Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation PlanHAZAR Q M�T�ri.A7"i0-,;,N,, � PWN IL D Source: FEMA City of Lansing HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN DISCLAIMER This document was prepared by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission and Michigan State University Extension, in cooperation with the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office and the City of Lansing Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development (Planning Office). Preparation of this document was financed, in part, by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Michigan Department of State Police, Emergency Management Division. The opinions, findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the author's. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission is an Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer. Hiring and service to program recipients is done without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or handicap. Suggested Citation: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (Mich.). 2004. City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan. [Report prepared by Jack L. Rozdilsky and David Murray in cooperation with the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office and the City of Lansing Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development (Planning Office).] Lansing, Michigan: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. November 1, 2004. Primary Authors: Jack L. Rozdilsky David R. Murray Extension Educator, Land Use Area of Expertise Planning Technician Michigan State University Extension Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Tri-County Regional Planning Commission MICHIGAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y EXTENSION TCRPC qN 0 NOVEMBER 1 2004 • '.7 0 City of Lansing HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Prepared For: City of Lansing City of Lansing Emergency Management Office Department of Planning and 815 Marshall Street Neighborhood Development Lansing, Michigan 48912 (517) 483-4110 Prepared By: Planning Office 316 North Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48933 (517) 483-4066 Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 913 West Holmes Road Suite #201 Lansing, Michigan 48910 (517) 393-0342 Introduction • City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan Abstract The City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan is the final report of a pre -disaster planning project intended to enhance public safety. Hazard mitigation is defined as taking action to reduce or eliminate the long-term risks to human life and property from hazards and their effects. Hazards threatening the City of Lansing can originate from natural or technological forces. This is an `all hazards' plan where many potential hazards are considered in terms of their overall impacts, and then some level of mitigation is considered for each hazard. After describing the planning process itself, this document presents a community profile, an important basis to use for considering each hazard's • potential impacts on local communities. Key parts of this plan are the findings from the 2003-2004 hazard analysis and mitigation analysis. Based on that information, a list of specific mitigation projects is suggested. These local projects would be eligible to be considered for federally -funded implementation, given FEMA funding becomes available. Through cooperation with the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office, City of Lansing Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development — Planning Office, input from various local hazard mitigation stakeholders, and public input, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission and Michigan State University Extension have developed this plan with the intention of this document being adopted as the official City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan. Once this document is formally adopted by the Lansing City Council, the City of Lansing will remain eligible for various federal mitigation funding opportunities for five years. Therefore, this plan is intended to satisfy the mandates of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, requiring that local governments have a hazard mitigation plan in place as a condition for receiving federal hazard mitigation funding after November 1, 2004. • Plan Abstract Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan FEW Introduction Plan Abstract **This page intentionally left blank** • • Adi Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Introduction • • • Table of Contents Table of Contents Chap ter Section Sub- Title Section Abstract Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal, TCRPC Letter of Acceptance, City of Lansing Acknowledgements Forward 1 Process 1 Purpose and Overview 2 Plan Elements and Requirements 3 Plan Methodology 2 Community Profile i Introduction 1 History 2 Geography, Climate, and Natural Features 3 Land Use 4 Demographics: Population, Housing, & Economic Characteristics 5 Community Facilities 3 Hazard Analysis i Introduction 1 City of Lansing Ha.Zard Vulnerabilidy Analysis, 2003 (Official Use Only) 4 Mitigation Analysis 5 Mitigation Actions 6 Plan Closure APPENDIX Appendix 1: Resolution Initiating the Planning Process Appendix 2. Flyer for the Pre -Draft Public Comment Appendix 3: Announcement for Final Draft Public Comment Appendix 4: Sample Resolution for Plan Adoption Appendix S: Space to InsertAdoption Documentation Page 1 TOC.i F.1 2.i.1 2.1.1 2.2.1 2.3.1 2.4.1 2.5.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan TOCA Introduction Table of Contents **Thi page intentionally left blank** TOC.ii Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Planning for People Since 1956 OFFICERS Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 913 West Holmes -Suite 201 Lansing, Michigan 48910 Telephone (517) 393-0342 Web Page: www.mitcrpc.org Email: tcrpc@acd.net Fax (517) 393-4424 CHAIRPERSON November 1, 2004 Philip Chisholm VICE -CHAIRPERSON Ronda Oberlin Shirley Rodgers City of Lansing Emergency Management Office TREASURER 815 Marshall Susan McGillicuddy Lansing, Michigan, 48912 SECRETARY Larry Martin Ms. Oberlin: COMMISSIONERS Russel Bauerle On behalf of the staff of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, J. William Hawes Dianne Holman I am pleased to transmit the City of Lansing, Michigan, Hazard Alvin Kempf Mitigation Plan to your office. Harold Leeman, Jr. Calvin Lynch Fred Marquardt This plan has been developed by staff with review from your office, Jean McDonald along with input from various City of Lansing hazard mitigation Larry Meyer • Ralph Monsma stakeholders and the public. It was based on the Disaster Mitigation Act p g David Pohl of 2000 requirements and written according to specifications provided by Bill Sharp the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office. Upon your Marsha Small Mark Smuts approval, this document will undergo its final printing, and the project Carol Wood deliverables of paper copies and CD-ROMs of this plan will be brought to your office. EX-OFFICIO LANSING MAYOR This letter concludes the formal involvement of the Tri-County Regional Tony Benavides Planning Commission in the Hazard Mitigation Planning process. We COUNTY BOARD CHAIRPERSONS appreciated your cooperation throughout this project. If you have any John Arehart questions, do not hesitate to contact me or Jack Rozdilsky at (517) 393- Leonard Peters 0342. Victor Celentino EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Sincerely, Jon W. Coleman Jon W. Coleman Executive Director **Tbis page intenlionalyleft blank** • • 0 CITY OF LANSING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE • 815 Marshall St. 'j Lansing, MI 48912 517-483-4186 .,. v 517-483-7641 (FAX) 'rr os �wNy�r kjones@ci.Iansing.mi.us November 18, 2004 Jon W. Coleman, Executive Director Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 913 West Holmes Road, Suite 201 Lansing, MI 48910 Mr. Coleman, I have reviewed the draft City of Lansing Mitigation Plan. After reviewing the document, I find it acceptable for submission to the Lansing City Council for consideration of adopting this document as the City's official hazard mitigation plan, including the following changes made by the Lansing Mitigation Planning Team. 1. The regional hazard analysis developed by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in Chapter 3 has been replaced with a reference to the local hazard analysis completed by the City Emergency Management Office in 2003. The City's hazard analysis will not be included in public copies of the • document. 2. The sections of Chapter 5 entitled Mitigation Actions and Mitigation Timeline on pages 5.2 through 5.5 have been rewritten by the City's mitigation planning team to reflect local mitigation priorities. The remainder of Chapter 5, including the section referring to cost -benefit analysis on page 5.5, remains as written by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. 3. Lansing Emergency Management will work directly with State Emergency Management Mitigation Division to resolve any Crosswalk issues regarding the changed sections. To the best of my knowledge, I believe this document meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. I understand that as the final step in this hazard mitigation planning process the Lansing City Council will need approve a resolution officially adopting the plan and that documentation will need to be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Region V) and the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division. When that step is completed, Lansing will remain eligible for various hazard mitigation funding opportunities for five years. Thank you for your efforts in this project. Sincerely, / 7 i2tiL4 < isKen Jone Emergen Program Coordinator **Tbis page intenfionalyleft blank** • • 40 November 2004 Plan Acknowledgements City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan Acknowledgements The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission acknowledges the following key members of the local hazard mitigation planning committee for their contributions to this document. ➢ Ronda Oberlin, PEM City of Lansing Emergency Management Office ➢ William C. Rieske, AICP City of Lansing Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, Planning Office • The hazard mitigation plan also benefited from the time and efforts of many hazard mitigation stakeholders too numerous to is mention here. Many persons from the emergency management and land use disciplines, first responders, local governments, and various organizations in City of Lansing contributed to this plan. Michigan State University Extension's Ingham County Office also assisted with the public participation and hazard analysis efforts. Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 of 1 City of Lansing, Michigan Introduction Plan Acknowledgements **This page intentionally left blank** Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Plan Forward • City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan Forward: This document is the Hazard Mitigation plan for City of Lansing, Michigan, consistent with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390), enacted October 30, 2000 and 44 CFR Part 201 — Mitigation Planning, Interim Final Rule, published in the Federal Register February 26, 2002. This plan is specifically written to satisfy the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, and additional requirements from the Michigan State Police — Emergency Management Division. Forward: • In the Tri-County Region, there is a well -established record of the effectiveness of local emergency management. This plan builds on that record, by preparing a document with an in-depth focus on hazard mitigation. Using a definition provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, hazard mitigation is defined as taking sustained action to reduce or eliminate the long-term risks to human life and property from hazards. Note the emphasis on long-term distinguishes mitigation from actions geared primarily toward emergency preparedness and short-term disaster recovery. While prior to this planning process, hazard mitigation has been considered locally, this document represents the first time that hazard mitigation has been considered to this extent, on a region - wide basis. For the purposes of the City of Lansing portion of this plan, a previously assembled hazard analysis was used to determine the realm of possible hazards that affect the City of Lansing and those hazards were then prioritized by mitigation potential by the local hazard mitigation planning committee. To the extent possible, the best available mitigation -related information was consolidated into this plan. The authors suggest • Narrative Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan F. l Plan Forward Narrative is that while this plan both meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and provides a foundation for future hazard mitigation planning in the Tri-County Region, there remains opportunities for local governments to further refine the mitigation strategies and recommendations at some point in the future. This plan should be considered as the first iteration of comprehensive hazard mitigation planning in the region. This plan is being published in November 2004 and is intended to remain active for five -years. During the 2008-2009, time period it is recommended that local emergency management and land use planning officials seek guidance on updating this plan from state and federal emergency management agencies. Purposes of this Plan: 1. This document is specifically written to satisfy the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act 2000. By adopting the hazard mitigation plan, this jurisdiction will remain eligible for various federally funded hazard mitigation grant opportunities for five years. 2. This document presents a detailed community profile. This is profile can be used as reference when considering the potential impacts that a hazard can have on a range of community assets. 3. This plan provides a snapshot of the types of hazards that can impact this jurisdiction in 2004. Both the hazard analysis and the mitigation analysis chapters provide more specific hazard information. 4. This plan recommends potential mitigation actions relevant to the City of Lansing. Given that federal funding becomes available, these projects could possibly be packaged into grant applications for federally -funded mitigation implementation projects. Goals of this Plan: When any type of community planning takes place, the planning activities are usually goal driven. When this planning process was started, the planners and stakeholders considered the overall goals for the planning process. There are five overall goals that drive this hazard mitigation project: • F,2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Plan Forward • Narrative 1. Prevention and Risk Reduction The objective of prevention and risk reduction activities is to either prevent a hazard from being realized as a disaster or to reduce the risk so that if a hazard is realized, its damage will be minimized. 2. Property Protection The objective of property protection is to take action to modify buildings, infrastructure, or other aspects of the built environment that are subject to hazard risk, rather than preventing the hazard from occurring. 3. Public Education The objective of public education is to both inform and remind citizens, of all ages and walks of life, concerning the hazards they may face and to suggest steps they can take to both protect themselves and their property. 4. Injury / Casualty Prevention The objective of injury / casualty prevention is to take actions or to provide information to prevent injury and / is or death from hazards. • 5. Natural Resource Protection The objective of natural resource protection is to reduce the intensity of a hazard's effects to maintain or improve the quality of the ecosystem of which we are a part. In Chapter 5, as the hazard mitigation actions are suggested, each of the actions is intended to address one of the projects goals. Overview of this Plan: Chapter 1, details the planning process. An important component of this chapter is the description of both the stakeholder and public involvement process. It is organized into three sections: the project's purpose and overview; details concerning specific plan elements and requirements; and a discussion of the plan's methodology. Chapter 2 is the community profile, an important part of the basis on which a hazard's potential impact is considered. It is organized into five sections: history; geography, climate, and Hazard Mitigation Plan F.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Plan Forward Narrative • natural features; land use; demographics; and critical community facilities. Chapter 3 is the hazard analysis. In order to prioritize the hazards by mitigation potential, it was first necessary to perform an all hazards analysis. The City of Lansing is fortunate in that there already exists a detailed Hazard Vulnerability Analysis that was developed by the Emergency Management Office in 2003. The section is organized into two sections: natural hazards and technological hazards. Chapter 4 is the mitigation analysis. Taking the information from the hazards analysis forward, hazards are again prioritized by mitigation potential ranking and the specific mitigation strategies determined by the stakeholder input process are detailed. Chapter 5 is the mitigation action chapter. Potential mitigation actions are detailed for the top hazards and a brief narrative on the importance of cost -benefit analysis in hazard mitigation planning is presented. Chapter 6 is the closure chapter. It provides details concerning • requirements related to plan closure and recommendations for plan updates and maintenance. Following the body of the plan, a five part Appendix provides supplemental information. Appendix 1 provides the wording for the resolution initiating the planning process. Appendix 2 provides a flier that was distributed to the public and multiple jurisdictions announcing the pre -draft input session. Appendix 3 provides a copy of the announcement for the second public comment period on the final draft. Appendix 4 provides a sample resolution for final plan adoption. Appendix 5 is left blank. This purpose of this appendix is to insert documentation of the plan's formal adoption by the local unit of government. • FA Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Plan Forward • Narrative Local Planning in a Regional Context: While this plan was written specifically for adoption in this jurisdiction, it should be noted that it was written in a regional context. Hazard mitigation plans were prepared simultaneously for the Counties of Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham, Delta Charter Township, and the City of Lansing. In final delivery of this plan, a short regional summary section listing the key findings from each jurisdiction will be provided. All Hazards Perspective: This plan is written from the all hazards perspective. An all hazards perspective implies three general categories of hazards were considered. The natural hazards are those hazards originating from natural forces. Technological hazards are those hazards that are human in origin resulting from some type of accident or failure. Social hazards are the hazards resulting from human behavior or human interactions. This all hazards plan • considers all three types of hazards. • What About Terrorism? After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, much attention has been focused on the potential for further terrorist attacks. As this plan was being writing terrorism type hazards were still a top concern for many stakeholders. A common question posed during this planning process was, `Does thisplan address terrorism threats?" This plan does address terrorism as a social hazard. Various national security threats and the CBRNE (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive) `weapons of mass destruction' are also addressed. In some areas within the region, they rank as top hazards. In this all hazards mitigation plan, terrorism was treated and analyzed as was any other natural, technological, or social hazard. If the reader is specifically concerned with terrorism -type threats, it is recommended that they consult other Department of Hazard Mitigation Plan F.5 City of Lansing, Michigan Plan Forward Narrative Homeland Security or Law Enforcement documents. Detailed treatment of this subject is beyond the scope of this plan. In other words, counterterrorism refers to offensive activities taken to taken to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism. These risk reduction activities are currently taking place at the Local, State, and Federal Levels. Such activities are in the domain of Law Enforcement and Security Agencies and therefore outside of the scope of this mitigation plan. However, antiterrorism efforts refer to defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of people, places, and property to terrorist acts. Therefore, in some cases, antiterrorism strategies can be considered as an element of this all hazards mitigation plan. Is Mid -Michigan Especially Dangerous? Another common question asked about this hazard mitigation planning process is, `7s this plan being written because the local community is especially dangerous?" The answer to that question is no. This planning process is driven by Federal and State level • initiatives to perform pre -disaster planning during times of `calm'. The purpose of the planning process was to consider all hazards facing the community and then determine what strategies can be applied to reduce risk. By including a certain hazard in this plan, it does not imply the community is under any specific threat. To gain some perspective on this issue, a recent study attempted to make a simple composite measure of the relative hazardousness of states. The indicators of hazard events, casualties, and damage losses were used to determine an overall average score. Michigan ranked 23`d out of the fifty states. (Thomas and Mitchell, 2001). Figure F.A shows Michigan's rank as compared to the states with the highest, middle, and lowest scores. In considering Michigan, specifically what types of disasters have occurred? One measure is the types of Governor's Disaster and Emergency Declarations in the recent past. Figure F.B illustrates those data. • F.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Plan Forward • • In general, one can conclude Michigan is not an especially dangerous state. In terms of large disasters, natural disasters have occurred the most in the past. References: Thomas, Debra and Jerry Mitchell. (2001) "Which are the Most Hazardous States." in Cutter Susan L. (ed.) (2001)American Ha.Zardscapes— The Regionalization of Ha.Zards and Disasters. Washington D.C. John Henry Press. Narrative Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan F.7 Plan Forward Narrative Sub -Section: Figures List of Figures: Figure # Title Ewe RA A Comparison of Hazardousness of Selected States F.9 F.B Types of Michigan Disasters: 1977-2001 F.10 • • F,g Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Plan Forward • • Figure F.A: A Comparison of the Hazardousness of Selected States The Hazardousness of Selected States: A Comparison Adapted from Thomas & Mitchell, 2001 Florida Michigan Kansas Rhode Island States When asking the question, `7s Michigan an eipecialyba.Zardous state?", one study by Thomas and Mitchell (2001) indicated that Michigan is about average when compared to the other fifty states. According to the study, Michigan ranked at the 23`d most hazardous state. The state that ranked as most hazardous was Florida with an average score of 54.59. Michigan ranked 23`d, with a score of 8.28. Kansas was at the mid -point with a score of 8.22. Rhode Island was ranked as least hazardous was a score of 0.47. Source: Thomas, Debra and Jerry Mitchell. (2001) "Which are the Most Hazardous States." in Cutter Susan L. (ed.) (2001) American Ha�Zardscapes — The Regionali.Zation of Ha.Zards and Disasters. Washington D.C. John Henry • Press. Narrative Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan F.9 Plan Forward Narrative Figure F.B: Types of Michigan Disasters: 1977-2001 Governor's Disaster & Emergency Declarations Under Act 390 (P.A. 1976) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Types of Michigan Declared Disasters: 1977-2001 Severe Floods Winter Tornados Tech Fires Storms Storms Disasters Type of Disaster Source: Michigan State Police. (2001) Michigan Ha�ZardAnalysis. Lansing, Mich.: MSP Emergency Management Division. • • • F.10 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 1 • Planning Process 0 Chapter 1: Planning Process • Section 1: Purpose & Overview The Planning Process: Purpose and Overview • Purpose: This document is the hazard mitigation plan for City of Lansing, Michigan, consistent with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390), enacted October 30, 2000 and 44 CFR Part 201 — Mitigation Planning, Interim Final Rule, published in the Federal Register February 26, 2002. Overview of Chapter One: The planning process is described in three sections. Section 1 describes a basic overview of the planning process. Section 2 describes how specific elements of the Disaster Mitigation Act's (of 2000) specified planning process have been met. Section 3, details the methods involved in the plan. Unit of Analysis: The unit of analysis for this plan is The City of Lansing, Michigan. This unit of analysis was defined in part by the Michigan Emergency Management Act (Act 390 of 1976). The act defines a local emergency management coordinator as a person appointed pursuant to section 9 of the act to coordinate emergency management within the county or municipality. This person acts to coordinate all matters pertaining to emergency management, disaster preparedness, and recovery assistance and they are appointed by the chief executive of the jurisdiction. In the Tri-County Region, five jurisdictions have emergency management coordinators. The City of Lansing is one of those jurisdictions. The city's emergency management coordinator is housed in the Lansing Emergency Management Office. Since the city is the primary unit for local emergency management coordination, the jurisdiction of City of Lansing is the unit of analysis for this plan. Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process Section 1: Purpose & Overview • The Local & Regional Planning Perspective: The City of Lansing has unique hazard concerns and mitigation priorities as detailed in this plan. Despite these critical local factors, natural, technological, and social hazards are problems that can be defined as `problems ofgreater than local concern': For example, floods or tornados do not stop with respect to jurisdictional boundaries. It is likely that a large disaster anywhere in Clinton, Eaton, or Ingham Counties will have will have ramifications for all of the region's 78 local units of government in one way or another. While this plan is written specifically for the City of Lansing, it is also written in a regional context. The authors suggest that as well as considering local aspects of hazard mitigation planning, regional planning can play an important role in considering how best to reduce the threat of disasters. Key elements of regional planning include dialogues between jurisdictions and capacity building across multiple jurisdictions for regional problem solving (Dodge, 1996). Hazard mitigation planning is an activity where a regional approach to planning has clear local benefits. Project Funding and Administration: The authors would be remiss not to acknowledge both the project's funding sources and administrative support. In spring 2003, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission applied for a hazard mitigation planning grant for the purpose of developing a hazard mitigation plan for the region. In July 2003, a $155,600 Hazard Mitigation Planning Grant was awarded to the region from the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division / Department of Homeland Security - Federal Emergency Management Agency. The grant was administered through Ingham County on behalf of the region, with the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission acting as a subcontractor the County to prepare hazard mitigation plans for Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties, Delta Charter Township, and the City of Lansing. These five jurisdictions provided 25% in kind soft -match • 1.1.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process • Section 1: Purpose & Overview support through various project work and time spent on this project. Fiscal management and administrative support were provided through the Ingham County Controllers Office and the staff of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Generalized Project Timeline: This project started with regional hazard mitigation planning scoping discussions in December 2002. The end date for this project is November 1, 2004. The work period under grant funding was August 2003 to November 2004. The final adoption of the plan by this jurisdiction is scheduled to take place by December 2004. Figure 1.1.A depicts the generalized timeline. • References: • Dodge, William R. (1996) Regional Excellence- Governing Together to Compete Globally and Flourish Locally. Washington D.C.: National League of Cities. Michigan State Police. (2002) Michigan Emergency Management Act. EMD PUB 102. Lansing: MSP Emergency Management Division. Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.1.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process Section 1: Purpose & Overview Sub -section 1: Figuresi., List of Figures: Figure # Title Pa-e 1.1.A Generalized Project Timeline 1.1.5 is • 1.1.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 0 0 0 Hazard Mitigation Project Timeline Project Time Period: December 2002 to December 2004 Jul-03 - Dec-03 Planning Process: Community Profile & Hazard Indentification Aug-04 - Nov-04 Planning: Writing & Plan Assembly Mar-03 -Jun-03 Grant ApplicationF J 04 A 04 Dec-02 - Mar-03 F_A� Pre -Planning: Regional Consensus I1/1/2003 4/14003 7/1/2003 12/1 /2002 _T Jul-03 Grant Awarded Tri-County Regional R& Rennmg Commission October 2004 an- - ug- Planning Process: Hazard and Mitigation Analysis HNov-04 -Dec-04 Plan Adoption 10/1 /2003 1 /1 /2004 4/1/2004 7/1/2004 10/1/21 Page 1.1.5 Jun-04 Pre -Draft Public Comment Option Finder Meeting 2/31 /2004 Nov-04 Plan Completed Oct-04 Post Draft Public Comment: Published Announcement *** This Page Intentionally Left Blank *** • 0 Chapter 1: Planning Process Section 2: Plan Elements & Requirments The Planning Process: Plan Elements & Requirements Introduction — Plan Elements & Requirements: This planning process has been guided by requirements as specified in §201.6 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This section highlights various elements of the plan in the context of those requirements. This plan was also guided by the Michigan State Police — Emergency Management Division. Specific guidance has been derived from the document Local Ha.Zard Mitigalion Planning Workbook (Pub 207). Many concepts and the language of portions of this plan have been adapted from that source. The following sections describe how requirements related to the specific plan elements have been met. • Pre -Planning Process: To start this project, from December 2002 to March 2003, emergency management and land use officials from Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties, Delta Charter Township, and the City of Lansing, were invited to meetings hosted by the Tri- County Regional Planning Commission. The purpose of those meetings was to consider the possibility of a regional hazard mitigation planning effort. Consensus was forged that on behalf of each of the jurisdictions in the region, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission would organize and facilitate the development of a plan that is regional in nature, while meeting local requirements. This plan was to be developed in cooperation with local emergency management and land use officials. The outcome of the planning process would be a hazard mitigation plan for each jurisdiction along with a regional component. All parties agreed that the regional approach would be beneficial. In order to officially start the planning process, a resolution was presented to Lansing City Council to support the hazard is mitigation planning process. The wording of the resolution is Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process Section 2: Plan Elements and Requirements • presented in Appendix 1. The resolution was approved in winter 2003. Once that resolution was approved, the Tri-County Region Planning Commission facilitated the Hazard Mitigation Grant Application Process on behalf of the jurisdictions. How Lansing Participated in the Planning Process: Lansing participated in the plan as follows. The city's Emergency Management Office and the Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, Planning Office worked closely with the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in developing this plan. This activity included joint research, comment, and plan review. In addition, many of the county's departments participated in various parts of the planning process. Participants in the Planning Process: In the development of this hazard mitigation plan, the Tri- County Regional Planning Commission prepared the plan, with • the guidance from units of from City of Lansing's Government. Specifically, from the emergency management perspective the Lansing Emergency Management Office provided input and review of this document. Lansing's Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, Planning Office assisted with the land use elements of this plan. The local hazard mitigation planning committee was staffed by representatives from the Lansing Emergency Management Office, Lansing's Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development, Planning Office, and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. This committee took the lead responsibility for review of the plan's elements. External to the local hazard mitigation planning committee, there were a number of local participants. This participation was facilitated with the assistance of the Lansing Fire Board. Participating entities included, but were not limited to, the Public Service Department, Building Department, Police Department, Board of Water and Light (Utility), city elected officials, the local Red Cross chapters, neighborhood network centers, Michigan State University Extension, and others. is 1.2.