earthquake
Fault Name
Historical Epicenter ID #
Longitude of Epicenter
Probabilistic Return Period
Rupture Length (Km)
Rupture Orientation (degrees)
Probabilistic 500yr
Probabilistic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
NA
500.00
NA
Page 7 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Building Damage
Hazus estimates that about 35 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 1.00 % of the buildings in the
region. There are an estimated 0 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. The definition of the ‘damage states’ is
provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus technical manual. Table 3 below summarizes the expected damage by
general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4 below summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Building Damage
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
None Slight
Count (%)Count
Moderate Extensive
(%)Count
Complete
(%)Count Count (%)(%)
Agriculture 13 1 0.36 0.57 0.52 0.41 0.37 0 0 0
Commercial 267 12 12.56 14.79 12.95 8.71 7.49 0 1 4
Education 6 0 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.17 0.16 0 0 0
Government 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Industrial 45 2 1.78 2.27 2.17 1.41 1.27 0 0 1
Other Residential 325 13 12.78 12.83 11.74 9.67 9.11 0 0 4
Religion 13 1 0.82 0.80 0.66 0.44 0.37 0 0 0
Single Family 2,900 109 71.41 68.47 71.72 79.18 81.23 0 2 23
Total 3,570 138 32 4 0
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Design Levels)
Extensive
Count
Complete
(%)Count(%)Count
Moderate
(%)Count
Slight
(%)Count
None
(%)
Wood 2,767 88 12 1 0 77.49 64.04 36.65 15.07 0.00
Steel 157 6 2 0 0 4.40 4.43 6.64 5.62 2.83
Concrete 62 2 1 0 0 1.75 1.71 2.08 0.96 0.24
Precast 10 0 0 0 0 0.27 0.32 0.92 1.58 0.10
RM 56 2 1 0 0 1.58 1.33 3.11 3.50 0.00
URM 518 39 16 3 0 14.51 28.17 50.61 73.28 96.83
MH 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total
*Note:
RM Reinforced Masonry
URM Unreinforced Masonry
Manufactured HousingMH
138 3,570 32 4 0
Page 8 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the region had 0 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates
that only 0 hospital beds (0.00%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the
earthquake. After one week, 0.00% of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 0.00% will be operational.
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Total
Damage > 50%
At Least Moderate
# Facilities
Complete
Damage > 50%
Classification With Functionality
> 50% on day 1
Hospitals 0 0 0 0
Schools 4 0 0 4
EOCs 0 0 0 0
PoliceStations 0 0 0 0
FireStations 1 0 0 1
Page 9 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Table 6 provides damage estimates for the transportation system.
Table 6: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems
Number of Locations
Locations/With at Least
After Day 7After Day 1
With Functionality > 50 %
Damage
With CompleteSystemComponent
Mod. DamageSegments
Highway Segments 9 0 0 9 9
Bridges 13 0 0 13 13
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Railways Segments 1 0 0 1 1
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Light Rail Segments 0 0 0 0 0
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Bus Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Ferry Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Port Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Airport Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Runways 0 0 0 0 0
Tables 7-9 provide information on the damage to the utility lifeline systems. Table 7 provides damage to the utility system
facilities. Table 8 provides estimates on the number of leaks and breaks by the pipelines of the utility systems. For electric
power and potable water, Hazus performs a simplified system performance analysis. Table 9 provides a summary of the
system performance information.
Note: Roadway segments, railroad tracks and light rail tracks are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only. If ground
failure maps are not provided, damage estimates to these components will not be computed.
Page 10 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 7 : Expected Utility System Facility Damage
With at Least with Functionality > 50 %
After Day 7After Day 1
With Complete
Damage
System
# of Locations
Moderate Damage
Total #
Potable Water 0 0 0 0 0
Waste Water 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
Oil Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Electrical Power 0 0 0 0 0
Communication 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8 : Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific)
System
Breaks
Number of
Leaks
Number of
Length (kms)
Total Pipelines
Potable Water 74 0 0
Waste Water 44 0 0
Natural Gas 30 0 0
Oil 0 0 0
Potable Water
Electric Power
Total # of
Households At Day 3 At Day 7 At Day 30
Number of Households without Service
Table 9: Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance
At Day 90
4,269 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
At Day 1
Page 11 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Fire Following Earthquake
Fires often occur after an earthquake. Because of the number of fires and the lack of water to fight the fires, they can often
burn out of control. Hazus uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the number of ignitions and the amount of burnt
area. For this scenario, the model estimates that there will be 0 ignitions that will burn about 0.00 sq. mi 0.00 % of the
region’s total area.) The model also estimates that the fires will displace about 0 people and burn about 0 (millions of
dollars) of building value.
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the earthquake. The model breaks the debris into two
general categories: a) Brick/Wood and b) Reinforced Concrete/Steel. This distinction is made because of the different types
of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 0.00 million tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Brick/Wood comprises
77.00% of the total, with the remainder being Reinforced Concrete/Steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to an estimated
number of truckloads, it will require 0 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake.
Induced Earthquake Damage
Page 12 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake and
the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 1
households to be displaced due to the earthquake. Of these, 0 people (out of a total population of 11 ,429) will seek
temporary shelter in public shelters.
Casualties
Hazus estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The casualties are broken down
into four (4) severity levels that describe the extent of the injuries. The levels are described as follows;
· Severity Level 1:Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed.
· Severity Level 2:Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening
· Severity Level 3:Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not
promptly treated.
· Severity Level 4:Victims are killed by the earthquake.
The casualty estimates are provided for three (3) times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These times represent the
periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate
considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial
and industrial sector loads are maximum and 5:00 PM represents peak commute time.
Table 10 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for this earthquake
Social Impact
Page 13 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 10: Casualty Estimates
Level 4Level 3Level 2Level 1
0Commercial 0 0 02 AM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
1Single Family 0 0 0
1 0 0 0Total
0Commercial 0 0 02 PM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
0Single Family 0 0 0
0 0 0 0Total
0Commercial 0 0 05 PM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
0Single Family 0 0 0
1 0 0 0Total
Page 14 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the earthquake is 3.30 (millions of dollars), which includes building and lifeline related
losses based on the region's available inventory. The following three sections provide more detailed information about these
losses.
Building-Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct
building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The
business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained
during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced
from their homes because of the earthquake.
The total building-related losses were 3.29 (millions of dollars); 16 % of the estimated losses were related to the business
interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 74 % of
the total loss. Table 11 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Table 11: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialOther
Residential
Area Single
Family
Category
Income Losses
Wage 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00
Capital-Related 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00
Rental 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.03
Relocation 0.13 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.02
0.17 Subtotal 0.06 0.27 0.00 0.02 0.52
Capital Stock Losses
Structural 0.39 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.56 0.06
Non_Structural 1.15 0.24 0.03 0.04 1.71 0.26
Content 0.28 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.49 0.06
Inventory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
1.82 Subtotal 0.37 0.44 0.05 0.07 2.76
Total 1.99 0.43 0.71 0.06 0.09 3.29
Page 15 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
For the transportation and utility lifeline systems, Hazus computes the direct repair cost for each component only. There are
no losses computed by Hazus for business interruption due to lifeline outages. Tables 12 & 13 provide a detailed breakdown
in the expected lifeline losses.
