TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING AREA FEBRUARY 2009 MMI #2937-02 Prepared For: Under a grant from the Federal Emergency Ma nagement Agency (FEMA) through Connecticut Department of Environmental Protections (DEP) Council of Governments of th e Central Naugatuck Valley 60 North Main Street, 3rd Floor Waterbury, Connecticut 06702-1403 Prepared By: M ILONE & M AC BROOM , INC . 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 www.miloneandmacbroom.com In Association With: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. 72 Cedar Street Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 247-7200 www. fhiplan.com NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………… ……………….ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 1-1 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Goals ……………………………………………………………… …………………….. 1-3 1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview ……………………………………………….. 1-5 1.4 Discussion of STAPLE E Ranking Method……………………………………………….. ………….. 1-7 1.5 Documentation of the Planning Process ……………………………………………………………… .. 1-8 2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1 Physical Setting……………………………………………………………… …………………………….. ….. 2-1 2.2 Existing Land Use ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………… 2-4 2.3 Geology ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. …….. 2-6 2.4 Climate ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ……. 2-10 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology ……………………………………………………………… ………… 2-10 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting ……………………………………………………………… …. 2-14 2.7 Governmental Structure ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-15 2.8 Development Trends ……………………………………………………………… ………………………… 2-1 9 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity ………………………………………………………….. 2-21 3.0 INLAND FLOODING 3.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 3-1 3.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 3-2 3.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 3-5 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies and Mitigation Measures ……………………………………………. 3-7 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 3-12 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 3-17 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 3-26 4.0 HURRICANES 4.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 4-1 4.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 4-1 4.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 4-6 4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 4-9 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 4-11 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 4-12 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 4-14 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5.0 SUMMER STORMS & TORNADOES 5.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 5-1 5.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 5-1 5.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 5-6 5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 5-8 5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 5-10 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 5-11 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 5-13 6.0 WINTER STORMS 6.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 6-1 6.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 6-1 6.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 6-3 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies and Mitigation Measures ……………………………………………. 6-6 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 6-7 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 6-9 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 6-10 7.0 EARTHQUAKES 7.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 7-1 7.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 7-1 7.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 7-3 7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 7-4 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 7-5 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 7-8 8.0 DAM FAILURE 8.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 8-1 8.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 8-1 8.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 8-3 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 8-6 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 8-7 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 8-8 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 9.0 WILDFIRES 9.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 9-1 9.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 9-1 9.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 9-3 9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 9-6 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 9-7 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 9-12 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Additional Recommendations……………………………………………………………… ……………. 10-1 10.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations …………………………………………………………….. 10-2 10.3 Sources of Funding ……………………………………………………………… ………………………….. 10-8 11.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule ……………………………………………………………… . 11-1 11.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation ……………………………………………………… 11-2 11.3 Updating the Plan……………………………………………………………… …………………………… .. 11-3 11.4 Technical and Financial Resources……………………………………………………………… …….. 11-4 12.0 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………….. 12 -1 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES Table 2-1 2000 Land Use by Area ……………………………………………………………… …………… 2-4 Table 2-2 Drainage Basins ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-11 Table 2-3 Population Density by Munici pality, Region and State, 2005 ……………………… 2-14 Table 2-4 Critical Facilit ies in Middlebury ……………………………………………………………… 2-23 Table 3-1 FIRM Zone Descriptions ……………………………………………………………… …………. 3-3 Table 4-1 Hurricane Characteristics ……………………………………………………………… …………. 4-6 Table 5-1 Fujita Scale…………………………………………………… ……………………………………… .. 5-2 Table 5-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale ……………………………………………………………… ……………… 5-4 Table 5-3 Tornado Events in Ne w Haven County Since 1950 …………………………………….. 5-7 Table 5-4 NOAA Weather Watches……………………………………………………………… …………. 5-9 Table 5-5 NOAA Weather Warnings ……………………………………………………………… ……….. 5-9 Table 6-1 NESIS Categories ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 6-3 Table 8-1 Dams Registered with the DEP in the Town of Middlebury …………………………. 8-3 Table 8-2 Dams Damaged Due to Fl ooding from October 2005 Storms……………………….. 8-5 FIGURES Figure 2-1 Middlebury Location Map ……………………………………………………………… ……….. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Middlebury in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR)……………………… 2-3 Figure 2-3 Middlebury Ge neralized Land Use ……………………………………………………………. 2-5 Figure 2-4 Middlebury Bedrock Geology ……………………………………………………………… ….. 2-7 Figure 2-5 Middlebury Su rficial Geology ……………………………………………………………… ….. 2-9 Figure 2-6 Middlebury El derly Population……………………………………………….. ……………… 2-16 Figure 2-7 Middlebury Linguistically Isolated Households ………………………………………… 2-17 Figure 2-8 Middlebury Di sabilities Map ……………………………………………………………… ….. 2-18 Figure 2-9 Middlebury Cr itical Facilities ……………………………………………………………… …. 2-22 Figure 3-1 FEMA Flood Zone s in Middlebury …………………………………………………………… 3-4 Figure 3-2 Hop Brook Corridor and Regan Road Study Area …………………………………….. 3-14 Figure 8-1 High Hazard Dams in Middlebury…………………………………………………………….. 8-4 Figure 9-1 Middlebury Wild fire Risk Area ……………………………………………………………… … 9-2 Figure 9-2 East Farms Road Wildfire Vulnerability Area…………………………………………….. 9-9 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDED TABLES Appended Table 1 Hazard Event Ranking Appended Table 2 Hazard Effect Ranking Appended Table 3 Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigation and Effective Emergency Management APPENDICES Appendix A STAPLEE Matrix Appendix B Documentation of Plan Development Appendix C Record of Municipal Adoption NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Town of Middlebury Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan 1. The primary purpose of a natural hazard pre-disaster hazard mitigation plan (HMP) is to identify natural hazards and risk s, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken by a community or group of communities to pr event loss of life and reduce property damages associated with the identified hazards and al so to make identified activities eligible for federal assistance. 2. The Town of Middlebury is drained by six major watersheds corresponding to Hop Brook Long Meadow Pond Brook, Eightmile River, the Nonnewaug River, the Little River, and Steele Brook. The entire Town eventual ly drains into the Housatonic River. 3. The Department of Public Works is the prin cipal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. 4. The Middlebury land use regulations have several inclusions that are a benefit to emergency response. Cul-de-sacs in new developments are discouraged; connectivity of roads is encouraged in Section 6.0 of the Subdivision Regulations and Section 9.12 of the Middlebury Road and Drainage Regulations; and utilities serving new developments must be installed underground wherever possible, according to Section 6.8 of the Middlebury Subdivision Regulations. 5. The Town considers its emergency response, pu blic works facilities, school facilities, municipal facilities, childcare faci lities, age-restricted facilities, home for the blind facilities, handicap assistantship facilities , convalescent facilities, companies dealing with hazardous chemicals, and its sewerage utility facilities as its critical facilities. Of these critical facilities, the Middlebury Fire Department, the Middleb ury Police Department, the Middlebury Public Works, the Shepardson Community Center, and the Long Meadow Elementary School are considered to be the mo st important. Two of Middlebury’s critical facilities are located near floodprone areas. The Fire Station on Tucker Hill Road is adjacent to the Goat Brook and Hop Brook floodplains, and the Department of Public Works, while not located adjacent to a mapped floodplain, is ne ar the unnamed stream that causes flooding in that area (refer to Section 3.5). 6. Middlebury has three designated em ergency shelters with generators that meet American Red Cross guidelines. They are the Shepardson Community Center, which can a ccommodate a maximum of 100 people; the Middlebury Fire House – 50 people; and the Long Meadow Elementary School – 100 people. During extende d power outages, it is believed that only 10% to 20% of the affected populatio n of Middlebury will relocate. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-2 7. The Town has created the Emergency Management Department and, for long-term planning, the Town has a Local Emergency Prepare dness Commissioner that forms temporary committees when the Town needs to accomplis h a specific task related to emergency planning. The Town has also established th e CodeRED Emergency Notification System in an effort to streamline emergency notifications to residents of the Town. 8. Water service in Middlebury is relatively recent, beginning in 1988 with a connection to the City of Waterbury supply. In the near future, the Heritage Village Water Company in the western part of town and the Connecticut Water Company’s municipal system will be interconnected in the Town center. 9. The Public Works Department is a critical municipal department related to hazard mitigation because it maintains, repairs, and constructs stormwater systems and roadways for proper drainage and flood mitigation, as well as cleari ng snow and ice and maintaining access for emergency vehicles. 10. Flooding is a considerable natural hazard in the Town of Middlebury. Prior to floodplain regulations, homes were constructed within fl oodplains along Hop Brook, its tributaries, and Long Meadow Pond Brook. These areas experi ence the most significant overbank flooding in the town. 11. A total of 922 acres of land in Middlebury are located within the 100-year flood boundary. Flooding is generally concentrated in discrete areas of Town and is not widespread, with the exception of flooding along Hop Brook. 12. The Town of Middlebury has in place a number of measures to prevent flood damage. These include regulations and ordinances preven ting encroachment and development near floodways. 13. The Town should consider outreach and educati on measures, including a checklist that cross- references the regulations under various Middlebury standards that may be applicable to proposed projects. 14. Two types of structural measures are recommended to improve overbank flooding – increasing the capacity of seve ral identified culverts including the Hop Brook culvert and replacing the bridge over Long Meadow Pond on Long Meadow Road in order to mitigate flooding problems along the local roadway. 15. During hurricanes, tropical storms, and other wind storms, tree limbs and trees may fall, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and vehicles. The Town of Middlebury Department of Public Works performs annua l tree maintenance on any tree or tree limb which crosses the vertical imaginary plane of Town property. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-3 16. The entire Town of Middlebury is susceptible to summer storms (including heavy rain, flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) and tornadoes, and due to its high elevation and heavily treed landscape particularly susceptib le to damage from high winds. 17. Winter events and the hazards that result (wind, snow, and ice) have more widespread geographic extent than summer ones. Icing causes difficult driving conditions throughout the hillier sections of To wn, those roadways in the northwest portion of Town, including White Deer Rock Road, Old Watertown Road, Charco al Avenue, Breakneck Hill Road, Tranquility Road, and others. Drifting snow problem ar eas include Route 188 near the police station, and Route 64 near Christian Road and Abbott Farm Road. 18. The entire Town of Middlebury is susceptible to the small possibility of earthquakes. The Plan recommends that municipal departments have adequate backup facilities in case earthquake damage or other damage occurs to municipal buildings. 19. With 24 registered dams and potentially severa l other minor dams in the Town, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in The Town of Middlebury. Quassapaug and Little Tracy’s Pond dam are the only two with significant h azard potential (Class B). The Long Meadow Pond Dam (undefined Class) is in poor condition and is in need of repairs. The Town should consider implementing occasional Town insp ections of Class BB, A, AA, and unranked dams. 20. While the Town of Middlebury is considered a low-risk area for wildfires, the northern and southern portions of Town are considered most at risk. These areas present potential access problems for firefighting purposes in the even t of a wildfire due to natural conditions including steep relief, heavily wooded forests, and the lack of water sources. 21. The Town of Middlebury should identify and de velop sources of fire protection for the vicinity of Burr Hall Road and the north-cent ral section of Middlebury including the north end of East Farms Road and locations along Artillery Road, North Farms Road, and Mirey Dam Road and explore all possible means of improving accessibility for areas which currently do not have sufficient firefighting access. 22. One general recommendation in the plan include s the education of the public about how to protect themselves and their property from natural hazards. The Local Emergency Planning Commission should be charged with the creation and/or dissemination of informational pamphlets and guides to public locations su ch as the library, post office, Shepardson Community Center, and town hall. One way to do this would be to add pages to the Town’s website dedicated specifically to citizen educatio n and preparation for natural hazard events. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose The term hazard refers to an extreme natural ev ent that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. In the contex t of natural disasters, pre-disaster hazard mitigation is commonly defined as any sustained action that permanently reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people, prope rty, and resources from natural hazards and their effects. The primary purpose of a pre-disaster hazard mitigation plan (HMP) is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken by a community or group of communities to preven t loss of life and reduce property damages associated with the identified hazards. This HMP is prepared specifically to identify hazards in the Town of Middlebury, Connec ticut (“Middlebury” or “Town”). The HMP is relevant not only in emerge ncy management situations, but also should be used within the Middlebury’s land use, environmenta l, and capital improvement frameworks. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA), commonly known as the 2000 Stafford Act amendments, was approved by Congress and si gned into law in October 2000, creating Public Law 106-390. The purposes of the DMA are to establish a national program for pre-disaster mitigation and streamline administration of disaster relief. The DMA requires local communities to have a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved mitigation plan in order to be eligible to receive post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grants a nd Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program project grant funds. Once a community ha s a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan, the community is then eligible to apply for PDM project funds for m itigation activities. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-2 The subject pre-disaster hazard mitigation plan was developed to be consistent with the requirements of the HMGP, PDM, and Flood Ma nagement Assistance (FMA) programs. These programs are briefly described below. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program was au thorized by Part 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5133. The PDM program provides funds to states, te rritories, tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation projects prior to disasters, providing an opportunity to reduce the na tion’s disaster losses through pre-disaster mitigation planning and the implem entation of feasible, effective, and cost- efficient mitigation measures. Funding of pre- disaster plans and projects is meant to reduce overall risks to populations and facilities. PDM funds should be used primarily to support mitigation activities that address natural hazards. In addition to providing a vehicle for funding, the PDM program provides an opportunity to raise risk awareness within communities. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of th e Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The HMGP provi des grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation meas ures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. A key purpose of th e HMGP is to ensure that any opportunities Mitigation Funding Note that starting in 2008, applications for hazard mitigation grant funding are administered under the Unified Hazard Mitigation Assistance program. More information on this and the following programs can be found at FEMA’s website, http://www.fema.gov/ NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-3 to take critical mitigation measures to protect life and property from future disasters are not “lost” during the recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program The FMA program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goa l of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA provides FMA funds to assist States and communities with implementing measures that reduce or eliminate the long- term risk of flood damage to buildings, hom es, and other structures insurable under the NFIP. The long-term goal of FMA is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through mitigation activities. Three types of grants are available under FMA: Planning, Project, and Technica l Assistance grants. 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Goals The primary goal of this hazard mitigation plan is to reduce the loss of or damage to life, property, infrastructure, and natural, cu ltural and economic resources from natural disasters. This includes the reduction of public and private damage costs. Limiting losses of and damage to life and property will also reduce the social, emotional, and economic disruption associated with a natural disaster. Developing, adopting, and implementing this hazard mitigation plan is expected to: ‰ Increase access to and awareness of funding sources for hazard mitigation projects. Certain funding sources, such as th e Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, will be available if the hazard mitigation plan is in place and approved. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-4 ‰ Identify mitigation initiatives to be implemented if and when funding becomes available. This HMP will identify a number of mitigation recommendations, which can then be prioritized and acted upon as funding allows. ‰ Connect hazard mitigation planning to other community planning efforts. This HMP can be used to guide Middlebury’s development through inter-departmental and inter-municipal coordination. ‰ Improve the mechanisms for pre- and pos t-disaster decision making efforts. This plan emphasizes actions that can be taken now to reduce or prevent future disaster damages. If the actions identified in this plan are implemented, damage from future hazard events can be minimized, thereby eas ing recovery and reducing the cost of repairs and reconstruction. ‰ Improve the ability to implemen t post-disaster recovery projects through development of a list of mitigation alternatives ready to be implemented. ‰ Enhance and preserve natural resource systems. Natural resources, such as wetlands and floodplains, provide protection against disasters such as floods and hurricanes. Proper planning and protection of natural resources can provide hazard mitigation at substantially reduced costs. ‰ Educate residents and policy makers about natural hazard risk and vulnerability. Education is an important tool to ensure that people make informed decisions that complement the Town’s abil ity to implement and maintain mitigation strategies. ‰ Complement future Community Rating System efforts. Implementation of certain mitigation measures may increase a community’s rating, and thus the benefits that it derives from FEMA. Middlebury does not part icipate in the CRS at the present time. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-5 1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview As stated in Section 1.1, the term hazard refers to an extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. Based on a review of the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and correspondence with local officials, the following have been identified as natural hazards that ar e most likely to affect Middlebury: ‰ Inland Flooding ‰ Hurricanes and Tropical Storms ‰ Summer Storms (including lightening, heavy winds, hail, downbursts, and tornadoes) ‰ Winter Storms and Nor’easters ‰ Earthquakes ‰ Dam Failure ‰ Wildfires This document has been prepared wi th the understanding that a single hazard effect may be caused by multiple hazard events. For example, flooding may occur as a result of frequent heavy rains, a hurricane, or a wint er storm. Thus, Appended Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of the hazard events and hazard effects that impact Middlebury, and include criteria for characte rizing the locations impacted by the hazard, the frequency of occurrence of the hazards, and the magn itude or severity of the hazards. Despite the causes, the eff ects of several hazards are persistent and demand high expenditures from the Town. In order to better identify current vulnerabilities and potential mitigation strategies associated with other hazards, each hazard has been individually discussed in a separate chapter. This document begins with a general disc ussion of Middlebury’s community profile, including the physical setting, demographics, development trends, governmental structure, and sheltering capacit y. Next, each chapter of this Plan is broken down into six NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-6 or seven different parts. These are Setting; Hazard Assessment ; Historic Record ; Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ; Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ; and Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives, and if necessary, a Summary of Recommendations. These are described below. ‰ Setting addresses the general areas that are at risk from the hazard. General land uses are identified. ‰ Hazard Assessment describes the specifics of a given hazard, including general characteristics, and associated effects. Also defined are associated return intervals, probability and risk, and relative magnitude. ‰ Historic Record is a discussion of past occurrences of the hazard, and associated damages when available. ‰ Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures gives an overview of the measures that the Town of Middlebury is currently undertaking to mitigate the given hazard. These may take the form of ordinanc es and codes, structural measures such as dams, or public ou treach initiatives. ‰ Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment focuses on the specific areas at risk to the hazard. Specific land uses in the given areas are identified. Critical buildings and infrastructure that would be affected by the hazard are identified. ‰ Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives identifies mitigation alternatives, including those that may be th e least cost effective or inappropriate for Middlebury. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-7 ‰ Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives provides a summary of the recommended c ourses of action for Middlebury that are included in the STAPLEE an alysis described below. This document concludes with a strategy fo r implementation of the Hazard Management Plan, including a schedule, a program for monitoring and updating the Plan, and a discussion of technical a nd financial resources. 1.4 Discussion of STAPLEE Ranking Method To prioritize recommended mitigation meas ures, it is necessary to determine how effective each measure will be in reducing or preventing damage. A set of criteria commonly used by public administration officials and planners was applied to each proposed strategy. The method, called STAPLEE, stands for the “Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and Environmental” criteria for making planning decisions. The following questions were asked about the proposed mitigation strategies: ‰ Social : Is the proposed strategy so cially acceptable to Middlebury? Is there equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of the Town could be treated unfairly? ‰ Technical : Will the proposed strategy work? Will it create more problems than it will solve? ‰ Administrative : Can Middlebury implement the st rategy? Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort? ‰ Political : Is the strategy politica lly acceptable? Is there public support both to implement and maintain the project? ‰ Legal : Is Middlebury authorized to implement the proposed strategy? Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity? NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-8 ‰ Economic : What are the costs and benefits of this strategy? Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits? ‰ Environmental : How will the strategy impact the environment? Will the strategy need environmental re gulatory approvals? Each proposed mitigation strategy presented in this plan was evaluated and assigned a score (Good = 3, Average = 2, Poor = 1) based on the above criteria. An evaluation matrix with the total scores from each stra tegy can be found in Appendix A. After each strategy is evaluated using the STAPLEE method, it is possible to prioritize the strategies according to the final score. The highest scoring is determined to be of more importance, economically, socially, environmentally and po litically and, hence, prioritized over those with lower scoring. 1.5 Documentation of the Planning Process The Town of Middlebury is a member of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV), the responsib le regional planning body for Middlebury and twelve other member municipalities: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Naugatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, T homaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury. The municipalities of Ch eshire, Oxford, Prospect, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott and Woodbury have existing mitigation plans, and hazard mitigation plans are being concurrently developed for the remaining municipalities. Ms. Virginia Mason of the COGCNV coordinated the development of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. The COGCNV applied for the grant from FEMA through the Connecticut Department of Environmental Prot ection (DEP). The adoption of this plan in the Town of Middlebury will also be coordinated by the COGCNV. The following individuals from the Town of Middlebury provided information, data, studies, reports, and observations; and were involved in the development of the Plan: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-9 ‰ Mr. Thomas P. Gormley, First Selectman ‰ Ms. Claudia Tata, Office of the First Selectman ‰ Ms. Jean Donegan, Planning and Zoning Commission ‰ Mr. Dan Norton, Department of Public Works Director ‰ Mr. Kenneth Long, Department of Public Works ‰ Mr. Paul Perrotti, Volunt eer Fire Department Chief & Emergency Management ‰ Mr. Rich Giusti, Chief of Police ‰ Mr. Raymond Sullivan, MD, Health Director ‰ Mr. Robert Desmarais, Board of Selectmen ‰ Mr. James Roy, Police Department ‰ Mr. Jonathan Vaughan, Volunteer Fire Department ‰ Ms. Kim Connors, Volunteer Fire Department An extensive data collection, evaluation, and outreach program was undertaken to compile information about existing hazards a nd mitigation in the Town, as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized fo r hazard mitigation. The following is a list of meetings that were held to develop this Hazard Mitigation Plan: ‰ Field inspections were performed on February 13, 2008. Observations were made by the project team of numerous flooding ar eas and other problem areas within the Town. ‰ A project kick-off meeting with Town officials was held February 20, 2008. Necessary documentation was collected, and problem areas within the Town were discussed. ‰ A second project meeting with Town officials was held March 3, 2008. Additional problem areas were discussed with the Direct or of the Department of Public Works. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-10 ‰ A public information meeting wa s held April 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM. Preliminary findings were presented and public comments solicited. ‰ A third project meeting was held April 24, 2008. Additional problem areas were discussed with members of the Local Emergency Planning Commission (LEPC) and residents. Residents were invited to attend the pub lic meeting via newspaper positing. The Middlebury public meeting was relatively we ll-attended. At least seven residents of Middlebury attended the meeting and provided feedback of their concerns. Similarly, eight municipal agencies and civic organiza tions were invited via a mailed copy of the press release that announced the public in formation meeting. These include the following: ‰ Tribury Chamber of Commerce (ser ving the Town of Middlebury) ‰ United Way of Greater Waterbury ‰ American Red Cross Waterbury Area ‰ Economic Development Commission ‰ Middlebury Health Department ‰ Middlebury Land Trust ‰ Planning & Zoning Commission ‰ Department of Public Works Refer to Appendix B for copies of the newspaper announcement and letters to the agencies and organizations listed above. Of the above listed organizations, representati ves from the Town Department of Public Works and the Town Health Department were represented at the meeting. Residents in attendance were encouraged to contact th e COG with any comments that should arise subsequent to the meeting. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-11 It is important to note that COGCNV manages the Centra l Naugatuck Valley Emergency Planning Committee. This committee has begu n coordinating emergency services in the region. Fire, Police, EMS, Red Cross, em ergency management directors, and other departments participate in these efforts. In June 2004, over 120 responders participated in the region’s first tabletop exercise on bi ological terrorism. Area health directors, hospitals, and other health care professionals also meet monthly with the Health and Medical Subcommittee to share informati on, protocols, and training. Thus, local knowledge and experience gained through th e Emergency Planning Committee activities has been transferred by the COGCNV to the pre-disaster mitigation planning process. Additional opportunities fo r the public to review the Plan will be implemented in advance of the public hearing to adopt this plan, tentatively scheduled for March 2009, contingent on receiving conditional approval from FEMA. The draft that is sent for FEMA review will be posted on the Town website (http ://www.middlebury-ct.gov/) and the COGCNV website (http://www.cogcnv.org/) to provide opportunities for public review and comment. Such comments will be incorporated into the final draft when applicable. Upon receiving conditional approval from FE MA, the public hearing will be scheduled, at which time any remaining comments can be addressed. Notification of the opportunity to review the Plan on the above websites a nd the announcement of the public information meeting will be posted on the websites and placed in local newspapers. If any final plan modifications result from the comment period leading up to and including the public hearing to adopt the pla n, these will be submitted to FEMA as page revisions with a cover letter explaining the chan ges. It is not anticipated that any major modifications will occur at this phase of the project. Appendix B contains copies of meeting minut es, field notes and observations, the public information meeting presentation, and other r ecords that document the development of this Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-1 2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1 Physical Setting The Town of Middlebury is located in north ern New Haven County at the intersection of Routes 64 and 188. It is bordered by the Town of Watertown to the north, The Town of Woodbury to the north and west, the Town of Southbury to the west, the Town of Oxford to the south, the Borough of Naugatuck to th e east and south, and the City of Waterbury to the east. Refer to Figure 2-1 for a location map and Figure 2-2 for a region map. Almost the entire east and nor theastern section of Middlebury lies within the Hop Brook watershed, while some areas of Town ar e in the Steele Brook, Nonnewaug River, Eightmile Brook, Little River, and Long M eadow Pond Brook watersheds. Hop Brook, the Town’s major watercourse, runs north-s outh before entering Hop Brook Lake and leaving Middlebury through the town of Waterbury and the Borough of Naugatuck. Lake Quassapaug lies in the northwest sec tion of Town. This section of Middlebury features many hills with steep relief near and extending into the southeastern portion of the Town of Woodbury. Eightmile Brook exte nds southward from Lake Quassapaug and follows the border between Middlebury and the Towns of Woodbury and Southbury. Long Meadow Pond is orientated northwest- southeast ad extends into the Town of Oxford from Middlebury’s southern town boundary. The Town is comprised of suburban neighbor hoods, rural country areas, and historic districts. Middlebury is al so home to convalescent homes, a home for the blind, many day care centers, and a handi cap assistantship home. § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦395 ” )2 ” )9 ” )15 ” )15 ” )8 ” )44 CONNEC TICU T Figure 2-1: Middlebury Location Map § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 ” )262 ” )322 ” )73 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 £ ¤6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 § ¨ ¦84 ” )132 ” )317 ” )222 ” )254 £ ¤6 Newtown Bristol Hamden Litchfield Morris Roxbury Bethany Southington Plymouth Washington Monroe Seymour Woodbridge North Haven Harwinton Burlington Farmington Plainville Warren Shelton Ansonia Wallingford Derby Meriden New Haven Bridgewater East Haven COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² 02 4 Miles Figure 2-2: Middlebury in the CNVR M i d d l e b u r yM i d d l e b u r y W a t e r b u r yW a t e r b u r y W o l c o t tW o l c o t t O x f o r dO x f o r d B e a c o nF a l l s B e a c o nF a l l s S o u t h b u r yS o u t h b u r y W o o d b u r yW o o d b u r y B e t h l e h e mB e t h l e h e m W a t e r t o w nW a t e r t o w n T h o m a s t o nT h o m a s t o n N a u g a t u c kN a u g a t u c k P r o s p e c tP r o s p e c t C h e s h i r eC h e s h i r e Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Middlebury CNVR For general planning purposes on ly. Delin eations may not be ex act. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 200 8 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DEP Septemb er 200 8 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-4 2.2 Existing Land Use Middlebury is characterized by hills and poor soils for septic systems, which together limit large-scale development in much of the Town. A limited commercial district is located in the center of town along Middleb ury Road (Route 64). A concentration of municipal facilities is located southwest of the commercial district opposite Westover School. Outside of this town center, low density residential neighborhoods are interspersed with agricultural areas. An industr ial area is located in the southwestern part of the town. The headquarters of Timex Corporation and Chemtura Corporation are located in Middlebury. The Town of Middlebury encompasses 18.4 square miles. Table 2-1 provides a summary of land use in Middlebury by area. Refer to Figure 2-3 for a map of generalized land use provided by the COGCNV. Table 2-1 2000 Land Use by Area Land Use Area (acres) Percent Single Family Residential 2,562 21.7% Multi-Family Residential 6 0.1% Office 339 2.9% Retail 23 0.2% Professional Office/Service 18 0.2% General Business 47 0.4% Industrial 43 0.4% Utilities 40 0.3% Private and Quasi-Public Institutional 593 5.0% Public Institutional 125 1.1% Public Parks 45 0.4% Private Open Space 655 5.5% Private Recreation 307 2.6% Vacant 6,973 59.2% Total 11,776 100% Source: Town of Middlebury Plan of Conservation and Development, 2001 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 For general pl anning purpose s only. Delineatio ns may not be ex act. Septem ber 2008 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 Legend RL Residential – Low Density less than 2 dewlling units per acre RM Residential – Medium Density 2-8 dwelling units per acre RH Residential – High Density 8 or more dwelling units per acre RX Resource Extraction TU Transportation & Utilities UL Undeveloped Land W Water Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads AG Agriculture CF Institutional CM Commercial IN Industrial RC Recreational Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, R el. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, DE P “Land Us e”, COGCNV 2000 Figure 2-3: Middlebury Generalized Land Use NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-6 2.3 Geology Geology is important to the occurrence and re lative effects of natural hazards such as earthquakes. Thus, it is important to unders tand the geologic setting and variation of bedrock and surficial formations in Middl ebury. The following discussion highlights Middlebury’s geology at several scales. In terms of North American bedrock geology, the Town of Middlebury is comprised of three different bedrock geological formati ons. The Waterbury gneiss formation, the formation covering the largest area of Middlebury, is found throughout the central, eastern and northeastern secti ons of town. The basal member of the Taine Formation around the Waterbury dome is the second larges t geologic formation and is found in the northwest and southwest sections of Town. The formation covering the smallest area in Town is the Taine Mountain/Collinsville forma tion in the extreme southeastern corner of Middlebury. Refer to Figure 2-4 for a depic tion of the bedrock geology in the Town of Middlebury. The bedrock beneath the Town of Middlebury is part of two terranes. The terranes include the Iapetos (oceanic) terrane/Connecticut valley synclinorium and the Proto-North American (continental)/Tactonic Allochthons (displaced Iapetos terrane). The latter is part of the above mentioned basal member of the Taine Mountain formation around the Waterbury dome. The former terrane is found within the two remaining formations mentioned in the above paragraph. Bedrock Geology Connecticut bedrock geology is comprised of several “terranes.” Terranes are geologic regions that reflect the role of plate tectonics in Connecticut’s natural history. Cwb Otb Otb Ot+Oc Figure 2-4: Middlebury Bedrock Geology 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 For general pl anning purpose s only. Delineatio ns may not be ex act. Septem ber 2008 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Bedrock Cwb Ot+Oc Otb Basal Taine Mtn Formation Waterbury Gneiss Taine Mtn and Collinsville Formation Source: “Ro ads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, “B edrock”, DEP NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-8 At least twice in the late Pleistocene, continental ice sheets moved across Connecticut. As a result, surficial geology of the To wn is characteristic of the depositional environments that occurred during glacial a nd postglacial periods. Refer to Figure 2-5 for a depiction of surficial geology. Almost the entire Town is covered by glacial till. Tills contain an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposit ed by glaciers as a ground moraine. A smaller percentage of the Town consists primarily of stratified sand and gravel (“stratified drift”) areas associated with watercourses. These deposits accumulated by glacial meltwater streams during the outwa sh period following the latest glacial recession. Stratified drift deposits are aligned along Hop Brook, Long Meadow Brook, and Shattuck Brook. The amount of stratified drift present in the Town is important for two reasons: ‰ With regard to flooding, areas of stratified materials are generally coincident with floodplains. This is because these material s were deposited at lower elevations by glacial streams and these valleys later were inherited by the larger of our present-day streams and rivers. The Hop Brook corridor is a good example. ‰ The amount of stratified drift also has bearing on the relative intensity of earthquakes. Earthquakes will be discussed in Sections 8.0. T TT T T TT W TT TT TT TT SW W TT TT SG TT T W T SG SW TT SG SG TT TT T SG SW SG SG SG SW SW W TT SG/S SG SG SW SW W SG SW SG SG W SG SG SG W T SW SW SW SG A/SG SG SG SG W A/SG A/SG SG S SG A/SG G W SG SG A/SG SG SG SG SW/F/S SG A/SG SG SG SG AF W SG WA TT SG SG Figure 2-5: Middlebury Surficial Geology 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 Surficial Materials Till Thick Till Sand and Gravel Alluvium Overlying Sand andGravel Gravel Sand and Gravel Overlying Sand Alluvium Water Artificial Fill Sand Swamp Overlying FinesOverlying Sand Swamp A A/SG AF G S SG SG/S SW SW/F/S T TT W Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. Source: “Ro ads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, “S urficial Materials”, DE P September 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-10 2.4 Climate Middlebury has an agreeable climate, characte rized by moderate but distinct seasons. The average mean temperature is approximately 48 degrees Fahrenheit, with summer temperatures in the mid-80s and winter te mperatures in the upper 20s to mid-30s. Extreme conditions raise summer temperat ures to near 100 degrees and winter temperatures to below zero. Median snowfa ll is approximately 43 inches per year as averaged between the weather stations in Thomaston, Litchfield, Woodbury, and Waterbury (NCDC, 2007). Medi an annual precipitation is 44 inches, spread evenly over the course of a year. By comparison, average annual state-wide precipitation based on more than 100 years of record is nearly the same, at 45 inches. However, average annual precipitation in Connecticut has been increasing by 0.95 inches per decade since the end of the 19 th century (Miller et. al., 2002; NCDC, 2005). Likewise, total annual precipitation in the To wn has increased over time. The continued increase in precipitation only heightens the need for hazard mitigation planning, as the occurrence of floods may change in acco rdance with the greater precipitation. 