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process • Section 2: Plan Elements & Requirments The authors of this plan wish to acknowledge and thank the many persons and entities who contributed to the development of this plan. Public Participation in the Planning Process The public was involved at two keys points in the planning process. These two points were a pre -draft public / stakeholder input meeting, and a public comment period when the draft was completed. The pre -draft public meeting was a key component of plan development. In consultation with the City of Lansing's Emergency Management Office, a hazard mitigation plan input session was held at the July 2004 Board of Fire Commissioners Meeting. At this public meeting, a facilitated discussion took place and participants were polled concerning the importance of hazard mitigation activities in the City. All participants agreed that • hazard mitigation is an important part the city's overall emergency management activities. After general questions, specific questions concerning the most appropriate mitigation strategies for the city were asked. Facilitators also gathered feedback concerning relevant mitigation strategies. The Lansing Pre -Draft public meeting was held on July 14, 2004, at the Lansing Fire Station #4. The meeting was planned by the local hazard mitigation planning committee. The meeting facilitator was Jack Rozdilsky (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission / Michigan State University Extension) and David Murray (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission) assisted in meeting facilitation. The meeting was organized with assistance from the Lansing Fire Department. Twelve persons were in attendance. The second opportunity for public comment took place as the plan's final draft was completed. A notice for a public comment notice was published in the main regional newspaper of record, the Sunday edition of the Lansing State Journal. A November 2004 public comment period was announced for members of the public or any other entities interested in commenting on the • final draft of the plan. All comments were logged and considered Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.2.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process Section 2: Plan Elements and Requirements Use of Existing Plans The Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Project e Our VISIOn Growth Project Poster Plan This hazard mitigation plan has incorporated elements of existing plans. A key plan was the Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Project. The mission of that project is to actively engage the citizens of the region to examine implications of regional land use and other growth trends on the region's future. A goal of the project is to formulate a consensus on a shared regional vision. One of the proj ect's supporting principles is related to hazard mitigation. by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Appendix 2 contains that public comment notice. Participation by Multiple Jurisdictions: Through the Lansing Office of Emergency Management actions were taken to coordinate the participation of all relevant city agencies and stakeholders. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission coordinated participation of surrounding jurisdictions in the city's plan development. By employing existing channels of communication in the land use and emergency management disciplines all relevant stakeholders were notified and invited to participate in the plan's development. Specifically, contributions were made to the plans during the public / stakeholder input session as well as at local emergency planning committees, fire department meetings, and other forums. Locally, the Lansing Office of Emergency Management coordinated all multiple -jurisdiction hazard related activities. Opportunity for Neighboring Jurisdictions to Participate: As the City of Lansing Plan was a part of regional effort, hazard mitigation plans were simultaneously developed for Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties, and Delta Charter Township. By participating in this regional planning process, neighboring jurisdictions had the opportunity be involved in the planning process. Consideration of Existing Studies & Plans: This plan both considered and incorporated relevant elements of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Specifically, local land use and comprehensive plans were considered where available. Also, in some cases, information from relevant hazard analysis and emergency management related documents were included in the plan. An important existing plan that was incorporated was the Tri- County Region Growth: Choice for Our Future Project. The mission of that project is to actively engage the citizens of the region to examine implications of regional land use and other growth trends on the region's future in order to formulate a consensus on a shared regional vision. • • • 1.2.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process • Section 2: Plan Elements & Requirments As a part of that project, themes and principles have been developed to support the regional vision. One of the principles under the transportation and other infrastructure theme is related to hazard mitigation: Regional Growth Principle: Emergency Management and Hazard Mitigation `Appropriate plans for disaster preparedness and emergency management will be developed at the locallevel while keeping in mind that the preferred regional vision will strive to keep people and public facilities out of harms way." As a part of the Regional Growth Project, in June 2004, focus groups were held to test the both the public and leaders levels of understanding and agreement with the Principles (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2004). During the focus groups, the principle related to hazard mitigation was rated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 0 being no understanding or agreement and • 10 being full understanding or agreement. Focus group results for understanding of and agreement with the principle were as follows: • • Growtb Project Focus Group Leadership Cohort 8.8 avg. understanding of hazard mitigation principle 8.3 avg. agreement with the hazard mitigation principle • Growtb Pr ject Focus Group Public Cohort 9.1 avg. understanding of hazard mitigation principle 8.8 avg. agreement with the hazard mitigation principle As evidenced by these results, one can conclude that both leaders and public in the region understand hazard mitigation and agree that it is a worthwhile effort. This hazard mitigation plan is considered as implementation of a component of the Tri-County Regional Growtb: Choices for Our Future Project. Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.2.5 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process Section 2: Plan Elements and Requirements • Plan Adoption: This plan will be submitted for provisional approval to the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division, and the final draft was delivered to the City of Lansing on November 1, 2004. Given provisional approval from the State Police and approval from this local jurisdiction (See letters of approval at the front of this plan) the Lansing City Council and / or other relevant City Departments will be sent a resolution asking for formal adoption of this plan. At the time of writing, this action is scheduled to take plan in November or December 2004. References: Michigan State Police. (2003) Local Hazard Mitgation Planning Workbook. (EMD-PUB 207). Version: February 2003. Lansing, Mich.: MSP — Emergency Management Division. Tri-County Regional Planning Commision. (2004) Regional Growth Choices for Our Future — Focus Group Data Report. Final Report by J ack Rozdilsky and David Murray — June 2004. Lansing, Mich.: TCRPC. • Tri-County Regional Planning Commision. (2004) Regional Growth Poster Plan. TCRPC / HTNB, Mich. Version: Spring 2004. Lansing, Mich.: TCRPC. • 1.2,6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process Section 3: Plan Methodology The Planning Process: Plan Methodology Introduction — Plan Methodology In order to perform the hazard analysis and mitigation analysis for this hazard mitigation plan, a specific methodology was employed. The methodology is described in this section Step 1: Hazard Analysis The City of Lansing instructed the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission to use the results of the Lansing Hazard Analysis. This hazard analysis was a part of The City of Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis 2003. • The following description of the hazard analysis is quoted directly from the Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis 2003. "We have identified nineteen man-made and natural hazards which present a risk to our community. In the analysis process, each hazard was given a rating of one to ten. The form used to determine the ranking is included as Figure 1.3.A. One of the categories, historical occurrence, was weighted (3x) in order to give a more accurate picture of the hazards. For instance, while a dam failure could potentially have a higher impact than a snowstorm, a dam failure may never occur, while snowstorms have occurred and will occur again. The matrix in Figure 1.3.A shows the results of the analysis. There is no such thing as a hazard -proof community, but through this analysis and through future mitigation projects we may be able to minimize the effects of disasters in Lansing." The Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis Team consisted of participants from the Lansing Police Department, Lansing Fire Department, Building Department, Public Service Department, is Emergency Management, and Local Media Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process Section 3: Plan Methodology The categories in Figure 1.3.A are defined as follows: • Historical Occurrence: Frequency of Event 10 - occurs with regularity 1 - has never occurred • Affected Area: One Site or Many, Large or Small Area 10 - Large Area (100% of City) 1 - Single Site • Sbeed of Onset: Hose quickly does the event develop 10 - Minimal/No 1 - <24 hours • Population Impact: Potential number of deaths of serious injuries 10 - 10+ Casualties 1 - none • Economic Effects: Damages, response and recovery costs, monetary losses 10 - Significant (127K +) 1 - minimal • Duration: Time during which ha.Zard is aefiveypresent and causing damage 10 - 2 weeks+ 1 - 1-day • Predictability: Ease synth which time, location, and magnitude of ha.Zard can be predicted 10 - unpredictable 1 - highly predictable • Collateral Damage: Possibility of the event creating a secondary ha5,ard. 10 - Always 1 - none • • 1.3.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process • Section 3: Plan Methodology Availability of Public Warning: Time or Means to warn public available 10 - Unavailable 1 - Available • Mitigation Potential: Ease with which steps can be taken either in advance of or immediately prior to the event, to lessen the effects of the hazard. 10 - Impossible 1 - Easy • Preparedness: Level to which the community is prepared to respond to and recover from the ha.Zard. 10 - No plan, unprepared 1 - Plans prepared and exercised Step 2: Determination of Hazard's with the Highest Mitigation Potential • Given the information from the hazard analysis, the next step was to determine the hazards with the top mitigation potential. • The local hazard mitigation committee brainstormed on this topic on numerous occasions. With input from the Lansing Office of Emergency Management, City of Lansing Planning Office, Public Works, Building Department, Office of Information Technology, and others it was determined that five hazards had the highest mitigation potential. These hazards are presented in chapter 4. Step 3: Suggested Mitigation Actions Using the list of hazards determined in step two, it was necessary to then determine the most appropriate mitigation strategies for those hazards. At a public input session at the Lansing Fire Board of Commissioners Meeting in July 2004, participants were polled on the most appropriate mitigation strategies. Those results are presented in Chapter 4. Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.3.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 1: Planning Process Section 3: Plan Methodology • Step 4: Potential Mitigation Actions Integrating the findings from the public input session, the information from the City of Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis, and the recommendations of the local hazard mitigation planning committee, a series of potential mitigation actions was developed. These actions, or projects, are listed in Chapter 5 and will be considered when specific mitigation actions are being developed in the future. 1.3.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 1.3.A City of Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Matrix - With Corrected Ranking Order Adapted from page 10 of Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis 2003 Nov. 2004 2002 Rank 2001 Rank Hazard Historical Occurrence (x3) Affected Area Speed of Onset Pop Impact Econ Effects Duration Predictab ility Collateral Damage Avail of Public Warning Mitigative Potential Prepared ness Total Score 5 4 Terrorism 7 4 10 10 7 1 10 10 10 7 4 94 1 11 Snow 10 10 3 10 10 4 4 8 1 10 1 91 2 2 Severe Wind 10 7 10 7 10 1 5 8 1 10 1 90 3 3 Ice and Sleet 10 10 4 4 10 4 4 10 1 10 1 88 4 5 Nuclear Attack 1 10 7 10 10 10 7 10 1 10 10 88 17 17 Structural Fires 10 1 10 4 10 3 10 3 7 5 1 84 7 7 Hazmat - Transport 6 1 10 10 10 4 10 7 5 4 1 80 8 81 Flood 5 5 4 4 10 10 5 10 3 6 5 77 9 9 Tornado 4 7 10 10 10 1 5 10 1 10 1 77 11 11 Extreme Cold 10 10 1 4 6 10 1 7 1 5 1 76 12 10 Trans. Accidents 4 1 10 10 10 1 10 4 10 4 1 73 13 12 Pipeline 7 3 10 7 5 1 10 3 5 7 1 73 14 14Infrastructure 5 8 10 1 7 2 10 7 7 5 1 73 6 18 Hazmat - Fixed Site 5 5 10 7 10 4 4 7 5 4 1 72 15 13 Radiological 1 1 10 10 7 7 10 5 7 4 7 71 16 15 Extreme Heat 7 10 1 10 7 7 1 6 11 4 1 69 10 6 Civil Disturbance 6 5 7 3 10 3 7 5 1 5 1 65 18 19 Public Health 4 7 4 10 3 7 7 1 4 3 1 59 19 20 Dam Failure 1 7 71 4 10 1 71 7 1 71 1 55 *** This Page Intentionally Left Blank *** • • 41 City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 2 0 Community Profile 0 Chapter 2: Community Profile • Introduction Community Profile: Introduction About the Community Profile Preparing a high -quality Community Profile is crucial in developing an effective Hazard Mitigation Plan and aids in a comprehensive examination of existing characteristics as they relate to various potential hazards. Much of the information contained in this chapter comes from various publicly available sources, however it has been aggregated in this document in such a way as to create a summary of the general features of the area, as well as present specific data that is pertinent to a hazard analysis. • The Community Profile chapter is a collection of data and information that introduces the reader to the City of Lansing and the Tri-County Region as well as acts as a set of data that can be directly analyzed in conjunction with various hazards as they are identified in later portions of this Plan. This profile was compiled specifically for the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The content was selected based on the relevance to hazard analysis in the Tri-County Region. Although this profile contains a great deal of valuable information and data about the area, it is important to note that this data was collected for a very specific project and may or may not include information relevant to other projects, nor is it an entirely comprehensive profile of the community. The Community Profile chapter is divided into five distinct sections based on different types of information. Within each of these sections there may be accompanying tables, charts, figures, and in all cases, maps, that help illustrate the various types of information. The first section includes a brief history of the City of Lansing, and any significant historical events or sites in the area. The second section addresses the geography, climate and natural features of the county and region. The third section addresses information about the land use and land cover • throughout the area, and also presents information on estimated Hazard Mitigation Plan 2A City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Introduction future land use for the Tri-County Region. A great deal of demographic information about the City of Lansing can be found within the fourth section of this chapter. Finally, the last section of the Community Profile contains information on critical community facilities that are relevant to hazard mitigation. • • 2 , i i Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 1: History City of Lansing History Lansing's Origin Following a requirement of Michigan's 1835 constitution to select a permanent location for the governmental seat, a small, relatively unsettled area in northwest Ingham County was chosen as the capitol. Detroit, being one of the earliest and largest settlements within the state, had been the primary location for governmental activities until legislators decided to select a site that was more centrally located within the state. In 1847, because of the central location within the state, the capitol was moved to a site within Lansing Township near the junction of the Red Cedar and Grand Rivers, and platted this site as the is town of "Michigan." After a great deal of criticism and disappointment with the name of the new town, the legislators decided to rename the town Lansing. Joseph H. North, one of the earliest settlers in the area, is often given credit for suggesting this name, as he was originally from Lansing, NY, named after Revolutionary War era politician and lawyer, John Lansing Jr. • Over the next decade the town grew exponentially, and in 1859 Lansing became an incorporated city. The Capitol Building A small temporary capitol building had been built between Washington and Capitol Avenues until a permanent structure could be built on the site across the street. In 1879, after more than thirty years in the "temporary" structure, the capitol was replaced by the current structure at the intersection of Michigan and Capitol Avenues. Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Communtiy Profile Section 1: History is Oldsmobile in Lansing In August 1897, Ransom Eli Olds opened the Olds Motor Vehicle Company in Lansing, becoming Michigan's first operating automobile company. In 1900 Olds moved his operations to Detroit, but soon returned to Lansing after a 1901 fire destroyed the Detroit factory. R.E. Olds retired from Oldsmobile in 1904, a time when the company was producing more vehicles than any other American auto manufacturer, in order to create the REO Motor Vehicle Company. Although the REO vehicles initially outsold Oldsmobiles during 1904 and 1905, the company had financial difficulties over the years and ended up changing ownership several times before ending production in the mid seventies. Oldsmobile, however remained a major automobile manufacturer after the company was combined with Chevrolet and Cadillac to form General Motors in 1908. Historic Sites in Lansing According to the Michigan Historic Preservation Office, there are 23 sites in Lansing that are registered with the National Park • Service's National Register of Historic Places. These sites are indicated on the following maps. (Maps 2.1.L1 & 2.1.R1) Some of these sites are also included among the 59 state designated historic sites within the city. For more information on these state designated sites, as well as information about nationally registered sites, please visit the State Historic Preservation Office's website at: www.michiganhistory.org. References: Michigan's Historic Sites Online/State Historic Preservation Office httg: / /michsite.mi.us MultiMag Michigan htW://www.multimag.com J 2.1.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • • Chapter 2: Community Profile Sub-seetion: Figures List of Figures: Figure # Title Section 1: History Pa-e 2.1.A Historic Sites Table 2.1.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 2.1.3 Chapter 2: Communtiy Profile Section 1: History Figure 1.2.A: Historic Sites Table The first column in the table below corresponds to the label numbers on Map # 2.1.1-1. A specific description and historical significance of each of these sites can be found at: http: / /michsite.state.mi.us. Label Number Site ID # Site Name Address City Count Date Listed 1 P23353 Brown -Price House 1003 North Washington Avenue Lansing Ingham 3/22/1984 2 P23354 Central Methodist Episcopal Church 215 North Capitol Avenue Lansing Ingham 9/17/1980 3 P25492 Emery Houses 320 West Ottawa Street Lansing Ingham 12/10/1993 4 P23360 Federal Building 315 West Allegan Street Lansing Ingham 9/17/1980 5 P23361 First Baptist Church 227 North Capitol Avenue Lansing Ingham 9/17/1980 6 P23364 Franklin Avenue Presbyterian Church 108 West Grand River Avenue Lansing Ingham 5/19/1988 7 P23366 Grand Trunk Western Rail Station, Lansing Depot 1203 South Washington Avenue Lansin Ingham 7/3/1980 8 P23370 Knapp, J. W., Company Building 300 South Washington Avenue Lansing Ingham 5/21/1983 9 P23376 Lansing Woman's Club Building 118 West Ottawa Street Lansing Ingham 9/17/1980 10 P23378 Masonic Temple 217 South Capitol Avenue Lansing Ingham 9/17/1980 11 P23383 Michigan Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company Building 120 W. Ottawa Street Lansing Ingham 9/17/1980 12 P108 Michi an State Capitol 100 North Capitol Avenue Lansing Ingham 1/25/1971 13 P23392 Moon, Darius B., House 216 Huron Street Lansing Ingham 11/30/1982 14 P23393 Moores, J. H., Memorial Natatorium 427 Moores River Drive Lansing Ingham 1/14/1985 15 P23394 Mutual Building 208 North Capitol Avenue Lansing Ingham 9/17/1980 16 P23395 North Lansing Historic Commercial District 200 East Grand River Avenue Lansing Ingham 4/30/1976 17 P23397 Penfil Apartments 108 S. Hosmer Street Lansing Ingham 10/17/1990 18 P23400 Saint Mary Cathedral 229 Seymour Street Lansing Ingham 11/2/1990 19 P23402 Smith -Turner House 326 West Grand River Avenue Lansing Ingham 7/11/1980 20 P23404 State Office Building 316 South Walnut Avenue Lansing Ingham 5/17/1984 21 P23405 Strand Theatre and Arcade 211 South Washington Avenue Lansing Ingham 9/17/1980 22 P23407 Turner -Dodge House 106 East North Street Lansing Ingham 9/14/1972 23 P3337 Union Depot 637 East Michigan Avenue I Lansing Ingham 7/21/1995 0 • 2.1.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • Sub -section: Maps List of Maps: Maw # Title Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 1: History Pape 2.1.1,1 Nationally Registered Historic Sites 2.1.7 2.1.R1 Regional Nationally Registered Historic Sites 2.1.9 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 2.1.5 Chapter 2: Communtiy Profile Section 1: History **This page intentionally left blank** • • 17� 2.1.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • City of Lansing Nationally Registered Historic Sites Legend •/O Nationally Registered Historic Sites" (See narrative for descriptions) / State Roads/Interslates All Other Roads Railroads EWn "The points on this map represent nationally registered historic sites within the City of Lansing. Although some sites indicated may also be designated as state or local historic sites, this map does not include a full representation of such sites. TCRPC File # 20030910-1 D Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission r Hazard Mitigation Project Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Historic Site Source: Michigan State Historic Preservation Office • Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Historic Site Source: Michigan State Historic Preservation Office Tri-County, Region Nationally Registered Historic Sites Legend Nationally Registered Historic Sites— / Inlerslates/Freeways / Stale Highways Other Major Roadways Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 **The points on this map represent nationally registered historic sites within the Tri-County Region. Although some sites indicated may also be designated as state or local historic sites, this map does not include a full representation of such sites. TCRPC N W E File # 20030908 r1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission S Hazard Mitigation Project z v N 0 CD C C 1%/ Q 00 r--r o :2 O n 3 CD V) • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features Geography, Climate, and Natural Features his portion of the community profile addresses larger regional scale landscape and physical geographic features of the Tri-County Region. Generally speaking, Mid - Michigan's Tri-County Region lies in an area characterized by a broad till plain that has rich loamy soils that have been largely converted to agricultural uses. During the past 200 years, much of land cover that existed prior to European settlement has been converted to agricultural production and urban lands. For the Hazard Mitigation Project, the region is divided into five areas, as defined by the Michigan State Police as areas having their own emergency management coordinator. These five areas are defined on Map 2.2.R1 and include Delta Township, the City of Lansing, and the three counties. The region's climate, ecosystems, geology, and physiography across these areas are fairly consistent across and therefore this section is written from a regional perspective. If one were to divide the region into its built environment components (such as cities, highways, buildings, etc) and its natural environment components (such as rivers, meadows, trees, etc) the natural environment components could best be described as parts of an interconnected ecosystem. The ecosystem can be conceptualized as a mixture of abiotic components (the physical environment, such as specific sites or habitats) and the biotic components (plants, animals, and microbial communities). Figure 2.2.A depicts these components of the ecosystem. If the ecosystem were viewed as layers, the climate would be on top, biosphere and surface features in the middle, and subsurface features of geology and hydrology would he below. Humans reside in the thin layer of the biosphere, at and near the Earth's surface. While hazards can originate from both climate and geology, humans are affected by hazards when • they impact the biosphere. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2,2.1 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Commundy Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features The following narrative discusses some of the physical and geographic characteristics of the Tri-County Region. The location of the region is discussed, along with climate, ecology, geology and physiography. Changes in the region's land cover from 1800 to 1978 are also discussed. The accompanying maps for this section are also based on a regional level of analysis. If it is determined that the data included in these maps is important for the study of a specific hazard, then a local map will be created. Considering physical and geographic components of the region is an important part of the region's hazard mitigation plan due to the fact that all of the region's natural hazards originate in one way or another from the region's climate, ecology, geology, or physiography. Disasters occur when humans interact with the extremes of the natural systems. On the converse, one can also consider how human alterations of the ecosystem and extreme events of human origin may negatively impact critical and unique ecosystem components. Geography The Tri-County Region, comprised of Clinton County to the north and Eaton and Ingham Counties to the south, is centrally located within the southern half of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The middle of the region is approximately the city of Lansing at a latitude of 42' 42' North and a longitude of 84' 33" West at an elevation of 853 feet (260 meters) above sea level in downtown Lansing. Politically, the region is made up of 78 separate units of government. This includes 27 cities and villages, 48 townships and the 3 counties. Lansing, the region's major metropolitan area, is centrally located near the intersection of the three counties. The second largest city is East Lansing, located immediately to the east. Other major cities in the region include the three County Seats; St. Johns in Clinton County, Charlotte in Eaton County, and Mason in Ingham County; as well as other incorporated cities such as Dewitt, Grand Ledge, Potterville, Eaton Rapids, Olivet, Leslie, and Williamston. The Tri-County region is served by several major surface transportation arteries, such as I-96, I-69, U.S, 27, and U.S. 127. These freeways intersect in and around the Lansing area and link • C • 2,2.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features the Tri-County region to other major Michigan cities such as Detroit and Ann Arbor to the southeast, Grand Rapids and Muskegon to the northwest, Flint, Saginaw, and Bay City to the northeast, and Battle Creek and Kalamazoo to the southwest. The area is also served by a regional airport allowing for connector flight to major destinations. As the crow flies, Lansing is 77 from Detroit, 171 miles from Chicago, 566 miles from New York, and 1,916 miles from Los Angeles. Climate The climate of mid -Michigan is a product of latitude (impacting the amount of solar energy gain), position on the North American continent (interactions with air masses), and its the position relevant to the Great Lakes (lake effect conditions). The Region's latitude of 42' North and longitude of 84' West has a direct relation to the amount of solar energy the region receives. The amount of solar gain impacts temperatures, growing seasons, seasonal variations. • The region's weather also partly controlled by the interactions of three major air masses: the Continental Polar originating in the Arctic bringing cold dry weather in the winter and cool weather in the summer; the Maritime Tropical originating in the Gulf of Mexico bringing warm moist winter weather and hot humid summer conditions; and the Maritime Polar originating in the Northern Pacific Ocean bringing mild weather with little precipitation. The weather is also influenced by the Great Lakes, as these large water bodies have a tendency to affect temperatures and precipitation for the region. In mid -Michigan, the lake -effect weather influences local weather in a variety of ways. In certain conditions, the lake effect can increase the intensity of storms. In other cases, the lake effect decreases the intensity of storms and increase the stability of air masses. The Tri-County Region experiences warm, humid summers and moderately cold winters. The average temperature for the region is approximately 47 degrees Fahrenheit with highs and lows reaching an average of approximately 82 and 13 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. Temperature extremes can reach • higher than 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer months and Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.2.