Hazus estimates the long-term economic impacts to the region for 15 years after the earthquake. The model quantifies this
information in terms of income and employment changes within the region. Table 14 presents the results of the region for
the given earthquake.
Table 12: Transportation System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
System Loss Ratio (%)Economic LossInventory ValueComponent
Highway Segments 153.39 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 91.70 $0.01 0.01
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
245.10 Subtotal 0.00
Railways Segments 8.12 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
8.10 Subtotal 0.00
Light Rail Segments 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Bus Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Ferry Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Port Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Airport Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Runways 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
253.20 Total 0.00
Page 16 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 13: Utility System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
Component Inventory Value Economic LossSystem Loss Ratio (%)
Potable Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
1.50 Distribution Lines 0.06$0.00
1.48 Subtotal $0.00
Waste Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.90 Distribution Lines 0.05$0.00
0.89 Subtotal $0.00
Natural Gas 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.60 Distribution Lines 0.03$0.00
0.59 Subtotal $0.00
Oil Systems 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Electrical Power 0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Communication 0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Total 2.96 $0.00
Table 14. Indirect Economic Impact with outside aid
(Employment as # of people and Income in millions of $)
LOSS Total %
Page 17 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Westchester,NY
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Page 18 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
TotalNon-ResidentialResidential
Building Value (millions of dollars)
PopulationCounty NameState
New York
Westchester 11,429 1,003 167 1,170
11,429 1,003 167 1,170Total State
Total Region 11,429 1,003 167 1,170
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
Page 19 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus-MH: Earthquake Event Report
Region Name:
Earthquake Scenario:
Print Date:
Disclaimer:
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground
motion data.
TOM-Earthquake
Probabilistic 1000 yr
September 09, 2013
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user’s study region.
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building and Lifeline Inventory 4
3
Building Inventory
Critical Facility Inventory
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Earthquake Scenario Parameters 6
Direct Earthquake Damage 7
Buildings Damage
Critical Facilities Damage
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Induced Earthquake Damage 11
Fire Following Earthquake
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Casualties
Economic Loss
12
Building Losses
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
Long-term Indirect Economic Impacts
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
13
Page 2 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software
application to develop earthquake losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state
and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from earthquakes and to prepare for emergency response
and recovery.
The earthquake loss estimates provided in this report was based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the following
state(s):
General Description of the Region
New York
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region.
The geographical size of the region is 3.56 square miles and contains 2 census tracts. There are over 4 thousand
households in the region which has a total population of 11 ,429 people (2002 Census Bureau data). The distribution of
population by State and County is provided in Appendix B.
There are an estimated 3 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of
1,170 (millions of dollars). Approximately 90.00 % of the buildings (and 86.00% of the building value) are associated with
residential housing.
The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be 253 and 0 (millions of dollars) ,
respectively.
Page 3 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Hazus estimates that there are 3 thousand buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 1,170
(millions of dollars) . Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County.
Building and Lifeline Inventory
Building Inventory
In terms of building construction types found in the region, wood frame construction makes up 77% of the building inventory.
The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types.
Critical Facility Inventory
Hazus breaks critical facilities into two (2) groups: essential facilities and high potential loss facilities (HPL). Essential
facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. High
potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites.
For essential facilities, there are 0 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 0 beds. There are 4 schools, 1 fire
stations, 0 police stations and 0 emergency operation facilities. With respect to high potential loss facilities (HPL), there
are 1 dams identified within the region. Of these, 0 of the dams are classified as ‘high hazard’. The inventory also includes
0 hazardous material sites, 0 military installations and 0 nuclear power plants.
Within Hazus, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven (7)
transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry and airports. There are six (6) utility
systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power and communications. The
lifeline inventory data are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 253.00 (millions of dollars). This inventory includes over 20 kilometers of
highways, 13 bridges, 147 kilometers of pipes.
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Page 4 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 1: Transportation System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations/
# Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Bridges 13 91.70 Highway
Segments 9 153.40
Tunnels 0 0.00
245.10 Subtotal
Bridges 0 0.00 Railways
Facilities 0 0.00
Segments 1 8.10
Tunnels 0 0.00
8.10 Subtotal
Bridges 0 0.00 Light Rail
Facilities 0 0.00
Segments 0 0.00
Tunnels 0 0.00
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Bus
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Ferry
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Port
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Airport
Runways 0 0.00
0.00 Subtotal
Total 253.20
Page 5 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 2: Utility System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations /
Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Potable Water Distribution Lines 1.50 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 1.50
Waste Water Distribution Lines 0.90 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.90
Natural Gas Distribution Lines 0.60 NA
Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.60
Oil Systems Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Electrical Power Facilities 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Communication Facilities 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Total 3.00
Page 6 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Earthquake Scenario
Hazus uses the following set of information to define the earthquake parameters used for the earthquake loss estimate
provided in this report.
Scenario Name
Latitude of Epicenter
Earthquake Magnitude
Depth (Km)
Attenuation Function
Type of Earthquake
Fault Name
Historical Epicenter ID #
Longitude of Epicenter
Probabilistic Return Period
Rupture Length (Km)
Rupture Orientation (degrees)
Probabilistic 1000 yr
Probabilistic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
NA
1,000.00
NA
Page 7 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Building Damage
Hazus estimates that about 114 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 3.00 % of the buildings in the
region. There are an estimated 1 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. The definition of the ‘damage states’ is
provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus technical manual. Table 3 below summarizes the expected damage by
general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4 below summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Building Damage
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
None Slight
Count (%)Count
Moderate Extensive
(%)Count
Complete
(%)Count Count (%)(%)
Agriculture 12 1 0.44 0.66 0.54 0.41 0.36 0 0 1
Commercial 240 29 13.53 15.83 13.11 8.21 7.31 0 2 13
Education 5 1 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.17 0.16 0 0 0
Government 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Industrial 41 5 2.09 2.64 2.34 1.35 1.24 0 0 2
Other Residential 298 32 12.55 12.45 11.23 9.28 9.07 0 2 11
Religion 12 1 0.79 0.76 0.60 0.40 0.36 0 0 1
Single Family 2,674 279 70.32 67.40 71.92 80.19 81.49 1 9 72
Total 3,282 347 100 13 1
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Design Levels)
Extensive
Count
Complete
(%)Count(%)Count
Moderate
(%)Count
Slight
(%)Count
None
(%)
Wood 2,573 245 46 3 0 78.41 70.60 45.83 21.67 6.73
Steel 141 15 8 1 0 4.29 4.42 8.09 8.14 4.99
Concrete 56 6 3 0 0 1.70 1.82 2.99 1.87 1.10
Precast 9 1 1 0 0 0.26 0.26 0.75 1.43 0.21
RM 52 4 3 0 0 1.59 1.12 2.76 3.68 0.14
URM 451 76 40 9 1 13.75 21.78 39.58 63.22 86.83
MH 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total
*Note:
RM Reinforced Masonry
URM Unreinforced Masonry
Manufactured HousingMH
347 3,282 100 13 1
Page 8 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the region had 0 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates
that only 0 hospital beds (0.00%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the
earthquake. After one week, 0.00% of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 0.00% will be operational.
