BOROUGH OF NAUGATUCK NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING AREA FEBRUARY 2009 REVISED MARCH 2009 MMI #2937-02 Prepared For: Under a grant from the Federal Emergenc y Management Agency (FEMA) through the Connecticut Department of E nvironmental Protection (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 72 Cedar Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 446-2102 www.fhiplan.com NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ii 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 ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ……. 2-13 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology ……………………………………………………………… ………… 2-14 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting ……………………………………………………………… …. 2-18 2.7 Governmental Structure ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-19 2.8 Development Trends ……………………………………………………………… ………………………… 2-2 3 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity ………………………………………………………….. 2-26 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 ……………………………………………. 3-8 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 3-16 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 3-24 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 3-34 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 iii 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 …………………………………………… 5-9 5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 5-11 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 5-12 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 ……………………………………………. 6-7 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 ………. 6-11 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 …………………………………………. 8-10 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 8-11 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 8-16 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 iv 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 …………………………………………… 9-5 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 9-6 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 9-9 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Additional Recommendations……………………………………………………………… ……………. 10-1 10.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations …………………………………………………………….. 10-2 10.3 Sources of Funding ……………………………………………………………… ………………………….. 10-7 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES Table 2-1 Land Use by Area ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 2-4 Table 2-2 Soils by Taxonomic Class……………………………………………………………… ………. 2-12 Table 2-3 Drainage Basins ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-14 Table 2-4 Population Density by Munici pality, Region, and State, 2005 …………………….. 2-18 Table 2-5 Critical Facilities in Naugatuck ……………………………………………………………… . 2-28 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……………………………………………………………… ……….. 5-10 Table 5-5 NOAA Weather Warnings ……………………………………………………………… ……… 5-10 Table 6-1 NESIS Categories ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 6-3 Table 8-1 Dams Registered with the DEP in the Borough of Naugatuck ………………………. 8-2 Table 8-2 Class C Dams Upstream of the Borough of Naugatuck ……………………………….. 8-3 Table 8-3 Dams Damaged Due to Fl ooding from October 2005 Storms……………………….. 8-6 FIGURES Figure 2-1 Naugatuck Location Map……………………………………………………………… …………. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Naugatuck in the CNVR ……………………………………………………………… ………….. 2-3 Figure 2-3 Naugatuck Ge neralized Land Use …………………………………………………………….. 2-5 Figure 2-4 Naugatuck Bedrock Geology ……………………………………………………………… ……. 2-8 Figure 2-5 Naugatuck Surficial Geology……………………………………………………………… ….. 2-10 Figure 2-6 Naugatuck El derly Population ……………………………………………………………… … 2-20 Figure 2-7 Naugatuck Linguistical ly Isolated Households …………………………………………. 2-21 Figure 2-8 Naugatuck Di sabilities Map……………………………………………………………… ……. 2-22 Figure 2-9 Naugatuck Cr itical Facilities………………………………………………. ………………….. 2-24 Figure 3-1 FEMA Flood Zones in Naugatuck …………………………………………………………….. 3-4 Figure 3-2 View of 1947 Topographic Map, Spencer Street Corridor ………………………….. 3-17 Figure 3-3 View of 1954 Topographic Map, Spencer Street Corridor ………………………….. 3-18 Figure 3-4 Spencer Street / Cherry St reet / Pleasant Avenue Study Area ……………………… 3-19 Figure 3-5 Long Meadow Pond Brook Study Area ……………………………………………………. 3-21 Figure 3-6 Beacon Valley Road Study Area …………………………………………………………….. 3-22 Figure 8-1 High Hazard Dams in Naugatuck ……………………………………………………………… 8-4 Figure 8-2 High Hazard Dams in Naugatuck ……………………………………………………………… 8-5 Figure 9-1 Naugatuck Wild fire Risk Area……………………………………………………………… ….. 9-2 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 vi 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 Subdivision/Site Plan Checklist for Drainage Designs (November 2008) Appendix D Record of Municipal Adoption NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Borough of Naugatuck Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan 1. The primary purpose of this natural hazard pre-disaster mitigation plan (HMP) is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken to prevent loss of life and reduce property damages associated with the identified hazards. The Disaster Miti gation Act of 2000 (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 and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program project grant funds. 