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Commundy Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features into the negative teens in the winter. Average annual precipitation is about 31 inches. Climatic hazards for the Tri-County Region can include tornadoes, high winds, severe storms, lightning strikes, hail, heavy rains, drought, sleet and ice, heavy snow, blizzards, extreme cold, and extreme heat. Ecology The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recognizes hundreds of unique ecoregions throughout the U.S. In the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, alone, there are twenty-five different ecoregions, as depicted on Map 2.2.M1. The USGS adopted these ecoregions based on the work of James Omernik in a 1987 document entitled "Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States." The USGS references this source when stating that "ecoregions are based on perceived patterns of a combination of causal and integrative factors including land use, land surface form, potential natural vegetation, and soils." A large percentage of the Tri-County Region lies within ecoregion VI.4.1, with much smaller portions lying in ecoregions • VI.6, VI.2.2, and VI.1.3. Figure 2.2.B includes a full description of ecoregion VI.4.1 from the USGS. The description includes information on landforms, significant water features, soils, and pre -settlement vegetation, as well as other physiographic features. Based on the description of ecoregion VI.4.1, the region is characterized by the "medium -textured ground moraine" and by the historical presence of beech and sugar maple forests and hardwood swamps. The region's two major rivers, the Grand and the Thornapple, are among the ecoregion's most significant riverine features. Lake Lansing in Northwest Ingham County and Lake Ovid in Eastern Clinton County are the region's largest lakes. Present-day plant and animal (biotic) communities are a result of the region's physical environment and post -Pleistocene (10,000 years ago) species migration patters. Vegetation first moved northwards during the after the glacial retreats. Soil composition in the region reflects the mineral matter dissolved in glacial meltwater. During the past 500 years human alternations of land and plant communities have also altered the region's biotic characteristics. • 2.2.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features While the region's plants and animals do not in themselves represent a hazard, they can interact with other factors in creating hazardous environments. For example, non-native species can wreak havoc on local ecosystems creating problems for the natural landscape, aesthetic landscape elements, natural resource based industries and agricultural crops. Agricultural and wildlife blights can also impact the Tri-County Region potentially creating disastrous health and economic situations in the region. Intentional and unintentional human alteration of the region's ecosystem can also have negative consequences on the region's built, economic, and social environments. However, these consequences are often observable only over the long- term. Geology & Physiography Michigan is located in Central Stable Region, of the Continental Interior of North America. Within this Central Stable Region, there were active areas of uplift where erosion occurred and older Precambrian (4,500 to 543 million years ago) Rocks were exposed at the surface (such as the Canadian Shield) and areas • that were sagging down to form local basins in which sediments had accumulated (such as the Michigan Basin). During the Paleozoic Era (543 to 248 million years ago), Michigan was intermittently submerged beneath shallow seas and those ancient marine deposits have contributed to Michigan's nutrient and moisture rich loam and clays soils which are now used for agriculture. All of Michigan was covered with ice during the Wisconsonian Glaciations of the Pleistocene Epoch (1.8 million years ago to 10,000 years ago). The Tri-County Region's soils are the result of post -glacial erosion and soil erosion processes acting on glacial deposits. The Lower Peninsula of Michigan sits on bedrock that is strictly sedimentary in nature, representative of formations from the Paleozoic Era. Within the Tri-County Region there are seven different types of sedimentary bedrock formations (Map 2.2.R2), the most abundant of which is called the "Saginaw Formation." The Saginaw formation is described as lenticular beds of light and dark shale; white to light gray sandstones; and limestones with thin beds of coal. Clinton County, however, is host to Grand River and Red Bed Formations, a unique feature of the region's geology. The Red Bed formations contain bands of iron • oxides alternating with sedimentary material that is left over Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.2.5 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Communtiy Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features from the processes related to the rise and fall of ancient seas and formation of atmospheric gases. The deepest well in Ingham County (and perhaps the region) was drilled in Wheatfield township to a depth of 6,599 feet. Bedrock formations of Ordovician (490 to 443 million years ago) period sandstones were found at that depth. The region's quaternary geology is represented on Map 2.2.R3. Quaternary geology refers to the study of the earth's surface and the geologic processes that have taken place to define the shape and geologic makeup of the land. Quaternary geology also refers to `recent' events taking anytime from 1.8 million years ago to the present. The Tri-County Region's quaternary geology was greatly affected by glaciation, with evidence of four distinct types of glacial deposits (Map 2.2.R3). The most common type of glacial deposit in the region is glacial till, however the other types include end moraines, lacustrine deposits, glacial outwash and postglacial alluvium. Most surface features formed by glaciers in Michigan were created during the last 15,000 years. The last ice advance left Michigan's Upper Peninsula approximately 9,000 years ago. The Tri-County Region is also home to some unique geological features known as eskers (Map 2.2.R3). Eskers occur under stagnant glaciers as internal rivers seek a way out of the massive ice sheet through tunnels. As these "rivers" flow, they begin depositing a riverbed layer, which gradually builds up higher than the surrounding landscape. As the glacier eventually recedes, it leaves behind these built up riverbeds which can reach lengths in excess of 100 miles. Eskers are comprised of an aggregate of gravel and sand. The Tri-County Region is home to Michigan's longest and well known eskers, the Mason Esker, however little evidence still exists today, as much of this esker has been excavated for its aggregate material and gravel used in local construction throughout the region. A portion of the Mason is preserved in the Bancroft Park area in North Lansing. Running in a northwestern direction the esker starts near Mason in Ingham County and ends near DeWitt in Clinton County. There are, however, many other occurrences throughout the region, especially within Ingham County, in which geologic evidence still exists. The Tri-County Region is also home to the globally unique feature of an inland salt marsh. In the Maple River area, of • 2.2.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features northern Clinton County, one of the few intact inland salt marshes of North America exists. Inland salt marshes form where salt -rich seeps emerge from to the surface from glacial deposits. A limited number of wetland species that can tolerate high salt content in the soil then develop over time in the salt marsh. This unique environment is the home to endangered and threatened species. In the region, there are five major river watersheds as depicted in Map 2.2.R4. A watershed is an area of the surface that catches rain and snow and drains or seeps into a marsh, stream, river, lake or groundwater. Within the region's five major river watersheds there are many smaller subdivisions of the watersheds based on creeks and drainages. Knowledge of watersheds and wetlands in the region can assist in considering the impacts of potential flooding. Watersheds can also be used in helping to determine the potential path of contaminant releases. Geology and physiographic features have a great influence the types of natural hazards in the • region. Geologic based hazards such as floods are common to the region. Given the gentle topography in the region, landslide hazards are not common overall, but they can be site specific concerns at certain locations. Seismic hazards are minimal in mid -Michigan, although small earthquakes have been felt only on an infrequent basis. The region's soils can contribute to hazards if construction is done which is not appropriate to site specific constraints. Geographical and physical knowledge of a site can be important when designing site specific mitigation projects. • Historical Land Cover Based on the circa 1800 land cover map (2.2.R5) which was developed during the early surveying of Michigan, much of the Tri-County Region was comprised of upland coniferous forests, with many large areas of wetlands and grasslands. As the region was settled, much of the land was cleared for farming, and small towns and villages began to spring up as congregation points for commerce and social gatherings. Towns and village sites were typically selected because of their proximity to natural resources, including lumber and waterways. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2,2.7 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Communtiy Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features • Following the selection of the three county seats, and the selection of Lansing as Michigan's Capitol, the region began to grow exponentially. Towns and villages grew to become cities as the industrial revolution swept through the region, attracting more and more residents. Although many industries helped boost the economy, farming remained a major source of revenue for many residents. During the past 200 years most of the region's land cover has been converted to agriculture and to a lesser extent urbanized lands. A few small areas of the land cover that existed for most of the first millennium exists today. Sleepy Hollow State Park in Clinton County, the State Game Area near Dansville in Ingham County as well as various other county parks and natural areas that are semi -protected lands exhibit fragments of the ecosystems and land cover that were dominant prior to European settlement of North America. Map 2.2.R5 represents the region's land cover as it was recorded circa 1800. Map 2.2.R6 represents the land cover from 1978. This is a close representation of the land cover today. Looking at the map, we see large tracts of urbanized lands in the nine -township is area, near the center of the region. This is a noticeable change from the 1800, pre -European settlement map (Map 2.2.R5). Also noticeable is the amount of agricultural land in the 1978 map as opposed to the 1800 land cover map. 2.2.8 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features List of References: Canadian Geographic website. Eskers. Available at: Nvww.cangeo.ca/landforms/eskers.htm Greater Lansing Convention and Visitors Bureau website Available at: www.lansing.org Online Highways website; Weather Station of the U.S. Weather Service, East Lansing Available at: www.ohwy.com/mi/w/wx202395.htm State of Michigan; Department of Environmental Quality website Available at: www.michigan.gov/decl Travel Michigan; Lansing website Available at: Travel.michigan.org U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Atlas Climate • Zones website Available at: www.el2a.gov/ceiswebl /ceishome/atlas/nationalatlas/climatezo nes.htm USGS; Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center website: Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Available at: xtiA-,,%v.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/rlandscape Albert, Dennis A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. Gen Tech. Rep. NC-178. St Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station. Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Conservation (1958) Outline of the Geologic History of Ingham County — How Ingham County Got this way by Helen Martin." Lansing: Michigan Department of Conservation. Forstat, D.W. and Sorenson, H.O. (1982) "Bedrock Geology of Ingham County" Map. Lansing: Michigan DNR Geological Survey. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.2.9 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Communtiy Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features List of References, Cont. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. (n.d.) "Inland Salt Marsh Community Abstract" Lansing: MNFI. Available: web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/abstract/ecology/inland_salt_marsh. pdf. • • 2.2.10 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features • • Sub -Section: Figures List of Figures in Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features: Title EYI-IC 2.2.A Components of the Ecosystem 2.2.12 2.2.B Regional Landscape Description 2.2.13 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.2.11 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Communtiy Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features Figure 2.2.A Components of the Ecosystem it Climate (macro and micro) II rr Abiotic ConVonents II Physiography (form of land and parent material) II (Physical environment II II = site or habitat) IL Soil (edaphic factors of water, air, nutrients, etc.) II ECOSYSTEMA II rr Plants - Plant communities II II L Biota II Animals - Animal communities (Biotic II community) L Microbes - Microbial communities .Source: Albert, Dennis A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. Gen Tech. Rep. NC-178. St Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station. • • 2.2.12 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features Figure 2.2.B Regional Landscape Description ME US G S Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin SUB -SUBSECTION VI.4.1. Lansing Medium -textured ground moraine; beech -sugar maple forest and hardwood swamp. DISCUSSION: This broad till plain has rich, loamy soils that have been largely converted to agriculture. This sub -subsection is the largest in Lower Michigan. ELEVATION: 640 to 1,122 feet (195 to 342 m). AREA: 5,053 square miles (13,092 sq km). STATES: Michigan. CLIMATE: Growing season ranges from 140 to 160 days and is shortest in the north (Eichenlaub et al. 1990). Snowfall ranges from 40 to 70 inches, increasing to the west, closer to Lake Michigan. Annual precipitation is relatively uniform, ranging from 30 to 32 inches. Extreme minimum temperature ranges from-241/2F to-38'/2F, lowest in the north and in a large frost pocket near the center of the sub -subsection. BEDROCK GEOLOGY: See subsection. LANDFORMS: Sub -subsection consists of gently sloping ground moraine, broken by several outwash channels and also by numerous end -moraine ridges, many of which are a little steeper than the surrounding ground -moraine topography. Most of the gently rolling hills of ground moraine are only 40 to 60 feet high, but hills up to 100 feet are found on the east and west edges of the sub -subsection. The topography is gently rolling; typical slopes on the ridges are within the 0 to 6 percent slope class. Local relief of less than 50 feet is found over areas of several miles. The greatest elevation changes in the sub -subsection, accompanied by steep slopes, are along the outwash channels, which are commonly 50 to 100 feet lower than the adjacent ground moraine. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.2.13 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Communtiy Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features is Figure 2.2.B Regional Landscape Description, Cont. The end -moraine ridges, which cross -cut the till plain, typically form narrow bands 1 to 3 miles wide. Usually the end moraines do not form single, welldefined ridges, but rather groups of low ridges (less than 50 feet high) and swampy depressions. Most of the ridges are too steeply or irregularly sloping for agriculture. LAKES AND STREAMS: Three large rivers, the Maple, Grand, and Thomapple, and several smaller rivers flow across the broad till plain. Many of the rivers and creeks occupy glacial outwash channels; these channels presently carry much less water and sediment load than the glacial streams that deposited the outwash. The Grand River, which crosses the sub -subsection, occupies a major glacial outwash channel 150 to 200 feet lower than the surrounding till plain. In parts of the sub -subsection, the postglacial drainage system is not well developed, resulting in numerous broad swamps and marshes. The largest of these wetlands have been drained and converted to agriculture. There are a few small lakes, both kettle lakes on the end moraines and lakes occupying more linear depressions on the till plain. SOILS: The undulating topography of the ground moraine forms alternating well and moderately well drained rises and poorly to very poorly drained linear depressions. Approximately 30 percent of the ground moraine is poorly drained. Many of the depressions and glacial drainageways contain very poorly drained soils. A small area of sandy ground moraine, surrounded by the loam soils more typical of the sub - subsection, occupies southwestern Shiawassee County. Local areas of sandy upland were farmed in the past; but the farms failed, probably due to droughty, sterile soils. The lowlands remain as swamps and marshes. Soils are classified by the Soil Conservation Service (1967) as gently sloping Hapludalfs plus Argiaquolls. PRESETTLEMENT VEGETATION: The presettlement vegetation of the upland ground and end moraines was beechsugar maple forest. Other common species included black maple, basswood, red oak, and white ash. Black maple, now encountered more in this sub -subsection than in any other (possibly because of the wet-mesic conditions and the circumneutral soils on the gently sloping ground moraine), was identified as sugar maple during the original surveys. Some of the drier end -moraine ridges supported oak -hickory forests dominated by red and white oaks. The driest sandy ridges of the outwash deposits supported black oak, white oak, and pignut hickory. 2.2.14 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features Figure 2.2.13 Regional Landscape Description, Cont. Swamp forests dominated most of the depressions, but wet meadows were also present along streams. Among the common tree species were silver maple, American elm, red ash, and swamp white oak. Hackberry is presently common in the second -growth swamps, but was rarely mentioned by GLO surveyors. Tamarack was also present, especially in very poorly drained outwash channels. A large "wet prairie" was located in Clinton and Shiawassee Counties. NATURAL DISTURBANCE: Windthrow was probably the most common form of natural disturbance. PRESENT VEGETATION AND LAND USE: Drainage was necessary for agricultural use of the lowlands and some of the uplands. The number of drainage ditches in the sub - subsection is second only to that of the Maumee Lake Plain and the Saginaw Lake Plain sub - subsections. Tiling was the preferred method of drainage on the moderately well drained soils on uplands, but drainage ditches were necessary on poorly and very poorly drained soils. Organic soils were extensively drained for the production of mint and other specialty • crops. The organic deposits are also extensively mined for sedge peat, used in gardening and landscaping. Most of the uplands have been converted to crop land, while most of the swamp forest has been converted to pasture. Swamp forest and wet meadow persist locally on the landscape. The largest wet prairies have been drained and converted primarily to agricultural use. RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES: One of the rarest plant communities in the State, inland salt marsh, occurred in saline seepages along the Maple and Grand Rivers; only one of these marshes remains. All the wet prairies have been badly degraded or destroyed by drainage for agriculture. RARE PLANTS: Arabis perstellata var. sbortii (rock cress), Carex typbina (cattail sedge), Eleocbaris pamula (dwarf spike-rush), Scirpus olneyi (Olney's bulrush), Trillium nivale (snow trillium), Zi#a aptera (prairie golden alexander). RARE ANIMALS: Asio otus (long-eared owl), Dysnomia triquetra (snuffbox), Falco peregrines (Peregrine falcon), Lanius ludovicians (loggerhead shrike), Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat). NATURAL AREAS: The Nature Conservancy Preserves: Bancroft Floodplain; Other: Baker Woodlot, Scott Woods, Sanford Natural Area, Red Cedar Woods, Tourney Woods, Maher Wildlife Sanctuary, Woldumar Nature Study Area. • Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.2.15 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Communtiy Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features • Figure 2.2.13 Regional Landscape Description, Cont. PUBLIC LAND MANAGERS: State Game Areas: Rose Lake Wildlife Research Area, Portland, Lowell, Dansville, Mason, Flat River, Oak Grove, Maple River, Barry, Cannonsburg, Shiawassee River, Middleville; State Parks: Seven Lakes, Sleepy Hollow. CONSERVATION CONCERNS: Because of its fertile soils this sub -subsection was cleared early for farming. Few large tracts of forest exist. The original wet prairies were also drained and farmed. Restoration would be required to develop a functional natural landscape. The least developed portion of the sub -subsection is an area of sandy, poorly drained ground moraine in Clinton and Shiawassee Counties, where there is potential for wet prairie. • • 2.2.16 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features Sub -section: Maps List of Maps in Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features: Mai # Title Page 2.2.M1 Lower Peninsula Ecoregions 2.2.19 2.2.R1 The Five Jurisdictions in the Tri-County Region 2.2.21 2.2.R2 Bedrock Geology 2.2.23 2.2.R3 Quaternary Geology and Esker Locations 2.2.25 2.2.R4 Major River Watersheds 2.2.27 2.2.R5 Land Cover Circa 1800 2.2.29 2.2.R6 Land Cover 1978 2.2.31 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 2.2.17 Chapter 2: Commundy Profile Section 2: Geography, Climate, and Natural Features **This page intentionally left blank** i 2.2.18 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • C, e I County Boundary Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v2-a Ecoregion Legend V1.1.1 V1.1.2 V1.1.3 V1.2.1 V1.2.2 0 V1.3.1 V1.3.2 V1.3.3 V1.4.1 V1.4.2 V1.5.1 --� V1.5.2 1_... V1.6 V11.1.1 V11.1.2 J V11.2.1 L.. --- V11.2.2 �J1 V11.2.3 V11.3 �J VI1.4 V11.5.1 V11.5.2 V11.6.1 V11.6.2 V11.6.3 E Ecoregion Data: Michigan Center for Geographic Information; Ecoregions Michigan Lower Peninsula Ecoregions r General Legend* 0 CD Tri-County Region County Boundaries cD 3 =3 M. 5 *Ecoregion legend inside gatefold U) C Miles 0 12.5 25 50 75 ^� Much of the Tri-County Region (outlined in n red) falls within ecoregion VIA1. There are 0 also segments near the periphery of the —1 region that are within ecoregions VI.6, VI.2.2, (D and VI.1.3. A brief description of these (Q ecoregion classifications can be found within 0' the narrative of this document. For more detailed information on these, or any other ecoregions in Michigan, visit the USGS Northern Prarie Wildlife Research Centers website at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/ Rlandscp/MICH MAPI.HTM TCRPC N N > File #20031021-3 'D Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project �Tri-County Region The Five Jusdictions Within the Tri-County Region Legend Interstates/Freeways State Highways Other Major Roadways Lansing I Delta Township C'I Clinton County C' Eaton County Ingham County Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 TCRPC File # 20030801-2 ~ Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project Source: Michiqan Geoqraphic Framework v.2-a cn cu C— c C a o Ci S� 0 G C r-r 00 O 3 C N !CD • Q�j N----------------=---------------------— - - - - - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — ---- NSource: Michigan Center for Geographic Information; 1987 Bedrock Geology • Tri-County Region Bedrock Geology Legend C3Saginaw Formation Grand River Formation Red Beds KColdwater Shale Michigan Formation Bayport Limestone KMarshall Formation County Boundaries Miles 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 TCRPC File # 20031021-1 e Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project N N N 0 Tri-County Region r-----------------------------------------� PV4,0 I I I Source: Michigan Center for Geographic Information; 1982 Quaternary Geology Features Tri-County Region Quaternary Geology and Esker Locations Legend Eskers IN Glacial Till KEnd Moraines W Glacial Oulwash and Poslglacial Alluvium KLacustrine Deposits County Boundanes Miles 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 TCRPC File # 20031021-2� Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project !' rew- 0 0 0 Stony Creek L- — - — - — - — Gray>� Rider AOrnapple River River Looking ----------------------I----------------- ---------------- ----------------- Red ce'Y" River G-� 7r lee, P- L---------------------------- Source: Michigan Center for Geographic Information (LP Watersheds) N W S Tri-County Region Major River Watersheds Legend Rivers Lakes County Boundaries HUC* - Watershed 4050003 - Kalamazoo 96 4050004 - Upper Grand C3 4050005 - Maple C:3 4050006 - Lower Grand (�3 4050007 - Thornapple JK� 4090005 - Huron 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 HUC= Hydrologic Unit Code. The unique eight digit number designating each major watershed in the U.S. TCRPC File # 20040108-1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project —1 me 0 C) 0 C (D = PIL (—D M (D me cf)0-0 2 Tri-County Region fv Ilk N NP - r" '4 -;o- (+ y Tri-County Region i g ir. w t� r 1 r-y1 ', �J r1 i X. Source: Michigan Center for Geographic Information; Land Cover/Use MIRIS 1978 Tri-County Region Land Cover 1978 Legend Coniferous Forest ® Deciduous Forest f Prairie/Savanna/Grassland Non -Forested Wetland Shrub/Scrub Wetland Forested Wetland Barren Lake/River/Reservoir -__ Agriculture Land Urban and Built Up Land C7= County Boundaries Miles 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 TCRPC File # 20030829-4 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 3: Land Use Land Ilse Introduction: The Role of Land Use in Hazard Mitigation The practice of land use planning is essential to both hazard mitigation and disaster management. The most recent (1999) national assessment of hazards, Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, commented upon the importance of land use when considering hazards and hazard mitigation. The assessment suggested that research is needed on how to craft land use plans in a way that will foster and sustain a commitment to sustainability. Specific land use needs suggested were (Mileti, 1999): • 1. Consensus building and other ways to incorporate the participation of all of the stakeholders into plan making, adoption, and implementation. 2. Mechanisms and processes for building the capacity of local and state governments and non -governmental organizations to analyze hazards and formulate cost- effective strategies. Determination of the factors that will lead to appropriate choices between integrating hazards mitigation into comprehensive plans versus making stand-alone hazards mitigation plans. 4. Discovery and understanding of which factors affect the flexibility, effectiveness, and equity of alternative mitigation strategies. 5. Determining the outcome of local hazards mitigation land use plans in terms of short and long-term costs incurred by the private and public sectors, gains in reduced vulnerability, and how planning processes, choices, and principles generate community consensus • and action. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3.1 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use • 6. Identification of successful regional approaches to land use planning and hazard mitigation. 7. Cataloging and understanding how localities value the creation of high -quality plans and how to impact those values. While specific jurisdictions in the Tri-County Regional have assessed hazards and considered mitigation, this project is the first attempt to consolidate information concerning land use and hazard mitigation on a regional basis for this area. Specifically, this planning process can add to the work already being done in local jurisdictions and identify regional approaches to land use planning and hazard mitigation. As a part of this planning process, in each jurisdiction, both emergency management personnel and land use planners have been brought together to consider the common needs of incorporating land use considerations into hazard mitigation strategies. While this hazard mitigation plan is a stand-alone plan, perhaps in the future, portions of this plan can be incorporated into local comprehensive plans as appropriate. When governments attempt to cope with disaster the common • methods applied include warning before a disaster strikes, emergency relief after a disaster occurs, and hazard reduction measures. Despite much effort to increase the capacity to better perform these tasks, none of the approaches is adequate to reduce losses in disasters to acceptable levels. This was first recognized in the 1950s, as reflected by the various shortcomings of warnings and education, amelioration through relief and insurance, and hazard reduction through structural projects and insurance. Therefore, natural hazard coping methods used by governments are increasingly involving land use approaches. (Burby, 1998) The Federal and State hazard mitigation grant programs, on which this planning process is based, are examples of the emphasis being placed on applying land use planning tools for hazard reduction purposes. 2.3.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 3: Land Use The nation's hazard assessment, stressed the role of land use in hazard mitigation as follows: "No single approach to bringing sustainable hazards mitigation into existence shows more promise at this time than increased use of sound and equitable land use management. Many political, economic, and social, and economic forces conspire to promote development and redevelopment patterns that set the stage for future catastrophes. However, by planning for and managing land use to accomplish sustainable hazard mitigation, disasters — though not wholly eliminated — can be reduced to a scale that can be borne by governments, communities, individuals and businesses exposed to them." (Mileti, 2002) Planning `Best Practices' for Hazard Mitigation In the Tri-County Region, there is a diversity of communities, various structures of government, and different hazard related planning needs. Despite the varying needs and approaches in isthe region, in general the region can establish a series of best practices that we can strive towards. Specifically, hazard mitigation planning should ensure that (Burby, 1998): • Information on the nature of the possible future hazard events is available to the public • Land subject to natural hazards is identified and managed in a manner compatible with the type, assessed frequency, and damage potential of the hazard • Land subject to hazards is managed with due regard for the social, economic, aesthetic, and ecological costs and benefits to individuals as well as the community, while taking into account the rights of private landowners. • All reasonable measures are taken to avoid hazards and potential damage to existing properties at risk • All reasonable measures are taken to alleviate the hazard and damage potential resulting from development in hazardous areas. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use • This specific local chapter of the hazard mitigation plan, along with its regional components will provide the informational basis needed for both local units of government and the region as a whole to apply land use planning information and techniques to reduce risk from hazards. A Planner's Toolkit In the late 1990s, the American Planning Association and Federal Emergency Management Agency collaborated to help develop tools that land use planners could use when considering hazards. Products from that collaboration, specifically a checklist of specific planning tools relevant to hazards and a model post disaster recovery and reconstruction ordinance are useful for local land use planners in the Tri-County Region to consider. In the Tri-County Region, land use tools are applied by the appropriate planning organization at the local level. These planning organizations can include counties, townships, cities, and villages. At the local level, a variety of tools can be applied either through the planning process or by specific controls set in • place by the zoning ordinances. Figure 2.3.A represents a list of planning tools by category that may be appropriate for local jurisdictions in the Tri-County Region to consider for disaster related applications. While the Tri-County Region has been fortunate not to have had planning considerations driven by large scale disaster recovery and reconstruction efforts, we cannot assume that we are immune to major events impacting the region with disastrous consequences. In the event of large scale recovery and reconstruction from an extreme event, it will be imperative that emergency managers and land use planners work together to rebuild our communities. A good example of a model ordinance can be found in the American Planning Association PAS report 483/484 — Planning for Post Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction. The essential concepts of the ordinance include the establishment of a recovery organization before a major disaster to prepare a pre - event plan; the adoption of that plan and an ordinance by the governing body before a major disaster occurs; and the use of the recovery plan and organization to efficiently and wisely guide • 2.3.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use post -disaster recovery and reconstruction activity. Section 10 of the model ordinance comments on issues related to the local adoption of hazard mitigation activities. While this hazard mitigation plan does not suggest to local units of government that the entire scope of this model ordinance may be relevant to local concerns, this plan does suggest that if local units of government have such concerns it is preferable to consider adopting post -disaster plans during times of calm rather that being forced to do so during times of crisis. Local Land Use and Hazard Mitigation In Michigan, local units of government have the power to apply most land use regulations. These decisions can be made by elected officials (city councils, township boards, county boards of commissioners, etc.) as well as by appointed officials (planning commissions, zoning boards, zoning boards of appeals), and by staff (zoning administrators, code enforcement officers). Under Michigan planning laws, all cities, villages, and townships are permitted to prepare local land use plans and adopt zoning regulations. Counties may prepare plans for the isentire county and adopt zoning for those portions of the county outside the limits of incorporated cities, villages, and townships with adopted zoning. (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2002b) In the Tri-County Region, there are 78 local units of government. Seventy-two local units of government are covered by land use plans. Fifty local government units have land use powers. As a part of the Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Project, Mark Wyckoff at the Planning and Zoning Center Inc, and the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Staff analyzed the situation of local land use authority in the Tri- County Region. The following analysis is cited from Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Technical Memorandum Task II — 1.9.1 Land use Decision Making Framework in Michigan June 2002). In terms of County -based land use authority in the Tri-County Region, in rural communities the county is often the entity which takes on local planning and zoning responsibility. This situation is because economies of scale usually make it more effective to do so. Clinton and Eaton Counties are organized in this way. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3.5 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use Each County has a planning commission, and a planning department with zoning responsibilities that covers all but a small portion of the small towns in the county and the suburban townships. In contrast, for Ingham County there is no county planning commission, no county planning department and no county zoning. More of Ingham County is made up urban and suburban communities than in Clinton or Eaton Counties. All rural townships in Ingham County have adopted their own zoning. In terms of Township -based land use authority in the Tri- County Region, the Ingham County townships of Ingham and Bunker Hill have no land use plans. Other that those two townships, all of the other townships in the Tri-County Region that are not subject to county zoning have adopted their own zoning ordinances. The region's suburban townships surrounding Lansing have their own planning staff or use/hire consultants. Most of the region's rural townships hire outside consultants to assist with plan or ordinance updates, and the preparation and analysis needed for large proposals. In terms of City and Village -based land use authority in the Tri- • County Region, most cities and villages in the region have local plans and zoning regulations. All such jurisdictions have plans except the Eaton County City of Potterville and the Ingham County village of Dansville. There is no zoning in the Clinton County villages of Eagle and Hubbardston and the Eaton County village of Vermontville. For this hazard mitigation project, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission is working with local jurisdictions to develop a regional hazard mitigation plan. The counties of Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, the City Lansing, and Delta Township each have their own specific components of the plan along with the regional components. Other local units of government, such as cities, villages, and township in Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties have the opportunity to comment and are represented through the county's hazard mitigation planning process. Please note that much of the information on which this community profile is based has been prepared for each jurisdiction using regional level data. This information does not represent any official zoning or land use plans developed at the local level. We encourage readers and users of this plan to refer is 2.3.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 3: Land Use to specific local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances when considering site specific hazard concerns. For this hazard mitigation plan, the regional level data will serve as the starting point for considering hazard mitigation, and specific local land considerations will be applied as necessary when analyzing specific hazards. For the development of this plan we are working with the City of Lansing Planning Department. For more information on specific planning and zoning for the City of Lansing we suggest contacting the City of Lansing Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development at: City of Lansing Department of Planning and Neighborhood Development 316 North Capitol Ave. Lansing, Michigan, 48933 (517) 483-4060 Hazard Mitigation and Regional Land Use • In this planning process, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission has entered in agreements with the Counties of Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham, the City of Lansing, and Delta Township to work with them in developing this hazard mitigation plan. For each jurisdiction, the plan is being prepared in cooperation with a local emergency management and land use official (except in Ingham County where there is no land use official). The local components of this regional plan will then be taken to the local jurisdictions for adoption. Through a pre -planning process, and meetings of involved parties in Fall & Winter 2002 and the Winter & Spring 2003 consensus was developed that the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission would be the appropriate body for this area's hazard mitigation plan development. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) was formed in 1956 as a regional council. A regional council is a multipurpose, multi -jurisdictional, public organization that was created by local governments to respond to state and federal programs. The main purpose of the TCRPC is to provide planning and technical solutions for local governments, • especially on issues related to multi -jurisdictional concerns. In Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3.7 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use • addition to this hazard mitigation project, the TCRPC hosts programs related to economic development, environmental protection, information dissemination, and planning for regional growth. Also, an important function of the TCRPC is its transportation planning responsibilities. The TCRPC is designated as the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization or MPO. The MPO is responsible for initiating a collaborative planning process in which a Regional Transportation Plan is designed so that the entities responsible for building, maintaining, and operating the region's surface transportation network and public transport systems can best meet the needs of the region. The MPO is a State designated entity that is mandated to undertake a Federally specified transportation planning process. (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2002d). In terms of the hazard mitigation planning process, it is important to recognize that other than some aspects of the MPO process, the TCRPC does not have any regulatory authorization to enforce any land use plans or zoning for the region. Rather, the TCRPC can assist local units of government and provide land use —related information for counties, townships, cities, and villages to consider. The authority to implement land use plans and zoning lies in local hands. • Hazard mitigation is known as an "issue of greater than local concern". Issues of greater than local concern are issues that involve public interests that are broader than simply local interests. (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2002c). This means the scope of the issue extends beyond the borders of a single jurisdiction. Land use concerns along borders, environmental issues such as air quality, and jobs / economic development issues are issues of greater than local concern. Hazard response and emergency management issues can be issues of greater than local concern if the crisis exhausts the capacity of local emergency response services. The state's emergency management system is designed to be flexible so that local emergency managers can call in additional resources if needed. Hazard mitigation is also an issue greater than local concern, as natural hazards (such as floods) or technological hazard (such as hazardous material releases) do not respect jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, a Regional Planning Commission is an appropriate level at which to consider hazard mitigation planning. • 2.3.8 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 3: Land Use In Michigan, there are 14 regions which have regional planning entities function. These organizations, while somewhat similar in function, have varying structures and responsibilities. Most of Michigan's planning regions are participating in some form of hazard mitigation planning. The Michigan Association of Regions (MAR) serves to join all the regional planning entities in the state to discuss common issues. Hazard mitigation planning has been the subject of numerous MAR meetings in 2002 and 2003. The most common form of regional participation in hazard mitigation planning involves regional planning entities working with a county to develop county -level plan. The TCRPC effort is one of the few examples of a regional hazard mitigation plan in the state. Tri-County Region Land Use Information This hazard mitigation plan considers land use in the Tri-County Region by focusing on past land use, present land use, and future land use. Past use of land (1978) for the City of Lansing (Map 2.3.1,1) can be compared to present land use (1999) for Lansing (Map 2.3.1,2). Maps 2.3.R1 and 2.3.R2 compare the same data on a regional basis. Future land use is represented by a policy map created as a part of the Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Project (Map 2.3.113). Maps 2.3.L2 and 2.3.R2 were adapted to the hazard mitigation project from a land use / land cover update project. The initial data sets for the land use / land cover update were prepared by the consulting firm HNTB-Michigan as a part of the Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Future Project. The purpose of the development of the 1978 and 1999 land use data sets was to compare and analyze current land use layers relative to historical land use and to develop land absorption estimates out to the year 2035 based on previously developed population and employment projections (HNTB-Michigan, 2002). Data sets from 1978 are also based on Michigan Resource Information System (MIRIS) data. These maps are useful to the hazard mitigation project in that they depict land use from approximately 25 years ago as well as land use as it is approximately at the present time. Comparison of the 1978 and 1999 maps can indicate areas in the region with land use / land cover changes. The 1999 land use / land cover can be used to • compare to locations where hazards may be present in order to Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3.9 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use is assist in risk assessment and the development of mitigation strategies. The 20 land use / land cover types defined in the legend of those maps is based on a classification system by Anderson that is commonly used in the urban planning process. Map 2.3.R3 represents a future land use vision map for the Tri- County Region. This map was developed from data prepared by HTNB-Michigan and Tri-County Regional Planning Commission staff as a part of the Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Project. The mission of the Regional Growth Project is to actively engage the citizens of the region to examine implications of regional land use and other growth trends of the region's future. The project is working towards formulating a consensus on a shared regional vision in order to assure improved future regional quality of life and economic competitiveness for the our citizens and business. During the past few years, the project has analyzed regional trend data, presented scenarios for possible future regional development, presented and sought feedback from the public and stakeholders in numerous forums, and developed a preferred scenario for regional growth. The preferred scenario is depicted in Map 2.3.R3. The geographic components or policy map for the region are supported by a principles developed around five theme areas: government, healthy economy & healthy environment, transportation and other infrastructure, open space and resource protection, and growth and redevelopment. Together, the map and its supporting principles make up a poster plan highlighting main components of the Regional Growth Project. Figure 2.3.B is a representation of the poster plan. A principle in the transportation and other infrastructure category is especially relevant to the hazard mitigation project is stated as follows: is 2.3.10 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use Hazard Mitigation Planning & Emergencv Management "Appropriate disaster preparedness and emergency management strategies will be developed at the local level while the regional vision will strive to reduce the impact of hazards. Regional hazard mitigation planning efforts will consider how to reduce the impacts of potential hazard which can be of natural or human origin." Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2003 As this plan is being developed, the planning phase of the Regional Growth Project is 95% complete and project is starting to implemented. Use of information from the Regional Growth Project in this hazard mitigation plan is one example of the implementation of the Regional Growth Project. The Regional Growth Project stresses the importance of hazard mitigation planning. As elements of the policy map are implemented in local circumstances, the vision of the Regional Growth Project can act as a guide to both consider hazard mitigation planning at isthe local level and to formulate regional development strategies to guide future development away from hazardous zones. is The legend on Map 2.3.R3 is defined as follows (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2003): Urban and Village Centers: The top priority for future residential, commercial, industrial and mixed use growth through the use of historic preservation, adaptive reuse, infill development, and the redevelopment of underutilized properties. Development should primarily be of higher density urban or village character, to revitalize these centers and take advantage of existing urban services. Urban Fringe (Focused Growtb) Areas: The second priority for future residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed use growth to take advantage of existing community services and infrastructure. Development should be at medium or higher densities with an urban or village character that is compatible with the surrounding areas. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3.11 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use • Transitional (Cluster Development) Area: An area located between the urban fringe and the agricultural & open space should be preserved. Residential and mixed -use development should be clustered with a village or rural character for efficient use of public and private infrastructure, rather than a linear pattern along roads. Agricultural Preservation: Lands that are intended for agricultural production with minimal expansion of residential, office, commercial, or industrial uses. Forested or Environmental Preservation Areas: Natural features such as rivers, forests, major wood lots and state-owned lands which warrant specific recognition and protective measures to ensure that their existing character is maintained. Built Out Rural Lands: Lands which were classified as developed as of the spring or 1999 based on the State of Michigan MIMS standards) and are located in rural areas. • 2.3.12 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use List of References Anderson, James R. et al (1976) A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. Washington D.C.:United States Department of the Interior — United States Geological Survey. Burby, Raymond (1998) `Natural Hazards and Land Use: An Introduction. "in Burby, Raymond, Timothy Beatley, et.al (1998) Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards and Land Use with Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington D.C.: John Henry Press. HTNB-Michigan Consultants (2002) Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future — Land Use Land Cover Update. A Report Prepared for the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Unpublished. Mileti, Dennis (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of • natural hazards in the United States. Washington D.C.: John Henry Press. • Schwab, Jim and Kenneth Toping et al (1998). Planning for Post Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 483-484. Chicago: American Planning Association. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (2001). Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Technical Memorandum Task II — 1.2 Analysis of Local Master Plans and Zoning Oridnances — Draft Report (August 2001). Unpublished. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (2002a). Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Technical Memorandum Task II — 1.9.3 Legal Analysis of Alternatives. Final Report June 2002 ). Unpublished. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (2002b). Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Technical Memorandum Task II — 1.9.1 Land use Decision Making Framework in Michigan June 2002). Unpublished. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3.13 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use List of References, Cont. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (2002c). Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Technical Memorandum Task II — 1.9.3 Legal Analysis of Alternatives. Final Report June 2002 ). Unpublished. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (2002d). Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Technical Memorandum Task II — 1.9 Appendix: Transportation Planning and Pr jects - Federal State Regional and Local (September 2002). Unpublished. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (2003). Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future Project. Poster Plan. Dated November 25, 2003. Unpublished. • r � 2.3.14 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 3: Land Use E Sub-seetion: Figures List of Figures: Figure # Title Page 2.3.A Planning Tools and Their Post -Disaster Applications 2.3.16 2.3.B Tri-County Regional Growth Poster Plan 2.3.17 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3.15 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use • Figure 2.3.A: Planning Tools and Their Post -Disaster Applications Tools by Category Flood Wildfire Tornado Emergency Damage Assessment X x x Development Moratorium X x x Temporary Repair Permits x x x Zoning for Temporary Housing X x Prioritize Infrastructure Repairs x X x Planning Tools Acquisition x x x Easements x x Infrastructure Policy x x Flood lain Management Plan x Environmental Review x x x Annexation Plans x x Stormwater Management Plan x Zoning Tools Nonconforming Uses x x x Performance Standards X x x Special Use Permits x x Historic Preservation x X x Density Controls X x Floating Zones x x Overlay Zones x x x Flood lain Zoning x Setbacks x x Site Plan Review x x Height and Bulk Regulations x x Wetlands Development Regulations x Subdivision Controls Subdivision Regulations x X Road/Width Access x x Open Space Requirements x x Design Controls Trees and Vegetation x x Design Review x x x Building Codes x x x Financial Tools Targeting Grant Funds x X x Relocation Aid x x Special Districts X X x Redevelopment Projects x X x Lending policies x X x Transfer of Development Rights X x Management Tools Inter urisdictional Coordination x x x Geographic Information System x x x Soil Stability Ratings x Public Education X x x is 2.3.16 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use Figure 2.3.B: Tri-County Regional Growth: Choices for our Future Project Poster Plan Regional Gyowth ch,oicafor oar Future Reaching the Vision wwk.me,aew,. ow.mnn'e snrea,,,an.,a aer«ree en.m.rre 7 a..W.w..r,+.,Mm».we r.rM..,n.», B ,vuw.mao=c e,+•»+om..n.nrne,e�n.ee:, Regional Themes & Princi Harty E—y & HeMthy Envlron t: Fmienmreel RNMbrr mw MNl ComrmilY McAenl, m,-�aou..�� M.Q^w. ��n rbN.F.aarnstrDe,Nepmre+M aoaefmtlun ee wum w�eaye rw u,nu F+wrp C®rgD® nerz..ummn rnm. R�fpffii0p1-d��T.1Y2: i+.�.°>mrm. twr.�•..�...mn�.e..�w�rvmn�+,YlMrgxneM ex,».mveew enw,�nerwnn MrM eu�i w,»urwamr,gw Mncawwkroedww.0 ieuNM.Mee E�°R.wreri114rennernrt nru w.+Ye asa mmmt,e MPrewN xa7Ye, bpmtb Mabw'n4�rn V.s , ry,uvem s.o,summ,iue,e.v w.a • III - iT4 J h r � hll J I ry.cd I I � ill h I, ldre rr:mJ a, lahk. I.i J X `h x II rn J ran d mJ h r ples bn.. h.x� � ruknhrp open so.8 Resource Prgettion: Y..Min D..r sp.. t oMr xr,. m.ow.e. rtewao. .�� �r �y 't EL ®� Yx a H, we4 t rr = Statern�,h �.5s'On feesrsemewiM16urbn ten wNela,wu a,.amwb �> ����~��o. cm.e �m,wmunrsra aewa�triw�eneta� ueu W�in�ven4 w V+ m� ��ed✓.rowWrbn.� ,�®sua �mw�..�r�i. m�A.�w�ir we�u.m mauW»uu� muwbe r.maMabnenn �r�a+�i��eeww���uM.s Yw..ee4 weM CM#nlsw,N � or,� m+eepww,egn,taen wm � my�r �gw4nwm v..yarwY Mt'w �mn �we.em»w .w � ea..nwr nmmrvmM r��.4 r�{mvwmpv,ee.� ww�mm v+e>.iP..o�m a An Invitation: irwrWbnJ Epn eY LluYrtl D„eEYenerNw .Mn,am wry Nr�v�n< Onaia mgamre, � ... .r •, •� n+re.ee�erv.� Wrrxreeer.se �pm„�i»sn �f�aYwe ae.�an�w�wse w a.m.w N+Mneve,-e.rwieum �,DwrMY.apveamrNebWi l.r... ' nnw cer�m de.a�.urtueee ma �{e M+aaai .,pvry'+u+aP+�.nriwer r�. _.. ,�u. �. 1...«n,.vw merrm+n cMrre,� � IereeM.MerreswY,ww,NleMw Mevewren ,waiv, bah MP wvim�esr.r�tW ,rid enx u�ufe, vlgee emhwnM nM�ay»Yn.i "•••• _••;�•• •nw.�ntr..r ro�wmon»Na�'mnew,nmee,e M,e. ecar ewYyrrebMq»NWemebeen:.aaaa am.powerv.,wn.,e rwm.nmr,rMwe M - .e....I n�sm.Muuar.gaaewnYw�Ndd ••• Vea iWp W,suaetlkn e�exs �.mx Seventy -Five Jurisdictions Three Counties. One Vision. Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 2.3.17 Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use • **This page intentionally left blank** 2.3.18 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use Sub -section: Maps List of Maps: Map # Title Page 2.3.L1 City of Lansing 1978 Land Use 2.3.21 2.3.L2 City of Lansing 1999 Land use 2.3.23 2.3.R1 Region 1978 Land Use 2.3.25 2.3.R2 Region 1999 Land Use 2.3.27 2.3.R3 Region Future Land Use Vision Map 2.3.29 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3.19 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 3: Land Use • **This page intentionally left blank** 2.3.20 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • �1_ • W N Source: Michigan Center for Geographic Information; Land Cover/Use MIRIS 1978 I-, Lansing III No City of Lansing 1978 Land Use Legend Single -Family Residential Multiple Family Residential - Mobile Home Park Neighborhood Commercial Central Business District - Shopping Center/Mall Institutional Industrial Industrial Park Transportation Utilities Extractive - Cemetery Outdoor Recreation Agriculture Forested Non -Forested Barren - Wetlands Water Mil- 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 TCRPC N qN E File # 20031001-2 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project n 6 r Q ' J 401 i N W N Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a W 1h off N W 1�p E S Data Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission/HNTB Michigan city of Lansing 1999 Land Use Legend Single -Family Residential Multiple Family Residential Mobile Home Park Neighborhood Commercial Central Business District Shopping Center/Mall Institutional ndustrial Industrial Park Transportation _ Utilities Extractive Cemetery Outdoor Recreation Agriculture Forested Non -Forested Barren Wetlands Water Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1 5 2 TCRPC 51 File # 20031002-5 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project • • C7 r_--------------- ------ _------------------- � � TJL"1Jrl.• �' i.l' - ''T . r!4 '1. L.i '����i.l _ __j'_� ti„aT _:,•.'� ri::", �i:� _ �_t --------------- --ys.—� � -- --� ti � �.'V; �p .,o �,��� H"��-.�1ti1+•�i �,¢, _ . � , i1! y'R �'+�.. !R•�',�.�•�1 � • ' �' rl-i,r I • + .w-.�•ti� w„ i� •/K 1-'�e'-. ,i�..� ,. i..j I� r i��• : ti((i''��a���i t rl I} ;•f+kt �L ti � j•r.. 1�+ ., .!a R� Y, .•••'. - . +r .r } Ai I �. •T �� Y�� }a •)t.t. i ' '�� ' F.I +� t .'�.'� '= 5ci� ;�•„`ice'-` -t �- i a�, i •� ,� •-i ',^F i rr. • _.c•��•r1'T y'' '�' ' I JI _;� � rl.I .A'�.'. .ai. •'.'� Zt a +c : +, �?•_� '. ��; la 'I y ., �F••^i .r� .' ; - • � � (riLj i, • �� I` rq r ar t � � ' I •� ` y'`[�1`-k,.9. ,�_ �' r ,"-�iY. :r '� �-.y' �i' ru� �\�n"� .�. -': f wrt iL• }...+."�. i �; y �I + -,+,I_ ,•� �,r►� ' ' y-1_I '� �a r�,- {#I ,L,t �. ;In .�(*' Iii, i �t. '• } �.A,. K- ^r• �•' !'C,:,'-I �M f-/i••C.f�S .!*.ti.,. •I .! I .+. y��I 11 yjy • . '}: (�j(" ' .,+, '-y(pT,, a ]�,. -'i cr J�, fM y'� I '• F 4 r 1 / iT 1r- +''~' f•'l " i;i;�l�1 t �+-� Iiiit J� . i .I t a.�.. ~ : t �i , •' •� �, .s+ �. .�,,�E. ,. t ++ "t:•,,s �, .� II �; ,r, . ' = �Y `r -i 1.• �,?'raj ''.7I 'rf 4 .3J r. ,•��74 ''j' j1� * - YI •...4 ` •- i.,1�#� • ���1� �` c r�'�r, *, *nK .J 4i '*: / } i "!. t• +,., i +—'VC �M, y, I .f� a�� , t �� r? ti,., I •� - .� !,J q,..?���''�* � :" y•y ���'�•�. /r{{{Lirr�' I�•�g4�/t' �4• `z••. '1� ;r�.` � _ ~^�i r���u hu al tt +"•�" I #"- .� � � r `� �y a � gip." { ; k;Y6.� yl * A ` r F`' rl - •r'I t /-, •;a" .,� r + �1 ^? �-t ,a •� •� �- y _� R -~ .'•. ii tf-+g,1fi 1 � � '���i� *��i�` •� '{ � �� �n i .-•����,yt aw��� � •At+``liL h •, - , '}I"! 1 --� f ,1{,i �+fit . {f, ! 1. � J. � c k � >� +Kti I ? +� ��,..� p T:�v • � � � f `, �• �� �i� � i� A y A � f ,r x4'�'` :��+ �'.'f. < Mr". r • t' R+;��:1' �7�!.4174 �I. � . 'i-. � ` '1 1 4y'� ►1. �' .5 L^'• ,% 1 <� �A �' .,ti ii Source Michigan Center for Geographic Information Land Cover/Use MIRIS 1978 Tri-County Region 1978 Land Use File # 20031001-1 Produced by: David R Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project O 00 C a) rF Q CD me 0 N W N i �ri'•+LI 1 /.■', � Y7.'r."Y 1'� r,11..+ ��^J1��1 - .� � .. wit -' � ; >r • } - • � { , 1 . �, ; T , Yi •f ►,, hri l`•,r. '„l"k .sv.{�{; I-Y < ;----- -j_ - — - — - ;` a_ - ?1°l�"tr�I c +� ;'I't't#, `i" ggr mil• r�s -'+ . v � •.� wr la .,�, I ,r�•• •., �I If a. I �,�{ � .r I �rlli �,,�r1� 7� 1y��.!� { f ,r.ly't.•�`".Jr`f,, •i#LZ}.■.. r�•Iw)v�..,a.k1�_ Ir r ��! •�\■ �S{��`'}.��r�j.r y�,./ r,{�'t•}•'I`�r;'ri }' .ter- '.a .. _ Y-,1 {m. :f.: t. at_d• �'�-. �,.i �. v� 1� ',�, • 1rii;} � It .•■ . �.+ I • `' 1,~h`' fit.. , n l ` ki L' .. `afT:, •1 f- 1 �' • .I. �'.: 'f -.F, I `�. i.c • • ,.;1� � ?' �.'-.-,v-• ,,. {r; .`I� .w 7i .:,;' _ •fir \`-•r.'4'.'!,.^J ra' �.'-, T.i!'0�.. �,",'��+1 - �� ` rY •'�•i 7 .I t4r �1�4 llj,�� ,_ r,.(�,,',• 'j��_ �. „r- / ti ,�:. �`; ti' ' � ak iY" - i' •I �' i:��'�r! r 4 •� ,L t1� /• ��� y �>', ' `-�'"�'L � t •"i ly ■ -' .-r.l- r.l� '�� .. - 1 + „I� y( ��t ` 1�`� �r•�,r � ��r. -y •�F t� a �' 77t 1�' �•?i A• 1! M� • ...[ 1'� q( p _�1�y •�� T •T''Yi�' r:l�'a �: �`` al;•,a. _� . i,;*Ilr_ + + �a•lr . � t �I .- �ri •y•1i;.�lu y, ci�'i"iL-, �L,••. .t�� r.Lj '�. "1% yr.N/?'ffn i'Iy�a.'a ■L -�7 ,1,',,r: .i :i •'h ,r + ii, •1�r .• F•:. '�' I--r•r^7l c �•t.,ij�y, :. .IiS� r� Y��S ■ _ r�f7lKK.• � /��, a 1. �� i••"1 •'.� .•.�.• =. :y.fri ',i 1_i .+ r•���'. .K�r`.� .'•.IIS..i. ,krq '1.6 o l/ ray��.'/.l„ •r..(.' .� r tYt' }���.. � f �.+� •�,�� T ^'!� .•,Mj + ; ���• ,��'.. t ` i ' �Ya 1T�,• '.7ir, •y� MTfr -�� •''� O,.:S�I+«,tP�� f{r, a. +��� .� � rt �( Y�`., � i � ' j� yfiiyl`�ft T•_I'v • �i• :y� :� -" '.r ► ' r � I,r • R�. ,�;�{{ }�.,",m ��'r t� ��'7� •_• •'� y,,y�• :w'��, •"�,T I.t—_ 7i�# _� •1 { � �•r� A', �y 1. � :�y�',,-y���� r j I�i•{v^' .i�-% i-' '• T .�`TA... r.� -L 'G MI J'. �I��� tM�,..�.r ,•,� '�(�' �� J�r �' "*�'i•';'VL � � �• 'rid y,��} �� t—r - �'..s 7.!ti,� Y�.��rr.�•t�'�11r,, �qt' 1 �C.~� E��'� i'<�'; 4 t���c'tp/a �. , 'sir +L �,•.'� pf •��f •1`"�C�.d�lit ,�_ � iJ• ��'y.a�?jf.Y�.1 '�''K IY� ,��C�,fi�,�'t 1� ►'r t •. �. k r'�� •`'y `;�•Y �, .` i'' rl �-,�.q of +'kh y sl HF'• .