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Total
Damage > 50%
At Least Moderate
# Facilities
Complete
Damage > 50%
Classification With Functionality
> 50% on day 1
Hospitals 0 0 0 0
Schools 4 0 0 4
EOCs 0 0 0 0
PoliceStations 0 0 0 0
FireStations 1 0 0 1
Page 9 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Table 6 provides damage estimates for the transportation system.
Table 6: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems
Number of Locations
Locations/With at Least
After Day 7After Day 1
With Functionality > 50 %
Damage
With CompleteSystemComponent
Mod. DamageSegments
Highway Segments 9 0 0 9 9
Bridges 13 0 0 13 13
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Railways Segments 1 0 0 1 1
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Light Rail Segments 0 0 0 0 0
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Bus Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Ferry Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Port Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Airport Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Runways 0 0 0 0 0
Tables 7-9 provide information on the damage to the utility lifeline systems. Table 7 provides damage to the utility system
facilities. Table 8 provides estimates on the number of leaks and breaks by the pipelines of the utility systems. For electric
power and potable water, Hazus performs a simplified system performance analysis. Table 9 provides a summary of the
system performance information.
Note: Roadway segments, railroad tracks and light rail tracks are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only. If ground
failure maps are not provided, damage estimates to these components will not be computed.
Page 10 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 7 : Expected Utility System Facility Damage
With at Least with Functionality > 50 %
After Day 7After Day 1
With Complete
Damage
System
# of Locations
Moderate Damage
Total #
Potable Water 0 0 0 0 0
Waste Water 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
Oil Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Electrical Power 0 0 0 0 0
Communication 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8 : Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific)
System
Breaks
Number of
Leaks
Number of
Length (kms)
Total Pipelines
Potable Water 74 1 0
Waste Water 44 0 0
Natural Gas 30 0 0
Oil 0 0 0
Potable Water
Electric Power
Total # of
Households At Day 3 At Day 7 At Day 30
Number of Households without Service
Table 9: Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance
At Day 90
4,269 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
At Day 1
Page 11 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Fire Following Earthquake
Fires often occur after an earthquake. Because of the number of fires and the lack of water to fight the fires, they can often
burn out of control. Hazus uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the number of ignitions and the amount of burnt
area. For this scenario, the model estimates that there will be 0 ignitions that will burn about 0.00 sq. mi 0.00 % of the
region’s total area.) The model also estimates that the fires will displace about 0 people and burn about 0 (millions of
dollars) of building value.
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the earthquake. The model breaks the debris into two
general categories: a) Brick/Wood and b) Reinforced Concrete/Steel. This distinction is made because of the different types
of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 0.00 million tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Brick/Wood comprises
71.00% of the total, with the remainder being Reinforced Concrete/Steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to an estimated
number of truckloads, it will require 80 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake.
Induced Earthquake Damage
Page 12 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake and
the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 7
households to be displaced due to the earthquake. Of these, 3 people (out of a total population of 11 ,429) will seek
temporary shelter in public shelters.
Casualties
Hazus estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The casualties are broken down
into four (4) severity levels that describe the extent of the injuries. The levels are described as follows;
· Severity Level 1:Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed.
· Severity Level 2:Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening
· Severity Level 3:Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not
promptly treated.
· Severity Level 4:Victims are killed by the earthquake.
The casualty estimates are provided for three (3) times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These times represent the
periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate
considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial
and industrial sector loads are maximum and 5:00 PM represents peak commute time.
Table 10 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for this earthquake
Social Impact
Page 13 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 10: Casualty Estimates
Level 4Level 3Level 2Level 1
0Commercial 0 0 02 AM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
1Other-Residential 0 0 0
2Single Family 0 0 0
2 0 0 0Total
1Commercial 0 0 02 PM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
0Single Family 0 0 0
2 0 0 0Total
1Commercial 0 0 05 PM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
0Hotels 0 0 0
0Industrial 0 0 0
0Other-Residential 0 0 0
1Single Family 0 0 0
2 0 0 0Total
Page 14 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the earthquake is 12.66 (millions of dollars), which includes building and lifeline
related losses based on the region's available inventory. The following three sections provide more detailed information
about these losses.
Building-Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct
building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The
business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained
during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced
from their homes because of the earthquake.
The total building-related losses were 12.58 (millions of dollars); 14 % of the estimated losses were related to the business
interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 74 % of
the total loss. Table 11 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Table 11: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialOther
Residential
Area Single
Family
Category
Income Losses
Wage 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.31 0.01
Capital-Related 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00
Rental 0.12 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.11
Relocation 0.44 0.20 0.01 0.04 0.77 0.08
0.56 Subtotal 0.19 0.92 0.02 0.05 1.75
Capital Stock Losses
Structural 1.21 0.28 0.02 0.05 1.74 0.18
Non_Structural 4.42 0.94 0.11 0.16 6.65 1.03
Content 1.45 0.53 0.07 0.09 2.42 0.28
Inventory 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
7.07 Subtotal 1.49 1.76 0.21 0.30 10.83
Total 7.63 1.69 2.68 0.23 0.35 12.58
Page 15 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
For the transportation and utility lifeline systems, Hazus computes the direct repair cost for each component only. There are
no losses computed by Hazus for business interruption due to lifeline outages. Tables 12 & 13 provide a detailed breakdown
in the expected lifeline losses.
Hazus estimates the long-term economic impacts to the region for 15 years after the earthquake. The model quantifies this
information in terms of income and employment changes within the region. Table 14 presents the results of the region for
the given earthquake.
Table 12: Transportation System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
System Loss Ratio (%)Economic LossInventory ValueComponent
Highway Segments 153.39 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 91.70 $0.08 0.09
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
245.10 Subtotal 0.10
Railways Segments 8.12 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
8.10 Subtotal 0.00
Light Rail Segments 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Bus Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Ferry Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Port Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Airport Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Runways 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
253.20 Total 0.10
Page 16 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Table 13: Utility System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
Component Inventory Value Economic LossSystem Loss Ratio (%)
Potable Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
1.50 Distribution Lines 0.18$0.00
1.48 Subtotal $0.00
Waste Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.90 Distribution Lines 0.15$0.00
0.89 Subtotal $0.00
Natural Gas 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.60 Distribution Lines 0.07$0.00
0.59 Subtotal $0.00
Oil Systems 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Electrical Power 0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Communication 0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Total 2.96 $0.00
Table 14. Indirect Economic Impact with outside aid
(Employment as # of people and Income in millions of $)
LOSS Total %
Page 17 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
Westchester,NY
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Page 18 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
TotalNon-ResidentialResidential
Building Value (millions of dollars)
PopulationCounty NameState
New York
Westchester 11,429 1,003 167 1,170
11,429 1,003 167 1,170Total State
Total Region 11,429 1,003 167 1,170
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
Page 19 of 19Earthquake Event Summary Report
ETG, Inc.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
3.3 Flood Event Report
3.3.1 Probabilistic Model Event Report
(100 Year Return Period)
(500 Year Return Period)
Hazus-MH: Flood Event Report
Region Name:
Flood Scenario:
Print Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013
TOM-Flood
RiverineCoastalCase
Disclaimer:
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology
software which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation
technique. Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building Inventory 4
3
General Building Stock
Essential Facility Inventory
Flood Scenario Parameters 5
Building Damage 6
General Building Stock
Essential Facilities Damage
Induced Flood Damage 8
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Economic Loss
8
Building-Related Losses
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
9
10
11
Page 2 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
General Description of the Region
Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). The primary purpose of
Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi -hazard losses at a regional scale .