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology The Town of Middlebury is drained by si x major watersheds corresponding to Hop Brook, Long Meadow Pond Brook, Eightmile River, the Nonnewaug River, the Little River, and Steele Brook. These are described below. About 98% of the Town’s land area is drained by three basins: Hop Brook, Long Meadow Pond Brook, and Eightmile River. The entire Town eventually drains into the Housatonic River, and the great majority of it drains eastward toward the Naugatuck Rive r before entering the Housatonic. While The continued increase in precipitation only heightens the need for hazard mitigation planning, as the occurrence of floods may change in accordance with the greater precipitation. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-11 Middlebury is home to many lakes and ponds, its largest body of water is the 271-acre Lake Quassapaug. Table 2-2 Drainage Basins Drainage Basin Area (sq. mi) Percent of Town Hop Brook 10.32 56.03% Long Meadow Pond Brook 4.10 22.26% Eightmile River 3.60 19.55% Nonnewaug River 0.29 1.57% Little River 0.10 0.54% Steele Brook 0.01 0.05% Total 18.42 100.0 Source: Drainage Basins, 2008 CT DEP GIS Data for Connecticut Hop Brook Hop Brook has by far the largest drainage ba sin in the Town of Middlebury, covering 10.32 square miles or 56% of the Town’s land area. It originates in the northwestern part of Town, briefly flows to the northeast thr ough the Town of Watertown, and continues to the southeast through the Middlebury before leading into the Naugatuck River in the Borough of Naugatuck. In addition to a number of unnamed tribut aries, there are several smaller named tributaries that flow into the Hop Brook wa tercourse during this stretch, including Goat Brook, Long Swamp Brook, and Welton Brook in the Town of Middlebury, and Pigeon Brook in the Borough of Naugatuck. The la rgest body of water that Hop Brook passes through is Hop Brook Lake, a flood control re servoir located on the border between Waterbury and Middlebury, just to the north of the Borough of Naugatuck. The Hop Brook drainage basin has a total area of 17.40 square miles of land located within the Towns of Naugatuck, Waterbury, Mi ddlebury, Watertown and Woodbury. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-12 Long Meadow Pond Brook The Long Meadow Pond Brook drainage basin is the second-largest in the Town of Middlebury. The drainage basin covers 4.10 square miles of the Town or 22.3% of its total land area. The headwaters of Long Meadow Pond Brook ar e located in Lake Elise in the western section of Middlebury. Originating at the lake, Long Meadow Pond Brook flows southward into Long Meadow Pond, a body of water with a surface area of approximately 100 acres. The Brook continues to meander eastward into the Town of Naugatuck, picking up a number of unnamed tributaries before entering the Naugatuck River. In total, the Long Meadow Pond Brook Watershed drains 8.47 square miles of land within the Towns of Nauga tuck, Middlebury and Oxford. Eightmile River Eightmile River is the third-largest draina ge basin in the Town of Middlebury. The drainage basin covers 3.60 square miles, or 19.5% of the Town’s total land area. The watercourse’s headwaters are located in the 271-acre Lake Quassapaug located in the western section of Middlebury. South of Lake Quassapaug, Eightmile River enters Kelley Pond. Beginning just to the south of Kelley Pond, Eightmile River comprises the border with the Town of Southbury. Several tr ibutaries that are located within the Town of Southbury enter Eightmile River during this stretch. An unnamed tributary enters the Brook in a wetland along Judd Road. Another unnamed tributary enters the Brook to the south near its crossing with Interstate 84. Walnut Hill Brook meets Eighmile River just upstream of Route 67. One final watercour se, Jeremy Brook, enters Eightmile River from the Southbury side where the secti on of the Brook comprises the Town of Southbury’s eastern border. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-13 After leaving Southbury and entering the Town of Oxford, Eightmile River is joined by a number of watercourses, including Sevenmile Brook, Sixmile Brook, and several unnamed tributaries, before its confluence w ith the Housatonic River in the Town of Oxford. In all, the Eightmile River basin drains 17.44 square miles across the Towns of Oxford, Southbury, Middlebury, and Woodbury. Nonnewaug River A very small 0.29 square mile section of land, or 1.6% of the total land area in the northwestern corner of the Town of Middlebur y, is within the Nonnewaug River drainage basin. The Nonnewaug River flows from the Town of Bethlehem into the Town of Woodbury. After passing underneath R oute 47 in Woodbury, the Nonnewaug River converges with the Weekeepeemee River, forming the Pomperaug River and entering a new subregional drainage basin. In all, Nonnewaug River drainage basin drains 21.26 square miles of land in the Towns of Bethlehem, Watertown, Woodbury, and Middlebury. Little River The Little River drainage basin drains 0.10 square miles, or 0.5% of the Town of Middlebury on its southernmost border adjacent to the Town of Oxford. It originates in the western portion of the Town of Oxford and fl ows to the southeast. In all, the Little River watershed drains 15.50 square miles of land in the Towns of Seymour, Beacon Falls, Oxford, Middlebury and Naugatuck. Steele Brook A 0.01 square mile portion of the Town of Middlebury, or 0.05% of the Town’s land area, flows into the Steele Brook drainage basin. The Steele Brook watercourse’s headwaters are located in a small, unnamed pond along Rout e 63 in the Town of Watertown. It flows NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-14 to the southeast and is joined by a number of tributaries before eventually converging with the Naugatuck River in the City of Wate rbury near the junction of Routes 8 and 73. The Steele Brook drainage basi n covers 17.04 square miles in total in the Towns of Waterbury, Watertown, and Middlebury. 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting The total CNV Region estimated 2005 populatio n is 281,895 persons. The total land area is 309 square miles, for a regional populati on density of 912 persons per square mile. Middlebury has a population dens ity of 402 individuals per square mile. By comparison, Waterbury has the highest population density in the region with 3,757 individuals per square mile; Bethlehem has the lowest population density in the region with 185 individuals per square mile (Table 2-3). Table 2-3 Population Density by Municipality, Region and State, 2005 Municipality Total Population Land Area (square miles) Population Density Beacon Falls 5,700 9.77 583 Bethlehem 3,577 19.36 185 Cheshire 28,833 32.90 876 Middlebury 7,132 17.75 402 Naugatuck 31,872 16.39 1,945 Oxford 12,309 32.88 374 Prospect 9,264 14.32 647 Southbury 19,686 39.05 504 Thomaston 7,916 12.01 659 Waterbury 107,251 28.55 3,757 Watertown 22,329 29.15 766 Wolcott 16,269 20.43 796 Woodbury 9,757 36.46 268 CNV Region 281,895 309.02 912 Connecticut 3,495,753 4844.80 722 Source: United States Census Bureau, 2005 Population Estimates NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-15 Middlebury is 117 th out of 169 municipalities in Connecticut in terms of population, with an estimated population of 7,132 in 2006. The town is the 91 st most densely populated municipality in the state. The population of Middlebur y increased 16% between 1960 and 1970, but growth slowed to 8% be tween 1970 and 1980, 3% between 1980 and 1990, and 5% between 1990 and 2000. Growth from 2000-2006 was 11%. Based on anal ysis by the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, population growth in the region outside of Waterbury is estimated to be about 10% from 2005 to 2025, wh ile the state of Connecticut is expected to grow about 5% during this same timeframe. According the Connecticut Economic Resource Center, the median sa les price of owner-occupied housing in the Town of Middlebury in 2006 was $330,000, which is higher th an the statewide median sales price of $275,000. Middlebury has moderate populations of pe ople who are elderly, small numbers of people that are linguistically isolated, and a moderate disabled population. These are depicted by census block on Figures 2-6, 2- 7, and 2-8. The populations with these characteristics have numerous implications for hazard mitigation, as they may require special assistance or different means of notificat ion before disasters occur. These will be addressed as needed in subsequent sections. 2.7 Governmental Structure The Town of Middlebury is governed by a Se lectman-Town Meeting form of government in which legislative responsibilities are shared by the Board of Selectmen and the Town Meeting. The First Selectman se rves as the chief executive. 247 202 301 317 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 For general pl anning purpose s only. Delineatio ns may not be ex act. Septem ber 2008 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 Figure 2-6: Middlebury Elderly Population * Numbers on map represent total population aged 65 or older in each block group Legend Major Roads Percent age of P er sons Aged 65 or ol der Bloc k Group Boun dary Tow n Boun dary 30.1 – 1 00% 20.1 – 3 0.0% 10.1 – 2 0.0% 0.0 – 10 .0 % Source: “Roa ds”, c1984 – 2008 T ele Atlas, R el. 04/08. “T own Bound ary”, DEP “A ge”, “Bloc k Groups “, 2000 Cens us 15 4 0 20 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 For general pl anning purpose s only. Delineatio ns may not be ex act. Septem ber 2008 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 Legend Tow n Bo und ary Major Roads Block Gr oup Bound ary Perc en tage of Ho useh olds Linguistica lly Iso lated 0.0 – 4.9 % 5.0 – 9.9 % 10.0 – 14.9 % greater than 15% * Numbers on map represent total households that are linguistically isolated in each block group Data based on block gro up geography . A linguistica lly iso lated house hold is one in which no memb er 14 years o ld and over (1) spea ks o nly English or (2) sp eaks a no n-English la nguage and speaks E nglish “v ery well.” In other words, al l members 14 years ol d and over hav e at le ast some difficulty with Eng lish. Source: “Roa ds”, c1984 – 2008 T ele Atlas, R el. 04/08. “T own Bound ary”, DEP “Ling uistically Isolated”, “Block Groups”, 20 00 Censu s Figure 2-7: Middlebury Linguistically Isolated Households 355 250 290 441 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 For general pl anning purpose s only. Delineatio ns may not be ex act. Septem ber 2008 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 Figure 2-8: Middlebury Disabilities Map Disabilities are categorized as sensory, physical, mental, self-care, go-outside-home, and employment * Numbers on map represent total disabilities tallied for people aged 5 or older in each block group Major Roads Bloc k Grou p Bound ary Town B oundar y Legend Total Disabilities Tallied of People Aged 5 and Older > 600 0 – 200 201 – 400 401 – 600 Source: “Road s”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DEP “Disability”, “Block G roups”, 2000 Censu s NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-19 In addition to Board of Selectmen and the Town Meeting, there are boards, commissions and committees providing input and direction to town administrators. Also, town departments provide municipal services and day-to-day administration. Many of these commissions and departments play a role in hazard mitigation, including the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Conservation Co mmission, the Economic & Industrial Development Commission, the Land Preservation Commission, the Building Department, the Fire Commission, the Police Commission, th e Public Works Committee, the Fire Department, the Police Department and the Highway Department. The Department of Public Works is the prin cipal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. Complaints related to Town maintenance issues are routed to the Department of Public Works. These complaints are usually received via phone, fax, mail, or email and are recorded in a book. The complaints are investigated as necessary until remediation surrounding th e individual complaint is concluded. 2.8 Development Trends Middlebury was settled in 1702 and experien ced a significant increase in population following the Revolutionary War. The Town was officially incorporated in 1807 and was comprised of parts of Southbury, Waterbury, and Woodbury. The Town’s origins were largely agrarian with dairy farming servi ng as a fundamental component of the local economy even into the 20 th century. Due to the hilly topography and lack of a source of hydropower, Middlebury did not become industrialized like many other towns in the region. Light industry present in the 1800s included wool and silk production. In the late 1990s, the averag e number of housing units approved in Middlebury was about 42 per year. Based on the town’s 2001 Plan of Conservation and Development, efforts are being made to preserve Middlebury’s rura l character and limit the impact of future development through land dedication, acquisition, and conservation programs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-20 Nevertheless, subdivisions and developments are proposed each year. Recent planned developments include: ‰ New houses are proposed off Park Road in the northern part of town. This area is west of a steep grade and reportedly e xperiences poor infiltration and nuisance flooding. ‰ A small development is planned near the intersection of Route 188 and Long Meadow Road. The number of homes is undetermined. ‰ A 50 home development is under construction off Benson Road. ‰ Another 50-home development, Avalon Home s, is in construction on Route 188 near the north end of Long Meadow Road. ‰ 28 to 30 homes are planned off Washington Drive in the southern part of Town. Large residential deve lopments are infrequent, although some sizeable developments have been completed or are underway: ‰ A 126-unit development on Christian Road near Southford Road was completed recently. ‰ A large cluster-type development of 326 units known as Ridgewood has been under construction for several years near the center of town; build-out through five phases is anticipated in the next few years. ‰ Another development of 135 homes has b een approved for the area of Longmeadow Road near Washington Drive. ‰ A housing development of up to 250 homes is planned between Three Mile Hill Road and Route 63. ‰ A 250-300 unit condominium development was planned between Porter Avenue and Regan Road, near the floodplain of Hop Brook, but was reportedly denied due to concerns about flooding conditions along Hop Brook. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-21 Cul-de-sacs in new developments are discouraged and connectivity of roads is encouraged in Section 6.0 of the Middlebury Subdivision Regulations and Section 9.12 of the Middlebury Road and Drainage Regulations . Subdivisions featuring cul-de-sacs offer a single access point for emergency serv ices, lengthening emergency response times and rendering those residentia l areas vulnerable if access is cut off by flooding or downed tree limbs. The Town of Middlebury requires a 50-foot right of way for local residential streets with a hammerhead located at the e nd of dead end streets, and the number of homes at the end of dead end street s should be kept to a minimum. Utilities serving new developments must be installed underground wherever possible, according to Section 6.8 of the Middlebury S ubdivision Regulations. Exceptions due to shallow bedrock are granted on a case-by-case basis. 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity The Town considers its emergency response, pu blic works facilities, school facilities, municipal facilities, childcare facilities, age-restricted facilities, home for the blind facilities, handicap assistantship facilities, c onvalescent facilities, companies dealing with hazardous chemicals, and its sewerage utility fac ilities as its critical facilities. Of these critical facilities, the Middlebury Fire De partment, the Middlebury Police Department, the Middlebury Public Works, the Sh epardson Community Center, and the Long Meadow Elementary School are considered to be the most important as they are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of Middlebury continues. In the event of a significant natural hazard occurring, the Westover School and the Memorial Middle School could be used as additional shelter facilities. A map of critical facilities is shown in Figur e 2-9, and the associated list of critical facilities is provided in Table 2-4. Shelters, transportati on, communications, and utilities are described in more detail below the table. ? BensonWoods 8Ù ³ ?G ® ± ° t n ² ³ A [ q A [ q [ q [ q 9: ¨ [ q ® ± ° ® ± ° Timex Corp Chemtura Corp Sewage Pump Station The Nest Day Care Region 15 BAS Police Dept WestoverSchool Town Offices Shepardson Community Ctr Library Region 15BAS Home forthe Blind Fire Dept Middlebury Convalescent Home New Horizons Handicap Home Public Works n n Memorial School Middlebury Edge SewagePump Station Sewage Pump Station Sewage Pump Station Sewage Pump Station Sewage Pump Station [ q [ q Sewage Pump Station Figure 2-9: Middlebury Critical Facilities 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, “Hydrography”, “Flood Zones”, DEP “Facilities”, Middlebury October 2008 Æ c ? Legend Town BoundaryMajor Roads Local Roads © Fire Stations a Police Stations Public Works 9: ¨ Libraries 9 Town Offices A [ q ® ± ° ³?G 8Ù t n New Horizons Handicap Assistantship Home Middlebury Convalescent Home Home for the Blind Daycare Centers ² ³ Shepardson Community Ctr Middlebury Edge (Mixed-Use) Corporations Sewage Pump Stations Water Streams Schools n Benson Woods NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-23 Table 2-4 Critical Facilities in Middlebury Type Name Address Located in Floodplain? Mixed-Use Development (Childcare Facility) Middlebury Edge Straits Turnpike/Park Road Intersection No Day Care Facility The Nest Day Care 984 Southford Road No Convalescent Home Middlebury Convalescent Home Middlebury Road No Handicap Assistantship Facility New Horizons Handicap Assistantship Home Nutmeg Road No Age-Restricted Housing Benson Woods North Benson Road No Home for the Blind Home for the Blind George Street near Yale Avenue No Police Department Middlebury Police Department Middlebury Road No Fire Department & Shelter Middlebury Fire Department 65 Tucker Hill Road Adjacent Public Works Department Middlebury Public Works 1 Service Road No Municipal & Shelter Shepardson Community Center 1172 Whittemore Road No Municipal Middlebury Town Hall Offices 1212 Whittemore Road No Municipal Middlebury Public Library 65 Crest Road No School & Shelter Long Meadow Elementary School 65 North Benson Road No School, Backup Shelter (Private) Westover School 1237 Whittemore Road No School Offices Region 15 Board of Education 286 Whittemore Road No School Middlebury Elementary School 550 Whittemore Road No School, Backup Shelter (No Generator) Memorial Middle School Memorial Drive No Industry – Hazardous Chemicals Timex Corporation HQ Off of Christian Road No Industry – Hazardous Chemicals Chemtura Corporation HQ Off of Benson Road No Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 1 Shadduck Rd near Hop Br Yes Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 2 Long Meadow Road Yes Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 3 270 North Benson Road Adjacent Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 4 Southford Road Yes Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 5 Straits Turnpike Adjacent Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 6 Christian Lane – Triangle Hill Subdivision No Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 7 West end of Gleneagle Rd No Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 8 Somerset Drive Adjacent Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 1 Service Road No Utility – Sewer Sewage Pump Station 1 Service Road No Utility – Water Pumping Station 285 Kelly Road No Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley and Town of Middlebury Two of Middlebury’s critical facilities are locat ed near floodprone areas. The Fire Station on Tucker Hill Road is adjacent to the Goat Brook and Hop Brook floodplains, located to the south and east of the facility, respectivel y. The Department of Public Works is not located adjacent to a mapped floodplain, but its location south of Woodside Avenue and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-24 near the unnamed stream that causes flooding in that area (refer to Section 3.5) is of concern. The Town must strive to keep thes e two critical facilities operational during the largest of flood events, which is precisely when they will be needed the most. In particular, the Fire Department facility risks isolation from other parts of town. Shelters Emergency shelters are considered to be an im portant subset of critical facilities, as they are needed most in emergency situations. Middlebury has three designated emergency shelters which are the Shepardson Community Center, the Middlebury Fire House, and the Long Meadow Elementary School: ‰ The Shepardson Community Center, located on Whittemore Road, has a generator and can accommodate a maximum of 100 people. ‰ The Middlebury Fire House, located on Tucker Hill Road can accommodate up to 50 people and is also equipped with a generator. ‰ Lastly, the Long Meadow Elementary School located on North Benson Road can accommodate a total of 100 people and is outfitted with a generator. The Shepardson Community Center, the Middle bury Fire House, and the Long Meadow Elementary School buildings have been designa ted as public shelter facilities by meeting specific American Red Cross guidelines. Am enities and operating costs of the designated shelters including expenses for food, cooki ng equipment, emergency power services, bedding, etc., are the responsibil ities of the community and generally are not paid for by the American Red Cross. Westover School, located at 1237 Whittemore Ro ad, houses up to 200 overnight students during the school year and can operate as a shel ter if needed. However, its effectiveness as a shelter is greater during the summer than during the school year. The school’s 1920s wood-frame construction makes it susceptibl e to rapidly-spreading fires, so the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-25 Middlebury Fire Department is well prepared for fighting any fires that may occur at the school. The other backup shelter, the Memorial Middle School, is located on Memorial Drive. This facility does not have a ge nerator, but can shelter up to 100 people. In case of an extended power outage, it is anticipated that 10-20% of the population would relocate, although not all of those relocating would necessarily utilize the shelter facilities. Many communities only intend to us e these facilities on a temporary basis for providing shelter until hazards such as hurricanes diminish. Regionally-located mass care facilities operated and paid for by the Am erican Red Cross may be available during recovery operations when additiona l sheltering services are necessary. Transportation The Town of Middlebury does not have any hospitals or medical centers. Instead, residents use the nearby facili ties in the City of Danbury and the City of Waterbury. As a means of accessing these facili ties, the Town has convenient access on Interstate 84 West to Danbury and East to Waterbury. Evacuation routes are regionally defined by the Regional Evacuation Plan. No local evacuation plan exists. Interstate 84 a nd State Routes 63, 64, and 188 are the primary evacuation routes. Secondary evacuation routes include Watertown Road and Old Watertown Road (to Watertown), Christian Road (to Oxford), and Long Meadow Road to South Street (to Naugatuck). Interstate 84, which runs east-west through the southern half of the Town, provides acce ss to the City of Waterbury and the City of Danbury. During an evacuation-necessary emergency, Inte rstate 84 would presumably be the most effective means of evacuating Middlebury. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-26 Communications The Town of Middlebury has established the CodeRED Emergency Notification System in an effort to streamline emergency notifications to residents of the Town. The Fire Department and ambulance service currently operates on high band and they have no communication dead spots. The Police cu rrently operate on a lower band, and it experiences some communications dead spot s near the intersection of Route 64 and Route 63. There is limited cellu lar service in that area of Town due to topography. The Town is currently looking into an upgrade to put all emergency services on the same radio band. The Town has also created the Emergency Management Department and, for long-term planning, the Town has a Local Emerge ncy Preparedness Commission that meets regularly with agendas rela ted to emergency planning. Water Utilities Water service is a critical component of hazard mitigation, especially in regards to fighting wildfires. It is also necessary for everyday residential, commercial, and industrial use. Wate r service in Middlebury is rela tively recent and is currently expanding. The municipal water system on the eas tern side of the Town was initiated in 1988 by the developer that c onstructed the Crossroads East commercial property on Route 63. Water for this initial system was provided by the City of Waterbury, which is an arrangement that continues. The wate r main was extended from an existing water main on Country Club Road in Waterbury. Su bsequent extensions brought the main to Woodside Avenue and then the Kelly Road and Three Mile Hill area to the north. Through grants from the State, the Town coor dinated the construction of a water storage tank and expanded the system in phases to a point where, as of 2005, the system was comprised of over 10 miles of water mains serving over 200 customers with water and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-27 fire protection. The water system is operated and maintained by the Connecticut Water Company under a long term agreement with the Town. The water serving the east section of town is supplied by the Nauga tuck Division of the Connecticut Water Company. The municipal water system on the western side of town is comprised of approximately four miles of water mains. Approximately 2.5 miles of the system is owned and operated by the Heritage Village Water Company and the remaining 1.5 miles of the system was constructed by the Town and operated a nd maintained by the Connecticut Water Company under an agreement with the Town. The water serving the western section of town is supplied by The Heritage Village Water Company. In the near future, the Heritage Village Water Company system and the Connecticut Water Company’s municipal system will be in terconnected in the Town center, providing reliable water service and pressures suitabl e for firefighting to municipal buildings, including the shelter at Sh epardson community center. Wastewater Utilities Approximately one-third of Middlebury’s la nd area is sewered, including the sites of major corporate and commercial developmen ts along Routes 63, 64, and 188. Sewage is routed via ten pumping stations to a treatment facility located in the Borough of Naugatuck. The Town of Middlebury curren tly contributes approximately 10% of the facility’s operating budget. The ten pumping stations are considered critical facilities, because the failure of any one of them coul d impair the ability of the Town of move sewage to Naugatuck. Some of the sewer pumping stations are locat ed in or adjacent to floodplains, as these stations are necessarily located at low elev ations where streams are crossed. The Town NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-28 has not experienced flooding at these pumping stations, but if it were to occur, response would be appropriate to bring the st ations back into working order. Public Works Department The Public Works Department is a critical municipal department related to hazard mitigation because it maintains, repairs, and constructs stormwater systems and roadways. The Department is responsible fo r maintaining stormwater systems for proper drainage and flood mitigation, as well as clea ring snow and ice and maintaining access for emergency vehicles. Likewise, the Public Works Department believes that establishment of working inter- municipal agreements with other public works departments in nearby communities would allow for sharing of resources when disasters affect one community more than others. This Plan therefore recommends that th ese types of agreements be pursued. Potential Impacts from Natural Hazards Critical facilities are generally not impacted by flooding in the Town of Middlebury, although it is noted that the publ ic works facility on Service Road, the fire station on Tucker Hill Road, and some of the sewer pum ping stations are adjacent to watercourses that experience flooding, and therefore it is important for the Town of continually monitor conditions nearby and mitigate for any factors that could exacerbate conditions along those watercourses. In the case of th e fire station, the watercourse (Hop Brook) has a record of flooding problems. In the case of the public works facility, the adjacent watercourse already causes nuisance floodi ng on the intersecting street (Woodside Avenue). Refer to Section 3.5 for information about flooding in these areas. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-29 None of the critical facilities are any more susceptible to wind, summer storms, winter storms, or earthquakes than the rest of th e Town. The following sections will discuss each natural hazard in detail and include a description of populations at-risk. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-1 3.0 INLAND FLOODING 3.1 Setting According to FEMA, most municipalities in th e United States have at least one clearly recognizable flood-prone area around a river, stream, or large body of water. These areas are outlined as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SF HA) and delineated as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Flood- prone areas are addressed through a combination of floodplain management criteri a, ordinances, and community assistance programs sponsored by the NFIP and individual municipalities. Many communities also have localized floodi ng areas outside the SFHA. These floods tend to be shallower and chronically reoccur in the same area due to a combination of factors. Such factors include ponding, poor drainage, inadequate storm sewers, clogged culverts or catch basins, sheet flow, obstr ucted drainageways, sewer backup, or overbank flooding from small streams. Flooding is a considerable natural hazard in the Town of Middlebury. Hop Brook passes through one of the most vital section of Town. Approximate ly 98% of the Town’s land area is drained by Hop Brook, Long Meadow Pond Brook, and Eightmile Brook. The remainder of the town is drained by, the Nonnewaug River, Little River, and Steele Brook. A thorough discussion of these drai nage areas is included in Section 2.5. Prior to floodplain regulations, homes were constructed within floodplains along Hop Brook and its tributaries and Long Meadow Pond Brook. These areas experience the most significant overbank flooding in the to wn. Localized nuisance flooding along tributaries and, more commonly, along roadways resulting from inadequate drainage and other factors is also a flooding issue that th e Town regularly faces. The overall frequency NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-2 of occurrence of flooding in Middlebury is considered to be likely (Refer to Appended Table 2). 3.2 Hazard Assessment Flooding represents the most common and cos tly natural hazard in Connecticut. The state typically experiences floods in the ear ly spring due to snowmelt and in the late summer/early autumn due to frontal systems and tropical storms, although localized flooding caused by thunderstorm activity can be si gnificant. Flooding can occur as a result of other natural hazards, including hurricanes, summer storms, and winter storms. Flooding can also occur as a re sult of dam failure, which is discussed in Section 8.0, and may also cause landslides and slumps in affected areas. In order to provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 100-year flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for purposes of floodplain management and to determine the need for insurance. This flood has a one percent chance of being e qualed or exceeded each year. The risk of experiencing a flood event of this magnitude or greater is increased when periods longer than one year are considered. For example, FEMA notes that a structure located within a 100-year flood zone has a 26% change of su ffering flood damage during the term of a 30- year mortgage. Similarly, a 500-year flood has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in a given year. The 500-year floodplain indicates areas of moderate flood hazard. Flooding presents several safety hazards to people and property. Floodwaters cause massive damage to the lower levels of buildings, destroying business records, furniture, and other sentimental papers and artifacts. In addition, floodwaters can prevent Floodplains are lands along watercourses that are subject to periodic flooding; floodways are those areas within the floodplains that convey floodwaters. Floodways are subject to water being carried at relative ly high velocities and forces. The floodway fringe contains those areas of the 100-year floodplain that are outside the floodway and are subject to inundation but do not convey the floodwaters . NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-3 emergency and commercial egress by blocking streets, deteriorating municipal drainage systems, and diverting municipal staff and resources. Furthermore, damp conditions trigger the growth of mold and mildew in flooded buildings, contributing to alle rgies, asthma, and respiratory infections. Snakes and rodents are forced out of thei r natural habitat and into clos er contact with people, and ponded water following a flood presents a br eeding ground for mosquitoes. Gasoline, pesticides, and other aqueous pollutants can be carried into areas and buildings by flood waters and soak into soil, bu ilding components, and furniture. SFHAs in Middlebury are delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Studies (FIS). An initial Flood Hazard Boundary Map was identified on September 6, 1974. The FIRM delineates areas within Middlebury that are vulnerable to flooding and were published on October 16, 1979. The FIS was originally published on April 16, 1979, and neither the FIS nor the FIR Ms have been updated. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of Middlebury susceptible to flooding based on FEMA flood zones. Table 3-1 describes the various zones depicted on the FIRM panels for Mi ddlebury. Table 3-1 FIRM Zone Descriptions Zone Description A An area inundated by 100-year flooding, for which no base flood elevations (BFEs) have been determined. AE An area inundated by 100-year flooding , for which BFEs have been determined. Area Not Included An area that is located within a community or county that is not mapped on any published FIRM. X An area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. X500 An area inundated by 500-year flooding; an area inundated by 100-year flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or an area protected by levees from 100-year flooding. Figure 3-1: FEMA Flood Zones in Middlebury 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 X500 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Water Waterbodies Flood Zone A AE For general pl anning purpose s only. Delineatio ns may not be ex act. Source: “Roads” , c1984 – 2008 Tel e Atlas , Rel. 04/08. “Town Bou ndary”, “Hydrograp hy”, “Flood Zones”, DEP Septem ber 2008 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-5 In some areas of Middlebury, flooding occurs from heavy rains with a much highe r frequency than those mapped by FEMA. This nuisance flooding occurs from heavy rains, and often in different areas than those depicted on the FIRM panels. These frequent flooding events occur in areas with insufficient drainage; where conditions may cause flashy, localized flooding; and where poor maintenance may exacerbate drainage problems. These areas are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.5. During large storms, the recurrence interval level of a flood discharge on a tributary tends to be greater than the recurrence interval le vel of the flood discharge on the main channel downstream. In other words, a 500-year flood event on a tributary may only contribute to a 50-year flood event downstream. This is due to the distribution of rainfall and the greater hydraulic capacity of th e downstream channel to convey floodwaters. Dams and other flood control structures can also reduce the magnitude of peak flood flows. The recurrence interval level of a precipita tion event also generally differs from the recurrence interval level of the associated flood. For example, in 2004, heavy rains led to flooding of Watertown Road, and, later, to a roadway wash-out. Watertown Road, which links Watertown and Middlebury, was impassa ble following the wash-out. Flood events can also be mitigated or exacerbated by in-c hannel and soil conditions, such as low or high flows, the presence of frozen ground, or a deep or shallow water table, as can be seen in the following historic record. 3.3 Historic Record In every season of the year throughout its r ecorded history, the Town of Middlebury has experienced various degrees of flooding. Melt ing snow combined with early spring rains have caused frequent spring flooding. Numerous flood events have occurred in late summer to early autumn resulting from storms of tropical origin moving northeast along the Atlantic coast. Winter floods result from the occasional thaw, particularly during years of heavy snow and periods of rainfa ll on frozen ground. Other flood events have NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-6 been caused by excessive rainfalls upon saturated soils, yielding greater than normal runoff. Notable historic floods occurred in February 1807, May 1854, October 1869, January 1874, March 1876, September 1882, February 1886, January 1891, and March 1896. Major floods also occurred in Middlebury in March 1936, January and September 1938, January 1949, and August and October 1955. ‰ In terms of damage to the Town of Middl ebury, the most severe of these was the September 1938 flood. This flood was a 50-year event on the Quinnipiac River in the Town of Wallingford. ‰ The flood of record at the USGS gauge on the Pomperaug River in the Town of Southbury, to the southwest, was recorded on August 19, 1955, when the instantaneous discharge reached 29,400 cubic feet per second with a stage of 21.8 feet. The August 1955 flood resulted in th e total loss of 36 lives and caused over $193 million dollars in physical damages in the region. According to the NCDC Storm Events Data base, there have been seven urban/small stream flooding events, 23 flash flood, a nd 32 flooding events in New Haven County since August of 1993. The following are descriptions of additional, more recent examples of floods in and around the Town of Middlebury as described in the NCDC Storm Events Database, and based on corre spondence with municipal officials. ‰ August 21, 1994: Torrential rainfall (one to five inches) carried on in New Haven County for a three hour period producing an extensively damaging flash flood. Over the preceding ten days, three to five inches of rain had fallen on the region. Extensive damage occurred to road systems and bridges due to runoff from the region’s small streams. Damage from the flash flood event totaled $2.4 million. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-7 ‰ April 16, 1996: Heavy rain and strong southeast winds moved across New Haven County as rainfall continued for a period of twelve hours. The twelve hour event produced a range of total rainfall amounts between 2.83 inches (reported in the Town of Oxford) to 6.10 inches (reported in th e Town of East Haven). A total of 547 homes and 28 businesses were damaged throughout the storm. The total uninsured flood damage was approximately $1.5 million according to preliminary damage assessments by the Connecticut Office of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ‰ September 16, 1999: Torrential rainfall pr eceding the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd caused widespread urban, small stre am, and river flooding. In New Haven County, rainfall amounts ranged from 2.54 inches at Menungatuck to 6.18 inches at Ansonia. Serious wide-spread flooding of lo w-lying and poor drainage areas resulted in the closure of many roads and baseme nt flooding across Fairfield, New Haven, and Middlesex Counties. ‰ April 23, 2006: Road closures, evacuations, injuries and deaths were reported as a result of a significantly larg e scale rain event of approximately 3.5 inches of rainfall falling on the northwestern part of New Ha ven County. Watertown Road was washed out in Middlebury, and Regan Road and Ol d Regan Road were flooded in central Middlebury. To the southwest, small creeks in the Town of Southbury flooded. ‰ Flooding along Regan Road and Old Regan Road reportedly occurred in June 2006 and April 2007, with the latt er occurrence the result of a powerful spring nor’easter. 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Town of Middlebury has in place a numbe r of measures to prevent flood damage. These include regulations, codes, and or dinances preventing encroachment and development near floodways. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-8 The Town of Middlebury uses the 100-year flood lines from the FEMA FIRM for determining special flood hazard areas. Regula tions require that all structures in flood hazard areas have their lowest floor be above established flood elevations. Site plan standards require that all proposals be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage, that public facilities and utilities be located and constructed to minimize flood damage, and that adequate drainage is provided. Rather than prohibiting development in fl oodplains, the Town of Middlebury seeks to strictly control it. Sectio n 5.14 of the Middlebury Plan of Conservation and Development (March 2001), “Wetlands and Floodplains,” states that Middlebury has regulations that limit construction in floodplains. According to this section, “Development within 100- year floodplains is inherently dangerous and therefore strictly regulat ed.” The Plan also promotes creation of greenbelts, stating that “the development of greenbelt systems along floodplains also provides an opportunity for the preservation of open space.” Specific regulations, codes, and ordinances that apply to flood hazard mitigation in conjunction with and in addition to NFIP regulations include: ‰ Flood Plain District (Section 53 of Middlebury Zoning Regulations). This section states that “In the Flood Plain District, no stru cture within the Town should be constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, extended, moved or structurally altered, no land use shall be established and no land sha ll be filled, graded or excavated until the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved a plan for the proposed structure, land use or alteration of land contour.” Additionally: Ö Section 53.3 (General Standards) sets for st andards for anchoring; use of flood- resistant materials; siting and placement of systems such as water, wastewater, electrical, heating, and coo ling; maintaining flood carryi ng capacities of streams; outdoor storage; and installa tion of manufactured homes. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-9 Ö Section 53.4 (Specific Standards) provides for elevation of new construction and substantial improvements at least two feet above the base flood elevation, and requires dry floodproofing of the parts of structures below the base flood elevation. Ö Section 53.5 (Floodway Standards) prohibits development that cumulatively increases the base flood eleva tion by more than one foot. ‰ Setbacks and Buffer Areas are addressed in numerous sections of the Middlebury Zoning Regulations. Section 64.2.1-64.2.2 speci fies that wherever necessary, the Town will protect floodplains or water r echarge areas. Thus, the Zoning Commission may require greater setbacks. ‰ Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (Section 68.2 of Middlebury Zoning Regulations) states that “any proposal for development t hat will cumulatively create a disturbed area more than one-half acre in area on land being developed must have a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.” ‰ Storm Drainage (Section 7 of Middlebury Road a nd Drainage Regulations) outlines the Town’s requirements to manage stormwater, which includes the collection and disposal thereof in an attempt to: Ö design drainage systems which take into account effects upon downstream systems; Ö coordinate with general dr ainage requirements for the use and development of the abutting land; Ö avoid diversion of drainage from one waters hed or watercourse to another is to be avoided; Ö minimize all adverse effects of all work to the stream or watercourse which is being affected; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-10 Ö discharge all storm water into sufficient streams or rivers or into Town or State drainage systems with sufficient cap acity to carry the discharge; and Ö locate and size drainage fac ilities in order to minimize danger to life and property. This section also calls for the protection and improvement of the natural drainage system and the prevention of flooding and soil erosion. ‰ Drainage Standards (Section 7 of Middlebury Subdi vision Regulations). This section states that “The storm drainage system sha ll provide for drainage from the entire area of the subdivision and shall take into account land outside the subdivision that normally drains across the area of the subdivision, as well as the effects of the subdivision upon downstream drainage systems.” Additionally, the drainage system shall provide for the following: Ö Adequate drainage of proposed streets, Ö Interception of existing channeled draina ge coming from any adjoining streets, Ö Protection of locations necessary for on-site sewage disposal and water supply facilities, Ö Prevention of flooding and soil erosi on, and protection of wetlands and watercourses, and Ö On-site detention where feasible, in order that runoff from the developed subdivision not exceed the rate of runoff before subdivision. ‰ Wetlands and Watercourses (Middlebury Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations). These regulations cover ac tions within and surrounding wetlands and watercourses throughout the Town of Middlebury. Although flooding is not specifically addressed, many of the requirement s of the regulations are believed to be preventive of flooding. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-11 The Town of Middlebury Zoning Enforcement Officer serves as the NFIP administrator and oversees the enforcement of NFIP regulations. The Middlebury Public Works Department is in charge of the maintena nce of the Town’s drainage systems, and performs clearing of public streets, bridges, culverts, and other structures as needed. Drainage and other flooding re lated complaints are typically initially reported to the Middlebury Police Department at all hours. The Police Department then informs the Department of Public Works during normal bus iness time. The Department of Public Works responds to the compla ints and subsequently informs the Engineering Department of the problems in order to plan maintenan ce and upgrades to infrastructure prior to extensive precipitation events. Emergency Services The Town’s Police and Fire Departments regularly monitor Hop Brook and combine forces to provide advanced notice to residents in the floodplain surrounding the watercourse of potential flooding problems . Additionally, the Town can access the Automated Flood Warning System to monitor precipitation totals. The Connecticut DEP installed the Automated Flood Warning System in 1982 to monitor rainfall totals as a mitigation effort for flooding throughout the state. The National Weather Service issues a flood watch or a flash flood watch for an area when conditions in or near th e area are favorable for a flood or a flash flood, resp ectively. A flash flood watch or flood watch does not necessarily mean that flooding will occur. The National Weather Service issues a flood warning or a flash flood warning for an area when parts of the area are either currently floodi ng, highly likely to flood, or when flooding is imminent. The Town of Middlebury can access the National Weather Service website at http://weather.noaa.gov/ to obtain the latest flood watches and warnings before and during precipitation events. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-12 As explained in Section 2.9, the Town of Middlebury has instituted the CodeRED TM Emergency Notification System. This system allows the Town to telephone all or targeted areas of the town in case of an emergency situation that requires immediate action. The system is capable of dialing 60,000 phone numbers per hour. It then delivers a recorded message to a person or answering machine, making three attempts to connect to each number. It can also send text messages and e-mails. The Town of Middlebury also provides ma ny informational pamphlets free of charge related to citizen preparedness for natura l hazard events. These pamphlets include “Preparing Makes Sense. Get Ready Now” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and “Disaster Preparedness Coloring Book” by FEMA and distributed by Connecticut DEHMS. These pamphlets are available at the Shepardson Community Center. In summary, the Town of Middlebury primar ily attempts to mitigate flood damage and flood hazards by restricting and controlling build ing activities in flood-prone areas. This process is carried out primarily through administration of the Zoning Regulations and to a lesser extent, through the Subdivision Regul ations. All watercourses are to be encroached minimally or not at all to ma intain the existing flood carrying capacity. Regulations in place rely primarily on th e FEMA-defined 100-year flood elevations to determine flood areas. 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment This section discusses specific areas at risk to flooding with in the Town. Major land use classes and critical f acilities within these ar eas are identified. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 922 acres of land in Middlebury are located within the 100- year flood boundary. Additionally, indirect and nuisance flooding occurs near streams and rivers throughout Middlebury du e to inadequate drainage and other factors. Specific NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-13 areas susceptible to flooding were identified by Town personnel and observed by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. staff during field inspec tions as described in Section 1.5. Based on correspondence with the State of Conn ecticut NFIP Coordinator, one repetitive loss property is located in the Town of Middleb ury. The property at 26 Narcissus Road is located just downstream of the Long Meadow Road bridge, on the western side of Long Meadow Pond. The most recent claims under NFIP were reportedly in 1982 and 1987, indicating that flooding has either not been problematic in the last 20 years, or the owner has not submitted claims. Flooding in Middlebury is genera lly concentrated in discrete areas of Town and is not widespread, with the exception of fl ooding along Hop Brook. Most flooding events occur due to large amounts of rainfall in conjunction with snowmelt and due to undersized road culverts and/or storm drains, as noted below. Hop Brook and Tributaries ‰ Regan Road and Old Regan Road at Hop Brook and Long Swamp Brook – Old Regan Road, Regan Road, and the approxima tely 15 homes located on the two streets can become flooded during large scale precipit ation events. Refer to Figure 3-2 for a depiction of this area. Hop Brook, which lies between the two roadways, is the primary contributing water body during i nundation events. However, Long Swamp Brook lies on the east side of Reagan Road and is also a contributor. Residents of these two roads report that storms have appear ed to intensify in the last eight years. Floods have occurred in April 2006, June 2006, and April 2007. They also report that the stream is aggrading, and that it was dredged in the 1980s. The residents would like to see it dredged again. Some of th e homes (including 420 Regan Road) have streams in the front (Hop Brook) and th e back (Long Swamp Brook), and they both flood. 2004 CLEAR H:Fig3-2.mxd 2937- 02 Middle bu ry Natural Ha zar d Pre -Disaste r Mi tigati on Plan M idd lebur y, CT Hop B rook Cor ridor & Reagan Road Study Ar ea Figur e 3-2 LOCATION : Date: Oct. 2008 Sca le: 1:6,000 SHEET : 99 R ealt y D rive Cheshire, Connecticut 0 6410 (203 ) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272 -9733 www .milonean dm acbroom .com NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-15 ‰ Ravenwood Drive – Hop Brook, which flows southerly beneath Ravenwood Drive, contributes to nuisance flooding on Ravenwood Drive during heavy rain events. ‰ Shadduck Road – The road sometimes becomes inundated near the sewer pumping station after a heavy rainfa ll. However, the pump station does not become inundated. ‰ Porter Avenue and Steinmann Avenue – Both roadways are prone to nuisance flooding due to the overbanking of Long Sw amp Brook which runs adjacent to and crosses the two streets. A culvert which runs beneath Middlebury Road at the north end of Steinmann Avenue, conveying Long Swamp Brook, is undersized and is in need of upgrading and replacement. Homes on both roadways are affected by flooding. ‰ Charcoal Avenue – The portion of Charcoal Avenue th at is adjacent to Artillery Road regularly becomes inundated during significan t rain events. Goat Brook contributes to the roadway flooding that ta kes place at this location. ‰ Cemetery Road – A small, unnamed watercourse near the roadway sometimes causes nuisance flooding. Water runs down the hill near the intersection of Cemetery Road and Middlebury Road. Three culverts at this location are undersized and are insufficient for the flow following heavy rains. Also affected in the area is a gas station, which experiences both building and parking lot flooding during sustained rain events. ‰ Watertown Road – A washout of Watertown Road at Hop Brook occurred in spring 2006. Middlebury attempted to submit to FE MA for reimbursement as a co-applicant with the City of Waterbury’s application, in hopes of receiving grant money to rebuild the roadway. However, funding from FEMA to repair the roadway could not be obtained. Middlebury documented the episode with extensive photography. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-16 Following the occurrence, Middlebury plated the roadway immediately following the occurrence on the weekend a nd then began repairs the following Monday. Although the roadway has been repaired, Middlebury remains concerned about Hop Brook causing further damage. Other Areas ‰ Long Meadow Road at Long Meadow Pond – A Federal grant has been awarded for the replacement of the bridge locat ed on Long Meadow Road, crossing Long Meadow Pond in the southern part of to wn. According to Town officials and a hydrology report developed by Wengell, McD onald & Costello, Inc. in 2006, the bridge is in “poor condition” and was most recently repaired in 1971. The bridge is in need of timely attention in order to make improvements. The pond’s water level is at or near the elevation of the bridge, especi ally during large scale rain events. As a result, the bridge and both ends are prone to inundation during large-scale events. As stated above, a repetitive loss property is located at 26 Narcissus Road, just downstream of the Long Meadow Road bridge on the western side of Long Meadow Pond. Given the 20-year interval of time since the last flood claim under NFIP, it is believed that flooding at this particular prope rty is either no longer a concern, or that the owner no longer submits claims. The Long Meadow Pond dam reportedly needs repair as well. Refer to Section 8.0 for a discussion related to the dam. ‰ Triangle Boulevard – The Triangle Boulevard area is impacted by runoff from the adjacent Oxford Airport to the south. Wa ter from a small stream jumps a culvert, flows onto the road, and floods at least tw o homes to the north while making its way to the nearby stream channel. The Town has added a catch basin to help collect NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-17 water, but it doesn’t work well if the outlet is submerged. The nuisance flooding is particularly problematic along the ea sternmost section of the roadway. ‰ Judd Hill Road – Kelly Pond, which straddles both the Town of Southbury and Middlebury, floods a portion of Judd Hill Road in Middlebury during significant rain events. ‰ Woodside Avenue – Flooding is a problem along the roadway in the eastern part of town due to an undersized culvert. Th e undersized culvert creates a backwater condition which causes propert y flooding and basement flooding of residences along the roadway. Critical Facilities Two of Middlebury’s critical facilities are locat ed in floodprone areas. The Fire Station on Tucker Hill Road is adjacent to the Goat Brook and Hop Brook floodplains, located to the south and east of the facility, respectivel y. The Department of Public Works is not located adjacent to a mapped floodplain, but its location south of Woodside Avenue and near the unnamed stream that causes flooding in that area, is of concern. The Town must strive to keep these two cri tical facilities operational during the larg est of flood events, which is precisely when they will be needed the most. In particular, the Fire Department facility risks isolation from other parts of Town. 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives A number of measures can be taken to reduce the impact of a local or nuisance flood event. These include measures that prevent increases in flood losses by managing new development, measures that reduce the expos ure of existing development to flood risk, and measures to preserve and restore natura l resources. These are listed below under the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-18 categories of prevention, property protection , structural projects, public education and awareness, natural resource protection , and emergency services. 3.6.1 Prevention Prevention of damage from flood losses ofte n takes the form of floodplain regulations and redevelopment policies, as noted in Sect ion 3.4. These are usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement officers through capital improvement programs and through zoni ng, subdivision, and wetland ordinances. It is important to promote coordination among the various departments that are responsible for different aspects of fl ood mitigation. Coordination and cooperation among departments should be reviewed every few years as specific responsibilities and staff changes. Municipal departments should identify areas for acquisition to maintain flood protection. Acquisition of heavily damaged structures after a flood may be an economical and practical means to accomplish this. Policies can also include the design and location of utilities to areas outside of flood hazard areas, and the placement of utilities underground. Planning and Zoning : Zoning ordinances should regul ate development in flood hazard areas. Flood hazard areas should reflect a ba lance of development and natural areas. Floodplain Development Regulations : Development regulations encompass subdivision regulations, building codes, and floodplain ordinances. Site plan and new subdivision regula tions should include the following: ‰ Requirements that every lot have a bu ildable area above the flood level; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-19 ‰ Construction and location standards for th e infrastructure built by the developer, including roads, sidewalks, utility lines , storm sewers, and drainage ways; and ‰ A requirement that developers dedicate open space and flood flow, drainage, and maintenance easements. Building codes should ensure that the foundatio n of structures will withstand flood forces and that all portions of the bu ilding subject to damage are above or otherwise protected from flooding. Floodplain ordinances should at minimum follow the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program for subdivisi on and building codes. These could be included in the ordinances for zoning and building codes, or co uld be addressed in a separate ordinance. According to the FEMA, communities are enco uraged to use different, more accurate base maps to expand upon the FIRMs published by FEMA. This is because many FIRMs were originally created using United States Geological Survey quadrangle maps with 10- foot contour intervals, but mo st municipalities today have contour maps of one or two- foot intervals that show more recently constr ucted roads, bridges, and other anthropologic features. Another approach is to record high-water marks and establish those areas inundated by a recent severe flood to be the new regulatory floodplain. Adoption of a different floodplain map is allo wed under NFIP regulations as long as the new map covers a larger floodplain than th e FIRM. Reductions in floodplain area can only be accomplished through revised FEMA-sponsored engineering studies or Letters of Map Change (LOMC). It should be noted th at the community’s map will not affect the current FIRM or alter the SFHA used fo r setting insurance rates or making map determinations; it can only be used by the co mmunity to regulate floodplain areas. The FEMA Region I office has more information on this topic; contact information can be found in Section 12. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-20 Stormwater Management Policies : Development and redevelopment policies to address the prevention of flood losses must include e ffective stormwater management policies. Developers should be required to build detention and retention facilities where appropriate. Infiltration can be enhanced to reduce runoff volume, including the use of swales, infiltration trenches, vegetative filter strips, and permeable paving blocks. Generally, post-development stormwater shoul d not leave a site at a rate higher than under pre-development conditions. Standard engineering practice is to avoid the use of detention measures if the project site is located in the lower one-third of the ove rall watershed. The effects of detention are least effective and even detrimental if used at such locations because of the delaying effect of the peak discharge from the site th at typically results when detention measures are used. By detaining stormwater in close proximity of the stream in the lower reaches of the overall watershed, the peak discharge fr om the site will occur later in the storm event, which will more closely coincide with the peak discharge of the stream, thus adding more flow during the peak discharge du ring any given storm event. Due to its geography, Middlebury contains a range of upper to middle parts of several watersheds. Developers should be required to demonstrate whether detention or retention will be the best management practice for stormwater at specific sites in regards to the position of each project site in the surrounding watershed. Drainage System Maintenance : An effective drainage system must be continually maintained prior to, during, and following pr ecipitation events in order to maintain efficiency and functionality. Maintenan ce should include programs to clean out blockages caused by overgrowth and debris. Culverts should be monitored, and repaired and improved when necessary. The use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology can greatly aid the identifi cation and location of problem areas. Education and Awareness : Other prevention techniques include the promotion of awareness of natural hazards among citizens, property owners, developers, and local NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-21 officials. Technical assistance for local officials, including workshops, can be helpful in preparation for dealing with the massive uph eaval that can accompany a severe flooding event. Research efforts to improve knowledge, develop standards, and identify and map hazard areas will better prepare a community to identify relevant hazard mitigation efforts. The Town of Middlebury Conservation Comm ission administers the wetland regulations, and the Town of Middlebury Planning and Zoning Commission administers the Zoning and Subdivision regulations. The regulations restrict development in floodplains, wetlands, and other flood prone areas. Th e Zoning Enforcement Officer and Wetlands Enforcement Officer are charged with ensu ring that development follows the floodplain management regulations and inland wetlands regulations, respectively. Based on the above guidelines and the exis ting roles of the Conservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and the tw o enforcement officers, one specific preventive measure is recommended. A ch ecklist should be developed that cross- references the bylaws, regulations, and code s related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed project. This will streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant. This could be provided to an applicant at any Town department. An example is included as Appended Table 3. 3.6.2 Property Protection Steps should be taken to prot ect existing public and private properties. Non-structural measures for public property protection include acquisition and relocation of properties at risk for flooding, purchase of flood insurance, and relocating valuable belongings above flood levels to reduce the amount of damage caused during a flood event. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-22 Structural flood protection techniques applicable to property protection include the construction of barriers, dry floodproofing, and wet floodproofing techniques. Barriers include levees, floodwalls, and berms, and are useful in areas subject to shallow flooding. These structural projects are discussed in Section 3.6.6 below. For dry floodproofing, walls may be coated with compound or plastic sheathing. Openings such as windows and vents should be either permanently closed or covered with removable shields. Flood protection shoul d only be two to three feet above the top of the foundation because bu ilding walls and floors cannot withstand the pressure of deeper water. Wet floodproofing should only be used as a la st resort. Furniture and electrical appliances should be moved away from advancing floodwaters. All of the above property protection mitigation measures may be useful for Town of Middlebury residents to prev ent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. The Town should consider outreach and education in these areas. It is likely that some ho meowners on Regan Road, Old Regan Road, Ravenwood Drive, Porter Avenue, Steinmann Avenue, and W oodside Avenue could benefit from wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of structures. If FEMA funds are to be pursued for any of these types of mitigation, a cost-benefit analysis for each home will help determine whether wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of the structure is most appropriate. Dry floodproofing refers to the act of making areas below the flood level water-tight. Wet floodproofing refers to intentionally letting floodwater into a building to equalize interior and exterior water pressures. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-23 3.6.3 Emergency Services A natural hazard pre-disaster mitigation plan addresses actions that can be taken before a disaster event. In this context, emergency services that would be appropriate mitigation measures for inland flooding include: ‰ Forecasting systems to provide information on the time of occurrence and magnitude of flooding; ‰ A system to issue flood warnings to the community and responsible officials; ‰ Emergency protective measures, such as an Emergency Operations Plan outlining procedures for the mobilization and position of staff, equipment, and resources to facilitate evacuations and em ergency flood-water control; and ‰ Implementing an emergency notification system that combines database and GIS mapping technologies to deliver outbound em ergency notifications to geographic areas; or specific groups of people, such as emergency responder teams. Based on the above guidelines, a number of specific proposals for improved emergency services are recommended to prevent damage fr om inland and nuisance flooding. These are common to all hazards in this plan, and are listed in Section 10.1. As noted above, two of Middlebury’s critical facilities are located in floodprone areas. The Fire Station on Tucker Hill Road is adjacent to the Goat Brook and Hop Brook floodplains, and the Department of Public Work s is located near an unnamed stream that causes flooding in that area. The Town must st rive to keep these two critical facilities operational during the largest of flood events , which is precisely when they will be needed the most. Flood mitigation projects that reduce peak flows along Goat Brook, Hop Brook, and the stream near Woodsi de Avenue should be prioritized. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-24 3.6.4 Public Education and Awareness The objective of public educati on is to provide an understanding of the nature of flood risk, and the means by which that risk can be mitigated on an individual basis. Public information materials should encourage individuals to be aware of flood mitigation techniques, including discouraging the public from changing channel and detention basins in their yards, and dumping in or otherwise altering watercourses and storage basins. Individuals should be made aware of drainage system maintenance programs and other methods of mitigation. The public shou ld also understand what to expect when a hazard event occurs, and the procedures and time frames necessary for evacuation. Based on the above guidelines, a number of specific proposals for improved emergency services are recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. These are common to all hazards in this plan, and are listed in Section 10.1. 3.6.5 Natural Resource Protection Floodplains can provide a number of natural resources and benefits, including storage of flood waters, open space and recreation, water quality protection, erosion control, and preservation of natural habitats. Retaining the natural resources and fu nctions of floodplains can not only reduce the frequency and consequences of flooding, but also minimi ze stormwater management and non-point pollution problems. Through natural resource planning, these objectives can be achieved at substantially reduced overall costs. Measures for preserving floodplain functions and resources typically include: ‰ Adoption of floodplain regulations to control or prohibit development that will alter natural resources; ‰ Development and redevelopment policies foc used on resource NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-25 Projects that improve the natural condition of areas or to restore diminished or destroyed resources can re-establish an environment in which the functions and values of these resources are again optimized. Administrativ e measures which assist such projects include the development of land reuse polic ies focused on a resource restoration and review of community programs to identif y opportunities for floodplain restoration. Based on the above guidelines, the following general natural resource protection mitigation measures are recommended to help prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding: ‰ Pursue the acquisition of additional open space properties. ‰ Selectively pursue conservation objectives li sted in the Plan of Conservation and Development or more recent pl anning studies and documents. ‰ Continue to regulate development in prot ected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands and floodplains. 3.6.6 Structural Projects Structural projects include the construction of new structures or modification of existing structures (e.g. floodproofing) to lessen the impact of a flood event. Stormwater controls such as drainage systems, detention dams and reservoirs, and culverts should be employed to lessen floodwater runoff. On-site detention can provide temporary storage of stormwater runoff. Barriers such as le vees, floodwalls, and dikes physically control the hazard to protect certain areas from floodwat ers. Channel alterations can be made to confine more water to the channel and accelerat e flood flows. Care should be taken when using these techniques to ensure that problems are not exacer bated in other areas of the impacted watersheds. Individuals can protect private pr operty by raising structures, and constructing walls and levees around structures. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-26 Based on the above guidelines, the following specific structural mitigation measures are recommended to prevent damage from flooding: ‰ Increase the capacity of the Hop Brook culv ert where it flows under Watertown Road to prevent future washouts lik e the one that occurred in 2006. ‰ Increase the conveyance capaci ties of the culverts for the unnamed stream under the intersection of Cemetery Road and Middleb ury Road, the culvert beneath Middlebury Road at the end of Steinmann Avenue associated with Long Swamp Brook, and the culvert associated with stream r unning along and beneath Woodside Avenue. ‰ Replace the bridge over Long Meadow P ond on Long Meadow Road in order to mitigate for flooding problems along the local roadway. 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives The proposed mitigation strategies fo r addressing flooding are listed below. Prevention ‰ Streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cross- references the ordinances, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention th at may be applicable to a proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Town department. ‰ Consider performing a Town-wide inventory of drainage pipes as part of the next Stormwater Management Plan update to he lp identify undersized and failing portions of the drainage system. ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System. ‰ Continue to require Flood Hazard Area Permits for activities within SFHAs. ‰ Consider requiring buildings constructed in flood prone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level, regardle ss of being within a defined SFHA. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-27 ‰ After Map Mod has been completed, consid er restudying local flood prone areas and produce new local-level regulatory fl oodplain maps using more exacting study techniques, including using more accurate contour information to map flood elevations provided with the FIRM. ‰ Given the importance of maintaining the viab ility of the Fire Station and Department of Public Works during disasters, flood m itigation projects that reduce peak flows along Goat Brook, Hop Brook, and the stream near Woodside Avenue should be prioritized. Property & Natural Resource Protection ‰ Pursue the acquisition of additional muni cipal open space properties inside SFHAs and set those aside as greenwa ys, parks, or other non-residential, non-commercial or non-industrial use. ‰ Selectively pursue conservati on recommendations listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development and other studies and documents. ‰ Continue to regulate development in prot ected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. ‰ Work with homeowners on Regan Road, Old Regan Road, Ravenwood Drive, Porter Avenue, Steinmann Avenue, and Woodside Avenue to pursue wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of structures. If FEMA funds are to be pursued, a cost- benefit analysis for each home will help determine whether wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of the st ructure is most appropriate. Structural Projects ‰ Increase the capacity of the Hop Brook culv ert where it flows under Watertown Road to prevent future washouts lik e the one that occurred in 2006. ‰ Increase the conveyance capaci ties of the culverts for the unnamed stream under the intersection of Cemetery Road and Middleb ury Road, the culvert beneath Middlebury NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-28 Road at the end of Steinmann Avenue associated with Long Swamp Brook, and the culvert associated with stream running along and beneath Woodside Avenue. ‰ Replace the bridge over Long Meadow P ond on Long Meadow Road in order to mitigate for flooding problems along the local roadway. In addition, mitigation strategies important to all hazards are described in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-1 4.0 HURRICANES 4.1 Setting Hazards associated with tropical storms and hurricanes include winds, heavy rains, and flooding. While only concentrated areas of Middlebury are susceptible to flooding damage caused by hurricanes, wind damage can occur over widespread areas throughout the Town. Hurricanes therefore have the potenti al to affect any area within the Town of Middlebury. A hurricane striking the Town of Middlebury is considered a possible event each year that could cause critical damage to the Town and its infrastructure (please refer to Appended Table 1). 4.2 Hazard Assessment Hurricanes are a class of tropical cyclones which are defined by the National Weather Service as non-frontal, low pr essure large scale systems that develop over tropical or subtropical water and have definite organized circulations. Tropical cyclones are categorized based on the speed of the sustaine d (1-minute average) surface wind near the center of the storm. These categories are: Tropical Depression (winds less than 39 mph), Tropical Storm (winds 39-74 mph, inclusive) and Hurricanes (winds at least 74 mph). The geographic areas affected by tropical cyclones are called tropi cal cyclone basins. The Atlantic tropical cyclone ba sin is one of six in the world and includes much of the North Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and th e Gulf of Mexico. The official Atlantic hurricane season begins on June 1 and ex tends through November 30 of each year, although occasionally hurricanes occur outside this period. Inland Connecticut is vulnerable to hurricane s despite moderate hurricane occurrences when compared with other areas within the Atlantic Tropical Cyclone basin. Since NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-2 hurricanes tend to weaken within 12 hours of landfall, inland areas are less susceptible to hurricane wind damages than coastal areas in Connecticut; however, the heaviest rainfall often occurs inland. Therefore, inland areas are vulnerable to inland flooding during a hurricane. A hurricane Watch is an advisory for a specific area stating that a hurricane poses a threat to coastal and inland areas. Individuals s hould keep tuned to local television and radio for updates. A hurricane Warning is then issued when the dangerous effects of a hurricane are expected in the area within 24 hours. The Saffir / Simpson Scale The Saffir / Simpson Hurricane Scale, which has been adopted by the National Hurricane Center, categorizes hurr icanes based upon their intensity, and relates this intensity to damage potential. The Scale uses the sustained surface winds (1-minute average) near the center of the system to classify hurricanes into one of five categories. The Saffir / Simpson scale is provided below. ‰ Category 1: Winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119- 153 km/hr). Storm surge generally 4-5 ft above normal. No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and tree s. Some damage to poorly constructed signs, coastal road flooding, and minor pier damage. Ö Hurricane Diane was a Category 1 hurrica ne when it made landfall in North Carolina in 1955, and weakened to a tropical storm before reaching the Connecticut shoreline. A Hurricane Watch is an advisory for a specific area stating that a hurricane poses a threat to coastal and inland areas. Individuals should keep tuned to local television and radio for updates. A Hurricane Warning is then issued the dangerous effects of a hurricane are expected in the area. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-3 Ö Hurricane Agnes of 1971 was a Category 1 hurricane when it hit Connecticut. Ö Hurricanes Allison of 1995 and Danny of 1997 were Category 1 hurricanes at peak intensity. ‰ Category 2: Winds 96-110 mph (83-95 kt or 154-177 km/hr). Storm surge generally 6-8 feet above normal. Some roofing material, door, and window damage of buildings. Considerable damage to shrubbe ry and trees with some trees blown down. Considerable damage to mobile homes, poorly constructed signs, and piers. Coastal and low-lying escape routes flood two to f our hours before arrival of the hurricane center. Small craft in unprotec ted anchorages break moorings. Ö Hurricane Bonnie of 1998 was a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the North Carolina coast. Ö Hurricane Georges of 1998 was a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the Florida Keys and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Ö Hurricane Bob was a Category 2 hurricane wh en it made landfall in southern New England and New York in August of 1991. Ö Hurricane Ike was a strong Category 2 hurri cane when it struck Galveston and Houston in September 2008. ‰ Category 3: Winds 111-130 mph (96-113 kt or 178-209 km/hr). Storm surge generally 9-12 ft above normal. Some stru ctural damage to small residences and utility buildings with a minor amount of curtainwall fa ilures. Damage to shrubbery and trees with foliage blown off trees and large trees blown down. Mobile homes and poorly constructed signs are destroyed. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water three to five hours befo re arrival of the center of the hurricane. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures with larger structures damaged by battering from floating debris. Terrain con tinuously lower than five feet above mean sea level may be flooded inland eight miles (13 km) or mo re. Evacuation of low-lying residences within several blocks of the shoreline may be required. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-4 Ö The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 was a Category 3 hurricane when it hit New York and southern New England. Ö The Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 wa s a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina, Virginia, New York, and southern New England. Ö Hurricane Carol of 1954 was a Category 3 hur ricane when it struck Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island. Ö Hurricane Connie of 1955 was a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina. Ö Hurricane Gloria of 1985 was a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina and New York, and weaken ed to a Category 2 hurricane before reaching Connecticut. Ö Hurricanes Roxanne of 1995 and Fran of 1996 were Category 3 hurricanes at landfall on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexi co and in North Ca rolina, respectively. Ö Hurricane Katrina of August 2005 was a Category 3 hurricane when it stru ck Louisiana and Mississippi. Ö Hurricane Rita of September 2005 reached Category 3 when it struck Louisiana. Ö Hurricane Wilma of October 2005 was a Ca tegory 3 hurricane when it made landfall in southw estern Florida. ‰ Category 4: Winds 131-155 mph (114-135 kt or 210-249 km/hr). Storm surge generally 13-18 ft above normal. More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failures on small residences. Shrubs, trees, and all signs are blown down. Complete destruction of m obile homes. Extensive damage to doors and windows. Low-lying escape routes may be cut by rising water three to five hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of structures near the shore. Terrain lower than 10 ft above sea level may be flooded requiring massive evacuation of re sidential areas as far inland as six miles (10 km). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-5 Ö Hurricane Donna of 1960 was a Category 4 hurricane when it made landfall in southwestern Florida, and weakened to a Category 2 hurricane when it reached Connecticut. Ö Hurricane Luis of 1995 was a Category 4 hurricane while moving over the Leeward Islands. Ö Hurricanes Felix and Opal of 1995 also reached Ca tegory 4 status at peak intensity. ‰ Category 5: Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete bu ilding failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. All shrubs, trees, a nd signs blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Severe and extensive window and door damage. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water three to five hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of all structures located less than 15 ft above sea level and within 500 yards of the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5-10 m iles (8-16 km) of the shoreline may be required. Ö Hurricane Andrew was a Category 5 hu rricane when it made landfall in southeastern Florida in 1992. Ö Hurricane Mitch of 1998 was a Category 5 hurricane at peak intensity over the western Caribbean. Ö Hurricane Gilbert of 1988 was a Category 5 hur ricane at peak intensity and is one of the strongest Atlantic tr opical cyclones of record. Table 4-1 lists the hurr icane characteristics mentioned above as a function of category, as well as the expected central pressure. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-6 Table 4-1 Hurricane Characteristics CENTRAL PRESSURE WIND SPEED Category Millibars Inches MPH Knots SURGE Feet Damage Potential 1 >980 >28.9 74-95 64-83 4-5 Minimal 2 965-979 28.5-28.9 96-110 84-96 6-8 Moderate 3 945-964 27.9-28.5 111-130 97-113 9-12 Extensive 4 920-644 27.2-27.9 131-155 114-135 13-18 Extreme 5 <920 155 >135 >18 Catastrophic The Saffir / Simpson Hurricane Scale assumes an average, uniform coastline for the continental United States and was intended as a general guide for use by public safety officials during hurricane emergencies. It does not reflect the effects of varying localized bathymetry, coastline configuration, astronomical tides, barriers or other factors that may modify storm surge heights at the local leve l during a single hurricane event. For inland communities such as the Town of Middlebury, the coastline assumption is not applicable. According to Connecticut’s 2007 Natural H azard Mitigation Plan Update, a moderate Category 2 hurricane is expect ed to strike Connecticut once every ten years, whereas a Category 3 or Category 4 hurricane is expect ed before the year 2040. These frequencies are based partly on the historic reco rd, described in the next section. 4.3 Historic Record Through research efforts by NOAA’s National Climate Center in cooperation with the National Hurricane Center, records of tropica l cyclone occurrences within the Atlantic Cyclone Basin have been compiled from 1851 to present. These re cords are compiled in NOAA’s Hurricane database (HURDAT), which contains historical data in the process of being reanalyzed to current sc ientific standards, as well as the most current hurricane data. During HURDAT’s period of record, 29 hurricanes and 67 tropical storms have passed within a 150 mile radius of Newport, Rhode Island. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-7 Since 1900, eight direct hits and two hurricanes that did not make landfall (but passed close to the shoreline) were recorded along the Connecticut coast, of which there were four Category 3, two Category 2, and two Catego ry 1 hurricanes (two of the ten struck Connecticut before the Saffir / Simpson scal e was developed). Of the four Category 3 hurricanes, two occurred in September and two occurred in August. The most devastating hurricane to strike C onnecticut, and believed to be the strongest hurricane to hit New England in recorded history, was believed to be a Category 3 hurricane. Dubbed the “Long Island Expre ss of September 21, 1938”, this name was derived from the unusually high forward speed of the hurricane, estimated to be 70 mph. The hurricane made landfall at Long Isla nd, New York and moved quickly northward over Connecticut into northern New England. The majority of damage was caused from storm surge and wind damage. Surges of 10 to 12 feet were recorded along portions of the Long Island and Connecticut Coast, and heavy winds flattened forests, destroyed n early 5,000 cottages, farms, and homes, and damaged an estimated 15,000 more throughout New York and southern New England. Overall, the storm left an estimated 700 d ead and caused physical damages in excess of 300 million 1938 United States dollars (USD). The “Great Atlantic Hurri cane” hit the Connecticut co ast in September 1944. This Category 3 hurricane brought rainfall in excess of six inches to most of the state and rainfall in excess of eight to ten inches in Fairfield County. Most of the wind damage from this storm occurred in southeastern C onnecticut. Injuries and storm damage were lower in this hurricane than in 1938 because of increased warning time and the fewer structures located in vulnerabl e areas due to the lack of rebuilding after the 1938 storm. Another Category 3 hurricane, Hurricane Caro l, struck in August of 1954 shortly after high tide and produced storm surges of 10 to 15 feet in southeastern Connecticut. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-8 Rainfall amounts of six inches were recorded in New London, and wind gusts peaked at over 100 mph. Near the coast, the combination of strong winds and storm surge damaged or destroyed thousands of buildings, and the winds toppled trees that left most of the eastern part of the state w ithout power. Overall damages were estimated at $461 million (1954 USD), and 60 people died as a direct result of the hurricane. Western Connecticut was largely unaffected by Hurricane Carol due to the compact nature of the storm. The following year, back-to-back hurricanes Connie and Diane caused torrential rains and record-breaking floods in Connecticut. Hurricane Connie was a declining tropical storm when it hit Connecticut in August of 1955, producing hea vy rainfall of four to six inches across the state. The saturated soil conditions exacerba ted the flooding caused by Diane five days later, a Category 1 hurricane and the wett est tropical cyclone on record for the Northeast. Diane produced 14 inch es of rain in a 30-hour period, causing destructive flooding conditions along nearly every major river system in the state. The Mad and Still Rivers in Winsted, the Naugatuck River, the Farmington River, and the Quinebaug River in northeastern Connecticut caused the most damage. The flood waters caused over 100 deaths, left 86,000 unemploye d, and an estimated $200 million in damages (1955 USD). For comparison, the tota l property taxes levied by all Connecticut municipalities in 1954 amounted to $194.1 million. More recently, flooding and winds associated with hurricanes have caused extensive shoreline erosion and related damage. In September of 1985, hurricane Gloria passed over the coastline as a Category 2 hurricane. The hurricane struck at low tide, resulting in low to moderate storm surges along the co ast. The storm produced up to six inches of rain and heavy winds which damaged st ructures and uprooted trees. Over 500,000 people suffered significant power outages. Hurricane Bob, a Category 2 hurricane ma king landfall in 1991, caused storm surge damage along the Connecticut coast, but was more extensively felt in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Heavy winds were felt across eastern Connecticut with gusts up to 100 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-9 mph recorded, and the storm was responsible for six deaths in the state. Total damage in southern New England was approximately $1.5 billion (1991 USD). The most recent tropical cyclone to impact Connecticut was tropical storm Floyd in 1999. Floyd is the storm of record in the Connecticut Natural Ha zard Mitigation Plan and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.3. Tropical Storm Floyd caused power outages throughout New England and at l east one death in Connecticut. 4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing mitigation measures appropriate fo r inland flooding have been discussed in Section 3.0. These include ordinances, codes, and regulations that have been enacted to minimize flood damage. Wind loading requirements are addressed through the state building code. The Connecticut Building Code was amended in 200 5 and adopted with an effective date of December 31, 2005. The new code specifies the design wind speed for construction in all the Connecticut municipalities, with the a ddition of split zones for some towns. For example, for towns along the Merritt Park way such as Fairfield and Trumbull, wind speed criteria are different north and south of the Parkway in relation to the distance from the shoreline. Effective December 31, 2005, the design wind speed for Middlebury is 95 miles per hour. The Town of Middlebury has adopted the Connecticut Building Code as its building code. Tree limbs and trees may fall during heavy wind events, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and vehicles. The Town of Middlebury Department of Public Works performs annual tree maintenance on any tree or tree limb which crosses the vertical imaginary plane of Town property. These tr ees are considered the ownership of the Town and, if there is a threat presented, then the Town will either maintain the threat or remove it altogether. Those residents who r each the DPW by telephone or in person with NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-10 concerns are given priority on a first-call/first-come basis and a “condition rating” is given to each case in an effort to prioritize all situations. The Town is sufficiently suited for debris removal maintaining proper equipment such as different claws and a tub grinder. Once processed, the debris is di sposed of at different specified locations throughout Middlebury. Connecticut Light & Power also perform s tree maintenance, but landowners are responsible for conducting tree maintenance on private property. The Town attempts to close roads at convenient inters ections rather than at the location of the downed tree or branch. Additionally, all utilities in new subdivisions must be placed underground, unless the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that underground installation is inappropriate or unfeasible due to shallow-to-bedrock soils. As explained in Section 2.9, the Town of Middlebury has three designated emergency shelters which are the Shepardson Community Center, the Middlebury Fire House, and the Long Meadow Elementary School. In addition, the Middlebury Police Department has a generator and can serve as an additional shelter during emergencies. However, the Police Department does not have the capacity that each of the three other designated shelters have individually. Other locations such as the Memorial Middle School are viewed as back-up shelters. These back-up shelters have sufficient capacity to accommodate evacuees. As hurricanes gene rally pass an area within a day’s time, additional shelters can be set up following the storm as needed for long-term evacuees. During a disaster, the Town will notify re sidents of emergency information on a neighborhood basis using its CodeRED TM Emergency Notification System. The system has the ability to deliver r ecorded messages to person or an answering machine, making three attempts to connect to any telep hone number when making calls. Due to the infancy of the system in the Town, education on the benefits and operation of the system residents’ perspectives is needed. It is recommended that public resources such as the Town’s website should be utilized at any point possible in order to educate the public. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-11 Prior to a hurricane, the Town ensures that warning/notification systems and communication equipment is working properly and prepares for the possible evacuation of susceptible areas. 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment It is generally believed that New England is long overdue for another major hurricane strike. Recall that according to the 2007 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, a moderate Category 2 storm is expected to strike the state once per decade. The Town of Middlebury is less vulnerable to hurricane damage than coastal towns in Connecticut because it does not need to deal with the effects of storm surge. The Town of Middlebury is vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding, and from any tornadoes accompanying the storm. Areas of known and potential flooding problems are discussed in Section 3.0, and tornadoes will be discussed in Section 5.0. Hurricane-force winds can easily destroy poorly constructed buildings and mobile homes. Debris such as signs, roofi ng material, and small items left outside become flying missiles in hurricanes. Extensive damage to trees, towers, aboveground and underground utility lines (from uprooted trees), and falle n poles cause considerable disruption for residents. Streets may be flooded or bl ocked by fallen branches, poles, or trees, preventing egress. Downed power lines can also start electrical fires, so adequate fire protection is important. As the residents and businesses of the State of Connecticut become more dependent on the internet and mobile communications, the impact of hurricanes on commerce will continue to increase. A major hurricane has the potential of causing complete disruption of power and communications for up to seve ral weeks, rendering electronic devices and those that rely on utility towers and lines inoperative. According to the Connecticut DEP, this is a significant risk whic h cannot be quantitatively estimated. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-12 As the Town of Middlebury is not affected by storm surge, hurricane sheltering needs have not been calculated by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Town. The Town of Middlebury determines sheltering need base d upon areas damaged within the Town. Under limited emergency conditions, a high percen tage of evacuees will seek shelter with friends or relatives rather than go to es tablished shelters. During extended power outages, it is believed that only 10% to 20% of the affected population of Middlebury will relocate. 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Many potential mitigation measures for hurrican es include those appropriate for flooding. These were presented in Section 3.6. However, hurricane mitigation measures must also address the effects of heavy winds that are inherently caused by hurricanes. Mitigation for wind damage is therefore emphasi zed in the subsections below. 4.6.1 Prevention Although hurricanes and tropical storms cannot be prevented, a number of methods are available to continue preventing damage from the storms, and perhaps to mitigate damage. The following actions have been id entified as potential preventive measures: ‰ Continue Town-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines is dimi nished. This is especially important along primary evacuation routes which incl ude Interstate 84, Route 64, Route 63, and Route 188. Secondary priority includes Watertown Road and Old Watertown Road (routes to Watertown), Christian Road (rout e to Oxford), and Long Meadow Road to South Street (route to Naugatu ck) for tree limb maintenance. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-13 ‰ Continue to perform maintenance/remova l on all trees which cross the imaginary vertical line extending above the prop erty line of Town-owned property. ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspecti ons frequency prior to hurricane/tropical storm season. ‰ Continue location of utiliti es underground in new developments or as related to redevelopment. 4.6.2 Property Protection Potential mitigation measures include designs for hazard-resistant construction and retrofitting techniques. These may take th e form of increased wind and flood resistance for structures, as well as the use of storm s hutters over exposed glass and the inclusion of hurricane straps to hold roofs to buildings. Compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds is necessary. Literature should be made available by the Building Department to developers during the permitting process regarding these design standards. 4.6.3 Public Education and Awareness The public should be made aware of evacuati on routes and available shelters. A number of specific proposals for improved public education are recommended to prevent damage and loss of life during hurricanes. These are common to all hazards in this plan, and are listed in Section 10.1. 4.6.4 Emergency Services The Emergency Operation Plan of the To wn of Middlebury includes guidelines and specifications for communication of hurricane wa rnings and watches, as well as for a call for evacuation. The public needs to be made aware in advance of a hurricane event of NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-14 evacuation routes and the locations of public shelters. In addition, the Town of Middlebury should prepare those back-up shel ters for evacuation and sheltering needs which centers around outfitting these facilities with generators. The Town should continue to review the Emergency Operations Plan for the Town and update when necessary, and review its mutual aid agreements and update as necessary to ensure help is available as needed. Finally, due to its recent implementation, th e Town should focus on educating residents about the CodeRED TM Emergency Notification System through resources readily available to residents, such as the Town website and information posted in Shepardson Community Center. 4.6.5 Structural Projects Structural projects for wind damage mitigation are not possible. 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Recommendations for mitigation of hurricane and tropical storm winds include the following: ‰ Continue inspections of trees on all Town property near power lines, Town right-of- ways, and private properties. ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspecti ons frequency prior to hurricane/tropical storm season. This is especially importa nt along primary evacuation routes which include Interstate 84, Route 64, Route 63, and Route 188. ‰ Secondary priority for tree limb mainte nance includes Watertown Road and Old Watertown Road (routes to Watertown), Ch ristian Road (route to Oxford), and Long Meadow Road to South Street (route to Naugatuck). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-15 ‰ Continue to require that utilities be pl aced underground in new developments in all possible cases and pursue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas where they are not. ‰ Review all evacuation plans to ensure timel y migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Town. ‰ Seek to outfit back-up shelters with generators in an effort to make them available for when a large-scale evacuation is needed. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-1 5.0 SUMMER STORMS & TORNADOES 5.1 Setting Like hurricanes and winter st orms, summer storms and tornad oes have the potential to affect any area within the To wn of Middlebury. Furthermore, because these types of storms and the hazards that result (flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) might have limited geographic extent, it is possible for a su mmer storm to harm one area within the Town without harming another. The entire Town of Middlebury is therefore susceptible to summer storms (including heavy rain, flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) and tornadoes. Based on the historic record, it is consider ed highly likely that a summer storm that includes lightning will impact the Town of Middlebury each year, although lightning strikes have a limited effect. Strong winds and hail are consid ered likely to occur during such storms but also generall y have limited effects. A tornado is considered a possible event in New Haven County each year that could cause significant damage to a small area (refer to Appended Table 2). 5.2 Hazard Assessment Heavy wind (including tornadoes and downbursts) , lightning, heavy rain, hail, and flash floods are the primary hazards associated with summer storms. Flooding caused by heavy rainfall was covered in S ection 3.0 of this plan and will not be discussed in detail here. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-2 Tornadoes Tornadoes are spawned by certain thundersto rms. NOAA defines a tornado as “a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunders torm to the ground.” The Fujita scale was accepted as the official clas sification system for tornado damage for many years following its publication in 1971. Th e Fujita scale rated the intensity of a tornado by examining the damage caused by the tornado after it has passed over a man- made structure. The scale ranked tornadoes using the now-familiar notation of F0 through F6, increasing with wind speed and in tensity. The following graphic of the Fujita scale is provided by FEMA. A description of the scale follows in Table 5-1. Fujita Tornado Scale Table 5-1 Fujita Scale F-Scale Number Intensity Wind Speed Type of Damage Done F0 Gale tornado 40-72 mph Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees; damages sign boards. F1 Moderate tornado 73-112 mph The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. F2 Significant tornado 113-157 mph Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-3 Table 5-1 (Continued) Fujita Scale F-Scale Number Intensity Wind Speed Type of Damage Done F3 Severe tornado 158-206 mph Roof and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted F4 Devastating tornado 207-260 mph Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated F5 Incredible tornado 261-318 mph Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel re-enforced concrete structures badly damaged. F6 Inconceivable tornado 319-379 mph These winds are very unlikely. The small area of damage they might produce would probably not be recognizable along with the mess produced by F4 and F5 winds that would surround the F6 winds. Missiles, such as cars and refrigerators, would do serious secondary damage that could not be directly identified as F6 damage. If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might only be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it may never be identifiable through engineering studies. According to NOAA, weak tornadoes (F0 a nd F1) account for approximately 69% of all tornadoes. Strong tornadoes (F2 and F3) account for approximately 29% of all tornadoes. Violent tornadoe s (F4 and above) are rare but extremely destructive, and account for only 2% of all tornadoes. The Enhanced Fujita Scale was released by NOAA for implementation on February 1, 2007. According to the NOAA web site, the En hanced Fujita Scale was developed in response to a number of weaknesse s to the Fujita Scale that were apparent over the years, including the subjectivity of the original scale based on damage, the use of the worst damage to classify the tornado, the fact th at structures have different construction depending on location within the United Stat es, and an overestimation of wind speeds for F3 and greater. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-4 The Enhanced Fujita scale is still a set of wind estimates based on damage. Its uses three- second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of eight levels of damage to 28 specific indicators. Table 5-2 relates the Fujita and enhanced Fujita scales. Table 5-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale Fujita Scale Derived EF Scale Operational EF Scale F Number Fastest 1/4- mile (mph) 3 Second Gust (mph) EF Number3 Second Gust (mph) EF Number 3 Second Gust (mph) 0 40-72 45-78 0 65-85 0 65-85 1 73-112 79-117 1 86-109 1 86-110 2 113-157 118-161 2 110-137 2 111-135 3 158-207 162-209 3 138-167 3 136-165 4 208-260 210-261 4 168-199 4 166-200 5 261-318 262-317 5 200-234 5 Over 200 The historic record of tornadoe s is discussed in Section 5.3. The pattern of occurrence in Connecticut is expected to remain uncha nged according to the Connecticut Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2007). The highest relative risk fo r tornadoes in the state are Litchfield and Hartford Counties, followe d by New Haven, Fairfield, Tolland, Middlesex, Windham, and finally New London County. By virtues of its location in New Haven County, the Town of Middlebury is therefore at a relatively higher risk of tornadoes compared to the rest of the state. Lightning Lightning is a circuit of electricity that o ccurs between the positive and negative charges within the atmosphere or between the atmosphe re and the ground. In the initial stages of development, air acts as an insulator be tween the positive and negative charges. However, when the potential between the positive and negative charges becomes too great, a discharge of electr icity (lightning) occurs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-5 In-cloud lightning occurs between the positive charges near the top of the cloud and the negative charges near the bottom. Cloud to cloud lightning occurs between the positive charges near the top of the cloud and the negative charges near the bottom of a second cloud. Cloud to ground lightning is the most dangerous. In summertime, most cloud to ground lightning occurs between the negative charges near the bottom of the cloud and positive charges on the ground. According to NOAA’s National Weather Service, lightning reportedly kills an average of 80 people per year in the United States, in a ddition to an average of 300 lightning injuries per year. Most lightning deaths and in juries occur outdoors with 45% of lightning casualties occurring in open fields and ballparks, 23% unde r trees, and 14% involving water activities. Only 15 li ghtning-related fatalities occu rred in Connecticut between 1959 and 2005, and only one occurred between 1998 and 2007. Most recent ly, on June 8, 2008, lightning struck a pavilion at Hammona ssett Beach in Madison, Connecticut, injuring five and killing one. Thunderstorms occur 18 to 35 days each year in Connecticut. According to a report by meteorologist Joe Furey on Fox 61 News, 2008 was an abnormal year for thunderstorms, with 20 days of thunderstorm activity occurr ing by the end of July. In general, thunderstorms in Connecticut are more frequent in the western and northern parts of the state, and less frequent in the southern a nd eastern parts. Although lightning is usually associated with thunderstorms, it can o ccur on almost any day. The likelihood of lightning strikes in the Middl ebury area is very high during any given thunderstorm, although no single area of the Town is at higher risk of lightning strikes. Downbursts A downburst is a severe localized wind blas ting down from a thunderstorm. They are more common than tornadoes in Connecticut. These “straight line” winds are distinguishable from tornad ic activity by the pattern of destruction and debris. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-6 Depending on the size and location of these events, the destruction to property may be significant. It is difficult to find statistic al data regarding frequency of downburst activity. However, downburst activity is, on occasion, mistaken for tornado activity in Connecticut, indicating that it is a rela tively uncommon yet persistent hazard. The risk to the Town of Middlebury is believed to be low to moderate for any given year. Hail Hailstones are chunks of ice that grow as updrafts in thunderstorms keep them in the atmosphere. Most hailstones are smaller in diameter than a dime, but stones weighing more than a pound have been recorded. While crops are the major victims of hail, it is also a hazard to vehicles and property. Hailstorms typically occur in at least one pa rt of Connecticut each year during a severe thunderstorm. As with thunderstorms, hailstorm s are more frequent in the northwest and western portions of the state, and less frequent in the southern and eastern portions. Overall, the risk of at least one hailsto rm occurring in the Town of Middlebury is moderate in any given year. 5.3 Historic Record The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) lists 13 tornado events in New Haven County since 1950. This includes one F4 rated tornado, two F3 rated tornadoes, three F2 rated tornadoes, three F1 ra ted tornadoes, two F0 rated tornadoes, and two undefined Downbursts may be categorized as microbursts (affecting an area less than 2.5 miles in diameter) or macrobursts (affecting an area at least 2.5 miles in diameter). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-7 tornadoes. Property damages from tornados in the County totaled approximately 280 million dollars. Table 5-3 lists the tornado events for New Haven County. Table 5-3 Tornado Events in New Haven County Since 1950 Date Fujita Tornado Scale Property Damage Wind Speed October 24, 1955 F2 $3,000 113 – 157 mph August 29, 1959 F- $0 Unknown May 24, 1962 F3 $2,500,000 158 – 206 mph July 29, 1971 F3 $250,000 158 – 206 mph September 18, 1973 F2 $0 113 – 157 mph July 28, 1982 F1 $3,000 73 – 112 mph July 10, 1989 F2 $25,000,000 113 – 157 mph July 10, 1989 F4 $250,000,000 207 – 260 mph May 29, 1995 F- $10,000 Unknown May 29, 1995 F1 $50,000 73 – 112 mph July 23, 1995 F0 $0 40 – 72 mph July 3, 1996 F1 $2,000,000 73 – 112 mph May 31, 2002 F0 $0 40 – 72 mph A limited selection of summer storm damage in and around the Town of Middlebury, taken from the NCDC Storm Events database, is listed below: ‰ October 21, 1995 – A squall line generated thunderstorms that downed several trees and power lines throughout New Haven Count y. Vehicles were also damaged by the falling trees. ‰ July 15, 1997 – Severe thunderstorms produ ced high winds, hail, and heavy rain throughout New Haven County. High winds downed trees and power lines in the neighboring Town of Sout hbury, and lightning struck one house in that Town. ‰ May 29, 1998 – Severe thunderstorms produced high winds that downed trees onto power lines between Middlebury and Wolcott. ‰ June 30, 1998 – During the afternoon and ev ening, severe thunderstorms produced high winds including three weak tornadoes, large hail, and frequent lightning across the state. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-8 ‰ July 24, 1999 – A severe thunderstorm moved east across Northern New Haven County, producing high winds which result ed in downed trees and power lines throughout the area. ‰ September 16, 1999 – In addition to the fl ooding damages described in Section 3.3, the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd al so produced wind gusts up to 60 miles per hour in New Haven County. The high winds caused widespread downing of trees and power lines. Significant power outages were reported. ‰ June 27, 2000 – Severe thunderstorms brought about high winds which downed tree limbs in the adjacent Town of Southbury. ‰ June 26, 2002 – As a severe thunderstor m moved northeast and the Town of Middlebury Police reported dime-sized hail. ‰ August 21, 2004 – Trees were downed in many of Middlebury’s surrounding towns as a result of thunderstorms accompanied by 50 mph wind gusts. ‰ July 28, 2006 – Severe thunderstorms produced high winds up to 50 mph that downed many trees and power lines across the state. ‰ August 3, 2006 – A cluster of severe thunderstorms moved east ac ross the area. High winds downed trees and power lines. ‰ June 5, 2007 – Hail accumulation of up to one inch deep was reported and car windshields were damaged throughout the ar ea. Hail up to 1.75 inches in diameter and damaging winds accompanied the severe thunderstorms. The Connecticut DOT plowed the roadways to clear hail accumulation. ‰ July 19, 2007 – Trees and power lines were downed in the neighboring Town of Southbury. Severe weather, including fl ooding rains, occurred throughout the area. ‰ July 19, 2008 – Many trees were downed throughout the neighboring Town of Southbury as a result of numerous thunders torms which developed across the area. 5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Warning is the primary method of existing mitigation for tornadoes and thunderstorm- related hazards. Tables 5-4 and 5-5 lis t the National Oceanic and Atmospheric NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-9 Administration (NOAA) Watches and Warnings, respectively, as pertaining to actions to be taken by emergency management personnel in connection with summer storms and tornadoes. Table 5-4 NOAA Weather Watches Weather Condition Meaning Actions Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms are possible in your area. Notify personnel, and watch for severe weather. Tornado Tornadoes are possible in your area. Notify personnel, and be prepared to move quickly if a warning is issued. Flash Flood It is possible that rains will cause flash flooding in your area. Notify personnel to watch for street or river flooding. Table 5-5 NOAA Weather Warnings Weather Condition Meaning Actions Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms are occurring or are imminent in your area. Notify personnel and watch for severe conditions or damage (i.e. downed power lines and trees. Take appropriate actions listed in town emergency plans. Tornado Tornadoes are occurring or are imminent in your area. Notify personnel, watch for severe weather and ensure personnel are protected. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans. Flash Flood Flash flooding is occurring or imminent in your area. Watch local rivers and streams. Be prepared to evacuate low- lying areas. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans. Aside from warnings, several other methods of mitigation for wind damage are employed in the Town of Middlebury. Continued loca tion of utilities underground is an important method of reducing wind damage to utilitie s and the resulting loss of services. The Connecticut Building Codes incl ude guidelines for Wind Load Cr iteria that are specific to NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-10 each municipality, as explained in Section 4.0. In addition, specific mitigation measures address debris removal and tree trimming. In the Town of Middlebury, the Town is responsible for tree branch removal and maintenance of any tree which crosses through the imaginary plane extending vertically from the Town’s property line. Homeowners and local utilities are responsible for tree branch removal and main tenance on private properties. In addition, all new developments in the Town must pl ace utilities underground wherever possible. Municipal responsibilities relative to torn ado mitigation and preparedness include: ‰ Developing and disseminating emergency public information and instructions concerning tornado safety. ‰ Providing sources of guidance regardi ng in-home protection and evacuation procedures, and locations of public shelters. ‰ Designate appropriate shelter space in the community that could potentially withstand tornado impact. ‰ Periodically test and exercise tornado response plans. ‰ Put emergency personnel on standby at tornado ‘watch’ stage. 5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The central and southern portions of the Unite d States are at higher risk for lightning and thunderstorms than is the northeast. Howeve r, more deaths from lightning occur on the East Coast than elsewhere, according to FE MA. Lightning-related fatalities have declined in recent years due to in creased education and awareness. A severe thunderstorm watch is issued by the National Weather Service when the weather conditions are such that a severe thunderstorm (damaging winds 58 miles per hour or more, or hail three-fourths of an inch in diameter or greater) is likely to develop. A severe thunderstorm warning is issued when a severe thunderstorm has been sighted or indicated by weather radar. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-11 Most thunderstorm damage is caused by straight-line winds exceeding 100 mph. Straight-line winds occur as the first gust of a thunderstorm or from the downburst from a thunderstorm, and have no associated rotation. The Town of Middlebury is particularly susceptible to damage from high winds due to its high elevation and heavily treed landscape. Heavy winds can take down trees near power lines, leading to the start and spread of fires. Such fires can be extremely danger ous during the summer months during dry and drought conditions. Most downed powerlines in Middlebury are detected quickly and any associated fires are quickly extinguished. However, it is important to have adequate water supply for the possibility of a spreading fire to ensure this level of safety is maintained. 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Both the FEMA and the NOAA websites contain valuable information regarding preparing for and protecting oneself during a tornado, as well as information on a numb er of other natural hazards. Available information from FEMA includes: ‰ Design and construction guidan ce for community shelters. ‰ Recommendations to better protect from tornado damage for your business, community, and home. This includes constr uction and design guidelines for business and homes, as well as guidelines for creating and identifying shelters. ‰ Ways to better protect property from wind damage. ‰ Ways to protect property from flooding damage. ‰ Construction of safe rooms within homes. More information is available at: FEMA – http://www.fema.gov/library/ NOAA – htt p://www.nssl.noaa. gov/NWSTornado / NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-12 NOAA information includes a discussion of family preparedness procedures and the best physical locations during a storm event. Although tornadoes pose a legitimate threat to public safety, their occurrence is considered t oo infrequent to justify the construction of tornado shelters. Residents should be en couraged to purchase a NOAA weather radio containing an alarm feature. Middlebury’s implementation of the CodeRED TM Emergency Notification System is beneficial in warning reside nts of an impending tornado. A community warning system that relies on radios and te levision would be less effective at warning residents during the night when the majority of the community is asleep. This fact was evidenced most recently by the severe storm which struck Lake County, Florida on February 2, 2007. This powerful storm that included several to rnadoes stuck at about 3:15 AM. According to National Public Radio, local broadcast stations had difficultly warning residents due to the lack of listeners and view ers and encouraged those awak e to telephone warnings into the affected area. Specific mitigation steps that can be taken to prevent property damage and protect property are given below. Prevention ‰ Continue or increase tree limb inspection programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines is minimized. ‰ Continue to place utilities underground. ‰ Continue to encourage utilities and private homeowners to conduct tree limb inspection and maintenance. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-13 Property Protection ‰ Require compliance with the amended Conn ecticut Building Code for wind speeds. ‰ Provide for the Building Department to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards. 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives The following actions are recommended to mitigate for winds, hail, tornadoes, and downbursts: ‰ Continue tree limb maintenance and inspections. ‰ Continue outreach regarding dangerous trees on private property. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas where they are not. ‰ Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds. ‰ Provide for the Building Department or the Planning or Zoning Commissions to make literature available during the permitti ng process regarding appropriate design standards. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-1 6.0 WINTER STORMS 6.1 Setting Similar to summer storms and tornadoes, winter storms have the potential to affect any area of the Town of Middlebury. However, un like summer storms, winter events and the hazards that result (wind, snow, and ice) ha ve more widespread geographic extent. The entire Town of Middlebury is susceptible to wi nter storms. In general, winter storms are considered highly likely to occur each year (major storms are less frequent), and the hazards that result (nor’easter winds, snow, and blizzard conditions) can potentially have a significant effect over a la rge area of the Town (refer to Appended Tables 1 and 2). 6.2 Hazard Assessment This section focuses on those effects commonly associated with winter storms, including those from blizzards, ice storms, heavy snow, freezing rain and extreme cold. Most deaths from winter storms are indirectly related to the storm, such as from traffic accidents on icy road s and hypothermia from prolonged exposure to cold. Damage to trees and tree limbs and the resultant downing of utility cables are a common effect of these types of events. Secondary effects include loss of power and heat. The classic winter storm in New England is the nor’easter, which is caused by a warm moist, low pressure system moving up from the south colliding with a cold, dry high pressure system moving down from the north. The nor’easter derives its name from the northeast winds typically accompanying such st orms, and such storms tend to produce a According to the National Weather Service, approximately 70% of winter deaths related to snow and ice occur in automobiles, and approximately 25% of deaths occur from people being caught in the cold. In relation to deaths from exposure to cold, 50% are people over 60 years old, 75% are male, and 20% occur NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-2 large amount of precipitation. Severe winter storms can produce an array of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, blizzards, freezing rain and ice pellets, and extreme cold. The National Weather Service defines a blizzard as having winds over 35 mph with snow and blowing snow that reduces visibility to less than one-quarter mile for at least three hours. Connecticut experiences at least one severe winter storm every five years, although a variety of small and medium snow and ice storms occur nearly every winter. The likelihood of a nor’easter occurring in any give n winter is therefore considered high, and the likelihood of other winter storms occurring in any given winter is very high. The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS ) was developed by Paul Kocin and Louis Uccellini ( Kocin and Uccellini, 2004) and is us ed by NOAA to characterize and rank high-impact Northeast snowstorms. These storms have wide areas of snowfall with accumulations of ten inches and above. NESIS has five categories: Extreme, Crippling, Major, Significant, and Notable. The index di ffers from other meteorological indices in that it uses population inform ation in addition to meteorological measurements, thus giving an indication of a stor m’s societal impacts. NESIS values are calculated within a geograp hical information system (GIS). The aerial distribution of snowfall and population inform ation are combined in an equation that calculates a NESIS score, which varies from around one for smaller storms to over ten for extreme storms. The raw score is then convert ed into one of the five NESIS categories. The largest NESIS values result from stor ms producing heavy snowfall over large areas that include major metropolitan centers. Tabl e 6-1 presents the NESIS categories, their corresponding NESIS values, a nd a descriptive adjective. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-3 Table 6-1 NESIS Categories Category NESIS Value Description 1 1—2.499 Notable 2 2.5—3.99 Significant 3 4—5.99 Major 4 6—9.99 Crippling 5 10.0+ Extreme 6.3 Historic Record Seven major winter nor’easters have occurred in Connecticut during the past 30 years (in 1979, 1983, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2003, and 2006). The 1992 nor’easter, in particular, caused the third-highest tides ever reco rded in Long Island Sound and damaged 6,000 coastal homes. Inland areas received up to f our feet of snow. Winter Storm Ginger in 1996 caused up to 27 inches of snow 24 hours an d shut down the State of Connecticut for an entire day. The nor’easter which occurr ed on February 12 and 13, 2006 resulted in 18 to 24 inches of snow across Connecticut and was rated on NESIS as a Category 3 “Major” storm across the north east. This storm ranked 20 th out of 33 major winter storms ranked by NESIS for the northeastern United States since 1956, and produced 21 inches of snow in Seymour and 23 inches of snow in Waterbury. The most damaging winter storms are not always nor’easters. According to the NCDC, there have been 135 snow and ice events in the State of Connecticut between 1993 and March 2008, causing over $18 million in damages. Notably, heavy snow in December 1996 caused $6 million in property damage. Snow removal and power restoration for a winter storm event spanning March 31 and April 1, 1997 cost $1 million. On March 5, 2001, heavy snow caused $5 million in damages, followed by another heavy snow event four days later that caused an additional $2 million in damages. The last documented NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-4 winter storm event that qualified as a blizzard was Winter Storm Ginger in January of 1996. These events were recorded for various counties throughout the state. Catastrophic ice storms are less frequent in Connecticut than the rest of New England due to the close proximity of the warmer wate rs of the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound. The most severe ice storm in Conn ecticut on record was Ice Storm Felix on December 18, 1973. This storm resulted in two deaths and widespread power outages throughout the state. An ice storm in November of 2002 that hit Litchfield and western Hartford Counties resulted in $2.5 million dollars in public sector damages. Additional examples of recent winter storms to affect New Haven County, taken from the NCDC database, include: ‰ March 13 to 14, 1993 – A powerful storm caused blizzard conditions and up to 21 inches of snow in Litchf ield County, with less snowfall occurring in New Haven County. 40,000 power outages and $550,000 in property damage was report ed throughout Connecticut. ‰ December 23, 1994 – An unusual snow-less late December storm caused gale force winds across the state. The high winds caused widespread power outages affecting up to 130,000 customers statewide. Numer ous trees and limbs were blown down, damaging property, vehicles, and power lines to a total of five million dollars in damages. Peak wind gusts of up to 64 miles per hour were reported. ‰ January 12, 1995 – Light snow and sleet ch anged to light freezing rain, coating highways with ice. Up to 200 accidents occurred on state highways. ‰ April 9, 1996 – A late winter storm produced heavy wet snow across most of southern Connecticut. The weight of the snow cause d numerous trees and powerlines to fall. Snowfall amounts ranged from three to 14 inches across New Haven County. ‰ April 1, 1997 – A low pressure system produced morning rain and afternoon wet snow during the afternoon. Strong gusty wi nds up to 40 mph combined with the wet snow to cause powerlines and trees to fall. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-5 ‰ December 29, 1997 – A low pressure system produced sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph with gusts up to 59 knots, with damage to trees and power lines reported in the Town of Ansonia and the Borough of Naugatuck. ‰ January 15, 1998 – An ice storm caused wide spread and numerous traffic accidents across northern New Haven County, with at least one-half inch of ice accumulating on trees and powerlines. Several roads were closed due to severe icing. ‰ March 15, 1999 – Light rain changed to we t snow that became heavy overnight, downing numerous tree limbs and powerlines across the region. Snowfall amounts in New Haven County ranged from eight to 11 inches. ‰ January 25, 2000 – A winter storm produced up to two inches of snow per hour in northern New Haven County, whic h changed into sleet and freezing rain as the storm progressed. Snowfall was measured at 6.3 in ches in the Town of Beacon Falls and seven inches in the City of Waterbury, and the snow was accompanied by wind gusts up to 45 mph. ‰ December 12, 2000 – High winds produced peak wind gusts of up to 58 mph in northern New Haven County, downing many tr ees onto houses, cars, powerlines, and streets and causing signifi cant property damage and power outages in the Borough of Naugatuck and the City of Waterbury. ‰ December 30, 2000 – Heavy snow at rates of one to two inches per hour mixed with high winds to produce near blizzard conditi ons. 12 inches of snow was reported at the Borough of Naugatuck. ‰ February 5, 2001 – A winter storm produced bands of heavy wet snow across New Haven County, with amounts ranging from ten to 20 inches reported. The heavy snow caused numerous fallen tree limbs that snapped powerlines, power outages, and caused many traffic accidents. ‰ November 27, 2002 – Bands of heavy snow passed over northern New Haven County, producing seven inches of snow in th e Town of Beacon Falls and nine inches in the City of Waterbury. ‰ December 5, 2003 – A winter storm produced occasionally heavy snow with accumulations of up to 13 inches in the Town of Oxford. Wind gusts of at least 35 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-6 mph combined with the snow to create “white-out” conditions that caused major widespread impacts to mass transit across the entire region. ‰ January 28, 2004 – A winter storm produced si x inches of snow in the Borough of Naugatuck and eight inches of s now in the City of Waterbury. ‰ February 25, 2005 – A winter storm produced snow amounts of five to 10 inches across the state. Approximately six inches were reported as snow accumulation in the area of Middlebury. ‰ March 8, 2005 – A strong arctic cold front intensified as it swept across Connecticut, causing rain to change to snow and temperat ures to fall from the 40s to the 20s, and produced northwest winds up to 55 mph. Near blizzard conditions occurred for a short time, with snowfall amounts ranging from three to six inches. The sudden drop in temperature resulted in a “flash-freeze” across roads that resulted in hundreds of vehicle accidents. ‰ March 12, 2005 – A band of heavy snow orie nted from south to north across New Haven County produced snowfall rates in ex cess of two inches per hour. Snowfall amounts ranged from five to nine inches and to taled at least six inches in the Town of Middlebury. ‰ March 24, 2005 – A late winter storm produced six inches of snow in the Town of Beacon Falls. ‰ December 9, 2005 – A winter storm produced six to 12 inches of snow across Connecticut. Ten inches were repor ted in Towns surrounding Middlebury. ‰ January 9, 2008 – Gusty winter winds cause d a partial collapse of a building under construction in the Town of Oxford. 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing programs applicable to flooding and wind are the same as those discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. Programs that are specif ic to winter storms are generally those related to preparing plows, sand and salt truc ks; tree-trimming to protect power lines; and other associated snow remova l and response preparations. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-7 It is almost a guarantee that winter storms will occur annually in Connecticut. In response, it is important for municipalities to budget fiscal resources towards snow management. The Town ensures that a ll warning/notification and communications systems are ready before a storm, and ensure s that appropriate equipment and supplies, especially snow removal equipment, are in place and in good working order. The Town also prepares for the possible evacuation and sheltering of some populations which could be impacted by the upcoming storm (especially the elderly and special needs persons). The Town of Middlebury Department of P ublic Works runs plowing operations. The Connecticut Department of Transportation plows Interstate 84, Route 64, Route 188, and Route 63. The DPW staff utilizes the fleet of ei ght trucks which run eight separate routes throughout Town. The staff continues to pl ow until their route is finished. Upon completion, they return to the DPW building and assess further work. Hills and intersections throughout Middlebur y are given more attention than other sections of the roadways. Additionally, the north west section of Town, which is higher in elevation and has a substantial relief garners more attention compared to the lesser relief and lower elevation found in the south eastern section of Town. The Town should continue to discourage the creation of perman ent dead-end streets whenever a feasible connection to a through st reet can be created. This policy presents residents and emergency personnel with two means of egress into neighborhoods. In turn, this ensures that residents will not be cu t off from critical facilities during times of need. 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment As mentioned for summer storms, the heav ily treed landscape in close proximity to densely populated residential ar eas in the Town of Middlebury poses problems in relation to blizzard condition damage. Tree limbs and so me building structures may not be suited NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-8 to withstand high wind and snow loads. Ice can damage or collapse power lines, render steep gradients impassable for motorists, undermine foundations, and cause “flood” damage from ice freezing water pipes in basements. In addition, winter storms present additional problems for motorists all over the state. As the population of Connecticut and its dependenc e on transportation continues to increase, the vulnerability of the state to winter storms also increases. There is a high propensity for traffic accidents during heavy snow and ev en light icing events. Roads may become impassable, inhibiting the ability of emerge ncy equipment to reach trouble spots and the accessibility to medical and shelter facilities. Stranded motorists, especially senior and/or handicapped citizens, are at par ticularly high risk of injury or death during a blizzard. After a storm, snow piled on the sides of roadways can inhibit line of sight and reflect a blinding amount of sunlight, making driving difficult. When coupled with slippery road conditions, poor sightlines and heavy glar e create dangerous driving conditions. A few areas in the Town of Middlebury have been identified by Town personnel as having problems with ice duri ng the winter months. Icing causes difficult driving conditions throughout the hillier sections of Town, those roadways in the northwest portion of Town, including White Deer Rock Road, Old Watertown Road, Charcoal Avenue, Breakneck Hill Road, Tranquility Ro ad, and others. These roadways are not easily traveled upon when ice accumulates. Drifting snow is not as large a problem in Middlebury as other communities, but it still occurs. Problem areas include Route 188 n ear the police station, and Route 64 near Christian Road and Abbott Farm Road. Drifting snow is mitigated through plowing efforts by the Middlebury Department of Public Works. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-9 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Potential mitigation measures for flooding caused by nor’easters include those presented in Section 3.6. Winter storm mitigation measures must also address blizzard, snow, and ice hazards. These are emphasized below. No te that structural projects are generally not applicable to hazard mitigation for wind, blizzard, snow, and ice hazards. 6.6.1 Prevention Cold air, wind, snow, and ice cannot be preven ted from impacting any particular area. Thus, mitigation should be focused on prope rty protection and emergency services (discussed below) and prevention of dama ge caused by breakage of tree limbs. Previous recommendations for tree limb inspections and maintenance in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 are thus applicable to wi nter storm hazards, as well. As mentioned previously, utilities in Middlebury should continue to be placed underground where possible. This can occur in connection with new deve lopment and also in connection with redevelopment work. Underg round utilities cannot be damaged by heavy snow, ice, and winter winds. 6.6.2 Property Protection Property can be protected duri ng winter storms through the use of shutters, storm doors, and storm windows. Where flat roofs are used on structures, snow removal is important as the heavy load from collecting snow may exceed the bearing capacity of the structure. Heating coils may be used to remove snow from flat roofs, and pipes should be adequately insulated to protect agai nst freezing and bursting. All of these recommendations should apply to new construc tion, although they may also be applied to NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-10 existing buildings during renovations. Finally, as recommended in previous sections, compliance with the amended Connecticut Bu ilding Code for wind speeds is necessary. 6.6.3 Public Education and Awareness The public is typically more aware of the hazardous effects of snow, ice, and cold weather than they are with rega rd to other hazards discussed in this plan. Nevertheless, people are still stranded in automobiles, get caught outside their homes in adverse weather conditions, and suffer heart failure while shoveling during each winter in Connecticut. Public education should therefore focus on safety tips and reminders to individuals about how to prepare for cold and icy weather, including stocking homes, preparing vehicles, and taking care of themselves during winter storms. 6.6.4 Emergency Services Emergency services personnel and departments such as Police and Fire should identify areas which may be difficult to access during winter storm events and devise contingency plans to continue servicing those areas during moderate st orms. The creation of through streets with new developments increases the amount of egress for residents and emergency personnel into neighborhoods. Available shelters shou ld also be advertised and their locations known to the public prior to a storm event. Finally, mutual aid agr eements with surrounding municipalities should be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure help will be available when needed. 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Most of the recommendations in Sections 3.6 and 4.6 for mitigating flooding are suitable for mitigation of flooding caused by winter storms. These are not repeated in this NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-11 subsection. The following recommendations are applicable to other aspects of winter storms such as winds, snow, and ice: ‰ Continue tree limb maintenance and inspections. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments. ‰ Pursue funding to place them underg round in existing developed areas. ‰ Review and post evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of the Town of Middlebury. ‰ Post a list of Town sheltering facilities and snow plowing prioritization in the Town Hall and on the Town’s website so resident s can best plan how to access critical facilities during a winter storm event. ‰ Continue to encourage two modes of eg ress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-1 7.0 EARTHQUAKES 7.1 Setting The entire Town of Middlebury is suscepti ble to earthquakes. However, even though earthquakes have the potential to occur anywhere both in the Town and in the northeastern United States, the effects may be felt differently in some areas based on the type of geology. In general, ear thquakes are considered a hazard that is possible to occur, but that may cause significant effects to a large area of the Town (refer to Appended Table 1). 7.2 Hazard Assessment An earthquake is a sudden rapid shaking of the earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the earth’s surface. Earthquakes can cause buildings and bridges to collapse, disrupt gas, electric and phone lines, and often cause landslides, flash floods, fires, avalanches, and tsunamis. Earthquakes can occur at any time without warning. The underground point of origin of an earthqu ake is called its focus; the point on the surface directly above the focus is the epicenter. The magnitude and intensity of an earthquake is determined by the use of th e Richter scale and the Mercalli scale, respectively. The Richter scale defines the magnitude of an earthquake. Magnitude is related to the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of the earthquake. It is based on t he amplitude of earthquake waves recorded on instruments which have a common calibration. The magnitude of an earthqua ke is thus represented by a single, instrumentally determined va lue recorded by a seismograph, which record the varying amplitude of ground oscillations. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-2 The magnitude of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of recorded waves. Being logarithmic, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured strength. Earthquakes with a magnitude of about 2.0 or less are usually called micro- earthquakes, and are generally only recorded locally. Earthquakes with magnitudes of 4.5 or greater are strong enough to be recorded by seismographs all over the world. The effect of an earthquake on the Earth’s surface is called the intensity. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale consists of a series of key responses such as people awakening, movement of furniture, damage to chimneys, and total destruction. This scale, composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals. It is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects. Unlike seismic activity in California, earthquak es in Connecticut are not associated with specific known faults. Instead, earthquakes with epicenters in Connecticut are referred to as being intra-plate activity. Bedrock in Connecticut – and New England in general – is The following is an abbreviated description of the 12 levels of Modified Mercalli intensity from the USGS. I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing. III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes and windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. VIII. Damage slight in special ly designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fa ll of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monum ents, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rail bent. XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are destroyed. Object thrown in the air. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-3 highly capable of transmitting seismic energy; thus, the area impacted by an earthquake in Connecticut can be four to 40 times greater than that of California. In addition, population density is up to 3.5 times greater in Connecticut than in California, potentially putting a greater number of people at risk. The built environment in Connecticut includes old, non-reinforced masonry that is not seismically designed. Those who live or wo rk in non-reinforced masonry buildings, especially those built on filled land or unstable soils are at the highest risk for injury due to the occurrence of an earthquake. 7.3 Historic Record According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Pr ogram, Connecticut is a region of very minor seismic activity. This assessment is based on lack of historical and instrumental reports of strong earthquakes. However, ea rthquakes do occur in this region. The New England states regularly re gister seismic events. According to the Northeast Region Emergenc y Consortium, there were 137 recorded earthquakes in Connecticut between 1568 and 1989. The mo st severe earthquake in Connecticut’s history occurred at East Haddam on May 16, 1791. Stone walls and chimneys were toppled during this quake. Additional instances of seismic activity occurring in and around Connecticut includes is provided below, based on information provided in USGS documents, the Connecticut Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2007), other municipal hazard mitigation plans, and newspaper articles. ‰ A devastating earthquake near Three Ri vers, Quebec on February 5, 1663 caused moderate damage in parts of Connecticut. ‰ Strong earthquakes in Massachusetts in November 1727 and November 1755 were felt strongly in Connecticut. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-4 ‰ In April 1837, a moderate tremor occurred at Hartford, causing alarm but little damage. ‰ In August 1840, another moderate tremor with its epicenter 10 to 20 miles north of New Haven shook Hartford buildings but caused little damage. ‰ In October 1845, an Intensity V earthquake occurred in Bridgeport. An Intensity V earthquake would be approximately 4.3 on the Richter scale. ‰ On June 30, 1858, New Haven and Derby we re shaken by a moderate tremor. ‰ On July 28, 1875, an early morning tremor caused Intensity V damage throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts. ‰ The second strongest earthqua ke to impact Connecticut occurred near Hartford on November 14, 1925. No significant damage was reported. ‰ The Timiskarning, Ontario earthquake of November 1935 caused minor damage as far south as Cornwall, Connecticut. This earthquake affected one million square miles of Canada and the United States. ‰ An earthquake near Massena, New York in September 1944 produced mild effects in Hartford, Marion, New Haven, and Meriden, Connecticut. ‰ An Intensity V earthquake was reported in Stamford in March of 1953, causing shaking but no damage. ‰ On November 3, 1968, another Intensity V earthquake in southern Connecticut caused minor damage in Madison and Chester. ‰ Recent earthquake activity has been recorded near New Haven in 1988, 1989, and 1990 (2.0, 2.8, and 2.8 in magnitude, respec tively), in Greenwich in 1991 (3.0 magnitude), and on Long Island in East Hampton, New York in 1992. ‰ The most recent earthquake to occur in Connecticut occurred on March 11, 2008. It was a 2.0 magnitude with its epicenter three miles northwest of the center of Chester. 7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Connecticut Building Codes include desi gn criteria for buildings specific to municipality, as adopted by the Building Officials and C ode Administrators (BOCA). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-5 These include the seismic coefficients for building design in the Town of Middlebury. The Town has adopted these codes for new construction and they are enforced by the Town Building Inspector. Due to the infrequent nature of damaging ear thquakes, land use policies in the Town of Middlebury do not specifically address earthquake hazards. However, the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Middlebury (Section 4.3.21) require that locations of exposed rocks and slopes in excess of twenty-fiv e percent (25%) must be shown on all Construction Plans. Section 9.12.7 of the Ro ad and Drainage Regulations requires that the minimum grade for any street shall be at least 1.0%. The maximum grade shall not exceed 8% for an arterial road and a collector street, 10% for a residential street, and 3% for a turnaround. When necessary, steeper grades may be approved by the Board of Selectmen in situations where the steeper gr ade is in the best interest to the Town. Likewise, Sections 7.4, 52.6.3, and 64.2.1 thro ugh 64.2.2 of the Middlebury Zoning Regulations cover buffered and setback areas. Section 7.4 states that no buildings or other structure shall extend within less than th e minimum set back distances of any street line, rear property line, other property line or Resident Dist rict boundary line as specified in the district, subject exceptions and a dditional limitations. Section 52.6.3 covers buffered areas, which include all setback areas. Buffered areas must be designed to be consistent and compatible with land uses. Th ese regulations can help protect structures from damaging one another or infrastru cture if an earthquake should occur. 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment According to the USGS, Connecticut is at a low risk for experiencing a damaging earthquake. The USGS has determined that the State of Connecticut has a 10% chance that at some point in a 50-year period an earthquake would cause peak acceleration (ground shaking) values of 4% to 8% of th e force of gravity. To appreciate why these NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-6 values of ground shaking are expressed as a percentage of the force of gravity, note that it requires more than 100% of the force of gr avity to throw objects up in the air. In terms of felt effects and damage, ground mo tion at the level of several percent of gravity corresponds to the threshold of dama ge to buildings and houses (an earthquake intensity of approximately V). For compar ison, reports of “dishes, windows and doors disturbed” corresponds to an intensity of about IV, or about 2% of gravity. Reports of “some chimneys broken” correspond to an intens ity of about VII, or about 10% to 20% of gravity. According to the USGS Nationa l Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (2008), an earthquake impacting the Town of Middlebur y has a 2% chance of exceeding a peak acceleration of 10-12% of the force of gravity in a 50-year period. According to the FEMA HAZUS-HM Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States (2008) document, FEMA used pr obabilistic curves developed by the USGS for the National Earthquakes Hazards Reduc tion Program to calculate Annualized Earthquake Losses (AEL) for the United Stat es. Based on the results of this study, FEMA calculated the AEL for Connecticut to be $11,622,000. This value placed Connecticut 30 th out of the 50 states in terms of AEL. The magnitude of this value stems from the fact that Connectic ut has a large building inventory that would be damaged in a severe earthquake, and takes into account the lack of damaging earthquakes in th e historical record. The current Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007) states that “there is a 66% chance that an earthquake of a 2.7 magnitude or greater” will occur in the area of Middlebury. According to the pervious Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004), the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management notes the chance that a damaging earthquake of magnitude 5.0 or greater will occur within the state in any one year is 5%, and that the odds of an ear thquake of magnitude 6.0 are about one in 300 The AEL is the expected losses due to earthquakes each year. Note that this number represents a long term average; thus actual earthquake losses may be much greater or non-existent for a particular year. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-7 each year. Therefore, the Town of Middlebury is unlikely to experience a damaging earthquake in any given year. This belief is reinforced by the timeline and damages recorded in the historical reco rd presented in Section 7.3. Surficial earth materials behave differently in response to seismic activity. Unconsolidated materials such as sand and artificial fill can amplify the shaking associated with an earthquake. In addition, artificial fill material has the potential for liquefaction. When li quefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases and the ability of soil to support building foundations and bridges is reduced. Increased shaking and liquefaction can cause gr eater damage to buildings and structures, and a greater loss of life. As explained in Section 2.3, only a few areas of the Town of Middlebury are underlain by sand and gravel of glacial meltw ater origin. Figure 2-5 depicts surficial materials in the Town. Structures in these areas are at increased risk from earthquakes due to amplification of seismic energy and/or collapse. The best mitigation for future development in areas of sandy material may be application of the most stringent building codes, or possibly the prohibition of certain types of new construction. However, because these areas are coin cident with floodplains, development should be limited. The areas that are not at increased risk from unstable soils during an earthquake are the areas in Figure 2-5 underlain by gl acial till. Most of the town is covered by glacial till. Areas of steep slopes can collapse during an earthquake, creating landslides. Seismic activity can also break utility lines, such as water mains, electric and telephone lines, and stormwater management systems. Damage to u tility lines can lead to fires, especially in electric gas mains. Dam failure can also pose a significant threat to developed areas Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil are reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. It occurs in soils at or near saturation, especially the finer textured soils. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-8 during an earthquake. For this Plan, dam failure has been addressed separately in Section 8.0. 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives As earthquakes are difficult to predict and can affect the entire Town of Middlebury, potential mitigation can only include adherence to building code s, education of residents, and adequate planning. The following poten tial mitigation measures have been identified: ‰ Consider preventing new residential deve lopment in areas prone to collapse. ‰ Continue regulating development on or near slopes. ‰ Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ Ensure that municipal departments have ade quate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs to municipal buildings. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-1 8.0 DAM FAILURE 8.1 Setting Dam failures can be triggered suddenly, with little or no warning, from other natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes. Dam failures often occur during flooding when the dam breaks under the additional force of fl oodwaters. In addition, a dam failure can cause a chain reaction where the sudden re lease of floodwaters causes the next dam downstream to fail. With 24 registered dams and potentially se veral other minor dams in the Town, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in The Town of Middlebury. While flooding from a dam failure generally has a medium geogra phic extent, the effects are potentially catastrophic. Fortunately, a major dam failure is considered only a possible natural hazard event in any given year (refer to Appended Table 2). 8.2 Hazard Assessment The Connecticut DEP administers the statew ide Dam Safety Program, and designates a classification to each state-registered dam based on its potential hazard. ‰ Class AA dams are negligible hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in no measurable damage to roadways, land and structures, and negligible economic loss. ‰ Class A dams are low hazard potential dams th at upon failure would result in damage to agricultural land and unimproved road ways, with minimal economic loss. ‰ Class BB dams are moderate hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in damage to normally unoccupied storage structures, damage to low volume roadways, and moderate economic loss. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-2 ‰ Class B dams are significant hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in possible loss of life, minor damage to ha bitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and the like, damage or interruption of service of utilities, damage to primary roadways, and significant economic loss. ‰ Class C dams are high potential hazard dams th at upon failure would result in loss of life and major damage to habitable structures, residences, hosp itals, convalescent homes, schools, and main highways with great economic loss. As of 1996, there were 24 DEP-registered dams within the Town of Middlebury. According to the DEP data from 1996 and the 2007 updated “high hazard dam” data, 12 dams are listed as being Class A, seven as being Class BB, two as being Class B, and three as undefined. The lis t of Class B and C dams wa s updated by the DEP in 2007. The registered dams in Middleb ury are listed in Table 8-1. This section discusses only th e possible effects of failure of significant and high hazard dams (Class B and C dams). Failure of a Cl ass C dam has the potential for loss of life and property damage totaling millions of dollars; fortunately, none are located in Middlebury. Failure of a Class B dam has th e potential for loss of life and minor damage to property and critical facilities. Bo th Class B dams are shown on Figure 8-1. Inundation areas are not depicted, as they have not been de lineated or are not available for either waterway downstream of the Class B dams. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-3 Table 8-1 Dams Registered with the DEP in the Town of Middlebury Number Name Class 8101 Quassapaug Dam B 8103 Little Tracy’s Pond Dam B 8109 Turtle Pond Dam BB 8104 Miry Pond Dam #2 BB 8105 Abbott’s Pond Dam BB 8111 Fenn Pond Dam BB 8106 Lake Elise Dam BB 8102 Summit Pond Dam BB 8110 Larkin Pond Dam BB 8108 Sperry Pond Dam A 8130 Atwood Pond Dam A 8114 Jenusaitis Dam A 8132 Miry Pond Dam #1 A 8120 Hetzel Dam A 8117 Regan Pond Dam A 8112 Pakovitch Pond Dam #2 A 8126 Pakovitch Pond Dam #1 A 8121 Avalon Farm Pond Dam A 8127 Larkin Pond #2 Dam A 8128 Turtle Pond Dam A 8129 YMCA Pond Dam A 8131 Sandy Hill Pond Dam Undefined 8125 Biosky Pond Dam Undefined 8107 Long Meadow Pond Dam Undefined Note: As of October 1, 2007, there were two Class B Dams and no Class C Dams registered with the CT DEP in the To wn of Middlebury. 8.3 Historic Record Approximately 200 notable dam and reservoi r failures occurred worldwide in the twentieth century. More than 8,000 people died in these disa sters. The following are the most catastrophic dam failures in Connecticut recent history: ‰ 1938 and 1955: Exact numbers of dam failures caused by these floods are unavailable, but Connecticut DEP believes that more dams were damaged in these events than in the 1982 or 2005 flooding events described below. aa a a a a a a a a a 9 9 999 9 9 9 9 9 9 © © © © © Æ c Æ c Æ c Æ c % % ? 8Ù ³ ?G ® ± ° t n ² ³ A [ q A [ q [ q [ q 9: ¨ [ q ® ± ° ® ± ° n n Figure 8-1: High Hazard Dams in Middlebury 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 Æ c Legend Town BoundaryMajor RoadsLocal Roads © Fire Stations a Police Stations Public Works 9: ¨ Libraries 9 Town Offices t New HorizonsHandicap Assistantship Home ? A [ q ® ± ° ³?G 8Ù n Middlebury Convalescent Home Home for the Blind Daycare Centers ² ³ Shepardson Community Ctr Middlebury Edge (Mixed-Use) Corporations Sewage Pump Stations Water Streams Schools n Benson Woods Dam Hazard Class % B Quassapaug Lake Dam Little Tracys Pond Dam Quassapaug Lake Long Meadow Pond *Mapping for dam inundation areas are not available For general plan ning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Road s”, c198 4 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary “, “Hydrograp hy”, DEP “Facil ities”, Middlebu ry October 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-5 ‰ 1961: Crystal Lake dam in Middletown fa iled, injuring three and severely damaging 11 homes. ‰ 1963: Failure of the Spaulding Pond Dam in Norwich caused six deaths and six million dollars in damage (1963 dollars). ‰ June 5-6, 1982: Connecticut experienced a severe flood that caused 17 dams to fail and seriously damaged 31 others. Failure of the Bushy Hill Pond Dam in Deep River caused $50 million in damages, and the remaining dam failures caused nearly $20 million in damages. More recently, the NCDC reports that flas h flooding on April 16, 1996 caused three small dams in Middletown and one in Wallingford to breach. The Connecticut DEP reported that the sustained heavy rainfall from Oct ober 7 to 15, 2005 caused 14 complete or partial dam failures and damage to 30 other dams throughout the State. A sample of damaged dams is summarized in Table 8-2. Table 8-2 Dams Damaged Due to Flooding from October 2005 Storms Number Name Location Class Damage Type Ownership —– Somerville Pond Dam Somers — Partial Breach DEP 4701 Windsorville Dam East Windsor BB Minor Damage Private 10503 Mile Creek Dam Old Lyme B Full Breach Private —– Staffordville Reservoir #3 Union — Partial Breach CT Water Co. 8003 Hanover Pond Dam Meriden C Partial Breach Meriden —– ABB Pond Dam Bloomfield — Minor Damage Private 4905 Springborn Dam Enfield BB Minor Damage DEP 13904 Cains Pond Dam Suffield A Full Breach Private 13906 Schwartz Pond Dam Suffield BB Partial Breach Private 14519 Sessions Meadow Dam Union BB Minor Damage DEP No major dam failures have occurred in the Town of Middlebury. According to Town personnel, the dams throughout Town are in vary ing stages of condition. Most notably in poor condition is the Long Meadow Pond da m on Long Meadow Pond, although the class is undefined for this dam. According to a hydrology report developed by Wengell, McDonald & Costello, Inc. in 2006, the Long Meadow Pond dam is a concrete structure NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-6 consisting of a central spillway and secondary spillways on either side of the central spillway. The central spillway is fitted with wooden weir boards, and some of them are reportedly missing. The following paragraphs provide a descrip tion and highlight the general condition of both of the Class B dams based on inform ation in the FEMA FIS and information available at the Connecticut DEP: ‰ Quassapaug Lake Dam – This Class B earthen dam with a stone masonry outlet owned by the West Shore Owners Association, In c. was last repaired and modified in 1992. At that time, repairs were made to the outlet and to the embankment. A Dam Failure Analysis has not been developed for this dam. ‰ Little Tracy’s Pond Dam – This Class B dam with a ten foot embankment and a 30 foot wide, concrete lined spillway is owne d by the Turnpike Office Park LLC. The dam was last repaired in 1988 when there wa s a crack in the spillway. A Dam Failure Analysis has not been developed for this dam. 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The dam safety statues are codified in Section 22a- 401 through 22a-411 inclusive of the Connecticut General Statutes. Sec tions 22a-409-1 and 22a-409- 2 of the Regulations of C onnecticut State Agencies, have been enacted which govern the registration, classification, and inspection of dams. Dams must be registered by the owner with the DEP, according to Connecticut Public Act 83-38. Dams regulated by the DEP are designed to pass the 100- year rainfall event with one foot of freeboard, a factor of safety against overtopping. Critical and high hazard dams are required to meet a design standard greater than the 100- year rainfall event. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-7 Dam Inspection Regulations require that over 600 dams in Connecticut be inspected annually. The DEP currently prioritizes inspections of those dams which pose the greatest potential threat to dow nstream persons and properties. Dams found to be unsafe under the inspection program must be repaired by the owner. Depending on the severity of the identified deficiency, an owner is a llowed reasonable time to make the required repairs or remove the dam. If a dam owner fails to make ne cessary repairs to the subject structure, the DEP may issue an administrativ e order requiring the owner to restore the structure to a safe condition and may refer noncompliance with such an order to the Attorney General’s Office for enforcement. As a means of last resort, the DEP Commissioner is empowered by stat ute to remove or correct, at the expense of the owner, any unsafe structures which present a clea r and present danger to public safety. Owners of Class C dams are required to mainta in emergency operations plans. Therefore emergency operations plans are not formally required for any dams in Middlebury. 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment By definition, failure of Class C dams may cause catastrophic loss of life and property. There are no Class C dams registered with the Connecticut DEP in the Town of Middlebury, but the two Class B dams and the undefined Long Meadow Pond Dam are of concern. Class B Dams in Middlebury Both Class B dams described in Section 8.3 can present an issue to residents of Middlebury. Little Tracy’s Pond Dam ha s not been repaired since 1988 and the Quassapaug Lake Dam has not been repaired since 1992. Both dams could benefit from inspection in the near future. Densely-popul ated areas are located downstream of Little Tracy’s Pond Dam, including some areas in Mi ddlebury that are already prone to flooding along Regan Road, Porter Ave nue, and Steinmann Avenue. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-8 The Quassapaug Lake Dam is close to the Woodbury municipal boundary, and the reach of Eightmile River immediately downstream of the dam is in Woodbury. Further downstream, the river forms the boundary between the Towns of Middlebury and Southbury, and then between the Towns of S outhbury and Oxford. Thus, failure of the dam would be a concern for several communities. Other Dams in Middlebury Town personnel have indicated that the Long Meadow Pond Dam is in poor condition and is in need of repairs. Understandi ng the condition of the dam and determining the best course of action, if needed, should be considered a priority along with both Class B dams. As stated above, the central spillway is fitted with wooden weir boards, and some of them are reportedly missing. Given the dam’s location at the municipal boundary with the Town of Oxford, and the fact that all dow nstream areas are located in Oxford and the Borough of Naugatuck, the failure of the dam wo uld be of greater concern for Oxford and Naugatuck. 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives The Dam Safety Section of the DEP Inland Water Resources Division is charged with the responsibility for administrati on and enforcement of Connecticut’s dam safety laws. The existing statutes require that permits be obtained to construc t, repair, or alter dams, and that existing dams be registered and periodi cally inspected to assure that their continued operation does not constitute a hazard to life, health, or property. Although Emergency Operations Plans and Dam Failure Analyses are only required for significant and high hazard dams, they should be developed for Class B and other dams when possible, if interest is strong with in downstream vulnerable areas. This would include participation from the Towns of Woodbury, Oxford, and Southbury downstream NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-9 of the Quassapaug Lake Dam, and the Town of Oxford and the Borough of Naugatuck downstream of the Long Meadow Pond Dam. Development of an Emergency Operations Plan is recommended for Little Tracy’s Pond Dam, as it would identify specific means of monitoring the dam and warning downstream residents under potential emergency situations. Both Class B dams in Town should be regul arly inspected by their respective owners, along with regular maintenance as required to keep the dams in safe and functional order. The Towns of Woodbury, Oxford, and Southbury should cooperate with the Town of Middlebury’s efforts to address repairs to Quassapaug Lake Dam if needed. Likewise, the Town of Oxford and the Borough of Naugatuck should cooperate with the Town of Middlebury’s efforts to address repair s to Long Meadow Pond Dam if needed. The Town of Middlebury should consider im plementing occasional Town inspections of Class BB, A, AA, and unranked dams. The Town’s inventory and familiarity with all known dams within Middlebury is important to maintain safe and functional working order of all dams. The Town should consider including dam failure areas in its CodeRED TM emergency notification system. This technology should be used to warn downstream residents of a potential or impending dam failu re and facilitate evacuation. In addition, there are several suggested potential mitigation strategies which are applicable to all hazards in this pl an. These are outlined in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-1 9.0 WILDFIRES 9.1 Setting The ensuing discussion about wildfires is focused on the undeveloped woo ded and shrubby areas of Middlebury, along with low-de nsity suburban type development found at the margins of these areas known as the wild land interface. Structural fires in higher density areas of the To wn are not considered. The Town of Middlebury is considered a low- risk area for wildfires. Wildfires are of particular concern in wooded areas and other areas with poor access for fire-fighting equipment. Figure 9-1 depicts wildfire risk areas for the Town of Middlebury. Hazards associated with wildfires include property damage and loss of habitat. Wildfires are considered a likely event each year, but shoul d they occur are generally contained to a small range with limited damage to non-forested areas. 9.2 Hazard Assessment Wildfires are well-defined by the Massachusetts Hazard Mitigation Plan as being “highly destructive, uncontrollable fire s.” Although the term brings to mind images of tall trees engulfed in flames, wildfires can occur as brush and shrub fires, especially under dry conditions. Wildfires are also known as “wildland fires.” Nationwide, humans have caused approximately 90% of all wildfires in the last decade. Accidental and negligent act s include unattended campfires, sparks, burning debris, and irresponsibly discarded cigarettes. The re maining 10% of fires are caused mostly by lightning. ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ a a a a a a a a a a a 9 9 999 9 9 9 9 9 9 © © © © © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © © Æ c Æ c Æ c Æ c Æ c Æ c Æ c ? 8Ù ³ ?G ® ± ° t n ² ³ A[ q A [ q [ q [ q 9: ¨ [ q ® ± ° ® ± ° n n Figure 9-1: Middlebury Wildfire Risk Area 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )188 ” )64 ” )64 ” )188 § ¨ ¦84 Legend Town BoundaryMajor RoadsLocal Roads ? © Fire Stations a Police Stations Public Works 9: ¨ 9 Town Offices A [ q ® ± ° ³?G 8Ù t n New Horizons Handicap Assistantship Home Middlebury Convalescent Home Home for the Blind Daycare Centers ² ³ Shepardson Community Ctr Middlebury Edge (Mixed-Use) Corporations Sewage Pump Stations Water Streams Schools n Benson Woods Æ c Libraries ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ Wildfire Risk Area For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, “Hydrography”, DEP “Facilities”, Middlebury “Wildfire”, COGCNV October 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-3 Nevertheless, wildfires are also a natural process, and their suppression is now recognized to have created a larger fire h azard, as live and dead vegetation accumulates in areas where fire has been prevented. In addition, the absence of fire has altered or disrupted the cycle of natural plant succe ssion and wildlife habitat in many areas. Consequently, federal, state and local agen cies are committed to finding ways, such as prescribed burning to reintroduce fire into na tural ecosystems, while recognizing that fire fighting and suppression are still important. Connecticut has a particular vulnerability to fire hazards where urban development and wildland areas are in close proximity. Th e “wildland/urban interface” is where many such fires are fought. Wildland areas are subj ect to fires because of weather conditions and fuel supply. An isolated wildland fire may not be a threat, but the combined effect of having residences, businesses, and lifelines ne ar a wildland area causes increased risk to life and property. Thus, a fire that might have been allowed to burn itself out with a minimum of fire fighting or containment in th e past is now fought to prevent fire damage to surrounding homes and commercial areas, as we ll as smoke threats to health and safety in these areas. 