%, a .11��.. ,7fI •�I•�,r T, s1��,� �•1_E_, t r 1,,. r' i1 Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Data Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission/HNTB Michigan Tri-County Region 1999 Land Use Legend O Data Missing Single -Family Residential Multiple Family Residential i� Mobile Home Park Neighborhood Commercial i� Central Business District i� Shopping Center/Mall Institutional ndustrial Industrial Park Transportation Utilities Extractive Cemetery lid Outdoor Recreation Agriculture i� Forested Non -Forested Barren Wetlands Water 1 County Boundaries 0 1.5 3 ■Miles 12 TCRPC qN File # 20030930-1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project • • r� N W N 1 Tri-County Region Future Land Use Vision Map Based on Regional Growth Project Policy Map (As of January, 2004) Legend Urban and Village Centers Built -Out Rural lands KUrban Fringe (Focused Growth) Areas KTransitional (Cluster Development) Area w Agricultural Preservation KForested Environmental Preservation Lands r. r Minor Civil Division Boundaries 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 TCRPC Flle # 20030929-1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project I I Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Data Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission/HNTB Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile isSection 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics Lansing Community Description This introductory community description is cited directly from the City of Lansing 2002 Dra t Hazard Vulnerability Anal. (1) Relevant information from that document edited for use in this introduction. The City of Lansing is located in south central lower Michigan, 90 miles west of Detroit. The city covers 33.9 square miles, • located in two counties, Ingham and Eaton, and borders Clinton County. It is also bordered by the City of East Lansing, and the townships of Lansing, Delta, Delhi, Dewitt and Windsor. The City of Lansing's 2002 Draft Hazard Vulnerability Analysis describes demographic factors relevant to this hazard mitigation plan. According to that document, Lansing has a population of 119,000 with an additional 55,000 people coming to work from surrounding areas, creating an average work day population of 174,000. While Lansing's population decreased by 6% between 1990 and 2000, two age groups showed an increase. Those over 75 increased by 9%, while the 35-44 age group increased by 32%, the largest change in any group. The diversity of Lansing's population provides a variety of challenges for emergency management Resources must be found to meet the needs of the elderly and the needs of children in a disaster. The citizens we are called upon to help may not speak English. They come from a variety of cultural backgrounds, may have different customs and may not be familiar with our emergency procedures. Over the past twenty -years, over 10,000 • refugees have settled in the Lansing area. Vietnamese, Hmong Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4.1 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics and Cuban immigrants make up more than 90% of that figure. The remainder, and the most recent refugees, have come from throughout Europe, Asia and Africa, including Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia. While the Vietnamese, Hispanic and the Hmong communities are well established, many of these more recent refugees do not speak English. Use of Demographic Information in Hazard Mitigation The City of Lansing's, 2002 Draft Hazard Vulnerability Analysis describes how the following demographic information that can have an influence on hazard mitigation planning: ➢ 23,000 people work in Lansing for the Federal, State, County, or City government. 20,000 people are employed in Lansing by the auto industry, 7,800 by hospitals, and 4,500 by insurance companies ➢ 28% of the population is under 18 ➢ 17% of the population is over 55 ➢ 10% of the population does not speak English well, or • does not speak English at all ➢ 10% of the homes in Lansing do not have a vehicle ➢ 16% of the population lives under the poverty level, including 23% of the children and 9% of the senior citizens ➢ 4% of our residents were born outside the United States ➢ Nearly 20% report having some kind of disability A community's demographic characteristics serve as an important foundation on which hazard mitigation activities can be built. While the demographic information provided in the context of this hazard mitigation plan is by no means a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Tri-County Region, the maps, charts, and tables provide a basis on which to consider how hazards can potentially impact our local communities. In this report, we have selected key population, housing, and is 2.4.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics economic data which are relevant to current hazard mitigation planning and future potential hazard mitigation projects. An example of how demographic data is relevant to hazard mitigation was provided during the mid-1990s in the Hurricane Andrew recovery activities. In that natural hazard recovery situation, it was found that special mitigation strategies were necessary to reach all groups and communities in the multi- cultural, multilingual region of south Florida. Certain groups of people, such as minorities and the poor, may be at serious disadvantage in gaining access to post -disaster assistance and mitigation programs (2). In the Hurricane Andrew recovery, demographic information was used in mitigation planning so that special strategies could be developed to target certain neighborhoods for community based mitigation programs that were appropriate to the characteristics of the population. The demographic information in this section can be applied considering the extent to which special mitigation strategies may be needed to address populations at risk in the Tri-County Region. The remainder of this narrative describes the data used in this section and it provides brief descriptions of the content of each map. Community and Economic Development Issues The City of Lansing's, 2002 Draft Hazard Vulnerability Anal describes community and economic development issues relevant to hazard mitigation planning as follows: In 1999 over $850 million dollars was invested in developing or renovating government, industrial, entertainment and residential properties in Lansing. Among other projects, a new General Motors plant is planned for downtown Lansing, a new State Legislative building was erected, Frandor shopping center underwent major renovation, the old State Library and Civic Center were renovated for new occupants, a multi -screen movie theater was built on Edgewood in South Lansing, and vacant buildings were converted to condominiums in the Old Town and Downtown areas to increase the "after five" population base to support commercial businesses in these areas. The City has developed a Business Assistance program to encourage new business and retain existing businesses. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics is Lansing Housing and Neighborhood Issues The City of Lansing's, 2002 Drat Hazard Vulnera&j6t Anal describes housing and neighborhood issues relevant to hazard mitigation planning as follows: The City of Lansing is approximately 33 square miles. Homes take up almost one third of this area, streets and businesses another third, and eight percent of land within the city is used for parks. Eleven Neighborhood Enterprise and Renaissance Zones have been implemented to encourage and support rehabilitation and construction of residential housing within the city. The seven block Renaissance Zone provides reduced tax liability to business and property owners within the zone. Both of these programs have resulted in significant improvement in the selected areas since they were introduced in 1997. Source of Data Using the Michigan Geographic Framework version 2-a and demographic data from the 2000 Census, maps were produced is to spatially display various demographic elements for the region. Although this profile is not an exhaustive analysis of the region, every effort has been made to address the most common factors that are directly related to hazard mitigation. Data Aggregation Some of the Census data has been reorganized or combined in such a way that allows better representation in a spatial format. Care was taken to reorganize the data so that it is consistent with the scope of this project and is not meant to be taken out of context or used for other purposes. Within the Racial Composition maps, for example, a decision was made to create a category titled "Other" to represent the combined totals of some of the smaller populations in the region. This is not to say that these groups are less important or have similar traits, but rather it allows a better representation on the map. • 2.4.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics Graphic Representation Standards Every attempt was made to select colors that are not offensive or that can be misinterpreted as a bias. Any perceived bias is unintentional. A consistent color scheme has been selected to be used throughout the document, and has been chosen based on the effectiveness of representing the data. After aggregating the data into logical groups, a determination is made on the most effective means for representing the data spatially. Census data is then graphically presented in one of two formats. The first format is to use a "color ramp" to represent the various levels of intensity, frequency or saturation of a specific variable. Typically, a lighter color, or hue, represents a lower value, whereas a darker hue represents a higher value. Some data, however, is better represented in a pie chart format, as this allows comparison of multiple, related variables. Within these types of maps, the size of the pie chart itself is dependant upon the scale of the map and the amount of space available to display these features, and is in no way related to a specific variable. • Scale/Level of Detail • Due to the relatively small scale of these maps, all Census data is presented on a Tract level. On occasions when the Census Tract may overlap the boundaries of two jurisdictions, the data is presented for the whole Census Tract, and is not segregated by jurisdiction. This was done to keep the variables consistent throughout the document. Data Tables A table, or series of tables, is incorporated onto each map to aid in referencing specific variables and values assigned to each Tract. Many of these maps include Census Tract numbers to assist with identifying features and cross referencing the table. In some situations a decision was made to eliminate these tract numbers, as they detracted from the content of the map. A separate Census Tract map has been included that can be used in conjunction with these maps to identify the Tract numbers. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4.5 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics • Understanding the Data Many of these maps are produced from the "counted" values of the Census; however, in some instances the Census Bureau provides the "median "value of a variable. The median values were used in two of the following maps (Median Household Income and Age of Housing) in order to create an overall picture of the region. It is important to point out that the "median " value is not to be confused with the "average, " or "mean, " value. The "median" value is simply the value that divides the population into two equal groups with half above and half below the designated value, whereas the "average, " or "mean, "value is half of the calculated sum of all values within the variable set. List of Maps Below is a list of maps and a brief description of their content or special notes. Census Tract Numbers Designates the Census tract numbers within the jurisdiction. This may include partial tracts that extend into neighboring • jurisdictions. Census tracts have been chosen as the basic unit of analysis. Census tract numbers have been consciously left off of some maps to ease readability. In such instances, this first map can be referred to for further analysis of specific tracts. Demographic Maps The following maps have been included, as they represent information that may be important in an emergency situation or hazard mitigation program. Subsequent chapters within this document will address specific hazards in which these demographic features can be overlain to identify specific issues of concern. Population Density These values represent the number of persons per square mile for each tract. These were calculated using the total population for each tract from the Census Bureau data and dividing this value by the area of the Census Tract included within the Michigan Geographic Framework version 2-a. • 2.4.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics Racial Composition by Census Tract A determination was made to indicate three major racial groups (White, Black, and Asian), and to combine the remaining racial groups into an "Other" category. This aggregation was done for the sole purpose of simplifying the data for spatial representation. Hispanic Population by Census Tract This set of maps was created independently from the Racial Composition map because, according to Census data, persons of Hispanic descent are not considered to be an independent racial group. The reason for this separation is due to the fact that many persons of Hispanic descent consider themselves to be part of a specific racial group while still maintaining their Hispanic heritage. Age Groups by Census Tract Population data was aggregated into the four age groups based on the various levels of risk associated with these population groups. Children under five are generally with a parent, guardian, or day care provider during the day, and may require a • high level of special assistance in an emergency situation. Children between the ages of five and seventeen are primarily in an education facility during the day. According to conversations with Lansing Emergency Management personnel it was suggested that in most cases schools are going to require, and receive, a greater level of assistance that a caregiver with children in their own home. Persons between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four are considered to be working-class adults that are going to require a limited amount of assistance. Persons sixty- five and older are generally retired, and may need special assistance or consideration in an emergency situation. Language: Households Speaking Language Other Than English as Primary Language This set of maps was created to identify areas of higher concentrations of persons that may not speak English as their primary language. This does not imply that they do not speak English at all, but rather they may not speak it well. This information may be important for communication purposes in an emergency situation. Education Attainment by Census Tract isDesignates five main levels of education attainment. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4. 7 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics • Median Household Income Income levels were aggregated on a regional level based on the minimum and maximum values for the area. The same maximum and minimum values were then applied to each jurisdiction. For interpretation purposes, the color ramp was reversed to represent the median income levels so that the darker hue represents a lower value and the lighter hue represents a higher value. This was done based on cartographic principles and is in no way intended to be misinterpreted. This graphic representation is not intended to project a lower income area as a "blighted" or "poor" area. Any such interpretation is unintentional of the authors. Poverty Status by Census Tract This data represents the percentage of the total population that is considered to be below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Minimum and maximum values were identified for the region, and each jurisdiction used the same standards. According to the Census Bureau "...persons are classified as below poverty if their total family income or unrelated individual income was less than the poverty threshold specified for the • applicable family size, age of householder, and number of related children under 18 present..." The Census Bureau updates a table of poverty level thresholds every year to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Also, according to the Census Bureau, "poverty status was not determined for institutionalized people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old." For more information see the Census Bureau's website defining poverty at: htW://!luickfacts.census.gov/!Qfd/meta/long 101618.htm. Age ofHousmg.• Median Year Structure Burt by Census Tract For the most part this data was organized into ten year periods of high building rates. The exceptions are pre-1940 and post- 1980, as a smaller percentage of the region's existing homes were built during these time periods. The map represents the median age of housing by Census Tract according to the Census Bureau. There may of course be many older and newer homes in the Tract, but this map presents a general housing and general development characteristic for the region. 0 2,4.8 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile is Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics is • References: (1) City of Lansing Emergency Management (2002) Drat Hazard Vulnerability Anal. Lansing. City of Lansing. (2) Goldschalk, D, Beadey, T., et. al. (1999) Natural Ha.Zard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 103-161. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4.9 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics • **This page intentionally left blank** • • 2.4.10 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • �i Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics Sub-seetion: Figures List of Figures: Figure # Title Page 2.4.A Tri-County Population Trends 1900 — 2000 2.4.12 2.4.B Employment/Unemployment as of August 2003 2.4.13 2.4.0 Major Industry Groups in the Tri-County Region 2.4.14 2.4.D Major Employers in the Lansing Region (2000) 2.4.1 S 2.4.E Poverty Thresholds for 1999, Used in 2000 Census 2.4.16 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 2.4.11 Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics is Figure 2.4.A: Tri-County Population Trends, 1900-2000 Tri-County Region 100 Year Population Trend: 1900-2000 450000 400000 j 378,423 ( 416,667 447,72 c 350000 i 300000 244,159 0) a 250000 293,949 �- 200000 172,489 150000 106,938 191,411 134,041 100000 - Z 96,622 50000 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission • • 2.4.12 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics • • Figure 2.4.B: Employment/Unemployment as of August 2003 Employment/Unemployment as of August, 2003 Laborforce Employed Unemployed Unemployment Rate Clinton 36475 35200 1250 3.6 Eaton 59625 57475 2125 3.7 Ingham 155800 147725 8075 5.5 Tri-County Region 251900 240400 11450 4.8 Source: Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4.13 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics • Figure 2.4.C: Major Industry Groups for the Tri-County Region: 2002 Major Industry Groups in the Tri-County Region: 2002 IndustrY Employees Percentage of Population Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 2,427 1.1 Construction 12,726 5.6 Manufacturing 30,085 13.1 Wholesale trade 6,519 2.8 Retail trade 25,266 11 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 7,978 3.5 Information 5,265 2.3 Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 15,375 6.7 Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services 16,695 7.3 Educational, health and social services 55,795 24.4 Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 18,098 7.9 Other services (except public administration) 11,324 4.9 Public administration 21,484 9.4 Source: Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce • 2.4.14 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics • • Figure 2.4.D: Major Employers in the Lansing Region Major Employers in the Lansing Region (2000) Enipitger 7:1,pe of Bu,shmvs # Emplt ees State of Michigan Government 14,998 Michigan State University Higher Education 13,636 General Motors Automobiles 12,000 Health System Medical 6,000 -Sparrow Meier Warehousing, Groceries 4,261 School District Education 3,500 -Lansing Ingham Regional Medical Center Medical 2,500 Lansing Community College Higher Education 2,000 US Postal Service Government 1,300 City of Lansing Government 1,200 Dart Container Containers 5,000 Peckham Industries Textiles, Auto parts 1,200 Auto -Owners Insurance Insurance 1,100 Ingham County Government 900 Jackson National Life Insurance 850 Lansing Board of Water -Light Utility 765 Standard Federal Bank Banking 750 John HenryCompany Printing 650 Federal-Mogul Corporation Auto parts 640 Ameritech Utility 625 Michigan Farm Bureau Insurance 600 Consumers Energy Utility 550 Spartan Motors Auto parts 525 ITT Automotive Auto parts 500 Wohlert* Auto parts 475 Carefree Aluminum Products Aluminum Products 450 Lansing State Journal Newspaper 450 Delta Dental Insurance 431 FASCO DC Motors Electric motors 430 Trumark* Auto parts 350 Accident Fund of Michigan Insurance 326 First of America Bank Central Banking 325 Sealed Power Auto Parts 300 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Insurance 275 US Dept of Agriculture Research 250 State Employees Credit Union Banking 220 Blue Care Network Insurance 217 E-T-M Enterprises Auto parts 195 'Indicates these businesses have since closed or relocated Source: Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4.15 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics • Figure 2AE: Poverty Thresholds for 1999, Used in 2000 Census Poverty Thresholds in 1999, by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years Related children under 18 years 1 W.ightedl average I I I I I I I I I Bight Size of family unit �thresholdl None I one I Two I Three I Four I Five I Six I Seven I or more One person (unrelated individual).... 1 8,501 I 1 Under 65 years ..................... 1 8,667 I 8,667 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 65 years and over .................. 1 7,990 I 1 I 7,990 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Two people ...........................1 10,869 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Boueeholder under 65 year.......... 1 11,214 111,156 1 11,483 1 Boueeholder 65 years and over ...... 1 10,075 110,070 1 11,440 1 Three people. ........................ 1 13,290 113,032 1 13,410 1 13,423 I Four people .......................... 1 17,029 117,184 1 17,465 1 16,895 116,954 Five people .......................... 1 20,127 120,723 1 21,024 1 20,380 119,882 1 19,578 1 1 Six people ........................... 1 22,727 1 23,835 1 23,930 1 23,436 122,964 1 22,261 1 21,845 1 1 1 Seven people ......................... 25,912 27,425 1 27,596 1 27,006 126,595 1 25,828 1 24,934 1 23,953 1 1 Bight people 28,967 1 30,673 1 30,944 1 30,387 129,899 1 29,206 1 28,327 1 27,412 1 27,180 1 Nine people or more .................. 34,417 1 36,897 1 37,076 1 36,583 1 36,169 1 35,489 1 34,554 1 33,708 1 33,499 1 32,208 Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey. http://w census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh99.htm1 Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey. • 2.4.16 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics Sub -section: Maps List of Maps: Map # Title Page 2.4.L1 City of Lansing Base Map 2.4.19 2.4.1_2 City of Lansing Census Tract Numbers 2.4.21 2.4.L3 City of Lansing Population Density 2.4.23 2.4.L4 City of Lansing Racial Composition 2.4.25 2.4.L5 City of Lansing Median Household Income 2.4.27 2.4.1_6 City of Lansing Age of Housing. Median Year Built 2.4.29 2.4.L7 City of Lansing Age Groups 2.4.31 2.4.L8 City of Lansing Hispanic Population 2.4.33 2.4.L9 City of Lansing Language 2.4.35 2.4.1,10 City of Lansing Poverty Status 2.4.37 2.4.L11 City of Lansing Educational Attainment 2.4.39 2.4.R1 Tri-County Region Base Map 2.4.41 2A R2 Tri-County Region Population Density 2.4.43 2.4.R3 Tri-County Region Median Household Income 2.4.45 2.4.R4 Tri-County Region Age of housing: Median Year Built 2.4.47 2.4.R5 Tri-County Region Hispanic Population 2.4.49 2.4.116 Tri-County Region Language 2.4.51 2A R7 Tri-County Region Poverty Status 2.4.53 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 2.4.17 Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 4: Demographics: Population, Housing and Economic Characteristics 0 **This page intentionally left blank** • � ]l 2.4.18 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • • Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a r16 Lansing N W E S Delta 425 Boundary Source: Digitized by David Murray, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission City of Lansing Base Map Legend State Roads/ Interstates jAll Other Roads Railroads Miles 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 TCRPC File # 20031028-1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project • 003301 003200 003102 00 900 003302 000100 003102 000300 000200 00 0800 00 003400 003400 Don 00 003101 006500 0 0 001400 0 0 � w 003500 0 001500 0190 0 001200 002100 001701 002000 002400 002200 001702 002500 002300 $ 002600 rn 002901 003700 020202 00-607 :1 002700 002800 002902 � �o0 005100 • P801 004000 001200 0 005304 005201 005303 'Special Note: Many of the census tracts along the periphery of the City actually extend into neighboring jurisdictions. Please see the Eaton and Ingham plans for a remainder of 7202 these tracts. 005302 Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a • City of Lansing Census Tract Numbers Legend l City of Lansing Census Tracts Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 In CD :3 �F C CA O n r Z 3 C: H 3 _. � 3 CD � TCRPC N_ N Map # 20030805-3 M :o6 D Produced by: David R. Murray ^ Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 1 Hazard Mitigation Project N 003301 003200 003102 00 900 003302 000100 0031021 — {.. 000300 000200 000 003400 003400 600 0 '� 0 OOS. 0 o 003101 00 000700 0 000400 000600 006500 qwa] 001400 o i � O W 4 003500 0 001500 001900 O 001200 1 0 002100 )3801 004000 001200 001701 002000 i� 002400 002200 'L 001702 002500 002300 i...� 0 002600 CC ...I 002901 A i C o : N 003700 , i 020202 00060' 0027, v 002800 002902 Z-• o0 005100 ;..e 005304 � �••—p•�, 005201 005303 1 0 N [� Source Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a LW - -- Census Total Tract Population 000100 2183 0002 00 3394 000300 2455 000400 3064 000500 1731 000600 1808 000700 2891 000800 3661 000900 1853 001000 2222 001200 2501 001300 1397 001400 44 001500 2097 001600 1221 001701 922 001702 3741 001900 634 E 00 3819 0000 1595 00 3375 00 3249 'Special Note: Many of the census tracts along the periphery of the City actually extend into neighboring jurisdictions. Please see Eaton and Ingham plans for remainder of these tracts. Census Tract 'Special Note: Many of the census tracts along the periphery of the City actually extend into neighboring jurisdictions. Please see Eaton and Ingham plans for remainder of these tracts. Census Tract Total Population 002500 2522 002600 2036 002700 3232 002800 2601 002901 3109 002902 3396 003101 1430 003102 3028 003200 2339 003301 3215 003302 2465 003400 2494 003500 2985 003601 3800 003602 3781 003700 5733 003801 4197 004000 4425 004404 3716 005001 5934 005201 4902 005303 4782 006500 3649 N W E Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 City of Lansing Population Density Legend Density (Persons/Sq. Mile) 62.63 - 954.0 954.1 - 2241 2242 - 3458 - 3459 - 5003 - 5004 - 8227 - 8228 - 14340 Lansing City Boundaries LS Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1_5 2 TCRPC qN Map # 20030813-1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project N M 4�6 D W � • • • N N tyl Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a IIIIII mmmmom mommom m®om©® mmomo® mmmmm� mmmm®m mm�mmm memo® m�om�m m0000m mmomo® m®omom mmmm©® mom®©® mmmmmm ��®om t�®mom® mmm®om m®mm©� Lansin ,ts along the periphery ring jurisdictions. _ r remainder of these tracts. IIIIII mt�mmom mmmmmm mmmm®® mmmm®® mm®®o® mm®mmm mmmmm® mmmmom �m�mmm m��mmm om�mmm mmmmmm �mmmmm N w E S Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 City of Lansing Racial Composition by Census Tract Legend White Black Asian All Other �.� Lansing City Boundaries Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 TCRPC Map # 20030815-2 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project v 0 C� O 3 O e--r O ✓V CD C cn n r-r ci IMF O h r y N M D r � N N N n r 301UVJiZVu 00 102 00 900 003302 1 000100 003102 000300 0002 8p0 Oj ; OJ _ I 0 801003400003400 O 0-00 m 003101SOo 000700 000400 1 0060 0040 006500 0 ID -J 003500 o .'-012 A 001200 002100 001701 ­71,0020 0_ 002400 002200 I 001702 002500 002300 •-� _ -- 0 002600 rJ o 002901 j N 003700 j 020202 00 002700 6p.7 i 002800 2902 L� Do 005100 005304 005201 005303 005302 j Lan sin Census Tract Median Income 002600 $32, 880 002700 $43,203 002800 $38,168 002901 $45,339 002902 $29,183 003101 $37,470 003102 $57,768 003200 $37.039 003301 $29,503 003302 $55,977 003400 $45,900 003500 $38,688 003601 $43,211 003602 $34,248 003700 $28,367 003801 $50,017 004000 $38,750 004404 $37,321 005001 $70,082 005201 $31,849 005303 $35,446 006500 $31,467 020202 $39,278 021400 $51,124 J j1Q5�00_.I —__—__—__— IV 005501 *Special Note: Many of the census tracts along the periphery w E of the City actually extend into neighboring jurisdictions. Please see Eaton and Ingham plans for remainder of these tracts. S Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 • City of Lansing Median Household Income by Census Tract Legend Median Household Income (In Dollars) - 0 - 15000 _ 15001-30000 30001 - 45000 45001-60000 60001-75000 75001-90000 90001 + _J Lansing City Boundaries _J 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 CD _Q a) 0 C CD p1L 44 0 p o r CD = � 3a CD rA C W 00 0 ,--t- TCRPC NA ic Map # 20030815-8 D Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission jj— Hazard Mitigation Project • 003301 F 003302 -A 000300 003400 003400 00 I 11 003200 —� \00100 003102 02 OSO 0 0006CD 001701 002400 001702 002500 CD0 t U' rn N 003700 020202 00`�607 7 005201 005303 005304 001500 O� v �-1 o0 005100 N N Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a 00 00 a 0 004 .Y o_ w 0 001200 0 002300 002600 002901 002700 002800 002902 I k • Median Year Built 1948 1942 1951 1939 1941 000600 1949 000700 1939 000800 1939 000900 1939 001000 1939 001200 1939 001300 1961 001400 1939 001500 1969 001600 1947 001701 1957 001702 lsss 001900 1948 002000 1939 oozloo lsaz oozzoo 1947 002300 1943 002400 1940 002500 1953 sin Census Tract Median Year Built I I 005001 % Lan r-� DIlSS�oo 005302 I t 1 N 95501 'Special Note: Many of the census tracts along the periphery �7 E of the City actually extend into neighboring jurisdictions. Please see Eaton and Ingham plans for remainder of these tracts. S Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 • city of Lansing Age of Housing: Median Year Structure Built by Census Tract Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 15 2 TCRPC Map # 20030819-2 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project • • • Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a N11111 m®mo� ®®mmm iti�oom®m ®mmm® �mmmmm iGL�IDm®mm® Imo®om ommm®o mmmmm ilk®ommm its iIIii im iFF� i iti � i iF: J;1 it�imiti®®®® Lansin �1®111' NOMME� �m®mmm ®m®mm �mmmmm ommm®m mmm®mm o©ommm ommm®IiT� �mmmmm i� l iti � iII a iti1� ii! � l it�l J i ' N -ts along the periphery W E ring jurisdictions. Please see Eaton and Ingham plans for remainder of these tracts. s Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 City of Lansing Age Groups by Census Tract Legend rO �J Under 5 5-17 _ 18-64 O65 and Over Lansing City Boundaries Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 TCRPC Map # 20030821A Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project a (Q CD o -a O r C U N C: �■ "i n r-r N W W • 003301 003200 I 00 102 00 900 003302 000100 003102 J 000300 000 jf 003400 003400 00 7 19 , r 00 1 003101 00 000700 0 ! 000400 ! 000600 006500 OQ10 0 001400 0 003500 (51 0 001500 001900 001200 002100 '. 001701 002000 002400 72020 001702 002500 002300 0 002600 002901 N 003700 020202 001?607 L--n'00 005100 002700 r.Jl 002800 002902 005201 1 005303 Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a 005304 L3801 004000 001200 C H ~ V _ w 33 9 N N 000100 2183 348 15.94% 000200 1394 364 26.11% 000300 2455 468 19.06% 000400 3064 262 8.55 000500 1731 274 15.83% 000600 1808 209 11.56% 000700 28 11 318 11.55 000800 3661 861 23.52% 000900 1853 267 14.41% 001000 2222 150 6.75% 001200 2501 373 14.91% 001300 1397 243 17.39% 001400 44 4 9.09% 001500 2097 167 7.96 001600 1221 50 4.10 001701 922 9 0.98% 001702 3741 233 6.23% 001900 634 74 11.67% 002000 3819 437 11 44 002100 2444 404 16.53% 002200 1595 88 5.52°% 002300 3375 253 7.50 002400 3249 291 8.96 002500 2522 122 4.84 Lansin f L002600 ~ = 3 A 2036 178 874 3232 264 8.17 % 002800 2601 223 8.57 002901 3109 188 6.05 % 002902 3396 175 5.15% 003101 1430 71 4.97% 003102 3028 153 5.05% 003200 2339 345 14.75% 003301 3215 347 10.79% 003302 1 2465 1 126 5.11 % 003400 2494 165 6.62% 003500 2985 306 10.25% 003601 3800 331 8.71% 003602 3781 415 10.98% 003700 5733 542 9.45% 003801 4197 148 3.53% 004000 4425 94 2.12% 004404 3716 78 2.10% 005001 5934 98 1.65% 005201 4902 364 1 7.43% 005303 1 4782 356 1 7.44 006500 1 3649 444 12.17% 020202 4346 308 7.09 021400 8839 390 4.41% L i I 0050011 7 �l QOLL i :Aix City of Lansing Hispanic Population by Census Tract Legend Percentage of Total Population Less Than 1 % 1-5% 5-10% 10-15% - 15-20 % - 20 % or More �.