These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts
to reduce risks from multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.
The flood loss estimates provided in this report were based on a region that included 1 county(ies) from the
following state(s):
New York-
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region .
The geographical size of the region is 4 square miles and contains 189 census blocks. The region contains over 4
thousand households and has a total population of 11 ,429 people (2000 Census Bureau data). The distribution of
population by State and County for the study region is provided in Appendix B .
There are an estimated 3,744 buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of
1,170 million dollars (2006 dollars). Approximately 90.22% of the buildings (and 85.72% of the building value) are
associated with residential housing.
Page 3 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
General Building Stock
Building Inventory
Hazus estimates that there are 3,744 buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of
1,170 million (2006 dollars). Table 1 and Table 2 present the relative distribution of the value with respect to the
general occupancies by Study Region and Scenario respectively. Appendix B provides a general distribution of
the building value by State and County.
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Total
Table 1
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Study Region
1,003,191Residential 85.7%
Commercial 130,641 11.2%
Industrial 13,482 1.2%
Agricultural 2,711 0.2%
Religion 17,919 1.5%
Government 0 0.0%
Education 2,410 0.2%
Total 1,170,354 100.00%
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Total
Table 2
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Scenario
340,345Residential 78.5%
Commercial 77,841 18.0%
Industrial 9,124 2.1%
Agricultural 1,736 0.4%
Religion 3,878 0.9%
Government 0 0.0%
Education 468 0.1%
Total 433,392 100.00%
Essential Facility Inventory
For essential facilities, there are no hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of no beds.
There are 4 schools, 1 fire station, no police stations and no emergency operation centers.
Page 4 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Flood Scenario Parameters
Hazus used the following set of information to define the flood parameters for the flood loss estimate provided in
this report.
Scenario Name:
Return Period Analyzed:
Analysis Options Analyzed:
RiverineCoastalCase
Study Region Name:TOM-Flood
100
No What-Ifs
Page 5 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Building Damage
General Building Stock Damage
Hazus estimates that about 39 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 22% of the total
number of buildings in the scenario. There are an estimated 0 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The
definition of the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus Flood Technical Manual. Table
3 below summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4
summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
1-10 41-5031-4021-3011-20
Occupancy (%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
Substantially
Count (%)
Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Government 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential 0 11 15 8 5 0 0.00 28.21 38.46 20.51 12.82 0.00
Total 0 11 15 8 5 0
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type
Building
Type
1-10 41-5031-4021-3011-20
(%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
Substantially
Count (%)
Concrete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ManufHousing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Masonry 0 2 3 1 0 0 0.00 33.33 50.00 16.67 0.00 0.00
Steel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wood 0 9 12 7 5 0 0.00 27.27 36.36 21.21 15.15 0.00
Page 6 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Before the flood analyzed in this scenario, the region had 0 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the
scenario flood event, the model estimates that 0 hospital beds are available in the region.
Essential Facility Damage
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Classification Loss of Use
# Facilities
At Least
Substantial
At Least
ModerateTotal
1Fire Stations 0 0 0
0Hospitals 0 0 0
0Police Stations 0 0 0
4Schools 0 0 0
If this report displays all zeros or is blank, two possibilities can explain this.
(1) None of your facilities were flooded. This can be checked by mapping the inventory data on the depth grid.
(2) The analysis was not run. This can be tested by checking the run box on the Analysis Menu and seeing if a message
box asks you to replace the existing results.
Page 7 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Induced Flood Damage
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the flood. The model breaks debris into
three general categories: 1) Finishes (dry wall, insulation, etc.), 2) Structural (wood, brick, etc.) and 3)
Foundations (concrete slab, concrete block, rebar, etc.). This distinction is made because of the different
types of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 1,514 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Finishes
comprises 69% of the total, Structure comprises 18% of the total. If the debris tonnage is converted into an
estimated number of truckloads, it will require 61 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris
generated by the flood.
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the
flood and the associated potential evacuation. Hazus also estimates those displaced people that will
require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 214 households will be
displaced due to the flood. Displacement includes households evacuated from within or very near to the
inundated area. Of these, 432 people (out of a total population of 11 ,429) will seek temporary shelter in
public shelters.
Page 8 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the flood is 31.19 million dollars, which represents 7.20 % of the total
replacement value of the scenario buildings.
Building-Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The
direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its
contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business
because of the damage sustained during the flood. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living
expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the flood.
13.53 13.53 13.53
13.53
The total building-related losses were 31.04 million dollars. 0% of the estimated losses were related to the
business interruption of the region. The residential occupancies made up 43.36% of the total loss. Table 6 below
provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Table 6: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialResidentialAreaCategory
Building Loss
Building 8.30 4.27 0.35 0.10 13.01
Content 5.22 11.39 0.51 0.55 17.68
Inventory 0.00 0.27 0.07 0.01 0.35
Subtotal 13.52 15.94 0.92 0.66 31.04
Business Interruption
Income 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06
Relocation 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02
Rental Income 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Wage 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.07
Subtotal 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.15
ALL Total 13.53 16.08 0.92 0.66 31.19
Page 9 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
New York
-Westchester
Page 10 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
ResidentialPopulation
Building Value (thousands of dollars)
Non-Residential Total
New York
1,003,191Westchester 11,429 167,163 1,170,354
Total 11,429 1,003,191 167,163 1,170,354
Total Study Region 11,429 1,003,191 167,163 1,170,354
Page 11 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Hazus-MH: Flood Event Report
Region Name:
Flood Scenario:
Print Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013
TOM-Flood
RiverineCoastalCase
Disclaimer:
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology
software which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation
technique. Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building Inventory 4
3
General Building Stock
Essential Facility Inventory
Flood Scenario Parameters 5
Building Damage 6
General Building Stock
Essential Facilities Damage
Induced Flood Damage 8
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Economic Loss
8
Building-Related Losses
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
9
10
11
Page 2 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
General Description of the Region
Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). The primary purpose of
Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi -hazard losses at a regional scale .
These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts
to reduce risks from multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.
The flood loss estimates provided in this report were based on a region that included 1 county(ies) from the
following state(s):
New York-
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region .