9.3 Historic Record According to the Connecticut Natural H azard Mitigation Plan (2007), Connecticut enacted its first state-wide fo rest fire control system in 1905, when the state was largely rural with very little secondary growth forest. By 1927, the state had most of the statutory foundations for today’ s forest fire control programs and policies in place, such as the State Forest Fire Warden system, a netw ork of fire lookout towers and patrols, and regulations regarding open bur ning. The severe fire weather in the 1940’s prompted the state legislature to join the Northeastern Inte rstate Forest Fire Protection Compact with its neighbors in 1949. Today, most of Connecticut’s forested areas are secondary growth forests. According to the Connecticut DEP, forest has reclaimed over 500,000 acres of land that was used for agriculture in 1914. However, that new forest has been NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-4 fragmented in the past few decades by residential development. The urban/wildland interface is increasing each year as sprawl ex tends further out from Connecticut’s cities. The technology used to combat wildfires ha s significantly improved since the early 20 th century. An improved transportation networ k, coupled with advances in firefighting equipment, communication technology, and training, has improved the ability of firefighters to minimize damage due to wildfi res in the state. For example, radio and cellular technologies have greatly improved fire fighting command capabilities. According to the Climate of 2008 Wildfire Se ason Summary presented by the NCDC, an average of 4.6 million acres per year in the United States was burned by wildfires since 1985. This translates to a nationwide mean of 60 acres per fire (at a mean of approximately 77,000 fires per year). The numbe r one cause of wildfires is arson, with about half of all wildfires being intentionally set. Wildfire statistics for Connecticut are much lower than the national average. According to the USDA Forest Service Annual Wildfi re Summary Report for 1994 through 2003, an average of 600 acres per year in Connecticut was burned by wildfires during this period. In general, the fires are small and detected quickly, with most wildfires being contained to less than 10 acres in size. Traditionally, the highest forest fire danger in Connecticut occurs in the spring from mid- March to mid-May. The worst wildfire year in Connecticut since 1994 occurred during the extremely hot and dry summer of 1999. Over 1,733 acres of Connecticut burned in 345 separate wildfires, an average of about five acres per fire. Only one wildfire occurred between 1994 and 2003 that burned ove r 300 acres, and a wildfire in 1986 in the Mattatuck State Forest in the nearby Town of Watertown burned 300 acres. According to the Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department web site, nine “wildland fires” were reported in Middlebury from Decem ber 2006 through June 2007, and three were NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-5 reported from July 2007 through November 2007, for a total of 12 in one 12-month period. Most of these incidents were minor. On April 18, 2008, the Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department responded to a brush fire near 25 Lakeview Court, in the southern por tion of Middlebury. Upon arrival, it was determined that there were actually two fires burning at the same time, approximately 500 feet from one other. The first was a relatively small fire, but the second was a rapidly spreading brush fire with an area of nearly one acre. The smaller fire was extinguished by crews from Engine 4, while the larger fire was extinguished by crews from Engine 3 and Engine 6. When the fire outran the reach of the Engine 3 booster line, forestry hose from Engine 6 was utilized to penetrate deeper into the woods to bring the rema ining fire under control. Photo courtesy of the Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department Engine crews remained on the scene to rake the entire perimeter of the fire with fire rakes, and to extinguish any remaining hot spot s. More than 1,000 gallons of water were use to extinguish this fire. Subsequent to the event, the Fire Department reminded the public that brush fires can be more taxing to firefighters than structure fires due to the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-6 hardships associated with navigating uneven terrain while wearing fire gear and hauling heavy hose lines around trees and rocks. Add itional photographs from this incident can be found in Appendix B. The day after the fire in Middlebury, a 30-acre wildfire occurred in the adjacent Town of Oxford. These two events underscore the propens ity of fire hazards to occur in the spring season when dry conditions prevail, before abundant leafy vegetation is present. 9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Town of Middlebury requires that developm ent more distant than one mile by way of a public street to a reliable, year-round source of water, needs to include the installation of either a precast concrete tank or a fire pond with dry hydrant. The location needs to be accessible in all weather conditions and a fi re truck needs to have the ability to draw/pump water. This would include t hose locations exceeding one mile by public roadway from year-round surface water sources or locations having the same distance from the Heritage Village Water Compa ny (HVWC), the Connecticut Water Company (CWC), and the Westover Water Company’s (W WC) existing service areas. HVWC and CWC are provided with fire suppression by way of a one-million gallon water tank located at the end of Cedar Road in the southern part of Town, and a water tower located south of Ferndale Avenue in the eastern part of Town. The sizing of tanks and fire ponds is speci fied by the Board of Selectman, following consultation with the Fire Chief. At minimum, fire protection tanks need to be at least 10,000 gallons in capacity, while fire ponds need to have a right-of-way at least 30 feet in width. All fire ponds need to be construc ted in accordance with the standards and practices of the U.S. Department of Agri culture, Soil Conservation Service. These requirements are outlined in Section 10.1.1 th rough Section 10.1.4 of Middlebury’s Road and Drainage Regulations and Section 5.6 of the Subdivision Regulations. The NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-7 redundancy in different sets of regulations underscores the Town’s concerns regarding fire mitigation. In addition, new roads and subdivisions are requ ired to allow for fire truck access and are required to be at least at leas t 28 feet in width. Residential streets must be paved at least 28 feet in width, while arterial roads and coll ector streets must be paved 36 feet across. Mitigation for wildland fire control is also focused on Fire Department training and maintaining an adequate supply of equipment. Unlike wildfires on the west coast of the United States where the fires are allowed to burn toward development and then stopped, the Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department has a proactive approach to go to the sources of the fires. This proactive approach of goi ng on the offense is believed to be effective for controlling wildfires. The Middlebury Volu nteer Fire Department has within its fleet a four-by-four brush truck and a four-wheel drive tanker truck which is capable of carrying water to remote fires. As explained in Section 3.4, the Town of Middlebury provides informational pamphlets free of charge related to citizen preparedness for natural hazard events. These pamphlets include “Preparing Makes Sense. Get Ready Now” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and “Disaster Preparedness Coloring Book” by FEMA and distributed by Connecticut DEHMS, available at the Shep ardson Community Center. An additional activity book for children entitled “Sesame St reet Fire Safety Station” by FEMA and pertaining to fire safety is also avai lable at the Shepardson Community Center. 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The most common causes of wildfires are ars on, lightning strikes, and electrical fires from downed trees hitting electr ical lines. Thus, wildfires have the potential to occur anywhere and at any time in both undeve loped and lightly developed areas. The extensive forests and fields c overing the state are prime locati ons for a wildfire. In many NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-8 areas, structures and subdivisions are built abutting forest borders, creating areas of particular vulnerability. Wildfires are more common in rural areas than in developed areas, as most fires in populated areas are quickly noticed and contained. The likelihood of a severe wildfire developi ng is lessened by the vast networ k of water features in the state, which create natural breaks likely to stop the spread of a fire. During long periods of drought, these natural features may dry up, in creasing the vulnerability of the state to wildfires. According to the Connecticut DEP, the actual fo rest fire risk in Connecticut is low due to several factors. First, the overall incidence of forest fires is very low. Secondly, as the wildfire/forest fire prone areas become frag mented due to development, the local fire departments have increased access to those neighborhoods for firefighting equipment. Third, the problematic interface areas are site specific such as driveways too narrow to permit emergency vehicles. Finally, trained fi re fighters at the local and state level are readily available to fight fires in the state, and inte r-municipal cooperation on such instances is common. Based on the historic record presented in Section 9.3, most wildfires in Connecticut are relatively small. In the drought year of 1999, the average wildfire burned five acres. In comparison, the most extreme wildfires recorded since 1986 each burned 300 acres. Given the availability of fire fighting wate r in the Town (including the use of nearby water bodies) and the proactive st ance regarding fires, it is believed that the low end of this acreage is possible in Middlebury as well, with the larger acreage reserved for very infrequent severe events. The wildfire risk areas presented in Figure 9-1 were defined as being contiguous wooded areas greater than 50 acres in size that have limited access in areas near public water service, and contiguous wooded areas greater than 30 acres in size with limited access in the remainder of the Town. These areas ar e generally associated with state-owned forests, land trust property, and Town owned open space. As each area borders NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-9 residential sections of the Town, residents within these risk areas are most vulnerable to fire, heat, and smoke effects of wildfires. The following specific problem areas are notable: ‰ Brush fires are a concern south of Intersta te 84 near Wooster Road and east of Long Meadow Pond due to limited access in close proximity to the power lines. Brush fires are also a concern southwest of Hop Brook Lake near Allerton Farms Road. ‰ Brush fires are especially dangerous north of Lake Quassapaug. Limited accessibility and high concentrations of Mountain La urel, which produce hazardous fumes when burned, are two conditions characteristic of the area north of Lake Quassapaug. Fires must be fought with self-contained breat hing apparatuses, and homes have limited access in and out of the neighborhood in this area. ‰ The north-central section of Middlebury (depicted in Figur e 9-2) has problems with supplying fire-fighting water. Included in this section of Town are locations to the north end of East Farms Road and locations along Artillery Road, North Farms Road, and Mirey Dam Road. This area is complete ly without available fire fighting water – either from a surface water source, unde rground tanks, or a source of community water supply through one of the public water su pply companies. Similar concerns are present along Burr Hall Road slightly to the west of East Farms Road. The Town of Middlebury would like to gain access to Atwood Pond, which lies to the north of East Farm Road in order to establish a dry hydrant. Miry Dam Pond, located to the west of Falcon Crest Road, is the s econd highest priority for the establishment of a dry hydrant. 2004 CLEAR , CT DEP H:Middlebury_Fig 9-2.mxd 2937- 02 Middle bu ry Natural Ha zar d Pre -Disaste r Mi tigati on Plan M idd lebur y, CT East Far ms Road Wil df ire Vulne rabil ity Ar ea Figur e 9-2 LOCATION : Date: Oct. 2008 Sca le: 1:7,200 SHEET : 99 R ealt y D rive Cheshire, Connecticut 0 6410 (203 ) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272 -9733 www .milonean dm acbroom .com Burr Hall Mi rey Da m Bre akneck H ill Nort hrid ge Nort h Fa rm Ea st Fa rm Cha rco al Wi nthru p Map By: S JB MMI# : MXD: SOURCE : Atwood Pond NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-11 ‰ Finally, a small area in southwest Middlebury may be at increased risk due to the proximity of the Oxford Airport in the neighboring Town of Oxford. The airport primarily caters to corporate jets but can also handle commercial traffic during emergencies. The Triangle Hill subdivision in Middlebury (described in Section 3.5) is located in the runway exclusion zone. While airplane s have not crashed into the Triangle Hill neighborhood, they have cras hed in the woods further north of the neighborhood. This area is wooded and an iden tified area of brush fire concern. The incident of April 18, 2008 described in Section 9.3 occurred in this are a. Recall from Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-8 that th e largest population of elderly and disabled persons reside in the east-centr al part of Middlebury. In comparing these figures with the wildfire risk areas presented in Figure 9-1, it appears unlikely that these segments of the population reside within the w ildfire risk areas. Additionally, as seen on Figure 2-9, the majority of critical facilities are located outside the wildfire risk areas presented in Figure 9-1. In summary, the northern and southern portions of Town are considered most at risk from wildfires. These areas present potential access problems for firefighting purposes in the event of a wildfire due to natural conditions including steep relief, heavily wooded forests, and the lack of water sources. Th e Town has the support of owners of the open space land to provide access to their lands in the event of a wildfire. Should a wildfire occur, it is reasonable to estimate that the average area to burn would be five acres, consistent with the state av erage during long periods of drought. In the case of an extreme wildfire during a long drought on forested lands, it is estimated that up to 300 acres could burn before containment due to the limited access of those lands. Residential areas bordering such lands would also be vulnerable to wildfire, but would likely be more impacted by heat and smoke th an by structure fires due to the strong and timely fire response in the Town. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-12 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Potential mitigation measures for wildfires include a mixture of prevention, education, and emergency planning. Fire preventi on materials, along with other emergency preparedness materials should continue to be made available at different municipal facilities including the Fire Department, To wn Hall, Shepardson Community Center, and the Town website wherever possible. Education of homeowners on methods of protecting their homes is far more effective than trying to steer growth away from potential wildfire areas. This is especially the case since the available land that is environmentally appropriate for development may be forested. Water system improvements are an important class of potential mitigation for wildfires. It is understood that a major water system expansion and interconnection is planned for central Middlebury, bringing a public water su pply of adequate pressure to several critical facilities such as the town hall, the Shepardson Community Center, and Westover School. The interconnection will increase firefi ghting capabilities from both the Heritage Village Water Company and Connecticut Water Company systems. The following recommendations are offered to mitigate fire risk: ‰ Whenever possible, Connecticut Water Company and Heritage Village Water Company should continue to extend the public water supply systems into areas that require water for fire protection. ‰ Connecticut Water Company and Heritage Village Water Company should continue to identify and upgrade those portions of the public water supply systems that are substandard from the standpoint of adequa te pressure and volume for fire-fighting purposes, as planned for th e central Middlebury area. ‰ The Town of Middlebury should continue to require the installation of water tanks or fire ponds with dry hydrants for new developm ents further than one mile in distance via a public road to a so urce of fire water supply. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-13 ‰ The Town of Middlebury should identify and develop sources of fire protection for the vicinity of Burr Hall Road and the north -central section of Middlebury including the north end of East Farms Road and lo cations along Artillery Road, North Farms Road, and Mirey Dam Road. ‰ The Town of Middlebury should expl ore all possible means of improving accessibility for areas which currently do not have sufficient firefighting access, including the area south of I-84 near Wooster Road and east of Long Meadow Pond and the area north of Lake Quassapaug. Other potential mitigation strategies for preventing wildfires include: ‰ Continue to promote inter-municipal cooperation in firefighting efforts; ‰ Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use comm on firefighting equipment; ‰ Continue reviewing subdivision applic ations to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to a llow access of emergency vehicles; ‰ Continue to provide outreach programs on how to properly manage burning and campfires on private property; ‰ Distribute copies of a booklet such as “Is Your Home Protected from Wildfire Disaster? – A Homeowner’s Guide to Wildfire Retrofit” when developers and homeowners pick up or drop off applications; ‰ Patrol Town-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires; ‰ Enforce regulations and permits for open burning; and ‰ Continue to place utilities underground. In addition, specific recommendati ons that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-1 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Additional Recommendations Recommendations that are appli cable to two, three, or four hazards were discussed in the applicable subsections of S ections 3.0 through 9.0. For example, placing utilities underground is a recommendation for hurrican e, summer storm, winter storm, and wildfire mitigation. A remaining class of r ecommendations is applicable to all hazards, because it includes recommendations for im proving public safety and planning for emergency response. Instead of repeating th ese recommendations in section after section of this Plan, these are described herein. Informing and educating the public about how to protect themselves and their property from natural hazards is essential to any su ccessful hazard mitigation strategy. The Local Emergency Planning Commission should be charged with the creation and/or dissemination of informational pamphlets a nd guides to public locations such as the library, post office, Shepardson Community Ce nter, and town hall. Such pamphlets include ” Are You Ready? An In-Depth Guide to Citizen Preparedness ” co-published by the American Red Cross, FEMA, and the Na tional Ocean & Atmospheric Administration and includes recommendations for dealing wi th heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, flooding, fire, and winter storms. Other pamphlets include: ‰ “Food & Water in an Emergency” ‰ “Disaster Supply Kit” ‰ “Family Disaster Plan” ‰ “Preparing for Disaster for People with Disabilities and Other Special Needs”, and ‰ “Helping Children Cope with Disaster” NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-2 In addition, the Town should consider adding pages to its website dedicated specifically to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events. The town website is already quite sophisticated and the additio nal information would complement it well. A community warning system that relies on ra dios and television is less effective at warning residents during the night when the ma jority of the community is asleep. Thus the ongoing implementation of CodeRED TM can be a boon for emergency response in the Town of Middlebury. Databases should be se t up at best possible for hazards with a specific geographic extent, particularly dam fa ilure. Residents should also be encouraged to purchase a NOAA weather radi o containing an alarm feature. In addition, the Town Emergency Operations Plan should continue to be reviewed and updated on a regular basis, at least once annually. To the extent that critical facilities are n eeded under all disaster scenarios, prior recommendations related to two of Middlebur y’s critical facilities are worth repeating here as well. The Fire Station on Tucker Hill Road is adjacent to the Goat Brook and Hop Brook floodplains, and the Department of Public Works is located near an unnamed stream that causes flooding in that area. The Town must strive to keep these two critical facilities operational during the largest of fl ood events, which is precisely when they will be needed the most. Flood mitigation projec ts that reduce peak flows along Goat Brook, Hop Brook, and the stream near Woodsi de Avenue should be prioritized. 10.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations Recommendations have been pr esented throughout this document in individual sections as related to each natural hazard. This sect ion lists specific recommendations of the Plan without any priority ranking. Recommendations that span multiple hazards are only reprinted once in this section under the most appropriate hazard event. Refer to the matrix in Appendix A for recommendations with scores based on the STAPLEE methodology described in Section 1.0. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-3 Flooding Prevention ‰ Streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cross- references the ordinances, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention th at may be applicable to a proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Town department. ‰ Consider performing a Town-wide inventory of drainage pipes as part of the next Stormwater Management Plan update to he lp identify undersized and failing portions of the drainage system. ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System. ‰ Continue to require Flood Hazard Area Permits for activities within SFHAs. ‰ Consider requiring buildings constructed in flood prone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level, regardle ss of being within a defined SFHA. ‰ After Map Mod has been completed, consid er restudying local flood prone areas and produce new local-level regulatory fl oodplain maps using more exacting study techniques, including using more accurate contour information to map flood elevations provided with the FIRM. ‰ Given the importance of maintaining the viab ility of the Fire Station and Department of Public Works during disasters, flood m itigation projects that reduce peak flows along Goat Brook, Hop Brook, and the stream near Woodside Avenue should be prioritized. Property & Natural Resource Protection ‰ Pursue the acquisition of additional muni cipal open space properties inside SFHAs and set those aside as greenwa ys, parks, or other non-residential, non-commercial or non-industrial use. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-4 ‰ Selectively pursue conservati on recommendations listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development and other studies and documents. ‰ Continue to regulate development in prot ected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. ‰ Work with homeowners on Regan Road, Old Regan Road, Ravenwood Drive, Porter Avenue, Steinmann Avenue, and Woodside Avenue to pursue wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of structures. If FEMA funds are to be pursued, a cost- benefit analysis for each home will help determine whether wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of the st ructure is most appropriate. Structural Projects ‰ Increase the capacity of the Hop Brook culv ert where it flows under Watertown Road to prevent future washouts lik e the one that occurred in 2006. ‰ Increase the conveyance capaci ties of the culverts for the unnamed stream under the intersection of Cemetery Road and Middleb ury Road, the culvert beneath Middlebury Road at the end of Steinmann Avenue associated with Long Swamp Brook, and the culvert associated with stream r unning along and beneath Woodside Avenue. ‰ Replace the bridge over Long Meadow P ond on Long Meadow Road in order to mitigate for flooding problems along the local roadway. Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, and Winter Storms ‰ Continue to conduct and follow the tree ma intenance program currently in place. Continue inspections of trees on all Town property near power lines, Town right-of- ways, and private properties. ‰ Continue to promote tree maintenance on pr ivate properties when dangerous trees are identified by Town personnel. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-5 ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspecti ons frequency prior to hurricane/tropical storm season. This is especially importa nt along primary evacuation routes which include Interstate 84, Route 64, Route 63, and Route 188. ‰ Secondary priority for tree limb mainte nance includes Watertown Road and Old Watertown Road (routes to Watertown), Ch ristian Road (route to Oxford), and Long Meadow Road to South Street (route to Naugatuck). ‰ Continue to require that utilities be pl aced underground in new developments in all possible cases and pursue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas where they are not. ‰ Review all evacuation plans to ensure timel y migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Town. ‰ Seek to outfit back-up shelters with generators in an effort to make them available for when a large-scale evacuation is needed. ‰ Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds. ‰ Provide for the Building Department or the Planning or Zoning Commissions to make literature available during the permitti ng process regarding appropriate design standards. Winter Storms ‰ Post a list of Town sheltering facilities and snow plowing prioritization in the Town Hall and on the Town’s website so resident s can best plan how to access critical facilities during a winter storm event. ‰ Continue to encourage two modes of eg ress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. Earthquakes ‰ Consider preventing new residential deve lopment in areas prone to collapse. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-6 ‰ Continue regulating development on or near slopes. ‰ Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ Ensure that municipal departments have ade quate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs to municipal buildings. Dam Failure ‰ If interest is strong within downstream vulnerable areas, Emergency Operations Plans and Dam Failure Analyses should be deve loped for Class B and other dams when possible. This would include participation from the Towns of Woodbury, Oxford, and Southbury downstream of the Quassapaug Lake Dam, and the Town of Oxford and the Borough of Naugatuck downstream of the Long Meadow Pond Dam. ‰ Develop an Emergency Operations Plan for Little Tracy’s Pond Dam, as it would identify specific means of monitoring the dam and warning downstream residents under potential emergency situations. ‰ Both Class B dams in Town should be regul arly inspected by their respective owners, along with regular maintenance as required to keep the dams in safe and functional order. ‰ The Towns of Woodbury, Oxford, and Southbury should cooperate with the Town of Middlebury’s efforts to address repairs to Quassapaug Lake Dam if needed. Likewise, the Town of Oxford and the Borough of Naugatuck should cooperate with the Town of Middlebury’s efforts to addr ess repairs to Long Meadow Pond Dam if needed. ‰ Consider implementing occasional Town inspections of Class BB, A, AA, and unranked dams. The Town’s inventory and familiarity with all known dams within Middlebury is important to maintain safe and functional working order of all dams. ‰ Consider including dam failure areas in the CodeRED TM emergency notification system. This technology should be used to warn downstream residents of a potential or impending dam failure a nd facilitate evacuation. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-7 Wildfires ‰ Whenever possible, Connecticut Water Company and Heritage Village Water Company should continue to extend the public water supply systems into areas that require water for fire protection. ‰ Connecticut Water Company and Heritage Village Water Company should continue to identify and upgrade those portions of the public water supply systems that are substandard from the standpoint of adequa te pressure and volume for fire-fighting purposes, as planned for th e central Middlebury area. ‰ Continue to require the instal lation of water tanks or fire ponds with dry hydrants for new developments further than one mile in distance via a public road to a source of fire water supply. ‰ Identify and develop sources of fire protec tion for the vicinity of Burr Hall Road and the north-central section of Middlebury incl uding the north end of East Farms Road and locations along Artillery Road, No rth Farms Road, and Mirey Dam Road. ‰ Explore all possible means of improving acce ssibility for areas which currently do not have sufficient firefighting access, includi ng the area south of I-84 near Wooster Road and east of Long Meadow Pond and the area north of Lake Quassapaug. ‰ Continue to promote inter-municipal cooperation in firefighting efforts. ‰ Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use comm on firefighting equipment. ‰ Continue reviewing subdivision applic ations to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to a llow access of emergency vehicles. ‰ Continue to provide outreach programs on how to properly manage burning and campfires on private property. ‰ Distribute copies of a booklet such as “Is Your Home Protected from Wildfire Disaster? – A Homeowner’s Guide to Wildfire Retrofit” when developers and homeowners pick up or drop off applications. ‰ Patrol Town-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires. ‰ Enforce regulations and permits for open burning. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-8 10.3 Sources of Funding The following sources of funding and technical assistance may be available for the priority projects listed above. This in formation comes from the FEMA website (http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/index.s htm). Funding requirements and contact information is given in Section 11.4. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Ag ency) Grants and Assistance Programs Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bzpp/index.shtm This grant provides security and risk management capabilit ies at State and local level for Tier I and II critical infrastructure sites that are considered high-risk/high- consequence facilities. Each State with a BZPP site is eligible to submit applications for its local communities to participate in and receive funding under the program. The funding for this grand is based on the number, type, and character of the site. Citizen Corps Program National Emergency Technology Guard (NET Guard) Pilot Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/netguard/index.shtm The purpose of this grant, under the Homela nd Security Act of 2002, is to re-establish a communication network in the event that the current information systems is attacked and rendered inoperable. A to tal of $80,000 may be available to each applicant provided they ar e a locality that meets the required criteria. Community Disaster Loan Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/fs_cdl.shtm This program provides funds to any eligible jurisdiction in a designated disaster area that has suffered a substantial loss of tax and other revenue. The assistance is in the form of loans not to exceed 25 percent of the local government’s annual operating budget for the fiscal year in which the major disaster occurs, up to a maximum of five million dollars. Competitive Training Grants Program (CTGP) http://www.fema.gov/emergency/ctgp/index.shtm NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-9 Funds allocated from this program will be used to bolster training and education for Homeland Security. Applicants, if funded, must deliver innovativ e training/education programs to its trainees. Emergency Food and Shelter Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/efs.shtm This program was created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service organizations, both private a nd governmental, to help peopl e in need of emergency assistance. Emergency Management Performance Grants http://www.fema.gov/emergency/empg/empg.shtm The Emergency Management Performance Gran t (EMPG) is designed to assist local and state governments in maintaining a nd strengthening the existing all-hazards, natural and man-made, emergency management capabilities. Allocations if this fund is authorized by the 9/11 Commission Ac t of 2007, and grant amount is determined demographically at the state and local level. Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/eoc/index.shtm The Emergency Operations Center Gran t is designated to support the needed construction, renovation or improvement of emergency operation centers at the State, Local, or Tribal governments. The State Administrative Agency (SAA) is the only eligible entity able to apply for the av ailable funding on behalf of qualified State, local, and tribal EOCs. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/fma/index.shtm The FMA was created as part of the Na tional Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the NFIP. FEMA provides funds in the form of planning grants for Flood Mitigation Plans and project grants to implement measures to reduce flood lo sses, including elevation, acquisition, or relocation of NFIP-insured structures. Re petitive loss properties are prioritized under this program. This grant program is administered through the DEP. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/index.shtm The HMGP provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major di saster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-10 mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. This grant program is administered through the DEP. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hsgp/index.shtm The objective of the FY 2008 HS GP is to enhance the response, preparedness, and recovery of local, State, and tribal governments in the event of a disaster or terrorist attack. Eligible applicants include all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Ma riana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Risk and effectiveness, along with a peer review, determine the amount allocated to each applicant. Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/iecgp/index.shtm Funding through the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program will enable States, Territories, local units of government, and tribal communities to implement their Statewide Communicati on Interoperability Plans (SCIP) in conjunction with the National Emergency Co mmunications Plan (NECP) to further enhance interoperability. The only applicants eligible for fundi ng through this grant are State Administration Agencies. Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/ibsgp/index.shtm The mission of the IBSGP is to maintain the protection of intercity bus systems and public transportation from terrorism. The only eligible grantees for this program are private operators servicing at least 50 tr ips annually along fixed established routes. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3005 This program enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losse s in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that redu ce future flood damages. Municipalities that join the associated Community Ra ting System can gain discounts of flood insurance for their residents. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/index.shtm The purpose of the PDM program is to fund communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. PDM grants are provided to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-11 communities, and universities, which, in turn, provide sub-grants to local governments. PDM grants are awarded on a competitive basis. This grant program is administered through the DEP. Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/psgp/index.shtm The goal of the PSGP is to provide protecti on of critical port infrastructure from terrorism, involving explosive and non-c onventional weapons. Protection includes enhancing training, recover y, prevention, management, response and awareness. Those who may apply include owners of federa lly regulated terminals, facilities, U.S. inspected passenger vessels, state and local agencies, and local stakeholders. Public Assistance Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/index.shtm The Public Assistance Grant Program (PA) is designed to assist State, Tribal and local governments, and certain types of private non-profit organizations in recovering from major disasters or emergencies. Along with helping to recover, this grant also encourages prevention against potential future disasters by strengthening hazard mitigation during the recovery process. The first grantee to apply and receive the PA would usually be the State, and the State could then allocate the granted funds to the sub-grantees in need of assistance. Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/rcp/index.shtm The main focus of RCPGP is to strengthen the national preparedness against any catastrophic event within the designated Tier I and Tier II Urban Areas. RCPGP will fund the designated Tier I and II Urban areas only. Repetitive Flood Claims Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/rfc/index.shtm The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant progra m was set into place to assist States or communities with insured properties that have had prior claims to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) but do not m eet the requirements for FMA. This grant is provided to eligible States/Tribes/Territories that, in turn, will allocate sub- grants to local governments. Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/srl/index.shtm The SRL provides funding to reduce or elimin ate the long-term risk of flood damage to SRL structures insured under the NFIP. This program is for residential properties NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-12 only, and eligible project activities include acquisition and demolition or relocation of the structure with conversion of the property to open space, elevation, minor localized flood reduction projects, and dry flood pr oofing (historic properties only). Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/tsgp/index.shtm The purpose of TSGP is to bolster security and safety for public transit infrastructure within Urban Areas throughout the United Stat es. Applicable grantees include only the state Governor and the designated State Administrative Agency (SAA) appointed to obligate program funds to the appropriate transit agencies. Trucking Security Program (TSP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/tsp/index.shtm The TSP provides funding for an anti-terro rism and security awareness program for highway professionals in support of the National Preparedness Guidelines. All applicants are accepted so long as they support all four funding priority areas: participant identification and recruitment; training; communications; and information analysis and distribution for an anti-te rrorism and security awareness program. Urban Areas Security Initiative Nonprof it Security Grant Program (UASI-NSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/uasi/index.shtm The UASI-NSGP specifically targets major areas of concern, those being areas designated as having the highest level of terrorist threat or vulnerability, and aims to improve the protection and preparedness of potentially targeted organizations. Applicants only include non- profit organizations deemed as having a high risk to terrorism and who reside with in the areas of concern. U.S. Fire Administration Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP) http://www.firegrantsupport.com/afg/ http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fi reservice/grants/ The primary goal of the Assistance to Fi refighters Grants (AFG) is to meet the firefighting and emergency response need s of fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services organizations . Since 2001, AFG has helped firefighters and other first responders to obtain critic ally needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other reso urces needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and related hazards. The Grant Programs Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agen cy administers the grants in cooperation with the U.S. Fire Administration. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-13 Fire Prevention & Safety Grants (FP&S) http://www.firegrantsupport.com/fps/ The Fire Prevention and Safety Grants ( FP&S) are part of the Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and are under the purview of the Grant Programs Directorate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FP&S grants support projects that enhance the safety of the pub lic and firefighters from fire and related hazards. The primary goal is to target high-risk populations and mitigate high incidences of death and injury. Examples of the types of projects supported by FP&S include fire prevention and public safety education campaigns, juvenile firesetter interventions, media campaigns, and ar son prevention and awareness programs. Reimbursement for Firefighting on Federal Property http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/grants/rfff/ Reimbursement may be made to fire depart ments for fighting fires on property owned by the federal government for firefighti ng costs over and above normal operating costs. Claims are submitted directed to the U.S. Fire Administration. For more information, please contact Tim Ganley at (301) 447-1358. Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response (SAFER) http://www.firegrantsupport.com/safer/ The goal of SAFER is to enhance the local fi re departments’ abilities to comply with staffing, response and operational standa rds established by NFPA and OSHA (NFPA 1710 and/or NFPA 1720 and OSHA 1910.134 – see http://www.nfpa.org/SAFERActGrant for more details). Specifically, SAFER funds should assist local fire departments to increase their staffing and deployment capabilities in order to res pond to emergencies whenever they may occur. As a result of the enhanced staffing, response times should be suffi ciently reduced with an appropriate number of personnel assembled at the incident scene. Also, the enhanced staffing should provide that al l front-line/first-due apparatus of SAFER grantees have a minimum of four trained personnel to meet the OSHA standards referenced above. Ultimately, a faster, safer and more efficien t incident scene will be established and communities will have more adequate protec tion from fire and fire-related hazards. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-14 Other Grant Programs Flood Mitigation ‰ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – 50/50 match funding for flood proofing and flood preparedness projects. ‰ U.S. Department of Agriculture – financial assistance to reduce flood damage in small watersheds and to improve water quality. ‰ CT Department of Environmental Protection – assistance to municipalities to solve flooding and dam repair problems through the Flood and Erosion Control Board Program. Hurricane Mitigation ‰ FEMA State Hurricane Program – financial and technical assistance to local governments to support mitigation of hurricanes and coastal storms. ‰ FEMA Hurricane Program Property Protection – grants to hurricane prone states to implement hurricane mitigation projects. General Hazard Mitigation ‰ Americorps – teams may be available to assist with landscaping projects such as surveying, tree planting, restoration, constr uction, and environmental education, and provide volunteers to help co mmunities respond to natural hazard-related disasters. Erosion Control and Wetland Protection ‰ U.S. Department of Agriculture – technical assistance for erosion control. ‰ CT Department of Environmental Protection – assistance to municipalities to solve beach erosion problems through the Flood and Erosion Control Board Program. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-15 ‰ North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program – funding for projects that support long term wetlands acquis ition, restoration, and/or enhancement. Requires a 1-to-1 funds match. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-1 11.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule The Council of Governments of the Central Naug atuck Valley is authorized to update this hazard mitigation plan as needed, coordinate its adoption with the Town of Middlebury, and guide it through the FEMA approval process. The individual recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan must be implemented by the municipal departments that oversee these ac tivities. The Office of the First Selectman and the Department of Public Works in the Town of Middlebury will primarily be responsible for developing and implementing selected projects, while some projects will be implemented by other departments. A ppendix A incorporates an implementation strategy and schedule, detaili ng the responsible department and anticipated time frame for the specific recommendations listed throughout this document. Upon adoption, the Plan will be made available to all Town departments and agencies as a planning tool to be used in conjunction with existing documents. It is expected that revisions to other Town plans and regulati ons, such as the Plan of Conservation and Development, department annual budgets, and the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, will reference this plan and its updates. The Office of the First Selectman will be responsible for ensuring that th e actions identified in this plan are incorporated into ongoing Town planning activities, and that the information and requirements of this plan are incorporated into existi ng planning documents within five years from the date of adoption or when other plans ar e updated, whichever is sooner. The Office of the First Selectman will be responsible for assigning appropriate Town officials to update the Plan of Conser vation and Development, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, Wetlands Regulations , and Emergency Operations Plan to include the provisions in this plan. Should a general revision be too cumbersome or cost NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-2 prohibitive, simple addendums to these documents will be added that include the provisions of this plan. The Plan of Cons ervation and Development and the Emergency Operations Plan are the two documents most likely to benefit from the inclusion of the Plan in the Town’s library of planning documents. Finally, information and projects in this plan ning document will be included in the annual budget and capital improvement plans as part of implementing the projects recommended in this Plan. This will primarily include the annual budget and capital improvement projects lists maintained and updated by the Department of Public Works. 11.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation The Office of the First Selectman will be the party responsible for monitoring the successful implementation of the Plan as pa rt of his/her oversight of all municipal departments. Such monitoring may include periodic reports to the COGCNV regarding certain projects, meetings, site visits, and telephone calls as befits the project being implemented. The COGCNV will coordinate an annual discussion for review and evaluation of the plan. Participants in this review may include, but need not be limited to, representatives of the departments listed in Section 11.1. Matters to be reviewed will in clude the goals and objectives of the original plan, hazards or disasters that occurred during the preceding period, mitigation activities that have been accomplished to date, a discussion of reasons that implementation may be behind schedule, and recommendations for new projects and revised activities. The annual discussion will be conducted in the late summer or autumn, at least three months before the annual application cycle for pre-disaster gr ants closes. This will enable a list of possible projects to be circulated for Town Departments to review, with sufficient time for developing an application. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-3 Continued public involvement will be sought regarding the monitoring, evaluating, and updating of the Plan. Public input may be solicited through community meetings and input to web-based information gathering tools. Public comment on changes to the Plan may be sought through posting of public notices, and notifications posted to the website of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, as well as of the Town of Middlebury. 11.3 Updating the Plan The Town of Middlebury plans to formally update the plan at least once every five years. The COGCNV will remind the Town to formally update the plan within this timeframe. More frequent updates can be accomplished if a consensus to do so is reached by the Board of Selectmen. The COGCNV will update the plan for the Town if the Town of Middlebury submits a request to the COGCNV and secures funding enabling the COGCNV to do so. To develop the plan update, a committee will be formed consisting of representatives of many of the same departments solicited for input to this plan. In addition, local business leaders, community and neighborhood group l eaders, relevant private and non-profit interest groups, and the six neighboring municipalities will be solicited for representation, including the following: ‰ The Central Naugatuck Valley Emergenc y Planning Committee, managed by the COGCNV; ‰ Key organizations from the list presented on Pages 1-10; ‰ Town of Watertown Public Works De partment and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Woodbury Public Works Depa rtment and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Southbury Public Works Department and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Oxford Public Works De partment and Planning Department; ‰ Borough of Naugatuck Public Works De partment and Planning Department; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-4 ‰ City of Waterbury Public Works De partment and Planning Department; Updates may include deleting recommendati ons as projects are completed, adding recommendations as new hazard impacts arise, or modifying hazard vulnerabilities as land use changes. In addition, th e list of shelters and critical facilities should be updated as necessary, or at least every five years. 11.4 Technical and Financial Resources This Section is comprised of a list of resources to be considered for technical assistance and potentially financial assistance for comple tion of the actions outlined in this plan. This list is not all-inclusive and is intended to be updated as necessary. Federal Resources Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I 99 High Street, 6 th floor Boston, MA 02110 (617) 956-7506 http://www.fema.gov/ Mitigation Division The Mitigation Division is comp rised of three branches that administer all of FEMA’s hazard mitigation programs. The Risk Analysis Branch applies planning and engineering principles to identify hazards, assess vulnerabilities, and develop strategies to manage the risks associated with natural hazards. The Risk Reduction Branch promotes the use of land use controls and building practices to manage and assess risk in both the existing built developments and fu ture development areas in both pre- and post-disaster environments. The Risk Insurance Branch mitigates flood losses by providing affordable flood insurance fo r property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations. FEMA Programs administered by the Risk Analysis Branch include: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-5 ‰ Flood Hazard Mapping Program , which maintains and updates National Flood Insurance Program maps; ‰ National Dam Safety Program , which provides state assistance funds, research, and training in dam safety procedures; ‰ National Hurricane Program , which conducts and supports projects and activities that help protect communities from hurricane hazards; and ‰ Mitigation Planning , a process for states and communities to identify policies, activities, and tools that can reduce or eliminate long- term risk to life and property from a hazard event. FEMA Programs administered by the Risk Reduction Branch include: ‰ Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) , which provides grants to states and local governments to implement long-te rm hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration; ‰ Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) , which provides funds to assist states and communities to implement measures that reduce or eliminate long-term risk of flood damage to structures in surable under the National Flood Insurance Program; ‰ Pre-Disaster Mitigati on Grant Program (PDM) , which provides program funds for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event; ‰ Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL) , which provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to “severe repetitive loss” structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program; ‰ Community Rating System (CRS) , a voluntary incentive program under the National Flood Insurance Program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities; and ‰ National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which in conjunction with state and regional or ganizations supports state and local programs designed to protect ci tizens from earthquake hazard. The Risk Insurance Branch oversees the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , which enables property owners in part icipating communities to purchase flood insurance. The NFIP assist s communities in complying with the requirements of the program and publishes flood hazard maps and flood insurance studies to determine areas of risk. FEMA also can provide information on pa st and current acquisition, relocation, and retrofitting programs, and has expertise in many natural and technological hazards. FEMA also provides funding for training state and local officials at Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-6 The Mitigation Directorate also has in place several Technical Assistance Contracts (TAC) that support FEMA, States, territories, an d local governments with activities to enhance the effectiveness of natural hazar d reduction program efforts. The TACs support FEMA’s responsibilities and legisl ative authorities for implementing the earthquake, hurricane, dam safety, and fl oodplain management programs. The range of technical assistance services provided th rough the TACs varies based on the needs of the eligible contract users and the natural hazard programs. Contracts and services include: ‰ The Hazard Mitigation Technical As sistance Program (HMTAP) Contract – supporting post-disaster program needs in cases of large, unusual, or complex projects; situations where resources are not available; or where outside technical assistance is determined to be needed. Services include environmental and biological assessments, benefit/cost analyses, historic preservation assessments, hazard identification, community planning, training, and more. ‰ The Wind and Water Technical As sistance Contract (WAWTAC)-supporting wind and flood hazards reduction program need s. Projects include recommending mitigation measures to reduce potential losses to post-FIRM structures, providing mitigation policy and practices expertise to States, incorporating mitigation into local hurricane program outreach materi als, developing a Hurricane Mitigation and Recovery exercise, and assessing th e hazard vulnerability of a hospital. ‰ The National Earthquake Technical Assistance Contract (NETAC) – supporting earthquake program needs. Projects incl ude economic impact analyses of various earthquakes, vulnerability analyses of hos pitals and schools, identification of and training on non-structural mitigation measures, and evaluating the performance of seismically rehabilitated structures, post-earthquake. Response & Recovery Division As part of the National Response Plan, th is division provides information on dollar amounts of past disaster assistance including Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, and Temporary Housing, as well as information on retrofitting and acquisition/relocation initiatives. The Re sponse & Recovery Division also provides mobile emergency response support to disast er areas, supports the National Disaster Medical System, and provides ur ban search and rescue teams for disaster victims in confined spaces. The division also coordinates federal di saster assistance programs. The Public Assistance Grant Program (PA) that provide s 75% grants for mitigation projects to protect eligible damaged public and private non-profit facilities from future damage. “Minimization” grants at 100% are availabl e through the Individuals and Family Grant Program. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Progr am and the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program are also administered by this division. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-7 Computer Sciences Corporation New England Regional Insurance Manager Bureau and Statistical Office (781) 848-1908 Corporate Headquarters 3170 Fairview Park Drive Falls Church, VA 22042 (703) 876-1000 http://www.csc.com/ A private company contracted by the Federa l Insurance Adm inistration as the National Flood Insurance Program Bureau and Statistical Agent, CSC provides information and assistance on flood insurance, including ha ndling policy and claims questions, and providing workshops to leaders, in surance agents, and communities. Small Business Administration Region I 10 Causeway Street, Suite 812 Boston, MA 02222-1093 (617) 565-8416 http://www.sba.gov/ SBA has the authority to “declare” disaster areas following disasters that affect a significant number of homes and businesses, but that would not need additional assistance through FEMA. (SBA is triggered by a FEMA declaration, however.) SBA can provide additional low-interest funds (up to 20% above what an eligible applicant would “normally” qualify for) to install mitig ation measures. They can also loan the cost of bringing a damaged property up to st ate or local code requirements. These loans can be used in combination with the new “mitigation insurance” under the NFIP, or in lieu of that coverage. Environmental Protection Agency Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 (888) 372-7341 Provides grants for restoration and repair , and educational activities, including: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-8 ‰ Capitalization Grants fo r State Revolving Funds: Low interest loans to governments to repair, replace, or relocate wastewater treatment plans damaged in floods. Does not apply to dri nking water or other utilities. ‰ Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants : Cost-share grants to state agencies that can be used for funding watershed resource re storation activities, including wetlands and other aquatic habitat (ri parian zones). Only those activities that control non- point pollution are eligible. Grants are administered through the CT DEP, Bureau of Water Management, Planning and Standards Division. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20 Church Street, 19 th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3220 (860) 240-4800 http://www.hud.gov/ The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development offers Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to communities with populations greater than 50,000, who may contact HUD directly regarding CDGB. One program objective is to improve housing conditions for low and moderate income families. Projects can include acquiring flood prone homes or prot ecting them from flood damage. Funding is a 100% grant; can be used as a source of local matching funds for other funding programs, such as FEMA’s “404” Hazard Mi tigation Grant Program. Funds can also be applied toward “blighted” conditions, which is often the post-flood condition. A separate set of funds exists for conditions that create an “imminent threat.” The funds have been used in the past to repla ce (and redesign) bridges where flood damage eliminates police and fire access to the othe r side of the waterway. Funds are also available for smaller municipalities thr ough the State Administered CDBG program participated in by the State of Connecticut. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources 7701 Telegraph Road Alexandria, VA 22315 (703) 428-8015 http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ The Corps provides 100% funding for floodplain management planning and technical assistance to states and lo cal governments under the Floodplain Management Services Program (FPMS). Various flood protection me asures such as beach re-nourishment, stream clearance and snagging projects, flood proofing, and flood preparedness are funded on a 50/50 matching basis by Secti on 22 planning Assistance to States NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-9 program. They are authorized to relocate homes out of the floodplain if it proves to be more cost effective than a st ructural flood control measure. U.S. Department of Commerce National Weather Service Northeast River Forecast Center 445 Myles Standish Blvd. Taunton, MA 02780 (508) 824-5116 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ The National Weather Service prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and coastal storm warnings. Staff h ydrologists can work with communities on flood warning issues and can give technical assist ance in preparing flood warning plans. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Steve Golden, Program Leader Rivers, Trails, & Conservation Assistance 15 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 223-5123 http://www.nps.gov/rtca/ The National Park Service provides techni cal assistance to community groups and local, state, and federal government agencies to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways, as well as identify non-structural options for floodplain development. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New England Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5087 (603) 223-2541 http://www.fws.gov/ The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provide technical and financial assistance to restore wetlands and riparian habitats through the North Am erican Wetland Conservation Fund and Partners for Wildlife progr ams. It also administers the North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program , which provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have deve loped partnerships to carry out wetlands NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-10 projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Funds are available for projects focusing on protecting, restoring, and/or enhancing critical habitat. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS) Connecticut Office 344 Merrow Road, Suite A Tolland, CT 06084-3917 (860) 871-4011 The Natural Resources Conservation Servi ce provides technical assistance to individual land owners, groups of landow ners, communities, and soil and water conservation districts on land-use and conservation pla nning, resource development, stormwater management, flood prevention, erosion control and sediment reduction, detailed soil surveys, watershed/river ba sin planning and recreation, and fish and wildlife management. Financial assistance is available to reduce flood damage in small watersheds and to improve water qual ity. Financial assistance is available under the Emergency Watershed Protection Progr am; the Cooperative River Basin Program; and the Small Watershed Protection Program. Regional Resources Northeast States Emergency Consortium 1 West Water Street, Suite 205 Wakefield, MA 01880 (781) 224-9876 http://www.serve.com/NESEC/ The Northeast States Emergency Consor tium (NESEC) develops, promotes, and coordinates “all-hazards” em ergency management activities throughout the Northeast. NESEC works in partnership with public and private organizations to reduce losses of life and property. They provide support in areas including interstate coordination and public awareness and education, along with reinforcing interactions between all levels of government, academia, non-profit organizations, and the private sector. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-11 State Resources Connecticut Department of Econ omic and Community Development 505 Hudson Street Hartford, CT 06106-7106 (860) 270-8000 http://www.ct.gov/ecd/ The Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development administers HUD’s State CDBG Program, awarding smalle r communities and rural areas grants for use in revitalizing neighborhoods, expandi ng affordable housing and economic opportunities, and improving commun ity facilities and services. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860) 424-3000 http://www.dep.state.ct.us/ The Connecticut DEP includes several divisi ons with various functions related to hazard mitigation: Bureau of Water Management, Inland Water Resources Division – This division is generally responsible for flood hazard mitigation in Connecticut, including administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. Other programs within the division include: ‰ National Flood Insurance Program State Coordinator : Provides flood insurance and floodplain management technical assistance, floodplain management ordinance review, substa ntial damage/improvement requirements, community assistance visits, and other general fl ood hazard mitigation planning including the delineation of floodways. ‰ State Hazard Mitigation Officer (shared role with the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security) : Hazard mitigation planning and policy; oversight of administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, and Pre- Disaster Mitigation Program. Has the responsibility of making certain that the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is updated every 3 years. ‰ Flood Warning and Forecasting Service : Prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and coastal storm warnings. Staff engineers and forecaster can work with communities on flood warning issues and can give technical assistance in NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-12 preparing flood warning plans. This service has helped the public respond much faster in flooding condition. ‰ Flood & Erosion Control Board Program : Provides assistance to municipalities to solve flooding, beach erosion and dam repair problems. Have the power to construct and repair flood and erosio n management systems. Certain non- structural measures that mitigate flood da mages are also eligible. Funding is provided to communities that apply fo r assistance through a Flood & Erosion Control Board on a non-competitive basis. ‰ Stream Channel Encroachment Line Program : Similar to the NFIP, this state regulatory program places restrictions on the development of floodplains along certain major rivers. This program draw s in environmental concerns in addition to public safety issues when permitting projects. ‰ Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Management Program : Provides training, technical and planning assistance to lo cal Inland Wetlands Commissions, reviews and approves municipal regulations fo r localities. Also controls flood management and natural disaster mitigations. ‰ Dam Safety Program : Charged with the responsi bility for administration and enforcement of Connecticut’s dam safety laws. Regulates the operation and maintenance of dams in the state. Permits the construction, repair or alteration of dams, dikes or similar structures and ma intains a registration database of all known dams statewide. This program also operates a statewide inspection program. ‰ Rivers Restoration Grant Program : Administers funding and grants under the Clean Water Act involving river restorat ion, and reviews and provides assistance with such projects. Bureau of Water Management – Planning and Standards Division – Administers the Clean Water Fund and many other programs dir ectly and indirectly related to hazard mitigation including the Section 319 non-point source pollution reduction grants and municipal facilities progra m which deals with mitigating pollution from wastewater treatment plants. Office of Long Island Sound Programs (OLISP) – Administers the Coastal Area Management Act (CAM) program and L ong Island Sound License Plate Program. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-13 Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security 25 Sigourney Street, 6 th Floor Hartford, CT 06106-5042 (860) 256-0800 http://www.ct.gov/demhs/ DEMHS is the lead agency responsible for emergency management. Specifically, responsibilities include emergency prepare dness, response & recovery, mitigation, and an extensive training program. DEMHS is the state point of contact for most FEMA grant and assistance programs. DEMHS administers the Earthquake and Hurricane programs described above under the FEMA resource section. Additionally, DEMHS operates a mitigation program to coordinate mitigation throughout the state with other government agencies. Connecticut Department of Public Safety 1111 Country Club Road Middletown, CT 06457 (860) 685-8190 http://www.ct.gov/dps/ Office of the State Building Inspector – The Office of the State Building Inspector is responsible for administering and enforci ng the Connecticut State Building Code, and is also responsible for the municipa l Building Inspector Training Program. Connecticut Department of Transportation 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, CT 06131-7546 (860) 594-2000 http://www.ct.gov/dot/ The Department of Transportation admi nisters the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that in cludes grants for projects which promote alternative or improved methods of trans portation. Funding through grants can often be used for projects with mitigation benef its such as preservation of open space in the form of bicycling and walking trails. CT DOT is also involved in traffic improvements and bridge repairs which could be mitigation related. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-14 Private and Other Resources The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) 2809 Fish Hatchery Road, Suite 204 Madison, WI 53713 (608) 274-0123 http://www.floods.org/ ASFPM is a professional association of stat e employees that assist communities with the NFIP with a membership of over 1,000. ASFMP has developed a series of technical and topical research papers, and a series of Proceedings from their annual conferences. Many “mitigation success stories” have been documented through these resources, and provide a good starting point for planning. Institute for Business & Home Safety 4775 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, FL 33617 (813) 286-3400 http://www.ibhs.org/ A non-profit organization put together by the insurance indus try to research ways of reducing the social and economic impacts of natural hazards. The Institute advocates the development and implementation of bu ilding codes and standards nationwide and may be a good source of model code language. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering and Research (MCEER) University at Buffalo State University of New York Red Jacket Quadrangle Buffalo, New York 14261 (716) 645-3391 http://mceer.buffalo.edu/ A source for earthquake statistics, researc h, and f or engineering and planning advice. The National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) 1301 K Street, NW, Suite 800 East Washington, DC 20005 (202) 218-4122 http://www.nafsma.org NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-15 NAFSMA is an organization of public agencies who strive to prot ect lives, property, and economic activity from the adverse imp acts of stormwater by advocating public policy, encouraging technology, and conducting educational programs. NAFSMA is a voice in national politics on water res ources management issues concerning stormwater management, disaster assistance, flood insurance, and federal flood management policy. National Emergency Management Association (NEMA ) P.O. Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578 (859)-244-8000 http://www.nemaweb.org/ A national association of state emergency management directors and other emergency management officials, the NEMA Mitigati on Committee is a strong voice to FEMA in shaping all-hazard mitigation policy in the nation. NEMA is also an excellent source of technical assistance. Natural Hazards Center University of Colorado at Boulder 482 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0482 (303) 492-6818 http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/ The Natural Hazards Center includes the Floodplain Manageme nt Resource Center, a free library and referral service of the ASFPM for floodplain management publications. The Natural Hazards Center is located at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Staff can use keywords to identif y useful publications from the more than 900 documents in the library. New England Flood and Stormwater Man agers Association, Inc. (NEFSMA) c/o MA DEM 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 NEFSMA is a non-profit organization made up of state agency staff, local officials, private consultants and citizens from across New England. NEFSMA sponsors seminars and workshops and publishes the NEFSMA News three times per year to bring the latest flood and stormwater mana gement information from around the region to its members. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-16 Volunteer Organizations – Volunteer organizations includ ing the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanit y, and the Mennonite Disaster Service are often available to help after disasters. Service Organizations such as the Lions Club, Elks Club, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars are also available. Habitat for Humanity and the Mennonite Disaster Service provide skilled labor to help rebuild damaged buildings while incorporating mitigation or flood proofing concepts. The office of individual organizations can be contacted directly, or the FEMA Regional Office may be able to assist. Flood Relief Funds – After a disaster, local businesses, residents and out-of-town groups often donate money to local relief funds. They may be managed by the local government, one or more local churches, or an ad hoc committee. No government disaster declaration is needed. Local o fficials should recommend that the funds be held until an applicant exhausts all sources of public disa ster assistance, allowing the funds to be used for mitigation and other projects than cannot be funded elsewhere. Americorps – Americorps is the recently installed National Community Service Organization. It is a network of local, st ate, and national service programs that connects volunteers with nonpr ofits, public agencies, and faith-based and community organizations to help meet our country’s critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment. Through their service and the volunteers they mobilize, AmeriCorps members address critical needs in communities throughout America, including helping communities respond to disasters. Some states have trained Americorps members to help during flood-fi ght situations, such as by filling and placing sandbags. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-1 12.0 REFERENCES Blake, E. S., Jarrell, J. D., Rappaport, E. N., Landsea, C. W. 2006. The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones from 1851 to 2005 (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts) . Miami, FL: NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-4. http://www.nhc .noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml Brumbach, Joseph J. 1965. The Climate of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin No. 99. Collins, Andrew. 2000. Connecticut Handbook . Avalon Travel Publishing: Emeryville, California. Connecticut Department of E nvironmental Protection. 2007. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan For 2007-2010. ___. 2007. High Hazard & Significant Hazard Da ms in Connecticut, rev. 9/11/07. http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water_inlan d/dams/high_significant_hazard_dams.pdf ___. 2004. Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for 2004-2007. ___. GIS Data for Connecticut – DEP Bulletin Number 40, rev. 2008. Connecticut Department of Public Healt h. Connecticut Emergency Medical Service Regions. http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.as p?a=3127&Q=387372&dphNav_GID=1827&dphNa v=| Connecticut Economic Resource Center. 2008. Thomaston Town Profile. Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee. 1955. Report of the Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, November 3, 1955. Connecticut State Library. http://www.cslib.org/floodrecov.pdf Council of Governments of the Ce ntral Naugatuck Valley. 2008. Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. Environmental Defense. 2004. Bracing for Climate Change in the Constitution State: What Connecticut Could Face. Federal Emergency Management Agency. April 2008. HAZUS ®-MH Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. FEMA document 366. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-2 ___. 2007. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. March 2004, Revised November 2006 and June 2007. ___. 2005. Reducing Damage from Localiz ed Flooding: A Guide for Communities. FEMA document 511. ___. 1987. Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials . The Association of State Floodplain Managers. ___. Hazards. Backgrounder: Tornadoes. http://www.fema.gov/hazards/tornadoes/tornado.shtm ___. Library. Federally Declared Disasters by Calendar Year. http://www.fema.gov/library/drcys.shtm ___. Library. Preparation and Prevention . http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm ___. Mitigation Division . http://www.fema.gov/about/divisions/mitigation/mitigation.shtm ___. National Hurricane Program . http://www.fema.gov/hazards/hurricanes/nhp.shtm ___, United States Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Administration, and Connecticut Department of Public Safety Connecticut Office of Emergency Management. 1993. Connecticut Hurricane Evacuation Study Technical Data Report. Fox News.com. 2008. Rare Earthquake Strikes Connecticut . http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336973,00.html . Accessed 7/17/2008. Gates, R. M., Martin, C. W. 1967. The Bedrock Geology of the Waterbury Quadrangle. State Geological and Natura l History Survey of Connecticut, Quadrangle Report No. 22. Glowacki, D. 2005. Heavy Rains & Flooding of Sub- Regional Drainage Basins. Reviewed Draft. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Inland Water Resources Division. Godschalk, D.R., T. Beatley, P. Berke, D.J. Brower, and E.J. Kaiser. 1999. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning . Island Press: Washington, D.C. Northeast States Emergency Consortium. Earthquakes. http://www.nesec.org/hazards/Ear thquakes.cfm. Accessed 7/17/2008. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-3 Kafka, Alan L. 2004. Why Does the Earth Quake in New England? The Science of Unexpected Earthquakes . Boston College, Weston Observatory, Department of Geology and Geophysics. http://www2.bc.edu/~kafka/Why_Qua kes/why_quakes.html. Accessed 7/17/2008. Kocin, P. J., Uccellini, L .W. 2004. A Snow fall Impact Scale Derived From Northeast Storm Snowfall Distributions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 177-194. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res earch/snow-nesis/kocin-uccellini.pdf Massachusetts Emergency Management Agen cy and Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2004. Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. 2008. Town of Cheshire Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan . Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2008. Town of Prospect Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Na ugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2008. Town of Wolcott Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Na ugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2007. City of Waterbury Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Na ugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2007. Town of Nantucket Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. ___. 2006. Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Greater Bridgeport Regional Pla nning Agency, Bridgeport, CT. ___. 2005. City of New Haven Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Miller, D.R., G.S. Warner, F.L. Ogden, A.T. DeGaetano. 2002. Precipitation in Connecticut . University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Connecticut Institute of Wa ter Resources, Storrs, CT. Muckel, G.B. (editor). 2004. Understanding Soil Risks and Hazards: Using Soil Survey to Identify Areas with Risks and Hazards to Human Life and Property . United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ ration (NOAA), Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurri cane Research Division. Hurricane Histograms. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/counties/CT.html NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Enhanced F-scale for Tornado Damage . http://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/ ___. Climate of 2008 Wildfire Season Summary . Updated January 8 2009. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/clim ate/research/2008/fire08.html ___. 2008. Lightning D eaths by State, 1998 to 2007. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/stats/98-07_deaths_by_state.pdf ___. 2001. Winter Storms: The Deceptive Killers – A Preparedness Guide. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/winte r/resources/winterstorm.pdf ___. 1995. A Preparedness Guide . ___. Weekend Snowstorm in Northeast Corridor Classified as a Category 3 “Major” Storm . http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2580.htm ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Extreme Weather and Climate Events. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2007. Monthly and Seasonal Total Snowfall Amount, Wigwam Reservoir, Connecticut. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USS CAppController?action=snowfall_ms&state=06&sta tion=WIGWAMRESERVOIR&coopid=069568 ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2006. The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cli mate/research/snow-nesis/ ___. National W eather Service. National Hu rricane Center Tropical Prediction Center. NHC/TPC Archive of Past Hurricane Seasons . http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml Robinson, G. R. Jr., Kapo, K. E. 2003. Generalized Lithology and Lithogeochemical Character of Near-Surface Bedrock in the New England Region . U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Re port 03-225, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-225/ Salerno, Carolee. 2008. “1 dies, 4 injured when lightning strikes beach park.” News Channel 8. http://www.wtnh.com/global/story.asp?s =8448996 Sellers, Helen Earle. 1973. Connecticut Town Origins. The Pequot Press: Chester, Connecticut Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conserva tion Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Series Classification Database [Online WWW]. Available URL: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-5 http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/scfile/index.html [Accessed 10 February 2004]. USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE. South Western Regional Planning Agency. 2005. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Strategy Document, Connecticut’s South Western Region. Squires, M. F. and J. H. Lawrimore. 2006: Development of an Operational Snowfall Impact Scale. 22 nd IIPS, Atlanta, GA. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ research/snow-nesis/squires.pdf Staubach, Suzanne. 1998. Connecticut: Driving Through History . Covered Bridge Press: North Attleborough, Massachusetts. Tornado Project Online. h ttp://www.tornadoproject.com/ Town of Middlebury, Connecticut. 2007. Zoning Regulations. ___. 2001. Plan of Conservation & Development. ___. 2006. Subdivision Regulations. ___. 2004. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations. ___. 2007. Road and Drainage Regulations. United States Census Bureau. 2005 Popul ation Estimates. http://www.census.gov/ ___. American Factfinder. http://factfinder.census.gov/ United States Department of Transportation. 2002. The Pote ntial Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation . The DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Workshop, October 1-2, 2002. Summary and Discussion Papers. United States Geological Survey. USGS Water Data for Connecticut . http://nwis.waterdata .usgs.gov/ct/nwis/nwis United States Geological Surve y, Earthquake Hazards Program. Connecticut Earthquake History. Abridged from Earthquake Information Bulletin, January – February 1971. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/ connecticut/history.php. Assessed 7/17/2008. ___. 2008. Seismic Hazard Map of Connecticut. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/ connecticut/hazards.php. Assessed 7/17/2008. ___. 2004. The Severity of an Earthquake . http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/s everitygip.html Assessed 7/17/2008. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN MIDDLEBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-6 Wengell, McDonald & Costello, Inc. 2006. Hydrology Report, Long Meadow Road over Long Meadow Pond, prepared for the Town of Middlebury. APPENDED TABLES Appended Table 1 Hazard Event Ranking Each hazard may have multiple effects; for example, a hurricane causes h igh winds and inland flooding. Some hazards may have similar effects; for example, hurricanes and earth quakes may cause dam failure. Location Frequenc y of Ma gnitude / Rank Natural Hazards Occurrence Severit y 1 = small 0 = unlikely1 = limited 2 = medium 1 = possible2 = significant 3 = large 2 = likely 3 = critical 3 = highly likely 4 = catastrophic Winter Storms 3328 Hurricanes 3137 Summer Storms and Tornadoes 2327 Earthquakes 3126 Wildfires 1214 Location 1 = small isolated to specific area during one event 2 = medium mulitple areas during one event 3 = large significant portion of the town during one event Frequency of Occurrence 0 = unlikely less than 1% probability in the next 100 years 1 = possible between 1 and 10% probability in the next year; or at least one chance i n next 100 years 2 = likely between 10 and 100% probability in the next year; or at least one chance in next 10 years 3 = highly likely near 100% probability in the next year Magnitude / Severity 1 = limited injuries and/or illnesses are treatable with first aid; minor “quality o f life” loss; shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less; property severely damaged < 10% 2 = significant injuries and / or illnesses do not result in permanent disability; shutd own of several critical facilities for more than one week; property severely damaged 10% 3 = critical injuries and / or ilnesses result in permanent disability; complete shut down of critical facilities for at least two weeks; property severely damaged 25% 4 = catastrophic multiple deaths; complete shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more; pr operty severely damaged >50% Frequency of Occurrence, Magnitude / Severity, and Potential Damages bas ed on historical data from NOAA National Climatic Data Center and Town records Appended Table 2 Hazard Effect Ranking Some effects may have a common cause; for example, a hurricane causes hi gh winds and inland flooding. Some effects may have similar causes; for example, hurricanes and nor’ea sters both cause heavy winds. Location Frequenc y of Ma gnitude /Rank Natural Hazard Effects Occurrence Severit y 1 = small0 = unlikely1 = limited 2 = medium 1 = possible2 = significant 3 = large 2 = likely 3 = critical 3 = highly likely 4 = catastrophic Nor’Easter Winds 3328 Snow 3328 Blizzard 3328 Hurricane Winds 3137 Ice 3227 Thunderstorm and Tornado Winds 2226 Shaking 3126 Flooding from Dam Failure 1135 Lightning 1315 Flooding from Poor Drainage 1315 Inland Flooding 2215 Falling Trees/Branches 1315 Hail 1214 Fire/Heat 1113 Smoke 1113 Location 1 = smallisolated to specific area during one event 2 = medium mulitple areas during one event 3 = large significant portion of the town during one event Frequency of Occurrence 0 = unlikely less than 1% probability in the next 100 years 1 = possible between 1 and 10% probability in the next year; or at least one chance i n next 100 years 2 = likely between 10 and 100% probability in the next year; or at least one chance in next 10 years 3 = highly likely near 100% probability in the next year Magnitude / Severity 1 = limited injuries and/or illnesses are treatable with first aid; minor “quality o f life” loss; shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less; property severely damaged < 10% 2 = significant injuries and / or illnesses do not result in permanent disability; shutd own of several critical facilities for more than one week; property severely damaged 10% 3 = critical injuries and / or ilnesses result in permanent disability; complete shut down of critical facilities for at least two weeks; property severely damaged 25% 4 = catastrophic multiple deaths; complete shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more; pr operty severely damaged >50% Frequency of Occurrence, Magnitude / Severity, and Potential Damages bas ed on historical data from NOAA National Climatic Data Center and Town records Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Flood Plain District 53 In the Flood Plain District, no structure within the Town should be constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, extended, moved or structurally altered, no land use shall be established and no land shall be filled, g rade d or excavated until the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved a plan for the proposed structure, land use or alteration of land contou r General Stanards 53.3 sets for standards for anchoring; use of flood-resistant materials; siti ng and placement of systems such as water, wastewater, electrical, heating, and cooling; maintaining flood carrying capacities of streams; outdoor storage; and installation of manufactured homes Specific Standards 53.4 provides for elevation of new construction and substantial improvements at least two feet above the base flood elevation, and requires dry floodproofing of the parts of structures below the base flood elevation . Floodway Standards 53.5 prohibits development that cumulatively increases the base flood elevatio n by more than one foot Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control 68.2 Any proposal for development that will cumulatively create a disturbed area more than one-half acre in area on land being developed must have a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Appended Table 3 Zoning Regulations Road & Drainage Regulations Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulation Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3 Zoning Regulations Road & Drainage Regulations Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulation Storm Drainage 7 Outlines the Town’s requirements to manage stormwater, which includes the collection and disposal thereof in an attempt to design drainage systems which take into account effects upon downstream systems; coordinate with general drainage requirements for the use and development of the abutting land; avoid diversion of drainage from one watershed or watercourse to another is to be avoided; minimize all adverse effects of all work to the stream or watercourse which is being affected; discharge all storm water into sufficient streams or rivers or into Town or State drainage systems with sufficient capacity to carry the discharge; and locate and size drainage facilities in order to minimize danger to life and property. This section also calls for the protection and improvement of the natural drainage system and the prevention of flooding and soil erosion. Drainage Standards 7 The storm drainage system shall provide for drainage from the entire are a of the subdivision and shall take into account land outside the subdivis ion that normally drains across the area of the subdivision, as well as the effects of the subdivision upon downstream drainage systems. Additionally, the drainage system shall provide for the following: Adequate drainage of proposed streets, Interception of existing channele d drainage coming from any adjoining streets, Protection of locations necessary for on-site sewage disposal and water supply facilities, Prevention of flooding and soil erosion, and protection of wetlands and watercourses, and On-site detention where feasible, in order that runoff from the developed subdivision not exceed the rate of runoff before subdivision. Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3 Zoning Regulations Road & Drainage Regulations Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulation Inland Wetlands and Watercourses These regulations cover actions within and surrounding wetlands an d watercourses throughout the Town of Middlebury. Although flooding is not specifically addressed, many of the requirements of the regulations ar e believed to be preventive of floodin g APPENDIX A STAPLEE MATRIX APPENDIX B DOCUMENTATION OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX B PREFACE An extensive data collection, evaluation, and outreach program was undertaken to compile information about existing hazards and mitigation in the Town of Middlebury, as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized for h azard mitigation. Documentation of this process is provided within the following sets of meeting minutes and field reports. COGCNV field notes Field inspection on February 13, 2008. Notes typed February 15, 2008. Shawn Goulet Connecticut experienced a period of heavy rains on frozen ground on February 13, 2008. Precipitation measured 1.35 inch es over approximately 9 hours in nearby Litchfield and 1.62 inches in Waterbury. On February 13, 2008 Da vid Murphy and Shawn Goulet highlighted high priority areas of potential flooding mentioned duri ng the initial data collection meeting in the Town of Southbury. Additionally, areas of poten tial flooding were outlined in the Town of Middlebury. These sites were visited on February 13, 2008 and problematic areas were photographed. These problematic areas primarily included areas of potential poor drainage due to the snow cover. The sequence of photography is listed below: Photographs: 1. Nuisance flooding along River Rd. 2. Nuisance flooding along River Rd. 3. The Town of Southbury alleviati ng nuisance flooding along River Road 4. The Town of Southbury alleviati ng nuisance flooding along River Road 5. A front yard along Pomperaug Trail is flooded 6. The end of Pomperaug Trail is flooded 7. Another front yard along Pomperaug Trail is flooded 8. River Road Bridge over the Pomperaug River 9. The view looking upstream of the Pomperaug River from Manor Road 10. The view looking west and upgrad ient along Jeremy Swamp Road 11. Nuisance flooding along Jeremy Swamp Road 12. Jeremy Brook bends after the culv ert crossing beneath Hulls Hill Road 13. View looking south of Jeremy Brook cu lvert crossing outlet along Hulls hill Road 14. View of Jeremy Brook near the culvert crossing 15. Water from Jeremy Brook begins to spill onto Hulls Hill Road 16. An undersized culvert appears stresse d due to the substantial precipitation 17. Water associated with Jeremy Brook before entering the culvert crossing 18. 19. 20. These notes follow the sequence of photography above. a) River Road (west of Glen Rd.), Southbury – Looking north along River Road, water from an unnamed stream builds (Photo #1). The cause of the nuisance flooding looks to be a failing culvert due to its overcapacity or damming. 1. Nuisance flooding along River Road b) River Road (west of Glen Road), Southbury – This is the same location as Photo #1. The Town of Southbury has to alleviate the culvert during large- scale rain events along this portion of River Rd. in Photo #3. 3. The Town of Southbury alleviatin g nuisance flooding along River Road c) Pomperaug Trail, Southbury – The front yards of different homes along Pomperaug Trail were flooded like the representati ve home in Photo #3. The backyards of these homes border the Pomperaug River. 5. A front yard along Pomperaug Trail is flooded d) River Road Bridge (over th e Pomperaug River), Southbury – The River Road Bridge over the Pomperaug River becomes instrumental to vehicular transportation when traffic on I-84 becomes problematic or the highway is shut-down. The bridge is currently rated as being in “poor” to “very poor” condition and is owned by the Town. Photo #4 shows the view of the bridge from Berkshire Road. 8. River Road Bridge over the Pomperaug River e) Manor Road, Southbury – Photo #5 is the view looking ups tream the Pomperaug River from Manor Road. Homes, Manor Road, and Po mperaug Trail are often inundated during sustained precipitation events. Ice jams at th is location often bring about flooding events. 9. The view looking upstream of th e Pomperaug River from Manor Road f) Jeremy Swamp Road, Southbury – Traveling east along Jere my Swamp Road, water was found to be moving rapidly downgradient towa rds Jeremy Brook (Photo #6) prior to the Jeremy Swamp Road/Hulls Hill Road intersec tion. Potential for storm drain failure along this road can lead towards substantial nuisance flooding (Photo #7). 10. The view looking west and upgr adient along Jeremy Swamp Road 11. Nuisance flooding al ong Jeremy Swamp Road g) Hulls Hill Road/Jeremy Swamp Road, Southbury – Jeremy Brook flows rapidly to the east of the Hulls Hill Road/Jeremy Swamp Road intersection (Photo #8). 13. View looking south of Jeremy Brook cu lver crossing outlet along Hulls hill Road The intersection often becomes inundated dur ing heavy precipitation events and is subsequently closed by the Town. The inte rsection was approaching inundation at the time of data collection (Photo #9). 15. Water from Jeremy Brook begins to spill onto Hulls Hill Road The lone culvert crossing at the location appears to be insufficient for a storm of this scale (Photo #10). 16. An undersized culvert appears stressed due to the substantial precipitation h) Regan Road, Middlebury – Regan Road, which follows part of Hop Brook through Middlebury was determined to be a possible source of road and property/house inundation. Photos 18-20 show Hop Brook at an elevated st age level during the rain event alongside the road and near homes in this section of the Town. 18. The downstream view of Hop Brook along Regan Road 19. The upstream view of Hop Brook along Regan Road 20. The view of Hop Book from Regan Road Page 8 Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR M IDDLEBURY Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Initial Data Collection Meeting February 20, 2008 I. Welcome & Introductions The following individuals attended the data collection meeting: ‰ David Murphy, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI) ‰ Shawn Goulet, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Tom Gormley, Middlebury First Selectman ‰ Claudia Tata, Middlebury Administrati ve Manager to the First Selectman ‰ Jean Donegan, Middlebury Pl anning and Zoning Commission II. Description and Need for Hazard Mitigation Plans / Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 David described the basis for the natural ha zard planning process and possible outcomes. Middlebury is responsible for a 1/8 co st share through in-kind services. III. Project Scope and Schedule The project scope was described, including pr oject initiation and data collection, the vulnerability assessment, public meetings, development of recommendations, and the FEMA Review and Plan adoption. A 12-month schedule was presented. First Selectman Gormley noted that he has as signed Paul Perrotti, the Middlebury Fire Chief, as the point of contact person for the project. Paul did not attend the meeting. The Board of Selectmen was identified as the governing body to eventually approve the Plan. IV. Hazards to Address The Middlebury plan will likely address floodi ng, mud slides and slumps, hurricanes and tropical storms, winter storms and nor’easters, summer storms and tornadoes, earthquakes, dam failure, and wildfires. V. Discussion of Hazard Mitigation Pr ocedures in Effect & Problem Areas ‰ Although procedures were brought up by David and Shawn, it was determined that Paul Perrotti, Dan Norton (DPW Director ), and Kenny Long of the DPW Department would be most versed in the hazard mitigation procedures for the Town. February 20, 2008 Page 2 ‰ The informational public meeting was schedul ed for April 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM at the Town Hall. David noted that Virginia will issue a press release for the informational public meeting. Emergency Response Capabili ties & Evacuation Routes ‰ The Fire House, Library, and Community Cent er were noted as the three shelters in the Town. All three locations have genera tors. The Police Department, located at 200 Southford Road, was also noted as ha ving a generator. However, the Police Department does not have a similar capacity as the three designated shelter facilities. The schools in Town are Region 15 schools. Therefore, they cannot be used by the Town as shelters. ‰ Another meeting with Paul, Dan and Kenny will be scheduled to gain a better understanding of the emergenc y response capabilities and evacuation routes in Town. Critical Facilities ‰ Benson Woods, a development with residents of age 55+ (N. Benson Road) ‰ Middlebury Convalescent Home (Route 64) ‰ Smaller Convalescent Home (Ex act location not immediately known) ‰ Home for the Blind (George Street near Yale Avenue) ‰ Daycare Centers (On Route 64 and on Triangle Boulevard) ‰ New Horizon Handicap Assistan tship Home (Nutmeg Road) ‰ Middlebury Edge, a mixed-use developmen t including a large-scale daycare center with approximately 100 adolesce nts (Route 63 and Park Road) ‰ Middlebury Volunteer Fire Hous e (65 Tucker Hill Road) ‰ Middlebury Public Libr ary (65 Crest Road) ‰ Shepardson Community Center (1172 Whittemore Road) Zoning, Subdivision, Inland Wetlands Regulations ‰ An age-restricted development located n ear Straw Pond is the subject of safety concerns. The buildings received a height approval, even though they are considered considerably high for elderly residents. ‰ Underground water tanks for fire protection are not a requirement of developments in Town when water service is not available. Fire ponds, however, are required in this scenario. ‰ Utilities are underground. February 20, 2008 Page 3 ‰ Claudia and Jean indicated that there are re gulations associated with streets (i.e. cul- de-sacs and road widths) in subdivision de velopments. Referring to regulations and the discussion with Paul, Dan and Kenny would offer information about specifics. ‰ The Middlebury Land Trust, which owns a substantial amount of acres in the Town was mentioned by all as being a notable stak eholder in this project. Curt Smith, who is active in the Land Trust, was id entified as the point of contact. Dams & Noted Flooding and/or Drainage Problem Areas ‰ At the dam on Long Meadow Pond, there is a Federal grant to replace the bridge which is rated in very poor condition by DE P. The water level is at the bridge elevation at this location. The dam also needs replacement as it is in poor condition. The ownership of the dam has not been identified. ‰ The Quassapaug Lake Dam, owned by the Tyle r Cove Association, has an associated drainage problem. Water from Munson Road migrates to Sandy Beach Road in this area. The dam is in very poor condition. David mentioned that the Town can partner with the owner and apply for a grand through this project. ‰ Homes along Regan and Old Regan Roads a nd the streets become inundated during large scale precipitati on events. A development was r ecently proposed to the Town that would affect stormwater drainage in the area. Because residents along these roads produced photos and videos of problems associated with these properties, the proposed development was denied. Problem Areas for Wind Damage ‰ There are no mobile hom e parks in the Town. ‰ Tornadoes are rare. ‰ Any other issues regarding tree maintenan ce will be discussed in the meeting with Paul, Dan, and Kenny. Problems Due to Snow and Ice ‰ These issues will be part of the discussion in the meeting with Paul, Dan, and Kenny. Wildfires and Fire Protection ‰ Wildfires and fire protection wi ll be discussed with Paul. Development Trends ‰ The DeSantis Developmen t is currently underway. Meeting Minutes February 20, 2008 Page 4 ‰ The Estates at Long Meadow (Longmeadow Road/Washington Drive), a combination of adjacent projects, has been approved and consists of approximately 135 homes ‰ A development of 126 units on Christian Road near Southford Road has bee n completed. There is limited entrance/exit cap acity associated with Southford Road in this area. ‰ Benson Woods (Age 55+) and a development near Straw Pond have been completed. ‰ A Golf Course development, that may or may not be age restricted has been approved. VI. Acquisitions ‰ Town of Middlebury Subdivision Regulations (2006) ‰ Town of Middlebury Inland Wetl ands and Watercourses Regulations (2004) ‰ Town of Middlebury Plan of Conservation and Development (2001) ‰ Town of Middlebury Zoning Regulations (2007) ‰ Town of Middlebury Road and Drainage Regulations (2007) ‰ Town of Middlebury Rock Excavation Regulations (2004) ‰ Town of Middlebury Excavation and Grading Regulations (2004) ‰ Town of Middlebury Declaration of a Local Disaster Emergency Ordinance (2007) Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR M IDDLEBURY Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Initial Data Collection Meeting March 3, 2008 I. Introduction The following individuals attended the data collection meeting: ‰ Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI) ‰ Shawn Goulet, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Dan Norton, Town of Middlebury Director of the Department of Public Works II. Description and Need for Hazard Mitigation Plans / Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Shawn and Samuel described the basis for th e natural hazard planning process and possible outcomes. III. Project Scope and Schedule ‰ The project scope was described, including pr oject initiation and data collection, the vulnerability assessment, public meetings, development of recommendations, and the FEMA Review and Plan adoption. A 12-month schedule was presented. IV. Discussion of Hazard Mitigation Pr ocedures in Effect & Problem Areas Problem Areas for Wind Damage ‰ Dan talked of the procedures that the DP W takes in addressing tree maintenance on public property. ‰ If, in any way, the tree crosses the vertical imaginary plane of Town property, then the Town considers itself owning the tree. ‰ These trees are subject to Town maintenance and/or take-downs. ‰ Priority given to these cases are on a first-ca ll/first-come basis and are given a relative condition rating by Dan and DPW staff as to prioritizing when/which are taken care of. ‰ The Town is sufficiently suited for debris removal having equipment such as brush claws, a tub grinder and various other claws in the event of needing to process debris obstructing Town roads and other public property. March 3, 2008 Page 2 ‰ The processed debris will be disposed of at different specified locations around Town. ‰ Right now, the Town does not have a specifi c person to conduct tree maintenance or take-downs. ‰ DPW is hopeful that the person in charge of these issues will be re-hired in July when the budget is re-evaluated. ‰ Tornadoes are rare. ‰ Any other issues regarding tree maintenan ce will be discussed in the meeting with Paul, Dan, and Kenny. Problems Due to Snow and Ice ‰ DPW does not break the Town into sections and assign routes within those sections. ‰ There are 8 trucks which run 8 routes and they continue until they finish their route. Once they are complete with their “pa ss around”, they return to DPW and assess further work. ‰ There are no specific priorities in Town. Ho wever, streets with hills and intersections are given more attention than those without. ‰ The northwest section of Town is higher in elevation and has a substantial amount of relief, so it generally garners more attention compared to the lower elevation/relief in the southeast section of Town. Problem Areas for Nuisance Flooding ‰ Flooding complaints associated with public property and public roads are usually phoned to the police department whic h forwards these to the DPW. ‰ Any drainage issues associated with pub lic property are also funneled to DPW. ‰ Ravenwood Drive near Watertown road is prone to nuisance flooding from Hop Brook. ‰ Long Meadow Road, including the Long Mea dow Road Bridge, on either side of Long Meadow Pond is prone to inundation during large scale precipitation events. Meeting Minutes March 3, 2008 Page 3 ‰ The easternmost section of Triangle Boulevard (northeast of Hill Parkway) is prone to nuisance flooding. ‰ Judd Hill Road Extension, at the Woodbury/Middlebury border becomes inundated during large scale precipitation events. ‰ Charcoal Avenue near Artillery Road often becomes inundated because of water from Goat Brook. ‰ Cemetery Road near Route 64 is sometime s subject to nuisance flooding associated with a small watercourse which also affects a gas station. ‰ Shadduck Road is sometimes inundated near the pump station. ‰ Porter Avenue, Steinmann Avenue and R eagan Road are all prone to nuisance flooding from Long Swamp Brook and Hop Brook in the area. ‰ Watertown Road experienced a substantial wash-out in 2006, which was the result of water from Watertown crossing the Town line. Watertown was not prepared to submit FEMA applications with Middlebury, so funds from FEMA could not be obtained. Middlebury has pictures of which they plated the road for the weekend and began repairs the following Monday. ‰ DPW has volumes of photogr aphs associated with their crews conducting work associated with tree maintenance/take-downs, snow/ice removal and flooding issues. Natural Hazard Pre-DisasterMitigation Plan Middlebury, Connecticut Presented by : David Murphy, P.E. – Associate Milone & MacBroom, Inc. Sam Eisenbeiser, AICP Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. April 7, 2008 •Authority –Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (amendments to Stafford Act of 1988) • Goal of Disaster Mitigation Act –Encourage disaster preparedness – Encourage hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses of life and property History of Hazard Mitigation Plans M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Local municipalities must have a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place to receive federal grant funds for hazard mitigation projects ƒNaugatuck ƒ Southbury ƒ Thomaston ƒ Beacon Falls ƒ Bethlehem ƒ Middlebury Municipalities Currently Involved in the Regional Mitigation Planning Process M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Se le ction of FEMA Pre -Disaste r Mitigation Grants: 2003-2006 List does not include seismic, wind retrofit, home acquisition, and planning projects State Description Grant Colorado Detention pond $3,000,000 Oregon Water conduit replacement $3,000,000 Washington Road elevation $3,000,000 Oregon Floodplain restoration $2,984,236 Colorado Watershed mitigation $2,497,216 Georgia Drainage improvements $1,764,356 Massachusetts Pond flood hazard project $1,745,700 Oregon Ice storm retrofit $1,570,836 North Dakota Power transmission replacement $1,511,250 Texas Home elevations $1,507,005 Florida Storm sewer pump station $1,500,000 Massachusetts Flood hazard mitigation project $1,079,925 Kansas Effluent pump station $765,000 South Dakota Flood channel restoration $580,657 Massachusetts Culvert project $525,000 Texas Storm shelter $475,712 Massachusetts Housing elevation and retrofit $473,640 Utah Fire station retrofit $374,254 Washington Downtown flood prevention project $255,000 New York WWTP Floodwall construction $223,200 Massachusetts Road mitigation project $186,348 Massachusetts Flood mitigation project $145,503 Vermont Road mitigation project $140,441 New Hampshire Water planning for firefighting $134,810 Oregon Bridge scour relocation project $116,709 New Hampshire Box culvert project $102,000 Missouri Bank stabilization $48,750 Tennessee Utility protection $40,564 Wisconsin Waterway stabilization $12,909 •An extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, and resources What is a Natural Hazard ? M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Pre-disaster actions that reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people, property, and resources from natural hazards and their effects A Road Closure During / After a Large Scale Rainfall Event is a Type of Hazard Mitigation What is Hazard Mitigation? M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Reduce loss / damage to life, property, and infrastructure • Reduce the cost to residents and businesses • Educate residents and policy-makers about natural hazard risk and vulnerability • Connect hazard mitigation planning to other community planning efforts • Enhance and preserve natural resource systems in the community Long-Term Goals of Hazard Mitigation M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Terrorism and Sabotage • Disaster Response and Recovery • Human Induced Emergencies (some fires, hazardous spills and contamination, disease, etc.) What a Hazard Mitigation Plan Does Not Address M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Identify natural hazards that could occur in Middlebury • Evaluate the vulnerability of structures and populations and identify critical facilities and areas of concern • Assess adequacy of mitigation measures currently in place • Evaluate potential mitigation measures that could be undertaken to reduce the risk and vulnerability • Develop recommendations for future mitigation actions Components of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Emergency Services – Police, Fire, Ambulance • Municipal Facilities – Shepardson Community Center • The Fire House & Library • Daycare Centers Shepardson Community Center is equipped with a generator Middlebury’s Critical Facilities M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. A mixed-use development located along Route 63 near Park Road. This development includes a large daycare center. •Life / Health Care and Assisted Living • Water Utilities – Tanks, Pumping Stations • Wastewater Utilities • Home for the Blind • Key Roads and Evacuation Routes Middlebury’s Critical Facilities M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Potential Mitigation Categories M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Public Education Prevention Structural Projects Natural Resource Protection Property Protection Emergency Services •Utilization of the Police & Fire Emergency Number: 911 • Provide some Emergency Notification System in the future, such as the CodeRED System. • Adopt local legislation that limits or regulates development in vulnerable areas • Public education programs – dissemination of public safety information • Construction of structural measures • Preserve critical land areas and natural systems • Elevate or Remove Flood-prone Buildings Potential Mitigation Measures M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Inland flooding • Winter storms, nor’easters, heavy snow, blizzards, ice storms • Hurricanes • Summer storms, tornadoes, thunderstorms, lightning, hail • Dam failure • Wildfires • Earthquakes Primary Natural Hazards Facing Middlebury M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. High flows seen within Hop Brook during a large-scale precipitation event •Winds • Heavy rain / flooding Hurricanes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Heavy wind / tornadoes / downbursts • Lightning • Heavy rain • Hail Lightning over Boston Flooding in MN Tornado in KS Summer Storms and Tornadoes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Blizzards and nor’easters • Heavy snow and drifts • Freezing rain / ice Connecticut CT River – April 2007 Winter Storms M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Severe rains or earthquakes can cause failure • Possibility of loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage Dam Failure M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Long Meadow Pond Dam Lake Quassapaug Dam •Based on aerial and topographical mapping, Middlebury has low to moderate risk of wildfires • The majority of the land prone to wildfires is in the northeast portion of the Town near the Woodbury town line • Fire • Heat • Smoke Photo courtesy of FEMA Wildfires M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Middlebury is in an area of minor seismic activity • Chester, CT experienced a small, 2.0 magnitude earthquake on March 11, 2008 • Can cause dam failure ŠShaking Š Liquefaction Š Secondary (Slides/Slumps) Photos courtesy of FEMA Earthquakes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Roadway and property flooding at rivers and streams Š Ravenwood Drive near Watertown Road & Regan road along Hop Brook Š Long Meadow Road & Lake Shore Drive along Long Meadow Pond Š Triangle Boulevard along an unnamed stream Š Porter Avenue & Steinmann Avenue along Long Swamp Brook Š Other streams and localized problems • Potential bridge maintenance / replacement Area-Specific Problems M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Ravenwood Drive near Watertown Road & Regan Road along Hop Brook Flooding at Rivers and Streams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Ravenwood Drive crosses Hop Brook in the northern section of Middlebury Regan Road runs parallel to Hop Brook south of Route 64 •Long Meadow Road & Lake Shore Drive along Long Meadow Pond Flooding at Rivers and Streams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Long Meadow Road Bridge Lake Shore Drive •Triangle Boulevard east of Hill Parkway is prone to flooding from an unnamed stream M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Porter Avenue & Steinmann Avenue along Long Swamp Brook M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Shadduck Road near Hop Brook • Judd Hill Extension near the Woodbury town line • Charcoal Avenue near Artillery Road in the area of Goat Brook • Cemetery Road near Goat Brook •A Federal Grant exists to replace the Long Meadow Road Bridge, considered to be in poor condition Potential Bridge Maintenance / Replacement M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Incorporate input from residents • Rank hazard vulnerability • Develop a response strategy • Prepare the draft plan with recommendations for review by the Town and the public • Adopt and implement the plan Next Steps M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Questions and Additions M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR M IDDLEBURY Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Public Information Meeting April 7, 2008 I. Welcome & Introductions The following individuals attended the public meeting: ‰ David Murphy, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI) ‰ Virginia Mason, Council of Governme nts Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV) ‰ Jean Donegan, Town of Middlebury Planning ‰ Kenneth Long, Town of Middlebury DPW ‰ Paul Perrotti, Town of Middlebury Emergency Management ‰ Rich Giusti, Town of Mi ddlebury Chief of Police ‰ Raymond Sullivan, MD, Health Director, Town of Middlebury ‰ Ellen Mascoli, resident ‰ Nick Mascoli, resident ‰ Tom Murray, resident ‰ James Beckett, resident ‰ Bob Scholl, resident ‰ Allan Dabkowski, resident ‰ Marilee Dabkowski, resident Ms. Mason introduced the project team and th e project, explaining the COG’s role in the project, the goals of the Disa ster Mitigation Act, and the relationship to the FEMA pre- disaster and post-disast er funding processes. II. Power Point: “Natural Hazard Pre-Disast er Mitigation Plan, Middlebury, Connecticut” Mr. Murphy and Mr. Eisenbeiser pr esented the power point slideshow. III. Questions, Comments, and Discussion ‰ Most of the residents in attendance were present to discuss nuisance and basement water problems downslope from single- family developments along Park Road Extension. Mr. Scholl of 470 Park Road Extension, Mr. and Mrs. Dabkowski of 22 Briarwood Terrace, and Dr. Gagne of 54 Ja net Drive provided copies of written correspondence to the Conservation Commi ssion and Planning & Zoning Commission. This correspondence describes the nuisance and basement water problems that have allegedly occurred. A berm and swale are s upposed to move water into the municipal stormwater system but it reportedly is not working. Meeting Minutes April 7, 2008 Page 2 ‰ Watertown Road was flooded in the June 2006 storm at Hop Brook. This area has reportedly washed out. ‰ Residents on Woodside Avenue in the eastern part of town suffer from nuisance flooding. ‰ The Triangle Blvd area is impacted by runoff from the airport. Water from a small stream jumps a culvert, flows onto the road, and floods at least two homes to the north while making its way to the nearby stream ch annel. The Town has added a catch basin to help collect water, but it doesn’t work well if the outlet is submerged. ‰ Two residents of the Regan Road area (Mr. Murray at 420 Regan Road and Mr. Beckett at 54 Old Regan Road) repor ted that flooding occurs along Hop Brook. Storms have appeared to intensify in the last eight years. Floods have occurred in April 2006, June 2006, and April 2007. The stream is aggradi ng. It was reportedly dredged in the 1980s and the residents would like to see it dredged again. Some of the homes (including 420 Regan Road) have streams in the front (Hop Brook) and the back (Long Swamp Brook), and they both flood. ‰ In general, a focus on the Hop Brook corridor is necessary. ‰ The East Farms Road area is in need of fi re protection. Tanks, ponds, and hydrants are not available. It’s a long way for pumper tr ucks to get to the end of the development. Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR M IDDLEBURY Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Data Collection Meeting with Middlebury LEPC April 24, 2008 I. Introduction The following individuals attended the data collection meeting: ‰ Scott Bighinatti, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Shawn Goulet, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Virginia Mason, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) ‰ Paul Perrotti, MVFD Chief / Emergency Management Director ‰ Robert Desmarais Sr., Board of Selectmen ‰ James Roy, Middlebury Police Department ‰ Jonathan Vaughan, Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department ‰ Kim Connors, Middlebury Vol unteer Fire Department ‰ Carol Santos, Westover School ‰ David Sikora, Middlebury Resident (Organic Chemist) ‰ Tom Reynolds, Middlebury Resident II. Description and Need for Hazard Mitigation Plans / Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Virginia and Scott described the need for the hazard mitigation plan and the goals for the data collection meeting. III. Project Scope and Schedule ‰ The project scope was briefly discussed, in cluding data collection, public meetings, and the FEMA Review and Plan adoption. A draft should be available for the Town to review in September. IV. Discussion of Hazard Mitigation Pr ocedures in Effect & Problem Areas Critical Facilities ‰ Westover School is considered one of the Town ’s critical facilities. It houses up to 200 overnight students during the school year , and can act as a shelter (though it is more effective as a shelter in the summer). Because of the overnight students, the school is involved with the local LEPC. MVFD is aware that the 1920’s wood-frame construction of the school makes it susceptibl e to fast-spreading fires, so MVFD is well prepared for such a fire if it occurred at the school. April 24, 2008 Page 2 ‰ Middlebury has adopted CODE RED fo r communications. The MVFD and ambulance service currently operates on hi gh band and they have no communication dead spots. The Police currently operate on a lower band, and they have some communications dead spots near the intersec tion of Route 64 and Route 63. There is limited cellular service in that area of Town due to topography. The Town is currently looking into an upgr ade to put all emergency services on the same radio band. ‰ Middlebury uses the state and regional ev acuation plans. Interstate 84 and State Routes 63, 64, and 188 are the primary evacuation routes. Secondary evacuation routes include Watertown Ro ad and Old Watertown Road (to Watertown), Christian Road (to Oxford), and Long Meadow Road to South Street (to Naugatuck) . ‰ The Timex facility off Christian Road and the Chemtura facility (600 employees) off Benson Road are of special concern because they work with hazardous chemicals. ‰ There are no sewage treatment plants in Middlebury. All sewage flows by gravity main to the sewage treatment plant in Na ugatuck. There are at least five pump stations located thr oughout Town. The ones that were mentioned are at the west end of Gleneagle Road, on Shadduck Road n ear Hop Brook, Route 188 at the Southbury Town line, and near the intersection of Benson Road and Kissawaug Road, and on Christian Lane outside the Triangle Hill subdivision. ‰ The Fire Department on Tucker Hill Road is the primary emergency facility. MVFD handles fires and ambulance service. Camp ion ambulance service in Waterbury also responds to any calls requiring an ambulance. The Fire Department Building acts as a primary shelter accommodating up to 50 peopl e and is equipped with a generator. Shepardson Community Shelter on Route 188 is also a primary shelter, has a generator, and can accommodate a maximum of 100 people. Long Meadow School on North Benson Road is also a primary sh elter with a generator that can hold 100 people. ‰ Memorial school on Memorial Drive is a backup shelter and does not have a generator, but can shelter 100 people. ‰ The Department of Public works is consider ed a critical facility and is located on Service Road off Woodside Avenue. ‰ The Police Department on Route 188 is the s econd emergency facility. It acts as a secondary fire station and has two fire trucks on site to dispatch to fires in the west part of Town. ‰ A new power plant is planned to be built south of Long Meadow Pond in Oxford. The LEPC is not sure yet what its e ffects will be on emergency planning. April 24, 2008 Page 3 Development Trends ‰ There are many planned or ongoing developments in Middlebury. ‰ New developments are planned for areas off Christian Road and South Street (south part of Town). A new development calle d the Ridgewood Project is also planned between Route 188 and South Street north of I-84. A smaller development is planned near the intersection of R oute 188 and Long Meadow Road. The number of homes is undetermined. ‰ A 50 home development is in construction off Benson Road near the Southbury Town line. ‰ Another 50-home development, Avalon Home s, is in construction on Route 188 near the north end of Long Meadow Road. ‰ A housing development of up to 250 homes is planned between Three Mile Hill Road and Route 63. Part of this area is near where Timex performs its court ordered water sampling / cleaning. ‰ A potential development could go in south of Route 64 and east of White Avenue. ‰ A 250-300 unit condominium development is planned between Porter Avenue and Regan Road. This area is near the floodplain of Hop Brook. ‰ 28 to 30 homes are planned off Washingt on Drive in the south part of Town. ‰ New houses are proposed off Park Road north of Gleneagle Road. This area is west of a steep grade (the “Western Hills” of Route 63 near Waterbury) and has poor infiltration, so water tends to pond. Problems due to Localized Flooding ‰ Park Road (see above), Park Road Extens ion, and Old Regan Road and Regan Road (homes low in relation to nearby Hop Brook and tributary) were mentioned as having flooding problems. ‰ Paul is going to compile a list of area s that regularly flood and send to MMI. ‰ Watertown Road washed out in 2006 a nd Middlebury tried to “piggy-back” on Waterbury’s application to FEMA to get grant money to rebuild the road, but the application did not succeed. April 24, 2008 Page 4 ‰ Westover School was mentioned as having so me flooding problems along some of its boarding houses. The nature of the flooding was not addressed. Scott explained that because Westover School is private the Town would have to be the sub-applicant for any funding request. ‰ Kelly Pond in Southbury floods Judd Hill Road in Middlebury. ‰ Water runs down the Hill near the intersec tion of Cemetery Road and Route 64. The three culverts are undersized and cannot handle the flow. ‰ A culvert running under Route 64 that passes a tributary to Hop Brook is undersized. This culvert is near the north end of Steinman Avenue. ‰ Flooding is a problem along Woodside Road due to an undersized culvert. The road doesn’t overtop, but the backwater conditi on causes lawn and basement flooding of nearby properties. Problems due to Snow and Ice ‰ Route 188 gets very icy coming out of S outhbury due to topography. Route 64/188 is also slow due to snow and ice from the intersection of Route 188 and Route 64 to West Street. ‰ Drifting snow is a problem along Route 64 near Christian Road and Abbot Farm Road, and on Route 188 near the Police Station. Problem Areas for Wildfires ‰ There are several areas that are susceptible to fires. Many areas of the Town do not have water service, and the MVFD simp ly cannot transport enough water to fight large fires in certain areas. The remai nder of the Town is served primarily by Connecticut Water Company. ‰ The Oxford Airport is located in the north ern part of Oxford near the southern boundary of Middlebury. The airport primarily caters to corporate jets but can also handle commercial traffic during emergencies. The airport is attempting to buy out the Triangle Hill subdivision near the airpor t in Middlebury because they are located in the runway exclusion zone. While pl anes have not crashed into the neighborhood, they have crashed in the woods further fr om the airport north of the neighborhood. This area is well wooded and a brush fire concern area. Another subdivision is planned north of the Triangle Hill subdivision that is out of the exclusion zone but in the area where planes have crashed. Meeting Minutes April 24, 2008 Page 5 ‰ Brush fires are a concern south of I-84 near Wooster Road and east of Long Meadow Pond because of limited access along the pow er lines. Fires are also a concern southwest of Hop Brook Lake near Allerton Farms Road. ‰ Brush fires are a concern along Burr Hall Road as there is limited water and it is a long dead end road. They are also a con cern along the “Western Hills” section of Waterbury along Route 63 in the northeas t part of Town due to topography. ‰ Brush fires are a concern south of Route 64 and east of White Avenue. ‰ Brush fires are especially dangerous nort h of Lake Quassapaug, as the area has limited access and high concentrations of M ountain Laurel that produces hazardous fumes when burned. Fires must be fought w ith self-contained breathing apparatuses. Homes in this area have limited access in and out of the neighborhood. ‰ A one-million gallon water tank is located at the end of Cedar Road in the south part of Town, and a second water tower is located south of Ferndale Avenue in the eastern part of Town. ‰ The north end of East Farms Road has no fi re fighting water. The Town would like to get access to the pond north of East Farm Road for a dry hydrant. A pond west of Falcon Crest Road is the second hi ghest priority for a dry hydrant. ‰ The north-central section of Town has probl ems with supplying fire-fighting water. This includes Artillery Road, North Farms Road, and Mirey Dam Road. There are no ponds in this area to insta ll dry hydrants and the nearest public water service is currently downhill to the southeast along Route 64. ‰ The MVFD has a 4×4 brush truck and a 4WD tanker truck capable of carrying water to remote fires. APPENDIX C RECORD OF MUNICIPAL ADOPTION