� Lansing City Boundary Mil- 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 TCRPC 4,5501 Special Note: Many of the census tracts along the periphery W E of the City actually extend into neighboring jurisdictions. Map # 20030820-7 .p D Please see Eaton and Ingham plans for remainder of these tracts. Produced by: David R. Murray S Tri-County Regional Planning Commission r Hazard Mitigation Project Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 VN (/ C) c 0 r� o C) V) CD U) C: VJ DO 0 r-- I I 005302 0 0 0 003200 I 00 102 00----900--0------�� 003302 000100 0031021 r- r 000300 °p02pp 003400 00801 003400 °p000 0000�� 01 0 000400 004000 000600 006500 op- 0 001400 003500 0 0 001500 001900 r 001200 001701 002000 002400 002200 001702 002500 002300 0 002600 0 002901 N 003700 020202 00%07 7 O� ! l L-�Qoo 005100 002700 r 002800 005201 I 005303 Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a 005304 1111EMM l�� ff-T-T-PM1�� ��i©Old Lansin._ ��� ®I®iol 005001 % 7 � iril_, 005302_-`— — N Q,5501 "Special Note: Many of the census tracts along the periphery W E of the City actually extend into neighboring jurisdictions. Please see Eaton and Ingham plans for remainder of these tracts. Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 City of Lansing Language: Households Speaking Language Other Than English as Primary Language Legend Percentage of Households Speaking Language Other Than English as Primary Language = Less than 5% 0 5-to% 0 to-15% 15-20% — 2a25% _ 25% or More LJ--J-! I Lansing City Boundary Mil- 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 TCRPC Map # 20030822-5 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project r O� m `o 7' (D ���// Z3 = mo c to N ZT m Mh N N U CD m r � v CO 7 In a) (D CAD N ic D W U N W v -------- -- -- 003301 003200 003102 00 900 1 _ 003302 000100 00310 000300 $ i 003400 003400 oIQ 1 003101 000400 00060 006500 0Q10ll 00 001400 003500 6 0 001500 Q 001200 r 01 1 001701 002000 1 002400 tr 002200 001702 002500 002300 002600 � 0 N 003700 02901 020202 000 1 0r, i L- Oo 005100 002700 002800 002902 005201 I 005303 005304 001200 I _ I I I I 1 F— Lansin I i -1 005001 1 Legend Percentage of Persons Below Poverty Level Less Than 5 5-10 10-20% 20-30 — 30-40 - More Than 40% `,-J Lansing City Boundary Miles 0 025 0.5 1 1.5 2 TCRPC 0501 ' 1__- 'Special Note: Many of the census tracts along the periphery W E of the City actually extend into neighboring jurisdictions. 1�pMap # 20030825-1 Please see Eaton and Ingham plans for remainder of these tracts. Produced by: David 5 Murray S Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Hazard Mitigation Project I 005302 1 07 CD -j Cc ^W J �h N D Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a ItI��mm®mllllly ,,,:,, III�IDII�ll�ll�Il®IIO �ili[IDm11011®Ilmll� ��ll�lm®mlm t IDommmo �mmlllllm®�® ®®IIItID®�® �Illt�lllmlllmmlllm lllm „ ,,, ill�llll�i�lll�ll�llm ��i®m�mllm ®item®mllm F�7�m®mom It�lll�®�Ilm�® ItIF� III IIII� IIIIIm IIII� IIIIm 11113iJ It�it�mmmmllm „ ,III�II�ll�ll®II�IIO It�ll�mll�ll�ll�l� It�l�mmm�m IIIS� IIItIDllil��lll�illi� II-IIIIDm®lm �mlll®III01110©® Ste] m �ml ils Its III IIII�IIIlII7�lll�il� �IIIiWiIIM 1=KMM IQS �mmmm ®mmmmm �C'yl N ;ts along the periphery W E ring jurisdictions. Please see Eaton and Ingham plans for remainder of these tracts. S Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 City of Lansing Education Attainment by Census Tract Legend Highest Level of Education Attained Less Than High School ® High School and Equivalent Some College _ Associate or Bachelors Degree Master's Degree or Greater f Lansing City Boundaries 0 0.25 0.5 1 1,5 2 TCRPC Map # 20030825-7 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project m Q c n o ci _D 44 N � O 3 -h CD rn n y CD �• W Q2 C n N r� 1 ft • • • Source: Framework v.2-a Tri-County Region The Five Jusdictions Within the Tri-County Region Legend / Interstates/Freeways / State Highways Other Major Roadways I Lansing Delta Township FClinton County = Eaton County Ingham County Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 TCRPC N w E File # 20030801-2` Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission S Hazard Mitigation Project 5 • • • N W Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Tri-County Region Regional Population Density Legend Density (Persons/Sq. Mile) 0 0 - 500 501 - 1000 1001-1500 0 1501 - 2000 O 2001 - 2500 O 2501 - 3000 0 3001 - 3500 0 3501 - 4000 4001 - 4500 4501 - 5000 5001 - 5500 5501 + 0 1.5 3 6 7 ■Miles 12 TCRPC N W E File # 20030814-3 �m S Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project • • • All YT G C Tr 1 _ Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Tri-County, Region Median Household Income by Census Tract Legend Median Household Income _ 0 - 15000 _ 15001 - 30000 _ 30001 - 45000 ® 45001 - 60000 60001 - 75000 0 75001 - 90000 90001 + Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 cD v� c _. cD ' ( C? O 0 Q = 0 PF O CD Q c f- N n TCRPC N File # 20030815-4 e D Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project w • • • Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Tri-County Region Age of Housing: Median Year Structure Built by Census Tract Legend Median Year Built - 1939 and Earlier - 1940 - 1949 - 1950 - 1959 0 1960 - 1969 0 1970 - 1979 0 1980 and Later Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 TCRPC File # 20030818-3 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project D (0 CD 0 0 CID CL O (D !y C✓ C n C (D I� 00 p s 3 CD 3 (n U) !v 0 • Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Tri-County; Region Hispanic Population by Census Tract Legend Percentage of Total Population 0 Less Than 1% 1-5% 5-10% 10-15% _ 15-20% _ 20% or More Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 TCRPC File # 20030820-1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project 0 Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a L —— - - - Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 �; Tri-County Region Language: Households Speaking Language Other than English as Primary Language Legend Percentage of Households Less than 5% 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% - 20-25% - 25% or More N 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 TCRPC File # 20030822-1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commissi Hazard Mitigation Project 0 0 0 N Cn Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 W - — -- Tri-Count3 Region Poverty Status by Census Tract Legend % of Pop. Below Poverty Level = Less Than 5 % 5-10 % 10-20 % 20-30 % - 30-40 % - More Than 40 % Mlles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 o < CD �. n O C = C)7 1ElL C En N O h 3 TCRPC N File # 20030822-8 D Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project y Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 5: Community Facilities Community Facilities he community facilities portion of this hazard mitigation plan assessment differs from previous portions of the community profile in that this section is based on concerns which are specific to hazards. Information on history, natural features, demographics, and land use, while components of this project's community profile, are also commonplace in community profiles which are developed for other planning purposes. This section of the community profile "community facilities" was developed specifically for use in assessing and mitigating hazards in the Tri-County Region. • Before describing the specifics of Lansing's community facilities, it is important to understand the context in which these data are being presented. First, when working to compile a community facility profile it quickly becomes apparent that every structure in the community likely serves an important purpose for some function. We have taken care to select specific community elements that are relevant to the hazard mitigation planning, as specified by the guidelines on which this project is based, and relevant to the local communities. With that statement in mind, we acknowledge that for a variety of reasons one could likely name other facilities which are critical to the community that are not listed. By listing or not listing an element of the community in this section of the profile, we are not implying certain facilities are more critical than others. Rather, we are making choices based on what is reasonable in terms of the project's scope. Second, this section is presented in the context of an all hazards assessment. An "all hazards" assessment means considering threats of natural, technological, or social origin. For example, a natural hazard such as a tornado can destroy an important municipal building impacting the function of community. A • Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.1 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities • technological hazard, such as an accidental crash of a truck carrying petroleum, can force the closure of a major road causing disruption to the normal functioning of a community. The events of September 11, 2001 clearly indicate that hazards which are social in origin can disrupt the normal functioning of a community, for example an ideological driven, purposeful attack on an important municipal building can have far reaching consequences. In the realms of law enforcement and homeland security, detailed assessments of communities are currently taking place to reduce risk from threats like terrorism. Public safety programs are also in place to reduce the risks faced from industrial accidents, crashes, and hazardous material exposure. While the strength of this hazard mitigation plan lies in the natural hazard realm, by taking an all hazards approach where possible, cross -over benefits can occur where the reduction of risks from one hazard also reduces risks from other hazards. Third, identifying an element of the community in this portion of the profile does not imply that any specific danger or risk is associated with the site. Rather community facilities are identified in this section for two reasons, neither of which have to do with present dangers. One reason is that identified • facilities may differ in size, scale, and relative regional significance from other elements of the surrounding community, and thus require special attention in mitigation planning. The other reason an element of the community would be identified in that plan is that its failure or the disruption of its normal functioning would lead to other interdependence -related disruptions. For example, disruption of electrical systems can lead to disruption of the normal functioning of a business (such as preventing gas station pumps from working), leading to the disruption of transportation (vehicles would be unable to get gasoline). By identifying important community facilities in this hazard mitigation we can better determine if any special mitigation needs are necessary to ensure their long-term safety and reliability such community facilities. is 2.5.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 5: Community Facilities Critical Community Infrastructure Description This community facility section is based on information concerning Lansing's critical community infrastructure. For this plan, critical community infrastructure is as defined as: Those physical, functional, informational, and technological facilities, and their associated networks and assets which, if destroyed, would have a serious impact on the health, safety, security, and economic well being of the citizens and the effective functioning of government. In general, critical community infrastructure is composed of nine interrelated sectors (not listed in order of importance): Energy and Utilities Infrastructure — Electrical power stations and major transmission lines, utilities, resource extraction areas, pipelines, public water systems (potable & waste) • 2. Physical Infrastructure — Dams, waste water treatment facilities 3. Communications Infrastructure — Communication facilities, relays, transmission antennas 4. Economic Infrastructure - Regional Malls, central business districts, retail and commercial centers, industrial sites, employment centers, banks Community Support Infrastructure — Schools, churches, healthcare, public institutions 6. Transportation Infrastructure — Pedestrian & bicycle pathways, roads, public transit, railroads, airports Public Safety Infrastructure — Police and fire stations, search and rescue stations, emergency services, emergency alert sirens 8. Government Infrastructure: major government facilities, concentrations of administrative functions and isassets Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities 9. Community Landmarks Infrastructure — Unique sites of local and regional significance and/or sites of large scale as compared to the surroundings; examples area the State Capitol, large stadiums, universities, convention centers, fairgrounds, etc. The remainder of this section will describe Lansing's community facilities in the form of narrative descriptions, maps, and tables. Short narrative descriptions and relevant tables will describe specific critical community infrastructure elements of police, fire, and hospital locations, emergency alert siren coverage, transportations hubs and major corridors (described by mode), local government office locations, and key community facilities. The maps will also depict elements of critical community infrastructure as follows: Critical Community Map Name Map # Infrastructure Sectors City of Lansing 2 5 Ll Community Services Police, Fire, and Hospitals Public Safety City of Lansing Emergency Alert Siren 2.5.L2 Public Safety Coverage City of Lansing Transportation Hubs and 2.5.L3 Transportation Major Corridors City of Lansing Local Government 2.514 Government Offices Energy and Utilities Physical Infrastructure City of Lansing Communications Key Community Facilities 2.5.L5 Economic Infrastructure Community Services Government Community Landmarks Tri-County Region 2.5.R1 Public Safety Police, Fire, and Hospitals Tri-County Region Public Safety Emergency Alert Siren 2.5.R2 Coverage Tri-County Region Transportation Hubs and 2.5.R3 Transportation Major Corridors Tri-County Region Public Transportation 2.5.R4 Transportation Routes • • 2,5,4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 5: Community Facilities City of Lansing Police, Fire, and Hospitals The City of Lansing's police fire and hospitals are addresses on Map 2.5.L1 and these community elements are related to the jurisdiction's community services and public safety portion of the critical community infrastructure. Map 2.5.R 1 depicts the same facilities for the region. Within Lansing, there are three city police stations, two state police units, and nine fire stations, as well as four hospital/medical centers. These facilities are also listed with their address and phone numbers in Figure 2.5.A. As mentioned above the City of Lansing Police Department has three main branches; two precincts, North and South, providing law enforcement throughout the city's 33 square miles, and a Central Station that acts as the main administrative office in Downtown Lansing. The service area boundary between the North and South Precincts are delineated by I-496 and the Grand River. Both the North and • South Precinct have three shifts, day, afternoon, and night, with a specific Shift Lieutenant assigned to each. Both jurisdictions are also divided into nine team areas with officers assigned to specific teams and shifts. The Lansing Police Department employs 268 Sworn Officers and 101 civilians throughout the agency's various locations. In addition to the regular patrol officer positions, the LPD also has 11 specialized units to call upon as needed. These specialized units address anything from narcotics, to crime scene investigation, to special event security, among other focus areas. More information on the Lansing Police Department can be found at www.lansingpolice.com. In addition to the City of Lansing Police Department, the State of Michigan also has two offices within the city. The State Police have an administrative office on the eastern boundary of the city and an officer -staffed post at the Capitol building. The Lansing Fire Department employs over 220 sworn members and over 30 support staff to operate the nine fire stations throughout the city. In 2002, the LFD responded to • over 11,000 emergency medical calls, and over 8,300 fire Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.5 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities • alarms. In addition to training in fire suppression and emergency medical response, the Lansing Fire Department is cross -trained in a variety of disciplines such as water rescue, hazardous materials response, and confined space and rope rescues. The department prides itself on its excellent training and the use of state of the art rescue equipment. The LFD may also be called to assist with emergencies that fall outside of the city's boundaries. More information can be found at www.lansingfire.com. Lansing is home to two major health care providers, each with two primary facilities. Sparrow Health System operates Sparrow Hospital and St. Lawrence Hospital and Ingham Regional Medical Center operates two branches, the Greenlawn Campus and the Pennsylvania Campus. The Sparrow facilities house 710 beds and employs over 3,600 full-time, and 1,600 part-time staff members. These two facilities see over one million outpatient visits and approximately 100,000 emergency room visits each year. The Ingham Regional Medical Centers house 343 beds and employ over 1,400 full-time, and roughly 500 part-time staff • members, and see approximately 400,000 outpatient visits and 46,000 emergency room visits. (American Hospital Association, 2002) City of Lansing Emergency Alert Siren Coverage Lansing's emergency alert siren coverage is depicted on map on Map 2.5.L2 and these community elements are related to the jurisdiction's public safety critical community infrastructure. There are currently 20 sirens spread across the city, with coverage reaching much of the populated areas and sometimes reaching beyond city limits. The typical coverage area for these sirens is a 4600 ft. radius, although this can vary by age and type of siren as well as location and surrounding structures. The siren coverage area for the entire region is also depicted on Map 2.5.R2. 2.5.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities City of Lansing Transportation Hubs and Major Corridors Lansing's transportation hubs and major corridors are depicted on map on Map 2.5.L3 and these community elements are related to the jurisdiction's transportation critical community infrastructure. Map 2.5.R3 depicts the same information on a regional basis. Aeronautics As depicted on this map, there are no state -registered airstrips serving the City of Lansing. Information on airfields can be found on the Michigan Department of Transportation website (www.michigan.gov/mdot/) under the Aeronautics tab. Vehicular/Automotive The area in and around the City of Lansing has a high concentration of roadways of various capacities and sizes. There is a complex network of interconnected Interstate Highways, State Highways, and major arterial roads in the Lansing Area. The city is dissected on an east -west direction by Interstate 496, which provides rapid vehicular transportation through the heart of the city, and provides access to the downtown/Capitol area for travelers coming from all over the region as well as the state. I-496 connects with Interstates 96 and 69 west of the city, and with US 127 to the east, providing access to many of the major metropolitan areas throughout the state. Interstate 96, which runs along the southern boundary of the city, travels in a southeast/ northwest direction with access to Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Muskegon. I-69, which is actually west of the city, provides access to cities such as Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, and Flint. US 127, running along the eastern edge of the city, acts as a link to communities throughout southern Michigan such as Jackson and St. Johns and also serves as the primary route to and from northern Michigan and the Mackinac area. Major arterial roads in Lansing include Cedar St./Larch St. (one way pair) and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd running north -south, and Saginaw St./Oakland Ave. (one way pair) isand Grand River Ave running east -west. However, the Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.7 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities • majority of roadways in the Lansing area are predominately local streets, collector streets and minor arterials The size and speed limits of roads in Lansing encompasses a wide range. Interstate roads are generally four lane, divided highways with limited access and posted speed limits of 55 to 70 mph, whereas the State Highways may have four lanes, but are generally two adjacent lanes of opposing traffic with regular, unimpeded access points and may include controlled intersections (stop signs or traffic lights). Speed limits on these roads are typically 55 mph, but may slow through populated areas. Arterial Roads are generally four lanes divided by a left turn lane or other median that allows for left turns at major intersections. Speed limits on these roads generally range from 35 to 45 mph. Local roads and collector streets are usually 2 or four lanes of opposing traffic with speed limits of 25 to 40 mph and may allow on street parking. Rail Because of the long history with automobile manufacturing, the City of Lansing has a well established network of railroads. The largest rail operator in the city in terms of miles of rail owned is Conrail Railroad, with major rails running from the southeast corner of the city, traveling through the center of the city, and passing through the northwest corner. The Grand Trunk Western Railroad, may not have as much rail property in the city as Conrail, but it is used on a much heavier basis, as it is the primary carrier for the main General Motors Assembly Plant, as well as other industries including Amtrak Passenger service. There is also a small segment of railway owned by CSX in the northwest corner of the city that connects to the Conrail system. Public Transit The Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) provides bus service to travelers within Lansing as well as throughout Ingham County, with a concentration of routes in East Lansing, and Meridian Township. In addition to these routes, CATA also provides regular service to Mason, Williamston and Webberville, as well as rural curb -to -curb service, for those living outside of the regular service areas, and Spec- Tran service, a curb -to -curb service for persons with disabilities that cannot use fixed route service. The latter two 2.5.8 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 5: Community Facilities services are scheduled services and require an appointment at least 24 hours in advance. The main transfer point for most bus routes in the city is the CATA Transportation Center (CTC) at 420 S. Grand Ave. in downtown Lansing. From this point, one can travel to many points throughout the city on one of the more than a dozen routes. Regular route fares for CATA range in price from free to $1, depending on population group, and fares for special services such as Spec-Tran are usually $2. More information, including specific route maps, can be found on CATA's website (www.cata.org . Map 2.5.R4 depicts public transportation routes on a regional basis. City of Lansing Key Community Facilities Lansing's key community facilities are depicted on map on Map 2.5.L5 and these community elements are related to the jurisdiction's critical infrastructure community facilities. • For critical infrastructure in Lansing, 1999 data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) HAZUS software was applied to this project. HAZUS is a nationally applicable standardized methodology and software program that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricane winds. HAZUS was developed by FEMA under contract with the National Institute of Building Sciences. For this hazard mitigation project the specific data sets applied were the HAZUS 99 for ArcView, service release 2, January 2002, Central U.S. and the HAZUS 99 supplemental data for ArcView, December 1998, Michigan DT40.V02 data sets. Those data sets indicated critical facilities of dams, communication facilities, and waste water facilities in Lansing. Figure 2.5.B, City of Lansing Critical Community Facilities, and Map 2.5.L5 provide further information on those elements of critical infrastructure. While the authors note, it may be possible that this data set is missing some critical infrastructure elements, given the complex project of locating all critical infrastructure and the existence of parallel programs in the law enforcement an homeland security related to critical infrastructure • protection, a decision was made that this publicly available Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.9 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities • HASUS data set supplied by FEMA provides adequate treatment of critical infrastructure for this hazard mitigation plan. For the normal functioning of the City of Lansing certain locations in the community hold special relevance. For example, if one's house were impacted by a disaster while having devastating personal consequences it would not necessarily have a drastic impact on the wider community. However, if a local food store or commercial center was impacted by a disaster, an entire community that uses the facility could be affected. For the purposes of this hazard mitigation project we have selected areas of land use and land cover of Retail/Commercial Centers, Government Buildings, School and Churches, Industrial Locations, Utilities, and Extractive as critical areas of potentially widespread impact. These land use designations were produced for another project (Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future) based on 1999 aerial photography, and may include slight spatial or interpretation errors inherent in the analysis of such imagery. Map 2.5.L5 highlights the locations of four major community is facilities in Lansing. These sites are the State Capitol Building, the Lansing Center, Lugnuts Stadium, Frandor Shopping Center, the General Motors Grand River Main Assembly Plant, and the Jackson National life Insurance building. The Michigan State Capitol Building is by far one of the most significant features within the City of Lansing. Lansing became the capital of Michigan in 1847, and soon after a small wooden structure was built to serve as the capitol. Despite various attempts at expanding the structure, there came a time when the government outgrew the building and a decision was made to erect a new, larger and safer Capitol building. Construction on the new capitol began in 1872 using materials from around the country and inspired by the recently remodeled Capitol building in Washington D.C. Following six years of construction, the existing Capitol was completed in 1878, with a dedication on January 1, 1879. Still serving as the Michigan State Capitol, the massive sandstone building sits at the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Capitol Avenue and not only acts as the seat for Michigan • 2,5.10 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile • Section 5: Community Facilities state government operations, including the Governor's office, but also stands as a symbol of democracy. The Capitol began to fall into disrepair over the first 100 years of its life, so the Michigan Capitol Committee was formed in 1987 to oversee the building's maintenance and eventual restoration. Restoration efforts began in 1989 and were completed in time for a 1992 rededication ceremony. The extensive and meticulous restoration included everything from paint and surface restoration, to creating reproductions of original lighting fixtures and carpet, and received many accolades and awards for the thorough attention to detail. In addition to being the central location for state government, downtown Lansing also provides facilities for hosting conventions, meetings, and other special events. The Lansing Center, located on Michigan Avenue just east of the Capitol, is a state of the art meeting a convention facility operated by the Lansing Entertainment and Public Facilities Authority (LEPFA). Originally constructed in the 1980s and expanded • in the 1990s, the facility features over 71,000 sq. ft of exhibit space and an additional 20 smaller meeting/breakout rooms, resulting in a capacity of nearly 6,000. The Lansing Entertainment and Public Facilities Authority also operates another recent landmark in the downtown area, Oldsmobile Park. Built in 1996, Oldsmobile Park is located right across the street from the Lansing Center and is home to the Midwest Class A Lansing Lugnuts baseball team, an affiliate team of the Chicago Cubs. In addition to the regular seating capacity of 11,000, the park offers 26 box seats. The park hosts an average of 70 home games as well as various other special events. The General Motors Grand River Assembly Plant is the city's single largest employer with 7,000 people working over three shifts at this complex of automobile manufacturing units. The automobile industry in Lansing began in the late 1800s when Ransom Eli Olds began building Oldsmobiles in his garage. His company grew into larger facilities in the city and the company was eventually purchased by General Motors in 1908. Since that date, the GM plant has grown and is now 0 considered the largest North American automobile plant in Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.11 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities • terms of production. The plant is centrally located within Lansing, along the Grand River, with easy access to freeways, major railroads, and a power plant right next door. Another major employer in the Lansing area is the Jackson National Life Insurance Company. Although actually located in Alaiedon Township, several miles outside of Lansing, the development area is part of an Act 425 agreement between the city and the township. Lansing provides services to the area, and in turn shares income and property tax revenue with Alaiedon Township. Jackson National Life is located on Okemos Road, just south of I-96 and employs over 1,200 people. In April, 2000, Delta Township and the City of Lansing also reached an intergovernmental land -use agreement in order to attract the development of a new General Motors automobile plant. This 425 agreement is a 1,300 acre parcel located near the southern boundary of the Delta Township, just west of I69/I96. Working together, Delta and Lansing are able to provide more attractive economic development strategies than • they would working independently. In the 25 year agreement, the jurisdictions are able to provide tax incentives to GM in exchange for providing nearly 3000 new jobs for the region. Property tax revenue and industrial facilities tax revenue will be shared equally, between Delta and Lansing. Delta Township will assume all land use and taxing authority upon termination of the agreement unless extended. Under the agreement, the township will provide water, sewer, and many other public services to the area and Lansing Board of Water and Light will provide electric service. Frandor Shopping Center, located on the east side of Lansing near the I-496/US 127 interchange, is a complex of strip retail buildings with various types of businesses. Originally built in 1954, the main portion of the shopping center was updated with a modified footprint and modernized facades in the late 1990s, and is a major center of commerce within the city. The shopping center boasts a Kroger grocery store, many restaurants, a collection of small to moderate specialty stores and services, and the region's only Sears department store. 