The geographical size of the region is 4 square miles and contains 189 census blocks. The region contains over 4
thousand households and has a total population of 11 ,429 people (2000 Census Bureau data). The distribution of
population by State and County for the study region is provided in Appendix B .
There are an estimated 3,744 buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of
1,170 million dollars (2006 dollars). Approximately 90.22% of the buildings (and 85.72% of the building value) are
associated with residential housing.
Page 3 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
General Building Stock
Building Inventory
Hazus estimates that there are 3,744 buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of
1,170 million (2006 dollars). Table 1 and Table 2 present the relative distribution of the value with respect to the
general occupancies by Study Region and Scenario respectively. Appendix B provides a general distribution of
the building value by State and County.
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Total
Table 1
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Study Region
1,003,191Residential 85.7%
Commercial 130,641 11.2%
Industrial 13,482 1.2%
Agricultural 2,711 0.2%
Religion 17,919 1.5%
Government 0 0.0%
Education 2,410 0.2%
Total 1,170,354 100.00%
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Total
Table 2
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Scenario
340,345Residential 78.5%
Commercial 77,841 18.0%
Industrial 9,124 2.1%
Agricultural 1,736 0.4%
Religion 3,878 0.9%
Government 0 0.0%
Education 468 0.1%
Total 433,392 100.00%
Essential Facility Inventory
For essential facilities, there are no hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of no beds.
There are 4 schools, 1 fire station, no police stations and no emergency operation centers.
Page 4 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Flood Scenario Parameters
Hazus used the following set of information to define the flood parameters for the flood loss estimate provided in
this report.
Scenario Name:
Return Period Analyzed:
Analysis Options Analyzed:
RiverineCoastalCase
Study Region Name:TOM-Flood
500
No What-Ifs
Page 5 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Building Damage
General Building Stock Damage
Hazus estimates that about 43 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 14% of the total
number of buildings in the scenario. There are an estimated 2 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The
definition of the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus Flood Technical Manual. Table
3 below summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4
summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
1-10 41-5031-4021-3011-20
Occupancy (%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
Substantially
Count (%)
Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Government 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential 0 5 15 8 13 2 0.00 11.63 34.88 18.60 30.23 4.65
Total 0 5 15 8 13 2
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type
Building
Type
1-10 41-5031-4021-3011-20
(%)Count Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)Count (%)
Substantially
Count (%)
Concrete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ManufHousing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Masonry 0 0 2 1 2 0 0.00 0.00 40.00 20.00 40.00 0.00
Steel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wood 0 5 13 7 11 2 0.00 13.16 34.21 18.42 28.95 5.26
Page 6 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Before the flood analyzed in this scenario, the region had 0 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the
scenario flood event, the model estimates that 0 hospital beds are available in the region.
Essential Facility Damage
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Classification Loss of Use
# Facilities
At Least
Substantial
At Least
ModerateTotal
1Fire Stations 0 0 0
0Hospitals 0 0 0
0Police Stations 0 0 0
4Schools 0 0 0
If this report displays all zeros or is blank, two possibilities can explain this.
(1) None of your facilities were flooded. This can be checked by mapping the inventory data on the depth grid.
(2) The analysis was not run. This can be tested by checking the run box on the Analysis Menu and seeing if a message
box asks you to replace the existing results.
Page 7 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Induced Flood Damage
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the flood. The model breaks debris into
three general categories: 1) Finishes (dry wall, insulation, etc.), 2) Structural (wood, brick, etc.) and 3)
Foundations (concrete slab, concrete block, rebar, etc.). This distinction is made because of the different
types of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 3,519 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Finishes
comprises 43% of the total, Structure comprises 33% of the total. If the debris tonnage is converted into an
estimated number of truckloads, it will require 141 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris
generated by the flood.
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the
flood and the associated potential evacuation. Hazus also estimates those displaced people that will
require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 257 households will be
displaced due to the flood. Displacement includes households evacuated from within or very near to the
inundated area. Of these, 518 people (out of a total population of 11 ,429) will seek temporary shelter in
public shelters.
Page 8 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the flood is 38.11 million dollars, which represents 8.79 % of the total
replacement value of the scenario buildings.
Building-Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The
direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its
contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business
because of the damage sustained during the flood. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living
expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the flood.
16.10 16.10 16.10
16.10
The total building-related losses were 37.93 million dollars. 0% of the estimated losses were related to the
business interruption of the region. The residential occupancies made up 42.25% of the total loss. Table 6 below
provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Table 6: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialResidentialAreaCategory
Building Loss
Building 9.93 5.69 0.39 0.14 16.15
Content 6.16 13.93 0.58 0.68 21.34
Inventory 0.00 0.36 0.08 0.01 0.44
Subtotal 16.09 19.97 1.04 0.82 37.93
Business Interruption
Income 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06
Relocation 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03
Rental Income 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Wage 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.08
Subtotal 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.18
ALL Total 16.10 20.14 1.04 0.83 38.11
Page 9 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
New York
-Westchester
Page 10 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
ResidentialPopulation
Building Value (thousands of dollars)
Non-Residential Total
New York
1,003,191Westchester 11,429 167,163 1,170,354
Total 11,429 1,003,191 167,163 1,170,354
Total Study Region 11,429 1,003,191 167,163 1,170,354
Page 11 of 11Flood Event Summary Report
ETG, Inc.
Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Final
Appendix 4.
NYS DHSES Hazard Mitigation Planning Standards Backup
Documentation
MITIGATION ACTION ITEMS
Upgrade Stormwater Management Systems
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-1
Risk
Hazard(s)
Addressed Flood, hurricane, coastal storm, severe storm, thunderstorm
Risk Finding Stormwater collection and drainage systems needs improvement Town-wide to reduce
flooding.
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning
Action Description
Upgrade existing stormwater management systems. Mitigate losses in repetitive flood
areas, inspect/maintain drainage systems, and processes for acquiring, relocating or
retrofitting flood-prone structures.
Existing, Future
&/or N/A Mitigation of existing infrastructure. Future planning.
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Would reduce future flooding impacts
Technical Needs evaluation
Political Unknown
Legal OK
Environmental Positive – would reduce flooding
Social OK
Administrative
Capability
Town Highway Department, Town Building Department, Potential Consulting
Assistance
Local Champion Town Highway Department, Town Building Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party
& Partners Town Highway Department, Town Building Department
Cost Estimate $75,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget, FEMA, Westchester County.
Time Line Unknown
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Retrofit Sheldrake River Dam
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-2
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flood, hurricane, coastal storm, severe storm, thunderstorm
Risk Finding Sheldrake River Dam Retrofitting needed to reduce flooding to repetitive loss
properties (multi-jurisdictional)
Action - Description
Action Category Structural and Infrastructure projects
Action Type Flood Mitigation
Action Description
With Larchmont, retrofit the Sheldrake River Dam to include automated spillway
valve control, stream level monitoring, a flood early warning system with automatic
notification.
Existing, Future
&/or N/A Mitigation of existing infrastructure.