2. The Borough of Naugatuck drains to si x major watersheds corresponding to the Naugatuck River, Hop Brook, Long Meadow Pond Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, and Little River. A ll of the watersheds in Naugatuck are part of the regional Naugatuck River basin that ultimately di scharges 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 Borough considers its police, fire, gove rnmental, service and major transportation facilities to be its most important critical f acilities, for these are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of Naugatuck continues. Although none of the educational institutions in the Borough have emergency generators, they are considered criti cal facilities as these are used as shelters or supply distribution points. In addition, Borough pers onnel consider public and private water, sewer, electric, and communication utilities to be critical facilities. 5. The Borough currently does not have the cap acity to shelter 10% of its population due primarily to the lack of trained staff to operate shelters. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-2 6. The Public Works Department, Ambulance Services, Fire Department, Borough Offices, South Naugatuck CL&P Substation, and H op Brook School are all located within a mapped dam failure inundation area, and Maple Hill School is located on the edge of a wildfire risk area. 7. According to the FEMA mapping, approxima tely 219 acres of land in Naugatuck are located within the 100 -year flood boundary and 575 acres of land are located within the 500-year flood boundary. The municipal offices , fire department, wastewater treatment plant, Cherry Street Substation, Ecumeni cal Food Bank and Hop Brook School are all in 500 year floodplains, but they ar e not regularly impacted by flooding. 8. The Borough of Naugatuck has in place a number of measures to prevent flood damage. These include regulations and plans that co ntrol encroachment and development in and near floodplains and floodways. However, the Borough has not completed an update of its flood hazard regulations, and currently ha s no plans to enroll in the Community Rating System program. 9. The Borough of Naugatuck primarily atte mpts to mitigate flood damage and flood hazards by restricting building activities inside flood-prone areas. This process is carried out through both the Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission. 10. Areas with flooding problems include: Spen cer Street Corridor/Cherry Street/Pleasant Avenue area; the area adjacent to the Long Meadow Pond Brook and its tributary near Rubber Avenue and Harlow Court, near Mountview Plaza and north of the Baummer Dam; the lower portion of Arch Street at Long Meadow Pond Brook; and Beacon Valley Road near Beacon Falls. 11. Two preventative recommendations for the Bo rough to consider include joining FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce the cost of flood insurance for its residents and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-3 requiring developers to demonstrate whether detention or retention will be the best management practice for stormw ater at specific sites. 12. To streamline the permitting process, a check list should be developed and available at several departments that cross-references the bylaws, regul ations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed project. A sample for the Borough of Naugatuck is included as Appended Table 3. 13. A hurricane striking the Borough of Naugatuck is considered a possible event each year that could cause critical damage to the Borough and its infrastructure. Emergency personnel should review potential evacuation plans to ensure timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Naugatuck, and post evacuation and shelter information on the Borough website and in municipal buildi ngs. The Building Department should have literature available regarding appropriate de sign standards for wind, information on tree maintenance procedures, and the role of CL&P. 14. The recent implementation of the CodeRED emergency notification system in Naugatuck is beneficial for warning residents of impending emergencies. The Borough of Naugatuck should consider including dam failure areas in its CodeRED emergency notification system. 15. 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. 16. The heavily treed landscape in close proximity to densely populated residential areas in the Borough of Naugatuck can pose problem s during windy summer and winter storms including power outages, traffic delays and detours, and property damages. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-4 17. Emergency shelters, evacuation plans, and plowing routes should be posted at the municipal offices and on the Borough’s website. 18. An inactive fault is located in the far southeast corner of the Borough. Even though this fault is inactive, the best mitigation for future development in the area of this fault would be to preserve or convert the faul t area into municipal open space. 19. With 16 registered dams and several othe r minor dams in the Borough, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in Naugatuck. In addition, parts of the Borough lie within inundation areas for several Class C dams, both within and upstream of Naugatuck. The Borough should assess the condition and pe rformance of the Donovan Road Dam and upgrade as necessary, and upgrade and repair the Ridge Lower Pond Dam located along Warren Avenue. The Borough of Naugatuck ma y wish to establish a Flood and Erosion Control Board to oversee local flooding and erosion problems and municipally-owned dams. 20. The Borough of Naugatuck is considered a low- risk area for wildfires. Wildfires are of concern primarily in wooded areas and other areas with poor access for fire-fighting equipment. Wildfires are considered a likel y event each year, but, when one occurs, it is generally contained to a small range w ith limited damage to non-forested areas. 