2.5.12 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities References: American Hospital Association website www.aha.org Capital Area Transportation Authority website www.cata.org, City of Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis - Draft Document, 2002 City of Lansing website www.cityoflansin ig ni.org Federal Emergency Managment Agency. (2002) "State and Local Mitigation Planning How to Guide" Compact Disc — FEMA CD 386-2 Greater Lansing Convention and Visitors Bureau website www.lansing.org Hazus 99, FEMA Hazus Web Site. www.fema.gov/hazus/ Lansing Entertainment and Public facilities Authority website www.lepfa.com Lansing Fire Department website www.lansingfire.com Lansing Lugnuts website www.lansinglugnuts.com Lansing Police department website www.lansingpolice.com Lansing State Journal website www.Isj.com • Michigan Department of Transportation website w-ww.michigan.gov/mdot/ Michigan Legislative Council Facilities Agency website www.milegislativecouncil.org/lcfaf html Michigan State Police website www.michigan. og v/ms]/ Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada - Office of Critical Infrastructure Preparedness and Emergency Management www.ocipep-bpiepc.gc.ca State of Michigan Office of Management and Budget: http://www.michigan.gov/dmb/0,1607,7-150-9152--- ,00.html Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.13 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities **This page intentionally left blank** is • 2.5.14 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities Sub -section: Figures List of Figures: Figure # Title Pa-e 2.5.A Cite of Lansing Emergency Services 2.5.16 2.5.B City of Lansing Critical Infrastructure Elements 2.5.17 Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.15 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities • Figure 2.5.A: City of Lansing Emergency Services Police/Sherriffs Office Jurisdiction Title StationlPrecinct Address City County Zip Phone Lansing Police Department Central Precinct 120 West Michigan Ave. Lansing Ingham 48933 517-4834600 Lansing Police Department North Precinct 740 May Street Lansing Ingham 48906 517-4834831 Lansing Police Department South Precinct 3400 S. Cedar Street Lansing Ingham 48911 517-272-7454 Michigan State Police State Capital Post - Treasury Bldg. 504 W. Allegan Lansing Ingham 48933 517-373-2836 Michigan State Police I Emergency Management Division 14000 Collins Rd. Lansing lingham 1 48910 517-336-6198 Fire Stations Jurisdiction Title Station/Precinct Address City County Zip Phone Lansing Fire Department Station #1 120 E. Shiawassee Lansing Ingham 48933 517-483.4551 Lansing Fire Department Station #2 2114 N. Grand River Lansing Ingham 48906 517.483-4552 Lansing Fire Department Station #3 629 W. Hillsdale St. Lansing Ingham 48933 517483-4553 Lansing Fire Department Station #4 1435 E. Miller Rd. Lansing Ingham 48911 5174834554 Lansing Fire Department Station #5 1821 Todd Ave. Lansing Ingham 48910 517-4834555 Lansing Fire Department Station #6 5135 Pleasant Grove Rd Lansing Ingham 48911 517483-4556 Lansing Fire Department Station #7 629 North Jenison Ave. Lansing Ingham 48915 517-4834557 Lansing Fire Department Station #8 815 Marshall St. Lansing Ingham 48912 517-483.4558 Lansing Fire Department Station #9 520 Glendale Lansing Ingham 48910 517-4834559 HOSDitais Name Address City County Zip Phone Ingham Reg. Med. Ctr 2727 S Pennsylvania Lansing Ingham 48910 517-334-2121 Ingham Reg. Med. Ctr 401 W Greenlawn Lansing Ingham 48910 517-334-2121 Sparrow Hospital 1215 E Michigan Lansing Ingham 48912 517-483-2700 St Lawrence Hospital 1210 W Saginaw Lansing Ingham 48909 517-372-3610 is • 2.5.16 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities Figure 2.5.13: City of Lansing Critical Infrastructure Elements Dams Name Owner River/Creek Year Built Moores Park Dam Lansing Board of Grand River 1907 Water & Light North Lansing Dam Unavailable Grand River 1936 Waste Water Facilities Year Name Main Address City Built Sewage Pit. Vent #8B 1625 Sunset St. Lansing 1946 Sewage Plant 1626 Sunset St. Lansing 1946 Sewage Plant Office 1627 Sunset St. Lansing 1946 Communication Facilities Name Class Function W ILS FM 101.7 CBR1 FM Allnet CBO1 Communication Service AT&T CBO1 Communication Service ITT CBO1 Communication Service MCI CBO1 Communication Service US Sprint CBO1 Communication Service Western Union CBO1 Communication Service SBC CBO1 Communication Service Lansing CBW 1 Weather Unknown CBO1 ? Unknown CBO1 ? Unknown CBO1 ? Power Plants Name Owner Class Eckert Station City of Lansing EPP4 Ottawa Street Plant City of Lansing EPP2 Source: NAZI ".S99. FE\L l Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.17 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities **I hes p(�ge intentionally /eft blank** • 2.5.18 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities Sub -section: Maps List of Maps: Map Title Page 2.5.L1 City of Lansing Police, Fire and Hospitals 2.5.21 2.5.L2 City of Lansing Emergency Warning Siren Coverage 2.5.23 2.5.L3 City of Lansing Transportation Hubs and Major Corridors 2.5.25 2.5.L4 City of Lansing Local Government Offices 2.5.27 2.5.L5 City of Lansing Key Community Facilities 2.5.29 2.5.111 Regional Police, Fire and Hospitals 2.5.31 2.5.R2 Regional Emergency Warning Sirens 2.5.33 2.5.R3 Regional Transportation Hubs and Major Corridors 2.5.35 2.5.R4 Regional Public Transportation Routes and Hubs 2.5.37 • • Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5.19 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 5: Community Facilities **This page intentionally left blank** • • is 2.5.20 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • N C,71 N Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a N T�r� Point Data Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Staff City of Lansing Police, Fire and Hospitals Legend O Police Station/Sheriffs Office • Fire Station WHospital / State Roads/Interstates All Other Roads Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1,5 2 TCRPC File # 20040203-3 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project o n _m POL rm o t� cn -0 3 Y7J U) N M Ln D L • • r� W [v W 1. Shiaxvassee & Grand 2. Grand & Lenawee 3. Ekngham & Eureka 4. 200 N. Faster 5. Grand River & New Yorl G %^Allow & Logan 7. Northwest & Lafayette 8. 1217 W. Kalamazoo 9. 2500 3. Washington 10. 2600 Kampden 11. 1215 E- Mt. Hope 12.640 Maplehell 13. 3. IVILK & Pierce 14. 4200 Wasnvrright 15. 333 E. Miller 16. 320 S. Walnut' 17. Capitol Complex Plaza' 18. 3119 Stoneleigh 19.2924 Newark 20. Seaway Driv;e�3heflield Source: City of Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis Draft, 2000 6 City of Lansing Emergency Alert Siren Coverage rrl 3 CD (Q CD �. =3 �F D Q CD -h ;31 r Cn W CD = Z3 H n�. o = < CD v c� CD TCRPC E File # 20040107-2 p D Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project N� • • • Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a city of Lansing Transportation Hubs and Major Corridors Legend . Bus Station / State Roads/Interstates All Other Roads Railroads Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 TCRPC N File # 20031020-4 s Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project AMTRAKBus Station Point Data Source: ESRI ArcGIS Data Disc v U) 0 v n o rr cO CT a) r Z3 0 0- 0 3 Ica l ! 0 Q. 0 N M C�1 D r� W 0 0 0 Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a E7 Point Data Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Staff City of Lansing Local Government Offices Legend ,qpq, CJ Government Offices / State Roads/Interstates All Other Roads Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 *Note: This map represents the locations of the main offices for the jurisdiction, and does not include various sattelite offices or departments. State and federal agencies have also been excluded from this data. TCRPC A-04N-04—— — — File # 20031112-1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project r 0 00 Irt 0� < p C --Z r M O CD 0 0 0 Frandor >hoppin( Center I! C:JF9 d�. Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a 1999 Land Use Data Source: TCRPC/HNTB Michigan Lansing City of Lansing Key Community Facilities Legend - Dams a Communication Facilities 0 Waste Water Facilities Power Plants Retail/Commercial Centers Govt. Buildings, Schools, & Other InstitutiOns afffill Industrial Utilities Extractive Lansing City Boundaries Jackson National 9r Life Insurance Co. Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 L r L , ■L ■ttttr ti N W E S Point Data Source: HAZUS 99: FEMA TCRPC qN IV ic File # 20031216-3 01 D Produced by: David R. Murray ■ Tri-County Regional Planning Commission r Hazard Mitigation Project CA • Stem • CLINTON COU S'un%iald I It I IN el? t •,,,,, n„, r EATO CO Y arlotte • 0 O INGHAM COUNTY M one EatolhNapids 127 N • W E �rrr <«• 4et eslie S Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a Point Data Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Staff 40 Tri-Count3 Region Police, Fire and Hospitals -U y o (D -n O =; C 3 sv in Miles Q y M 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 I'I Sy O TCRPC File # 20040202-1 w Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project • N CJ1 W W Framework Source: Michigan St Jo ins (ACLINTON CO YIIIJTY 127 I `Lansing data in Devi"'; incompatible format. See map 2.512 in Lansing plan for led l �r,, siren coverage. I Framework v.2-a Tri-County Region Emergency Warning Siren Coverage Legend • Sirens 4800' Siren Coverage Area nnues 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 'Siren data digitized based on best information from multiple sources at the time of printing. Siren coverage areas are approximate. TCRPC File # 20040107-4 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project 3 CD CD m4 (Q (D 0 0 0 St Jo n CLINTON COIJ19TY t 127 } 1 Dewitt y fulliken 7 T l I bl"'i �lc ;-r Dr,uuu(I[ /c n iue EAT O10� CO TY 1 VINISHAM COUNTY arlotte * M sbn Dansville N 127 Eaton Rapids W E IlLevilo vet 1 - "�� $t St rid �e S Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a AMTRAK/Bus Station Point Data Source: ESRI ArcGIS Data Disc Airport Pant Data Source: MDOT and MSP - Emergency Management Division Tri-County Region Transportation Hubs and Major Corridors Legend Capital City Airport AA... Registered wiM MDOT ® AMTRA!(/Bus Station . Bus Station / InlerslareslFrceweys / State Hghways Other Major Roadways Railroads Cities end Villages Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 TCRPC File # 20031016-1 Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Hazard Mitigation Project sv Cn O O C) 0 C 07 = VJ i 0 M n O = Q O N :c Un w 0 0 0 M Tri-County Region I Grand I - S11 eld Mul%zken LedgL9 ,", Afilplc-Pcrpich St Johns CLINTON COUNTY Twp Pott it A iontvillc EATON CO TY harlotte Mason �z� N Eaton Rapids W E Leslie Stuckbi- C Route Data Source: Digitized by Tri-County Regional Planning Commision staff, based on 2002 route information from CATand EATRAN 69 N Cr LA�,e vet W Framework Source: Michigan Geographic Framework v.2-a J W n'31 IVNiiliamston INGHAM COUNTY Tri-County Region Public Transportation Routes O X miles O �■ 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 C In addition to the bus routes depicted on CD this map, "on demand" service is provided throughout the Tri-County Region by CATA (Capital Area Transportation Authority), EATRAN (Eaton County Transportation Authority) and CATS (Clinton Area Transit System). On demand service requires a phone call to the corresponding transit authority. TCRPC File # 20031016-2 .� Produced by: David R. Murray Tri-County Regional Planning Commission A Hazard Mitigation Project Legend ^/ CATA Routes 2002 ^� EATRAN Routes 2002 / Interstates/Freeways / State Highways Other Major Roadways Cities and Villages City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 3 0 Hazard Analysis 0 Chapter 3: Hazard Analysis • Narrative Chapter 3: Hazard Analysis: The City of Lansing's Emergency Management Office performed a hazard vulnerability analysis in 2003. For this hazard mitigation planning project, the City's Emergency Management Office specified that the 2003 Hazard Vulnerability Analysis document will act as the hazard analysis for this plan. The purpose of the hazard analysis was to "determine the degree of risk to our community from each potential hazard, to assess our vulnerability, and to examine what has to be done to mitigate each hazard." According to that document, hazards that threaten the community can be divided in two categories: natural and technological (man-made) hazards. Lansing's natural hazards are produced by the geography and climate of the area, these include tornadoes, winter storms, thunderstorms, extreme heat and cold, and floods. As an urban industrial area and the state capitol, Lansing is vulnerable to technological hazards including hazardous material incidents, structural fires, power failures, air and land transportation accidents, and acts of terrorism. The hazard analysis identified 19 hazards that posed a risk to Lansing. Of these, seven are weather related which could effect any part of Lansing. Technological hazards which make up the remainder of the list are difficult to predict in location and scope. These hazards can effect residential neighborhoods as easily as industrial complexes or the downtown business district. Technological hazards are unlikely to effect the entire city. In this public release version of the plan, the City of Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (2003) is described above but not provided in its entirety. The authors stress to the reader that City of Lansing has completed a full hazard vulnerability analysis which the Lansing Emergency Management Office applies in various contexts. However, the hazard vulnerability analysis contains the following confidentiality notice: This document addresses specific vulnerabilities in the City of Lansing. This • information is confidential and not be released to any outside agency. Hazard Mitigation Plan 3A.1 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 3: Hazard Analysis Narrative • Portions of the document may be exempted from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, it was determined that it would not be appropriate to provide details of the Hazard Vulnerability Analysis in this hazard mitigation plan which is designed for public release. The Tri-County Region Planning Commission has been granted to permission to use the Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis document to guide portions of this plan's preparation. Upon printing of this hazard mitigation plan, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission returned all hazard vulnerability analysis related documents to the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office. Therefore, the Tri-County Regional Planning does not house any such information and any future inquires should be directed to the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office. • 3.i.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 4 • 41 Mitigation Analysis LJ is Chapter 4: Mitigation Analysis Chapter 4: Mitigation Analysis Introduction to Chapter: Chapter four is the mitigation analysis chapter of this hazard mitigation plan. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Provide Information Concerning the Concept of Hazard Mitigation 2. Present the List of All Hazards as Ranked by Mitigation Potential 3. For the Hazards with the Highest Mitigation Potential, Present Possible Mitigation Strategies This chapter is organized as follows. First, information will provided about the concept of hazard mitigation. Following, • that discussion, this jurisdiction's top hazards for mitigation will be presented. Then, the preferred mitigation strategies for these hazards will be highlighted. In addition, comments from the public meeting regarding mitigation will be presented. The Concept of Hazard Mitigation: Hazard Mitigation Defined Mitigation has been defined as taking advanced action to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards (Godschalk, 1999). While mitigation has traditionally been considered in the realm of natural hazards, the concept also has direct application to reducing the risk from technological and social disasters. Why is Hazard Mitigation Important? Why should a community consider hazard mitigation as important? Benefits to a jurisdiction from hazard mitigation planning include saving lives and reducing injuries; preventing or reducing property damage; reducing economic losses; • minimizing social dislocation and stress; minimizing agricultural Narrative Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 4.1.1 Chapter 4: Mitigation Analysis Narrative • losses; maintaining critical facilities in functional order; protecting infrastructure from damage; protecting mental health; limiting legal liability of government and public officials; and providing positive political consequences for government action (Schwab et. al., 1998). General Approaches to Mitigation In general, hazard mitigation strategies have been implemented through two means, structural and non-structural projects. Structural mitigation projects are mostly related to some type of physical construction project that reduce hazard exposure, while non-structural projects relate efforts taken to direct human activity away from hazards or influence human behavior. For example, the following list provides examples of structural projects by hazard type: • Floods: Levees and Floodwalls • Landslides: Restraining Structures • Earthquakes: Anchoring • • Wind: Placing Utilities Underground • Fire: Constructing Defensible Space • Snow: Structural Maintenance Examples of non-structural projects are: • Floods: Floodplain Mapping • Landslides: Enacting Protective Ordinances • Earthquakes: Guidelines and Model Ordinances • Wind: Building Code Enforcement • Fire: Public Education • Snow: Development of Snow Load Design Standards The Relationship Between Land Use Planning and Hazard Mitigation Planning Ann important aspect of hazard mitigation planning it its relationship to land use planning activities. This relationship is an example of the non-structural type of mitigation. According to the American Planning Association, "Hazard mitigation works best as policy objective of local planning when it is so completely integrated into the local comprehensive plan that it becomes a • 4.1.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 4: Mitigation Analysis • Narrative normal assumption behind all daily planning activities" (Schwab et. al., 1998). In addition to land -use objectives it is common for local comprehensive planning activities to include many elements of community activities including transportation, housing, community facilities, parks and recreation, economic development, etc. These author's recommend that hazard mitigation planning also be considered as one of the elements of a community's comprehensive plan. In some communities, hazard mitigation has been considered as part of the public safety element of the planning process, in other situations mitigation planning has been a stand alone annex to land use plans. This plan acts as the basis for local planners to consider ways in which hazard mitigation planning can be incorporated into local land use planning efforts. Two Opportunities for Hazard Mitigation Planning There are two opportunities when hazard mitigation planning can take place. One of the opportunities of is during times of calm. The other opportunity is immediately after a disaster, during the recovery. Both opportunities have advantages and • disadvantages to project implementation. This hazard mitigation plan is an example of pre -disaster planning where the planning is taking place during times of `calm'. At the time of writing, no jurisdictions in the region are experiencing a major disaster. Much as the hazard analysis in the plan is considering `what if' scenarios as many of the hazard discussed have not been realized. In many ways, hazard mitigation planning is very effective during as pre -disaster planning, especially in terms of considering how hazard mitigation can be incorporated into long-term land use plans. However, it can be difficult to mobilize support and public attention for such planning, as the disasters which are being considered for mitigation may seem far removed from everyday life. Hazard mitigation planning can also take place immediately following a disaster. During the disaster recovery, it may make sense for a community not to rebuild in harms way. One such case was experienced in Valmeyer, Illinois immediately after the 1993 Mississippi River Flood disaster. After the devastating flood, the small village decided to completely relocate outside of • the floodplain and rebuild on the top of a nearby bluff. That Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.1.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 4: Mitigation Analysis Narrative relocation was an example of mitigation planning taking place during a disaster recovery. In such cases, it is easier to mobilize public's attention to support and implement mitigation as the disaster is fresh in people's mind, however it can be difficult to organize the mitigation planning process as the community may be preoccupied with disaster recovery task that are needed to restore normalcy to the community (Rozdilsky, 1996). Types ofMitigation Strategies For this hazard mitigation plan, seven general mitigation strategies were considered. These strategies were adapted from the Michigan State Police Publication Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Workbook (Pub 207). It should be noted there is no cookbook of mitigation strategies by hazard type — each mitigation strategy should be considered on a case by case basis, given local conditions. As Chapter Two (Community Profile) of this plan alludes to, there are many aspects of the built, natural, and social, environment to consider when thinking about the most appropriate mitigation strategies. Also, it is often found that a combination of mitigation strategies can be applied. The seven mitigation strategies considered in this plan are as follows: 1. Modi ft the Ha.Zard — Removing of eliminating the hazards, meaning some type of activity to reduce the size and amount of the hazard, or controlling the rate of release of the hazard. Stream widening is an example. 2. Segregating the Ha.Zard — Efforts to keep the hazard away from people. An example of this strategy is the construction of some type of barrier between the area to be protected and the hazard, such as a floodwall. 3. Preventing or Limiting Development— Efforts to keep the people way from the hazard through land use planning. An example is the application of zoning to prevent development in hazard prone areas. 4. Altering Design or Construction — Interacting with the hazard by focusing on engineering or construction activities, so that structures at risk can better withstand potentially destructive impacts. Examples of this strategy include, • • 4.1.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 4: Mitigation Analysis so Narrative putting houses on stilts above high water levels or bracing roofs for severe wind. 5. Increasing Public Awareness — Educational or warning activities to communicate with the public regarding how best to plan for safety, or how to remain safe during a disaster. Examples of this activity can include public educations campaigns related to making a home disaster kit. 6. OtberApproacbes — Mitigation strategies, other than the five strategies listed above, that the community may deem as appropriate. 7. No Mitigation Strategies — In some cases, there may be no feasible mitigation strategies for the hazard. In the event of a large asteroid impacting the Tri-County Region, it is possible that the damages may be hemisphere -wide, and it is unlikely that any local mitigation strategies would ameliorate the situation. 0 Hazard Mitigation Priorities: During the hazard analysis process, a list of the rankings of the hazards by their overall vulnerability was compiled. That ranking is taken from the Lansing Hazard Vulnerability Analysis 2003 and presented in figure 1.3.A. This mitigation analysis takes that hazard analysis one step further by considering mitigation potential for those hazards. In step two of the methods (see Chapter 1, Section 3), the local hazard mitigation planning committee determined the hazards with the highest mitigation potential. The local hazard mitigation committee determined the top 5 hazards to consider for the mitigation analysis. For Lansing, those five hazards are (not in order of priority): • Flood • Urban Wildfires • High Winds • Infrastructure Failure • Terrorism • Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.1.5 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 4: Mitigation Analysis Narrative Preferred Mitigation Strategies for Selected Hazards In order to determine the preferred mitigation strategy by hazard, at the July 2004 public / stakeholder input at the Lansing Fire Board of Commissioners Meeting, a question was asked: "Which is the most appropriate mitigation strategy for this hazard?" For that question the participants were polled on the top seven mitigation strategies. The results of that polling are described below. Those results will be taken into consideration as specific mitigation projects are determined. Floods ► Preferred Mitigation Strategies: Prevent/Limit Development Increase Public Awareness For this hazard, Lansing stakeholders provided these additional comments concerning mitigation. • Passive recreation should be used for the flood plain • Land acquisition may be appropriate • Require landlords to disclose flood information to renters • Update siren coverage, consider flood warning sirens • Funding is needed for other hazards (i.e., terrorism) Urban K'ildffms ► Preferred Mitigation Strategies: Alter Design and Construction Increase Public Awareness For this hazard, Lansing stakeholders provided these additional comments concerning mitigation. • Create buffers between structures and vegetation • Use fire resistant building materials • 4.1.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 4: Mitigation Analysis isNarrative High Winds ► Preferred Mitigation Strategy: Alter Design and Construction For this hazard, Lansing stakeholders provided these additional comments concerning mitigation. • Alter design of billboard to prevent them from becoming projectiles (this may involve state regulations) An asOwe"we Failure ► Preferred Mitigation Strategy: Prevent/Limit Development Alter Design and Construction Increase Publie Awareness is For this hazard, Lansing stakeholders provided these additional comments concerning mitigation. • Modify and repair outdated or malfunctioning facilities • Raise awareness of possible hazards of infrastructure failure Terrorism ► Preferred Mitigation Strategy: Prevent / Limit Development Increase Publie Awareness For this hazard, Lansing stakeholders provided these additional comments concerning mitigation. • It is important to protect large bodies of water, public wells, and water supply reservoirs • Employ measures to keep truck bombs away from structures • Hazard Mitigation Plan 4.1.7 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 4: Mitigation Analysis Narrative • • Increase awareness of hazard for those applying for building permits • Study the September 11, 2001 events to assist local preparedness • Enhanced coordination between key agencies is needed References: Godchalk, David et. al. (1999) Natural Ha.Zard Mitigation — Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Michigan State Police. Local Ha.Zard Mitigation Planning Workbook. (EMD-PUB 207). Lansing, Mich.: MSP Emergency Management Division. Rozdilsky, Jack (1996) "Flood -Related Relocation of Valmeyer: Implications for the Development of Sustainable Cities." Environmental Planning Newsletter. Vol. 1 No, 3 American Planning • Association Environmental Planning Newsletter — Environmental, Natural Resources, and Energy Division. Schwab, J, Ken Topping, et. al. (1998) Planning for Post -Disaster Recovery and Deconstruction. American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report 483/484. Chicago: APA. 4.1.8 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 5 • Mitigation Actions 0 • Chapter 5: Mitigation Actions Chapter 5: Mitigation Aetions Introduction to Chapter: A primary goal of this Hazard Mitigation Planning process is to provide a list of identifiable actions items for this jurisdiction. Those action items are presented in terms of projects for the hazards with the highest mitigation potential. The list of actions following this narrative provides some possible mitigation projects that can be taken into consideration during future mitigation efforts. This Mitigation Action Chapter also provides • a section on the importance of and application of cost -benefit analysis. It is important understand how this chapter fits into the overall mitigation planning process. In Chapter 3, the Hazard Analysis, the hazards are described and relevant hazards were ranked by the jurisdiction's overall vulnerability to them. The descriptions of the hazards provide additional information to consider when deciding on the specific locations to implement projects. The narrative descriptions of hazard locations, along with the maps in that section and the community profile assist in determining the specific geographic area in which to implement the project. For example, concerning the flood hazard, locations for potential projects should be considered by using the flood maps in Chapter 3. Chapter 4, the Mitigation Analysis provides a ranking of hazards provided by the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office. The local hazard mitigation planning committee identified the five key hazards that would have mitigation actions included in this plan. Narrative Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 5.1 Chapter 5: Mitigation Actions Narrative • Mitigation Actions: Flooding For mitigation purposes, the highest priority hazard in the City of Lansing is flooding. Potential projects identified during the hazard analysis process are: • Participation in the NFIP Community Rating System in order to reduce homeowner flood insurance rates • Public education for residents in the floodplain regarding flood hazard and NFIP, including revision and redistribution of city's "Plain Facts about Flooding" brochure • Require landlords to disclose flood information to renters • Structural improvements to allow closing of storm sewers, which, combined with sandbagging, may reduce flooding in the Urbandale area • Identify and assess potential for structural mitigation of urban -flood prone areas (unrelated to floodplain) • Flooded road gauges and other flood warning signs • Additional flood gauges A flood mitigation taskforce will be formed to consider these • and other potential mitigation measures. Examples of measures which have been successful in other communities are: • Floodproofing basements in and near the floodplain • Update of FIRM maps • Replacing infrastructure to a higher standard • Review of floodfighting strategies • Assessing review process for new construction in the floodplain • Identification of repetitive loss properties • Acquisition of repetitive loss structures • Relocation of structures and reuse of property • Pre -disaster planning of temporary flood barriers (type and location) • Increase capacity of storm water pump stations • Modification of bridges which would be inundated in a 100 year flood • Raise manholes in flood prone areas to prevent flood related damage to infrastructure • 5.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 5: Mitigation Actions isNarrative Urban Wildfires Assessment of the danger presented by development of the urban-wildland interface is needed. If the assessment demonstrates a need for mitigation, some mitigation actions to consider are: • Public education for residents in the interface area • Encourage or require the use of fire retardant building materials for new construction in the area • Encourage landscaping solutions to slow fire spread • Land use policies to create a buffer between high -risk areas and residents • Limited brush clearing in interface area • Assessment of available firefighting equipment and water resources in the area High Winds This hazard was identified as having a potential for future mitigation. Potential mitigation actions include: • Encouraging anchoring for mobile homes and manufactured homes • Anchoring requirements for new manufactured housing • Shelters for mobile home and manufactured housing developments • Wind bracing for signs • Wind bracing for antennas • Participation in NOAA Stormready program • Encourage use of underground utilities in new development Infrastructure Failure This hazard was identified as having a potential for future mitigation. Mitigation actions for infrastructure are addressed in conjunction with other hazards (flood, high wind, and terrorism). Terrorism A separate analysis was conducted regarding terrorism in 2004. Mitigation actions for this hazard are being carried out based on that assessment, but are not included in this analysis. Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 5: Mitigation Actions Narrative • All hazards General mitigation actions already underway for all hazards include: • Risk reduction, and facilitation of emergency response or evacuation, through intelligent transportation systems • Distribution of All Hazards Emergency Alert radios to critical facilities • Improvement of local weather information gathering systems • Enhancement of data available to emergency planners and responders through GIS data sets, aerial photography, revised flood plain mapping, etc. • Training and exercising field emergency responders and EOC staff, in conjunction with outside agencies and local businesses • Documentation of previous hazard occurrences • Coordinating backup generators for key facilities • Disaster education for public and private agencies and groups • Implementation of the Community Emergency Response Team and Medical Reserve Corps programs • Participation in community events such as Save A Life Day and Fire Prevention Open House • Assist schools and universities in developing hazard mitigation plans • Encouraging development of family and workplace disaster plans, including the preparation of 72 hour disaster kits • Encouraging business continuity planning and recovery planning • Participation with Severe Weather Awareness week • Maintaining outdoor warning sirens and providing public education on sirens • Developing communication systems with citizens through existing neighborhood links • Participating in efforts to improve communication with residents in a disaster, including Public/Private Partnership and 211 • 5.