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Would reduce future flooding impacts
Technical Needs evaluation
Political Unknown
Legal OK
Environmental Positive – would reduce flooding
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Highway Department, Town Building Department
Local Champion Town Highway Department, Town Building Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Highway Department, Town Building Department
Cost Estimate $500,000 - $1,000,000
Potential Funding
Sources FEMA, NYS, Westchester County
Time Line Within 6 months of award of grant
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Floodproofing Homes and Businesses
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-3
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding from coastal waters, rivers, streams, brooks
Risk Finding Frequent flooding damage to residents in SFHA and Repetitive Loss Properties
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning
Action Description Involve home and business owners in a program to floodproof their basements and
other areas of their building that flood.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Existing structures, future planning
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Would reduce future flooding impacts
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental Positive – would reduce flooding
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Building Department
Local Champion Building Department
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Building Department
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line 1 Year following funding
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Update Obsolete Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-4
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flood, hurricane, coastal storm, severe storm, thunderstorm
Risk Finding Stormwater collection and drainage system is obsolete, causes Town-wide
flooding.
Action - Description
Action Category Structure and Infrastructure
Action Type Upgrading Infrastructure
Action Description Improve stormwater management by updating obsolete stormwater drainage
infrastructure.
Existing, Future &/or N/A Existing infrastructure, future upgrades
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Would reduce flooding impacts
Technical Needs evaluation
Political Unknown
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative Capability Town Highway Department
Local Champion Town Highway Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Highway Department
Cost Estimate $100,000 - $150,000
Potential Funding Sources NYSDEC, Westchester County
Time Line 1 year following funding
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Replace/Upgrade Sewage Pump Stations
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-5
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flood, hurricane, coastal storm, severe storm, thunderstorm
Risk Finding Storm and sanitary sewer backup problems causes Town-wide flooding
Action - Description
Action Category Structure and Infrastructure
Action Type Upgrade Infrastructure
Action Description Replace/upgrade Town-owned sewage pump stations
Existing, Future &/or N/A Existing infrastructure, future upgrades and replacements
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Would reduce flooding impacts
Technical Needs evaluation
Political Unknown
Legal OK
Environmental Positive – would reduce flooding
Social OK
Administrative Capability Town Highway Department
Local Champion Town Highway Department
Other Community Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party & Partners Town Highway Department
Cost Estimate $50,000 - $100,000
Potential Funding Sources FEMA, NYSDEC
Time Line 1 year following funding
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Participate in the Community Rating System
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-6
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding
Risk Finding
Town needs to reduce flood damage to insurable property, strengthen and support the
insurance aspects of the NFIP, and encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain
management.
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning
Action Description Become a member of the Community Rating System. Develop, implement and
manage the Town Community Rating System.
Existing, Future
&/or N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Would reduce flooding and secondary hazard impacts
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental Positive – would reduce flooding impacts
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Hazard Mitigation Committee, Potential Consulting Assistance
Local Champion Town Hazard Mitigation Committee, Resident
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Hazard Mitigation Committee
Cost Estimate $25,000 - $50,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line 1 year after plan approval
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Educate Public on Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-7
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding Residents are generally unaware of community emergency procedures during
natural disasters.
Action - Description
Action Category Education and awareness programs
Action Type Public education
Action Description Develop a Town-wide public education and awareness campaign on hazard
mitigation and All-Hazard emergency preparedness.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Improved community response
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Emergency Management Committee
Local Champion Town Emergency Management Committee, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Emergency Management Committee
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line 1 year following funding
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Provide Emergency Operations Training
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-8
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding Inadequate training risks poor emergency response and management, and reduction
of Town service capabilities during natural disasters
Action - Description
Action Category Emergency Response
Action Type Training / Education
Action Description Provide Emergency Operations training to Town, School, Emergency Services, Red
Cross, and Law Enforcement staff.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Existing, Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Reduction of secondary hazard impacts, improved emergency operations
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Emergency Management Committee
Local Champion Various Town Departments, Schools, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Emergency Management Committee
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line Begin after Plan approval, annually
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Obtain Early Warning Notification Systems
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-9
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding Early warning notification and community systems must be maintained, enhanced
and ensured to aid in responding to all hazards emergencies Town-wide.
Action - Description
Action Category Emergency Response
Action Type Emergency Response Equipment
Action Description Obtain emergency traffic control devices such as message boards, jersey barriers,
and portable signs
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Reduction of secondary hazard impacts, improved emergency operations
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Highway Department
Local Champion Various Town Departments
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Highway Department
Cost Estimate $50,000 - $100,000
Potential Funding
Sources FEMA
Time Line 1 year following funding
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Upgrade and Maintain GIS Mapping Program
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-10
Risk
Hazard(s)
Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding Better mapping is needed to assist in managing all hazard impacts through more
effective planning
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning – Joint Project
Action Description Joint effort with Village of Mamaroneck and Westchester Joint Water Works,
Maintain and upgrade GIS Mapping Program
Existing, Future
&/or N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction
Enhanced GIS mapping will help track and map flood-prone areas and locations of
critical facilities Town-wide. It will assist in managing all hazard impacts through
more effective planning.
Technical OK
Political Unknown
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Mamaroneck, Westchester Joint Water Works
Local Champion Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Mamaroneck, Westchester Joint Water Works
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners
Town Administrator. Joint project with Village of Mamaroneck and Westchester
Joint Water Works.
Cost Estimate $25,000 - $50,000 (Town shared cost)
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget, Westchester County, NYS, FEMA
Time Line 6 months following funding
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Update Fire Ordinances and Alarm Systems
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-11
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Fire, Structural collapse
Risk Finding Town needs to protect infrastructure from damage and loss due to fire.
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Code updates
Action Description
Obtain and increase fire sprinkler ordinances and alarm systems, and ensure all
critical facilities, historical sites and apartment buildings are in compliance with
modern building codes.