21. The 2001 Plan of Conservation and Developmen t (Plan of C&D) indicated that there are several streets in the Borough which are inaccessi ble to fire trucks due to either steep grades or the narrowness of the road. Thes e include Aetna Place, Bosco Drive, Highland Circle, Hughes Street, Joseph Road, Mitchell Street and Theresa Street. Thus it is essential that any future development on steep slopes be reviewed with an extra level of attention to ensure that new developments are not burdened by the same type of problems. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-5 22. The 2001 Plan of C&D also indicated that the Naugatuck Fire Department (NFD) has expressed concerns regarding response times to developments in the northwest and southeast portions of the Borough. Additionally, the water pressure in some areas, particularly around the perimeter of the Bo rough, has been identified as a problem. These areas exhibit low-pressure situations wh ich may inhibit the department’s ability to deal with fires. Subsequent to the Plan of Conservation and Development publication in 2001, additional water lines have been extended up May Street towards the Eastside Fire Station and on Wooster Street. 23. It is important for the Borough of Naugatuck to be prepared to assist special populations including the elderly, linguisti cally isolated and disabled during emergencies, including wildfires. 24. In addition, there is special concern about fires in the Na ugatuck State Forest in the southern part of the Borough. Fires in these areas are particularly difficult to access due to topography can spread to or from nearby municipalities. The Borough has the support of the owners of the tracts of open space to provide access to their lands in case of a wildfire. 25. The Borough of Naugatuck should consider the construction of dry hydrants throughout the Borough to provide a more reliable s upply of firefighting water in areas without public water supply. 25. The Naugatuck Office of Emergency Management & Homeland Security (NEMHS) should be charged with creati ng and disseminating informational pamphlets and guides to public locations such as the library, post offi ce, senior center, and Borough offices. The Borough should consider adding additional pages to its website dedicated to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-6 26. The Office of the Mayor and the Department of Public Works in the Borough of Naugatuck will primarily be responsible for developing and implementing selected projects, including updating th e Plan of Conservation and Development, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regul ations, Wetlands Regulations, and Emergency Operations Plan to include the provisions in this pla n. Some projects will be implemented by other departments. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, 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 natural hazard pre-disaster 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 Borough of Naugatuck, Connec ticut (“Naugatuck” or “Borough”). The HMP is relevant not only in emergency mana gement situations, but also should be used within the Borough of Naugatuck’s land use, environmental, 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-2 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/ 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-3 recovery from a disaster. A key purpose of the HMGP is to ensure that any opportunities to take critical mitigation measures to protect life and property from future disasters are not “lost” during the recove ry 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. Th ree types of grants are available under FMA. These are Planning, Project, and Tec hnical 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 Naugatuck’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 Borough’s ability to implem ent 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. The Borough of Nauga tuck has never participated in the Community Rating System. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, 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 can potentially affect the Borough of Naugatuck: ‰ Inland Flooding ‰ Hurricanes and Tropical Storms ‰ Summer Storms (including lightning, hail, and heavy winds) and Tornadoes ‰ Winter Storms ‰ 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 the Borough of Naugatuck, and include criteria for characteri zing the locations impacted by the hazard, the frequency of occurrence of the hazards, and the magnitude or severity of the hazards. Despite the causes, the eff ects of several hazards are persistent and demand high expenditures from the Borough. 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 Naugatuck’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 NAUGATUCK, 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 for chapters with several recommendations , 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 Borough of Naugatuck is currently undertaking to mitigate the given hazard. These may take the form of ordinances and codes, structural measures such as dams, or public outreach 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 Naugatuck. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-7 ‰ Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives provides a summary of the recommended courses of action for Naugatuck that is included in the STAPLEE an alysis described below. This document concludes with a strategy for implementation of the Natural Hazard Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan, in cluding a schedule, a program for monitoring and updating the plan, and a discussion of t echnical and 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 offici als 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 Naugatu ck? Is there any equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of Naugatuck could be treated unfairly? ‰ Technical : Will the proposed strategy work? Will it create more problems than it will solve? ‰ Administrative : Can Naugatuck implement the strategy? 