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 5: Mitigation Actions • Narrative Mitigation Timeline November 2004 Formation of Flood Mitigation Taskforce, to April 2005 including representatives from Emergency Management, Public Service, Planning & Neighborhood Development, Parks & Recreation, Potter Park Zoo, Board of Water and Light, local meteorologists and the public. Further assessment of Urban-wildland interface hazard by Parks and Recreation, possibly with assistance from MSU Extension or other outside agency. April 2005 to Seek funding for identified mitigation projects December 2005 Implement identified mitigation projects 2006 Revision of City Hazard Analysis Assessment of mitigation projects undertaken Additional mitigation projects identified The Importance and Application of Cost -Benefit Review: This Hazard Mitigation Plan recognizes that cost -benefit analysis is required for all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funded mitigation projects. Any FEMA funded mitigation project, in addition to meeting the other relevant eligibility requirements, must at a minimum have a cost -benefit ratio of greater than 1.0 (implying that benefits must exceed costs). Therefore, when all the mitigation actions were prioritized, cost -benefit considerations were an important factor. Projects were prioritized, in part, based on an estimation of the their cost and benefit, by looking at existing data, considering the gaps in data, and reviewing case studies where cost -benefit analysis has been applied. In the Tri-County Region, for some projects, it is possible to assemble data to begin to determine cost -benefit analysis. This process is being applied to the extent possible with the flood hazard. In other cases, the known cost of mitigation activities can be determined from case studies, and economic data can be determined from sources such as the Michigan Department of Career Development, and other Federal Government economic related web sites. FEMA provided guidance concerning cost -benefit analysis in their publication'port on the Costs and Benefits of Natural Ha.Zard Mitigation (FEMA, 1996). Key points from this guidance are • Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.5 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 5: Mitigation Actions Narrative • highlighted in this narrative. When considering cost -benefit analysis for any mitigation action, it is important to understand the methodologies that can be used to determine the relative costs and benefits of each mitigation measure. Evaluating natural hazard mitigation is a complex and difficult undertaking which is influenced by several variables. First, natural disasters affect all segments of the communities they strike, including individuals, businesses, and public services such as fire, police, utilities, and schools. Second, while some of the direct and indirect costs of disaster damages are measurable, some of the costs are non -financial and difficult to quantify in dollars. Third, many of the impacts of such events produce `ripple -effects' throughout the community, thus increasing the variables to be considered. While not easily accomplished, there is value, from a public policy perspective, in assessing such impacts and obtaining an instructive cost -benefit comparison. Otherwise, the decision to pursue or not pursue various mitigation options would not be based on an objective understanding of the net benefit or loss associated with these actions. Because of the inherent difficulties in empirically measuring all the disaster impacts and the corresponding value of mitigation measures, two different methodologies are advocated by FEMA to identify the costs and benefits associated with natural hazard mitigation measures: 1. Benefit -Cost Analysis 2. Cost -Effectiveness Analysis The distinction between the two methods is the way in which the relative costs and benefits are measured. Through the first method, benefit -cost analysis, all costs and benefits are evaluated in terms of dollars and a net benefit -cost ratio is computed to determine whether a project should be undertaken (i.e., if net benefits exceed net costs, the project is worth pursuing). By contrast, cost-effectiveness analysis, evaluates how best to spend a given amount of money to achieve a specific goal; this type of analysis does not necessarily measure costs and benefits in terms of dollars. The cost -benefit analysis approach advocated by FEMA uses a combination of both methods to obtain a true picture of the • 5.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 5: Mitigation Actions 0 Narrative value of mitigation. Wherever possible, associated costs and benefits of mitigation measures should be measured in terms of dollars. However, in some cases, many types of cost data can be considered in order to define both the direct and indirect costs of hazard events. When applying cost -benefit analysis to specific actions the Michigan State Police's Hazard Mitigation Workbook suggests looking at the following avoided costs: 1. Avoided Physical Damages 2. Avoided Loss of Functions 3. Avoided Causalities 4. Avoided Emergency Management Costs Such considerations are directly related to information provided in the hazard analysis (Chapter 3). For physical construction and alteration of design related activities, it was determined that useful cost -benefit data existed at local assessors / engineering departments. Also, the use of • those data in either existing or newly created Geographic Information System (GIS) data sets proved extremely useful. GIS-based land use / land cover maps were layered with flood plain data to begin to determine areas of interest (i.e., where a potential exists for existing buildings and infrastructure to be at risk due their location in a hazard zone). In addition, aerial photography was applied to assist in determining vulnerability in terms of numbers of structures and existing buildings in hazard zones. A combination of land use and land cover data and Regional Growth Project data sets were considered to provide insights on future developments that may occur in the hazard zones. Given that information, to estimate dollar losses, it was determined it would be necessary to obtain parcel level data, along with populated data sets specifying cost related information like standard equalized values (SEV) for each parcel. However, in most cases, the data was not easily converted to formats which were GIS compatible. Therefore, in this hazard mitigation project, both research efforts took place and projects were implemented to build the data sets needed for cost —benefit analysis. When available, that data is presented, and when not available it was noted by the local hazard mitigation planning committee, so that they could explore how better emphasize cost - benefit analysis as mitigation projects proceed. • Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.7 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 5: Mitigation Actions Narrative • Also, in the course of prioritizing projects, some of the projects with mitigation strategies like increasing public awareness presented more abstract considerations. However, cost -benefit analysis principles (or cost-effectiveness principles) were applied to the extent possible to give projects with higher net benefits a higher priority. For example, according to 2001 FEMA estimates, based on statistical models, the cost of $1,560 was applied to each minor injury, $15,600 for each major injury, and $2,710,000 for each death due to disaster. It is important to note that FEMA cautions that these figures were found to be appropriate for earthquake modeling and that they may be difficult to defend for other hazards. In this case, if we assume that in a public awareness campaign informational printed matter was developed to instruct citizens on how to avoid injury from a catastrophic hazard (for example, an F5 Tornado, or a large scale HazMat-fixed site incident, or a CBRNE attack) and distributed as a public service at booths during fairs and other festivals, a application of cost — benefit analysis would show the following: If the campaign involved producing 4,000 copies of a black and white brochure (price at a local print shop - @ $0.05 per page) and 2,000 copies of targeted color inserts (price at a local • print shop - @ $0.39 per page) the total printing costs of the job would be $980. With the printed matter it would be possible to reach 6,000 persons. If any of the hazard mitigation information provided in the campaign contributed to the prevention of one minor injury, there would be a benefit of almost $600. If one major injury were prevented by a person following the `how to' instructions embedded in the literature, the project would have paid for itself approximately sixteen times. Following that logic, the mitigation strategy of increasing public awareness by distributing printed matter would have a net benefit, and be recommended for a higher priority. References: Federal Emergency Management Agency. (1996) Keport on the Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation. Washington D.C.: FEMA. • 5.8 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 6 Plan Closure • Chapter 6: Plan Closure Introduction to Chapter: Chapter six is the plan closure chapter. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission will be formally turning the plan over the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office in December 2004. It is recommended that this jurisdiction formally adopt the plan in early 2005. Upon adoption, this Hazard Mitigation Plan will be valid for five years. During 2008-2009, considerations will need to be made concerning another hazard mitigation planning process. The plan will be officially housed at City of Lansing and responsibilities related to plan maintenance will be held by the • City. • This chapter outlines the role of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission during plan closure. It also provides recommendations and information related to satisfying the requirements for plan maintenance, updating, and implementation. This chapter closes with instructions for the formal adoption of this plan. Post December 2004, Role of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission: During the planning process, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission was able to act on behalf of the City of Lansing to provide both work and expertise to perform the bulk of the planning work required in this effort. This situation was due to; 1. The local jurisdiction's cooperation to allow the Tri- County Regional Planning Commission to, on their behalf, work on the details of the hazard mitigation planning process. Chapter 6: Plan Closure Narrative Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 6.1 Chapter 6: Plan Closure Narrative • 2. The availability of staff at the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission to participate in the hazard mitigation planning process. 3. The availability of grant funding made available to the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission to support hazard mitigation planning. After the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission finishes this project's work and delivers the final documents to the City of Lansing it will consider its role in the project as completed. Any future involvement of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in the hazard mitigation planning process will be directly dependent the availability of staff, resources, and funding for hazard mitigation planning purposes. In order to assist jurisdictions with plan closure, based on availability, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission will try to aid with the following steps during December 2004. 1. Delivery of multiple copies of project deliverables to the • jurisdiction. 2. Assistance with adoption of the resolution by the governing body of the jurisdiction and the forwarding of the formal adoption to the relevant State and Federal Authorities. 3. Attending one meeting of the jurisdiction's choice to announce completion of the planning process and to provide a handout and discuss "recommended hazard mitigation plan maintenance schedule" (see Figure 6.A). Post January 2005, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission will house copies of the plan in its library and maintain a few extra copies for public distribution on an as - needed basis. While the Commission's staff will be available on a limited basis for basic information requests regarding the hazard mitigation plan, requests for more detailed information, data, and extra copies of the plan will be referred to the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office. r 6.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 6: Plan Closure • Narrative Plan Implementation Recommendations: Implementing the mitigation actions recommended in the plan (Chapter 5) will involve the creation of networks and the involvement of the community. This planning process has acted to bring together many stakeholders to engage in dialogue regarding risk reduction. The key stakeholders in this planning process have a well - established history of cooperation among Local, State, and Federal partners to accomplish both large and small projects. The City of Lansing Emergency Management Office through its work has an existing network of community partners. In implementation of this hazard mitigation plan, it is recommended that both through the use of existing partnerships and through the maintenance of new networks formed during this project, a critical mass of hazard mitigation project stakeholders can be maintained over the long-term. Regarding the implementation of specific action items, it is • suggested that the `low -hanging fruit' or short-term projects requiring little if any funding or organization take place first. Implementation of a few smaller mitigation projects can build momentum for working the on the more complex medium - range and long-term projects. It is also recommended that local hazard mitigation stakeholders remain in contact with Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division. That office produces program updates available on the internet at: htU2://www.michigan.gov/msl2/ In the event funding becomes available to implement hazard mitigation related projects, that office will be a primary state - level partner in project implementation. Plan Updates and Maintenance: Once this document is formally approved, this plan will have a shelf -life of five years, that is, the plan will meet the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 until 2009. Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.3 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 6: Plan Closure Narrative • However, a schedule for plan maintenance and updates is being recommended. Cognizant of the requirements for plan maintenance, the Tri- County Regional Planning is recommending a course of action to the City of Lansing. To initiate the maintenance process, Post -November 2004, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission will attempt to attend one meeting of the jurisdiction's choice to formally present the completed document and provide the handout in Figure 6.A, with a recommended strategy for plan maintenance. That strategy involves four steps: 1. A November 2005 Plan Maintenance Meeting 2. A November 2006 Plan Maintenance Meeting 3. A series of meetings in fall 2007 to consider a plan update 4. Organizing to work on the next version of the plan in 2008-09 Regarding plan maintenance, the hazards identified in plan will continue to exist, and it is unlikely that many new hazards will be • identified during the next five years. However, what may change will be conditions in the community that can create new situations of vulnerability. Examples of changes would be population growth or new development patterns exposing people and property to risks. A disaster can also occur in the community creating an immediate need for hazard mitigation to be included as part of the disaster recovery. Also, Local, State, or Federal Government priorities can change resulting in an enhanced emphasis on preparedness and mitigation projects. When the local hazard mitigation planning stakeholders meet in the future, the above factors should be considered as potential reasons for plan updates. Continued Public Involvement Recommendations: An important part of the plan implementation is continued public involvement. It is recommended that any forums in which hazard mitigation discussions take place are public forums and that notice of the meetings is provided to the public. It is recommended that venues such the meetings of the Local Emergency Planning Committee Meetings or Local Fire and • 6.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 6: Plan Closure • Narrative Public Safety Advisory boards are public meetings which are appropriate for agenda items related to hazard mitigation. Incorporation of Information into Existing Plans: Given the participation of land use planners in this hazard mitigation planning process, it is recommended that when local comprehensive plans, or other land use related plans, are updated, elements of this hazard mitigation plan be considered for incorporation when appropriate. Mechanisms related to comprehensive plan updates will be the main tools for merging land use planning and hazard mitigation planning. See Chapter 4 for additional information on the relationships between land use and mitigation. Regarding the process by which local governments can incorporate elements of this plan into other community plans, from the emergency management perspective, a continual need exists for hazard analysis and pre -disaster planning. Those requirements have increased with the recent emphasis on homeland security -related planning. While this document was • designed for hazard mitigation purposes, as it is an all hazards plan, and in some cases elements of the plan may be appropriate to incorporate into other documents. Plan Evaluation Recommendations: In order to evaluate the plan, at the fall 2007 meetings to consider the plan update, the evaluation criteria of: 1. An inventory of this plan's actions strategies acted on and not acted on 2. An inventory of any impacts this plan has had on the community should be considered. Hazard mitigation stakeholders who have participated in this planning process, and plan to participate to in the next hazard mitigation planning process can staff that evaluation. Hazard Mitigation Plan 6.5 City of Lansing, Michigan Chapter 6: Plan Closure Narrative • Recommendations on Who Will Be Responsible for Plan Maintenance: As the City of Lansing Emergency Management Office is best suited to being responsible for this plan it is recommended they house and maintain the plan during the next five years. Plan Closure Procedure: To formally close this hazard mitigation planning process, it will be necessary for this jurisdiction's governing body to adopt a resolution adopting this plan as the final plan. While the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission's role in the project comes to close in December 2004, it is not required that this jurisdiction formally adopt the plan during that month date. However, it is recommended that this jurisdiction consider taking formal action to adopt the plan in early 2005, as not to lose any potential opportunities for grant funding. Upon official adoption of this plan, documentation can be sent to the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division / • Federal Emergency Management Agency to make the plan `official'. Figure 6.B provides a sample policy analysis with language to assist in getting the resolution to the decision making body. The Appendix provides language for the sample resolution. References: Michigan State Police. Local Ha.Zard Mitigation Planning Workbook. (EMD-PUB 207). Lansing, Mich.: MSP Emergency Management Division. Schwab, J, Ken Topping, et. al. (1998) Planning for Post -Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction. American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report 483/484. Chicago: APA. • 6.6 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan • • • Chapter 6: Plan Closure Sub -section 1: Figures List of Figures: B ure # Title 6.A Recommended Hazard Mitigation Plan Update and Maintenance Schedule 6.B Sample Policy Analysis Memo for Resolution Adoption Narrative Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan 6.7 Figure 6.A Recommended Hazard Mitigation Plan Update and Maintenance Schedule Current Plan in Place November 2004 Fall 2007 Nov. 2005 Nov. 2006 1. Consider Plan Update if Necessary Plan Maintenance Meeting Plan Maintenance Meeting 2 Organize Planning Committee to Consider 0 0 3 Next Version of Hazard Mitigation Plan 2005 Nov 2004 2006 2007 c Prepared by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission October 2004 2009 Nov 2009 Work on Next Plan New Hazard Mitigation Planning Process 2008 - 2009 0 0 0 • Figure 6.13 Sample Policy Analysis Memorandum to Support the Hazard Mitigation Adoption Resolution Policy Analysis Memorandum Re: Adoption of All Hazards Mitigation Plan Preferred Appearance Date: November - December 2004 Date Decision Needed: As soon as possible Objective: Adoption of the All Hazards Mitigation Plan Situation: An adopted all hazards mitigation plan is required as a condition of future funding for mitigation projects under multiple FEMA pre- and post -disaster grant programs. fully participated in the mitigation planning process led by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission to prepare this All Hazards Mitigation Plan; and the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region V, officials have reviewed the All Hazards Mitigation Plan and approved it contingent upon this official adoption of participating government entities. • Proposal: The adopt the All Hazards Mitigation Plan Adoption Resolution. Advantages: This will make us eligible for federal disaster assistance in the future. Disadvantages: None Requested Action: That the adopt the All Hazards Mitigation Plan Adoption Resolution. Potentially Affected Interests: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, other communities involved in the regional planning process (Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties, Delta Charter Township, and the City of Lansing), Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division. Level of Public Interest and Participation: Moderate, Michigan State University Extension assisted with hosting interactive town meetings in late spring and early summer 2004. This isn't controversial, but citizens may be interested that is cooperating with other agencies to be prepared for acting to prevent and responding to a future disaster. 0 Pagel **** This Page Intentionally Left Blank **** • E City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan • APPENDIX 0 • • • Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendiees: The following appendices provide supplemental information supporting this document. AMerndlx # Title 1 Resolution Initiating the Planning Process 2 Flyer for the Pre -Draft Public / Stakeholder Input Session 3 Copy of Announcement for Final Draft Public Comment 4 Sample Resolution for Plan Adoption Space to Insert Adoption Documentation Plan Appendix Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Plan Forward Narrative **This page intentionally left blank** • • 17� F.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Lansing, Michigan Appendix 1. • Resolution Initiating the Planning Process C7 • Prepared The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Draft likeoCution <xxxxxxx> County Board of Commissioners or <xxxxxxx> Township Supervisors or <xxxxxxx> City Council Regolution to Participate in the Preparation of a TO -Countp Region �)a3arb -4litigation Plan by tlje Sri ountp Regional Planning Commim5ion Moved by Mr. / Mrs. <xxxxxx> and seconded by Mr. / Mrs. <xxxxxxxx> to adopt the following resolution: Whereas, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be requiring communities to have local hazard mitigation plans in place or in process of being prepared by November 1, 2004 in order to be eligible for FEMA grants for hazard mitigation; and Whereas, the Michigan Department of State Police, Emergency Management Division, is recommending communities in Michigan to prepare these plans and has identified agencies that could prepare the plans; and Whereas, the Emergency Management Coordinators of Clinton County, Eaton County, Ingham County, Delta Township, and the City of Lansing met representatives of the Michigan State Police and the Tri- County Regional Planning Commission to explore a joint cooperative planning process by the Regional Planning Commission for application for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds and subsequent preparation of a Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan; and Whereas, the unanimous consensus of the five Emergency Management Coordinators is to proceed in preparing these plans in preparing those plans through a joint cooperative planning process by the Tri- County Regional Planning Commission with funded provided by Michigan State Policy and FEMA; and Whereas, it is expected the a Regional Hazard Mitigation Grant Application will be submitted to the Michigan State Police in February 2003 and the subsequent planning process will take approximately 12 months, with Ingham County, through mutual agreement of all Emergency Management Coordinators, acting as the pass -through agency to the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission for the planning funds. Now therefore be it resolved: that the <xxxxxxx> <Board of Commissions> or <Township Supervisors> or <City Council> agrees to participate in the preparation of a Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan for <county> or <township> or <city> and designates the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission as the planning agency responsible for the preparation of the plan with oversight provided by the Michigan State Police, Emergency Management Division. (Followed by Roll Call and Certification) **** This Page Intentionally Left Blank **** 41 • • Appendix 2 CITY OF LANSING BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS Meetin_-g Agenda Wednesday July 14, 2004 at 6:00 pm Fire Station #4, 1435 E. Miller 1. Call to Order — Roll Call 2. Request for Commissioners to be excused Robert Brown Jr. 3. Additions to the Agenda 4. Review/Approval of Minutes JUNE 5. Review of Communications none 6. Presentations: Opticom Video Lansing Mitigation Plan presentation 7. Administrative Comments: a. Station Project Updates: Station #1 renovation, Training b. Fireworks 8. Committee Reports: 9. Old Business: c. Reminder — Lugnuts — City Suite Thursday, August 12, 7:05 d. Accreditation LFD 10. New Business: 11. General order: 12. Adjournment. COMMISSIONERS: Carlos Barajas, Chairperson Frank Ferro, Vice -Chairperson Robert Brown Jr. Jodie Garcia Tonatzin M. Alfaro Maiz Yvonne McConnell Louis Vinson III SECRETARY: Patti Starnes 01 Please Contact Patti Starnes in the Fire Administration Office at 483-4564 **** This Page Intentionally Left Blank **** • • 0 • i Appendix 3. Announcement for Public Comment Period Notice of Opportunity for Public Involvement The TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION gives notice of an opportunity for public involvement, review, comment and input from interested parties on draft hazard mitigation plans for the fol- lowing jurisdictions: Clinton County, Eaton County, Ingham County, Delta Charter Township, and the City of Lansing. These plans address the requirements of the Disaster Mitiga- tion Act of 2000. This is the second public comment period during the planning process. All components of the draft plans will be made available for review at the offices of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission from Novem- ber 1, 2004, to November 12, 2004, from 8 am to 12 noon and from 1 pm to 5 pm. Any comments must be received by 5pm on Friday, Novem- ber 12, 2004. Individuals with disabil- ities requiring auxiliary aids or ser- vices should contact TCRPC at the address below or the TDD Michigan Relay Center at (800) 649-3777. Draft Hazard Mitigation Plans will also be available for review during normal business hours as at: Clinton County Plan: Clinton County Depart- ment of Community Development (Planning and Zoning Office) Clinton County Courthouse, 100 East State Street, Suite 1300, St. Johns, Michigan 48879. Eaton County Plan: Eaton County Community Development Department, 1045 Independence Bou- levard, Charlotte, Michigan 48813. Ingham County Plan: Ingham County M U Extension, 121 East Maple Street, Mason, Michigan 48854. Delta Charter Township Plan: Delta Town- ship Central Fire Station, 811 North Canal Road, Lansing, Michigan 48917. City of Lansing Plan: City of Lansing Emergency Management Office, 81g Marshall, Lansing, Michigan 48912. For additional information on public involvement in the Hazard Mitigation Planning Process contact the Tri- County Regional Planning Commis- sion, 913 West Holmes, Suite 201, Lansing, Michigan, 48910, phone (517) 393-0342, fax (517) 393-4424. 1204103 10-64 Notice published in Lansing State Journal on Sunday October 31, 2004 **** This Page Intentionally Left Blank **** • • 46 U • Appendix 4. Sample Resolution for Official Adoption of the Hazard Mitigation Plan Official Reotutiou To Z[bopt the JLOa3arb Aitigatiou Vlan act tbi.5 3uri!gbiction,q; Official Vlan Vberea!6, recognizes the threat that natural, social, and technological hazards pose to people and the community; and 3Dfjerea5, undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential harm to people and property from future hazard occurrences; and Vberea!6, an adopted hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future funding for multiple FEMA pre- and post -disaster mitigation grant programs; and, Vbereag, fully participated in the mitigation planning process to prepare this hazard mitigation plan; and, Vbereag, the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region V, officials have reviewed the Hazard Mitigation Plan and approved it contingent upon this official adoption of the ; ,Pobi, therefore be it M60Web that hereby adopts the Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and, 38e in further reorbeb, that it coordination with the will submit this adoption to the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region V, officials to enable the Hazard Mitigation Plan's Final Approval **** This Page Intentionally Left Blank **** • is 0 Appendix 5. • Resolution Adopting Hazard Mitigation Plan Insert Resolution Adopting the Plan Here • OR • COMMISSION MEMBERS CLINTON COUNTY Russel Bauerle Larry Martin, Secretary David Pohl John Arehart, Ex-Officio EATON COUNTY Philip Chisholm, Chairman J. William Hawes Alvin Kempf Fred Marquardt Mark Smuts Leonard Peters, Ex-Officio INGHAM COUNTY Dianne Holman is Calvin Lynch Jean McDonald Susan McGillicuddy, Treasurer Bill Sharp Victor Celentino, Ex-Officio CITY OF LANSING Harold Leeman Larry Meyer Ralph Monsma Shirley Rodgers, Vice Chair Carol Wood Tony Benavides, Ex Officio MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Marsha Small u TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR STAFF Jon W. Coleman, Executive Director Paul T. Hamilton, Chief Transportation Planner Stephen Skinker, Transportation Planner Laura Tschirhart, GIS Transportation Specialist Dan Dillinger, Information Systems Planner Carrie Clinkscales, Executive Assistant Maria Habba, Secretary/Receptionist Greg Hoffman, Accountant Christine Hnatiw, Economic Development Planner Christine Spitzley, Environmental Programs Planner Jack Rozdilsky, MSU Extension Educator - Land Use David Murray, Planning Technician Stephanie Geiger, Water Festival Coordinator* *Part-time REPORT PREPARED BY Jack Rozdilsky, MSU Extension Educator, Land Use David Murray, Planning Technician