Existing, Future
&/or N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Protect infrastructure Town-wide from damage and loss due to fire and structural
collapse
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Fire Department
Local Champion Fire Department
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Fire Department
Cost Estimate $25,000 - $50,000
Potential Funding
Sources FEMA, NYSOEM
Time Line Begin 2 years after approval. Complete 1 year thereafter
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Protect Potential Terrorism Targets
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-12
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Terrorism
Risk Finding Increased investigation to protect potential terrorism targets
Action - Description
Action Category Local plans and Regulations
Action Type Evaluation
Action Description Conduct a discrete, confidential evaluation of potential targets and security
measures at critical and high-risk locations around Town.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Protect and prevent critical facilities, buildings, and infrastructure from damage and
loss due to terrorism
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Police Department
Local Champion Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Police Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Police Department
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources FEMA
Time Line Begin 1 year after Plan approval, Complete 1 year thereafter
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Protect Open Space and Environmentally Sensitive and Critical Areas
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-13
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding, erosion of Town’s coastal zone
Risk Finding Open space and environmentally sensitive and critical areas need protection and
preservation
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Natural Systems Protection
Action Description Enhance and protect coastal zones
Existing, Future &/or N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Would reduce flooding impacts
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative Capability Town Conservation Department
Local Champion Town Conservation Department
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Conservation Department
Cost Estimate $50,000 - $100,000
Potential Funding Sources Town Budget, Westchester County, NYSDEC, FEMA
Time Line Begin 1 year after plan approval
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Coordinate with NYSDEC and VOL to prevent Dam Failure
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 1-14
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Dam Failure, Flooding
Risk Finding Strengthen inter-jurisdiction and inter-agency communication, coordination and
partnerships to foster hazard mitigation actions and projects
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning
Action Description
Coordinate with NYSDEC and Village of Larchmont to conduct periodic in-depth
inspections of the Sheldrake Dams. Expand on existing dam failure contingency
plans.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Protect critical facilities from dam failure
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Building Department, Town Highway Department
Local Champion Undetermined
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority High
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Building Department, Town Highway Department
Cost Estimate $25,000 - $50,000
Potential Funding
Sources NYSOEM, NYSDEC
Time Line Begin 1 year after approval
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Stream Maintenance Program on Rivers an Waterways
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-1
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding
Risk Finding Frequent flooding occurs from coastal waters, rivers, and brooks
Action - Description
Action Category Natural Systems Protection
Action Type Stream maintenance
Action Description Launch an aggressive year-round stream maintenance program on rivers and
waterways
Existing, Future &/or N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Prevent flooding from coastal waters, rivers and brooks
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK – Would reduce flooding
Social OK
Administrative Capability Town Highway Department
Local Champion Town Highway Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Highway Department
Cost Estimate $50,000 - $100,000
Potential Funding Sources FEMA, NYSOEM
Time Line 1 year after plan approval
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Update Emergency Management Systems
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-2
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding Disaster plans should be updated and coordinated with Red Cross and other agencies
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Update Emergency Management Systems
Action Description Update emergency management systems, including protocols for preparation,
response, recovery, and post-event mitigation for hazards and hazard materials sites.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction
Local plans and regulations will be revised to bring them to current protocols for
emergency preparedness, response recovery, and post-event mitigation for all
hazards.
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Emergency Management Committee
Local Champion Town Emergency Management Committee
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Emergency Management Committee
Cost Estimate $25,000 - $50,000
Potential Funding
Sources FEMA, NYSOEM
Time Line 1 year after approval
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Plan for Alternate Seat of Government
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-3
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding Plans for ASOG need to be set in place in case of disaster
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning
Action Description Establish a facility and protocol for an Alternate Seat of Government
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Ensure government operations, emergency services, and essential facilities during
and immediately after a disaster or hazard event.
Technical Needs evaluation
Political Undetermined
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Administrator, Town Emergency Management Committee
Local Champion Undetermined
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Administrator, Town Emergency Management Committee
Cost Estimate $100,000 - $500,000
Potential Funding
Sources FEMA
Time Line Begin 1 year after funding. Complete 6 months thereafter.
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Upgrade Emergency Response Equipment
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-4
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding Town needs to upgrade modern emergency equipment for First Responders
Action - Description
Action Category Emergency Response
Action Type Upgrade Emergency Response equipment
Action Description Acquire modern emergency communication systems for a multi-jurisdictional radio,
interoperability program to enhance communication
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Maintain, improve and ensure the efficient operation of early warning, notification
and communication systems.
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability
Town Administrator, Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Ambulance
District, Town Police Department
Local Champion Town Administrator, Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Ambulance
District, Town Police Department
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners
Town Administrator, Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Ambulance
District, Town Police Department
Cost Estimate $100,000 - $500,000
Potential Funding
Sources FEMA. NYSOEM
Time Line Begin 1 year after funding, complete 6 months thereafter.
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Obtain Funding for Emergency Response Equipment
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-5
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding The Town needs additional supplies and equipment to respond to a disaster
Action - Description
Action Category Emergency Response
Action Type Obtain funding for emergency equipment
Action Description Obtain funding for supplies and equipment needed in a disaster such as
generators and pumps.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Reduce impacts of hazards on vulnerable populations
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability
Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Police Department, Town Fire
Department
Local Champion Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Police Department, Town Fire
Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners
Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Police Department, Town Fire
Department
Cost Estimate $100,000 - $500,000
Potential Funding
Sources FEMA, NYSOEM
Time Line Begin 1 year after funding. Complete 1 year thereafter
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Create a Database of Vulnerable Populations
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-6
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding It would improve emergency response to have a database of special-needs
individuals during a hazard event.
Action - Description
Action Category Emergency Response
Action Type Creating a vulnerable population list
Action Description Create and maintain a database of special-needs individuals and Con Ed LSE
customers who voluntarily provide that information.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Reduce impacts of hazards on vulnerable populations
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Emergency Management Committee
Local Champion Town Emergency Management Committee, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Emergency Management Committee
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line 2 years after plan approval, completed 1 year thereafter
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Maintain Database of Bulk Propane Storage Tanks
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-7
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Explosion, Fire
Risk Finding There is a need to manage hazard impacts through planning
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning
Action Description Maintain a database of all residents and businesses that use bulk propane storage
tanks as a gas source.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Existing, Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Lessen the risk of explosions and fires
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative Capability Fire Department
Local Champion Fire Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Fire Department
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line After plan approval, and annually thereafter
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Investigate Raising Structures above BFE
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-8
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding
Risk Finding Raising structures may benefit buildings in SFHA and Repetitive Loss Properties.
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning
Action Description Identify homes, businesses, public facilities and historic sites that would benefit
from raising structures above the Base Flood Elevation
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Existing structures
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Reduce impacts of flood hazards on homes, businesses, and institutions. Aid Town
in continued NFIP compliance.
Technical OK
Political Undetermined
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Building Department
Local Champion Undetermined
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Building Department
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line 2 years after plan approval, complete 1 year thereafter
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Protect Repetitive Loss Properties
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-9
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding
Risk Finding Properties located in the SFHA and Repetitive Loss Properties have a higher risk of
flooding.
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning
Action Description
Work with owners of Repetitive Loss Properties to identify ways the buildings can be
modified to reduce insurance claims. Become a member of the Community Rating
System.
Existing, Future
&/or N/A Existing structures
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Mitigate flooding in SFHA and to Repetitive Loss Properties. Aid Town with
continued NFIP compliance. Reduced flood insurance premiums.
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK – would reduce flooding impacts
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Building Department
Local Champion Town Building Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Building Department
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line After plan approval, complete 1 year thereafter
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Update Regulations in the SFHA
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-10
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding
Risk Finding Development should be limited in the SFHA
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Update regulations
Action Description Strengthen land-use and development regulations in the SFHA to limit future
development
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Hazard considerations would be incorporated into land-use planning and natural
resource management to mitigate Town-wide flooding.