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 Naugatuck authorized to implement the proposed strategy? Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity? NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, 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 Borough of Naugatuck is a member of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV), the regional planning body responsible for Naugatuck and twelve other member municipalities: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury. The municipalities of Ch eshire, Prospect, Oxford, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury have existing mitigation plans, and hazard mitigation plans are being concurrently developed for 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 Borough of Naugatuck will also be coordinated by the COGCNV. In addition, the COGCNV provided Geographic Information System (GIS) base mapping and created many of the figures presented in this document. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-9 The following individuals from the Borough of Naugatuck provided information, data, studies, reports, and observations; and were involved in the development of the Plan: ‰ Mr. Mike Bronko, Naugatuck Mayor ‰ Mr. Al Pistarelli, Naugatuck Mayoral Aide ‰ Mr. Fran Dambowsky, Naugatuck Emergency Management & Homeland Security ‰ Mr. Ken Hanks, Naugatuck Deputy Fire Chief and Chairman, COGCNV Emergency Planning Committee ‰ Mr. James Ricci, Jr., Naug atuck Fire Department ‰ Mr. James R. Stewart, Naugatuck Engineer ‰ Mr. Keith Rosenfeld, Naugatuck Planner/Wetlands Enforcement Officer ‰ Mr. Hank Witkowski, Jr., Superint endent of Public Works/Streets A data collection, evaluation, and outreach program was undertaken to compile information about existing hazards and mitigat ion in the Borough, as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized for hazard m itigation. The following is a list of meetings that were held to develop this Hazard Mitigation Plan: ‰ A project meeting with Borough officials was held January 23, 2008. Necessary documentation was collected, and problem areas within the Borough were discussed. ‰ Field inspections were performed on February 13, 2008. Observations were made of flooding and problem areas within the Bor ough after a period of heavy rain falling on frozen ground. ‰ A public information meeting was held March 3, 2008 at 6:00 P.M. Preliminary findings were presented and public comments solicited. While residents were invited to the pub lic information meeting via newspaper, no residents attended that were not Borough pers onnel. Ten municipal agencies and civic NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-10 organizations were invited via a mailed copy of the press release that announced the public information meeting. These included the following: ‰ Naugatuck River Watershed Association; ‰ Naugatuck Valley Health District; ‰ Naugatuck Chamber of Commerce; ‰ United Way of Greater Waterbury; ‰ American Red Cross – Waterbury Area; ‰ Naugatuck Inland Wetlands Commission; ‰ Naugatuck Planning Commission; ‰ Naugatuck Zoning Commission; ‰ Naugatuck Economic Development Corporation; and ‰ Naugatuck Economic Development Commission. No representatives of these organizations a ttended the meeting. Residents were also encouraged via newspaper articles to contact the COG with comments. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-11 will be posted on the Borough website (http://www.naugatuck-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 where 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 Natural Hazard Pre-Di saster Mitigation Plan. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-1 2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1 Physical Setting The Borough of Naugatuck is located in New Haven County. It is bordered by the Town of Beacon Falls to the south, the Town of Oxford to the west, the Town of Middlebury and the City of Waterbury to the north, and the Towns of Prospect and Bethany to the east and southeast. Refer to Figure 2-1 fo r a location schematic and Figure 2-2 for a location map. Naugatuck is located within the western part of the crystalline uplands, or Western Highlands, of western Connecticut. This geol ogic feature consists of three belts of metamorphic rocks bounded to the west by th e sediments and metamorphic rocks of the Hudson River valley and on the east by the Tria ssic sediments of the Connecticut River valley. The topography of the Borough is generally mo derate sloping along the Naugatuck River in the central portion of the Borough in the developed area. Steeper sections of land occur in the southwestern portion of the Borough near the Naugatuck State Forest, although both the west and east sides of the community are quite hilly. Elevations range from approximately 200 feet above sea level along the Naugatuck River in the northern part of the Borough to over 870 feet above sea level near Andrews Hill in the southwestern part of the Borough, based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The hilly, elevated terrain of Naugatuck makes it particularly vulnerable to an array of natural hazards. In fact, approximately 23% of land area has slopes greater than 15%. § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦395 ” )2 ” )9 ” )15 ” )15 ” )8 ” )44 CONNEC TICU T Figure 2-1: Naugatuck 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 ² 024 Miles Figure 2-2: Naugatuck 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 Naugatuck 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-4 2.2 Existing Land Use The Borough of Naugatuck encompasses 16.4 square