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability OK
Local Champion Town Building Department
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Building Department
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line After plan approval, complete 1 year thereafter
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Coordinate Evacuation Plan
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 2-11
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding Mitigation planning should be coordinated with neighboring communities
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Planning
Action Description Draft a Town-wide Evacuation Plan with neighboring communities and
Westchester County
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Improve response efforts, Increase preparedness
Technical Needs evaluation
Political Undetermined
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability
Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Police Department,
Westchester County, Neighboring Communities
Local Champion Undetermined
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Medium
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Police Department
Cost Estimate $25,000 - $50,000
Potential Funding
Sources FEMA, NYSOEM
Time Line After plan approval, completed 1 year thereafter
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Assist Businesses with Emergency Planning
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 3-1
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding The Town could assist local businesses manage hazard impact impacts with more
comprehensive planning
Action - Description
Action Category Local Plans and Regulations
Action Type Manage hazard impacts Town-wide through planning
Action Description Assist Town businesses with drafting Emergency Preparedness, Business
Continuity and Homeland Security Plans
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Better planning would reduce hazard impacts to local businesses
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Emergency Management Committee
Local Champion Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Businesses
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Low
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Emergency Management Committee
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget
Time Line 1 year after funding, completed 1 year thereafter.
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Create Education and Awareness Programs
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 3-2
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding
Risk Finding Residents and businesses are not aware of many ways to reduce flood damage.
Action - Description
Action Category Education Awareness Programs
Action Type Education
Action Description Educate residents, business owners and contractors on flood mitigation strategies,
damage prevention and safety, flood insurance and flood loss.
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Hazard impacts would be reduced on homes, businesses and institutions in
Repetitive Loss Areas and Town-wide.
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Hazard Mitigation Committee
Local Champion Town Hazard Mitigation Committee, Businesses, Residents, Contractors
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Low
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Hazard Mitigation Committee
Cost Estimate $25,000 - $50,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget, pending board approval
Time Line After plan is approved, and annually thereafter
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Coordinate with Utility Company
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 3-3
Risk
Hazard(s)
Addressed Storm hazards, severe weather, explosion, fire
Risk Finding Local natural gas and electric delivery infrastructure needs to be evaluated for optimal
safety
Action - Description
Action Category Structure and Infrastructure Projects
Action Type Coordinate with utility company to survey existing infrastructure
Action Description Coordinate with Con Ed of NY to determine if upgrades are necessary to protect the
local natural gas/electric delivery infrastructure.
Existing, Future
&/or N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction
Critical facilities, buildings, and infrastructure Town-wide will be protected from
damage and loss due to explosions and fire. Storm hazard impacts on homes,
businesses and institutions will be reduced during power outages.
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Administrator
Local Champion Town Administrator
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Low
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party
& Partners Town Administrator
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget, Con Edison
Time Line Schedule with Con Ed following Town Board approval
Progress
Action Progress
Status New action proposed in 2014
Coordination Plan to Reduce Wildfire Hazards
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 3-4
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Wildfire
Risk Finding Open space and environmentally sensitive and critical areas should be protected
from wildfires in a coordinated effort with Westchester County
Action - Description
Action Category Natural Systems Protection
Action Type Protect environmentally sensitive and critical areas
Action Description Coordinate with Westchester County to reduce brush fire hazards in conservation
areas and parks
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Protect and preserve open space and environmentally sensitive and critical areas
Town-wide from wildfires.
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Fire Department
Local Champion Fire Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Low
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Fire Department
Cost Estimate $25,000
Potential Funding
Sources Town Budget, pending Town Board approval
Time Line After Plan approval, repeated annually thereafter
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
Coordination Plan to Dredge Waterbodies
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number 3-5
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding
Risk Finding Dredging waterbodies would reduce flooding impacts
Action - Description
Action Category Natural Systems Protection
Action Type Coordinating mitigation planning with neighboring communities
Action Description Study and begin a dredging project on the Sheldrake River, Larchmont Lake, and
areas where streams converge
Existing, Future &/or
N/A Future
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction Reduced flooding impacts. Aid the community with continued NFIP compliance.
Technical Needs evaluation
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative
Capability Town Administrator, Town Highway Department
Local Champion Town Administrator, Town Highway Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Low
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Administrator, Town Highway Department
Cost Estimate $500,000 - $1,000,000
Potential Funding
Sources Funding sources not yet identified.
Time Line There are no immediate plans to proceed with dredging actions at this time due to
limited known funding sources
Progress
Action Progress Status New action proposed in 2014
PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED MITIGATION ACTION ITEMS
Emergency Notification System
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number M-1
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed All Hazards
Risk Finding Residents and Businesses needed an efficient hazard notification system
Action - Description
Action Category Emergency Response
Action Type Emergency Notification
Action Description Implemented Emergency Notification System
Other Actions Considered
1.Using Emergency vehicles to drive through neighborhoods using vehicle
mounted loudspeakers
2. Town-wide siren/speaker system. Older technology; difficult for residents to
know what to do when sirens activated
3. AM Radio Station (in conjunction with sirens). Issues Same as above
Existing, Future &/or N/A Existing
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction
The project has functioned better than expected. The vendor chosen maintains
the system and the contacts are updated monthly. The vendor continues to
incorporate emerging technology into the system. System can send messages in
more than one language and multiple media.
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative Capability Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Administrator
Local Champion Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Administrator, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Complete
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Emergency Management Committee, Town Administrator
Cost Estimate $18,000 / Year
Potential Funding Sources Town Operating Budget
Time Line Complete
Progress
Action Progress Status Complete
Gardens Lake Dredging / Bypass Valve
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number M-2
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding
Risk Finding Downstream properties needed increased protection from flooding
Action - Description
Action Category Natural Systems Protection
Action Type Flood Mitigation
Action Description Dredged Gardens Lake / Bypass Valve
Other Actions Considered Sediment basin installed in 2004. Other retention areas and deeper dredging
considered.
Existing, Future &/or N/A Existing
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction
The deeper retention area and the bypass valves allow the Town to increase
retention ahead of heavy rain events. This project provides increased protection
to downstream properties and improved water quality by the installation of
native marsh type vegetation.
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative Capability Town Highway Department
Local Champion Town Highway Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Complete
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Highway Department
Cost Estimate $1.2 Million
Potential Funding Sources $1 Million grant from NYS and Westchester County; $100,000 from
Westchester County; $100,000 from Town Budget
Time Line Complete
Progress
Action Progress Status Complete
Murray Avenue Drainage Improvement
Plan Name Town of Mamaroneck Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Name Town of Mamaroneck
Project Number M-3
Risk
Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding
Risk Finding Flooding during heavy rain events around Murray Avenue
Action - Description
Action Category Structure and Infrastructure Projects
Action Type Drainage Project
Action Description Increased the size of storm drains on Murray Avenue between Bryson Street and
Colonial Avenue
Other Actions Considered None
Existing, Future &/or N/A Existing
Action - Evaluation
Risk Reduction This project reduced flooding during heavy rain events
Technical OK
Political OK
Legal OK
Environmental OK
Social OK
Administrative Capability Town Highway Department, Town Building Department
Local Champion Town Highway Department, Town Building Department, Residents
Other Community
Objectives OK
Implementation
Priority Complete
Local Planning Mechanism
Responsible Party &
Partners Town Highway Department, Town Building Department
Cost Estimate Westchester County Funded
Potential Funding Sources Westchester County
Time Line Complete
Progress
Action Progress Status Complete