miles. Table 2-1 provides a summary of land use in Naugatuck by area. In addition, refer to Figure 2-3 for a map of generalized land use provided by the COGCNV. Table 2-1 Land Use by Area Land Use Area (acres) Pct. Vacant 3,990 38% Residential – Low Density 2,088 20% Residential – Medium Density 1,563 15% Recreational 1,090 10% Industrial 486 5% Agricultural 2602% Commercial 233 2% Residential – High Density 2152% Utilities/Transportation 187 2% Institutional 1792% Mining 1221% Water 107 1% Total 10,520 100% Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley, 2000 Naugatuck is characterized by its hills and st eep slopes, which limit development in much of the Borough. Naugatuck features a linea r commercial & institutional district along Route 63, the Naugatuck River and Route 8, extending from Route 68 in the north to Cherry Street in the south. To the east a nd west of this district are medium density residential neighborhoods. Furt her to the east and west, low density residential areas are interspersed with agricultural areas. Some isolated high density residential areas are dispersed throughout the Borough. 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 Figure 2-3: Naugatuck Generalized Land Use Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads AG Agriculture CF Institutional CM Commercial IN Industrial 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 RC Recreational Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, R el. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, DE P “Land Us e”, COGCNV 2000 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-6 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. A large industrial park is lo cated in the northeast corner of Naugatuck to the north of Route 68. A large area at the southern borde r of the Borough is protected open space. Nearly 30% of land in Naugatuck is classifi ed as open space, with roughly half of this area permanently protected, including State Fore st, and the other half consisting of water company land and others types of open space. There is a general lack of open space along watercourses such as Fulling Mill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, and Long Meadow Pond Brook. However, stee p slopes along the watercourses tend to limit some development. 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 Nauga tuck. The following discussion highlights Naugatuck’s geology at several regional scales. Geologic information discussed in the following section was acquired from GIS av ailable from the Connecticut DEP. In terms of North American bedrock geology, the Borough of Naugatuck is located in the northeastern part of the Appalachian Orogenic Belt, al so known as the Appalachian Highlands. The Appalachian Highlands extend from Maine south into Mississippi and Alabama and were formed during the oroge ny that occurred when the super-continent Pangea assembled during the late Paleozoic era. The region is generally characterized by deformed sedimentary rocks cut through by numerous thrust faults. Regionally, in terms of New England bedr ock geology the Borough of Naugatuck lies primarily within the Eugeosyncline Sequence. Bedrock belonging to the Eugeosyncline NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-7 Sequence are typically deformed, metamorphosed, and intruded by small to large igneous plutons. The bedrock beneath the Borough of Naugatuck is almost entirely part of the Iapetos Terrane, comprised of remnants of the Iape tos Ocean that existed before Pangaea was formed. This terrane formed when Pangaea was consolidated and its boundaries are generally coincident with the Eugeosynclin e Sequence geologic province described above. The remaining bedrock in the Borough is related to the Iape tos Terrane. It is associated with the Proto-North American (Continental) Terrane / Taconic Allochthons and is known as “Displaced Iapetos Terrane.” The Borough of Naugatuck’s bedrock consists primarily of metasedimentary and metaigneous schists and secondarily of metamorphic amphibolite and granofels, and metasedimentary and metaigneous gneisses wi thin the Iapetos Terrane. The bedrock alignment trends generally southeast to nor thwest in the Borough, although regionally the bedrock formations appear to ring about Naugatuck while fa ult lines trend southwest to northeast. Refer to Figure 2-4 for a depict ion of the bedrock geology in the Borough of Naugatuck. The three primary bedrock formations in the Borough (from north to south) are Waterbury Gneiss, Taine Mountain and Collinsville Formation (undivided), and The Straits Schist. In addition, there is a small ar ea of Ultramafic Rock in the northern part of the Borough. Bedrock outcrops are prevalen t in Naugatuck, and are often be found at higher elevations and on hilltops. The primar y bedrock formations are described in more detail below: ‰ Waterbury Gneiss consists of gray to dark -gray fine to medium-grained schist and gneiss. Cwb DSt Ot+Oc DSt DSt u Figure 2-4: Naugatuck Bedrock Geology 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads ” )63 ” )68 Cwb DSt Ot+Oc u Bedrock Waterbury Gneiss Taine Mtn and Collinsville Formation Straits Schist Ultramafic Rock Source: “Ro ads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, “B edrock”, DEP For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-9 ‰ The Taine Mountain and Collinsville Formation (undivided) consists of gray, medium grained, well-laminated granofels with gray and silvery, medium- to coarse-grained schist and dark, fine- to medium-gra ined amphibolite and hornblende gneiss. ‰ The Straits Schist is a silver to gray coarse-grained schist. One unnamed fault is located in Naugatuck in the far southeast corner of the Borough. The fault divides an area of the Straits Schist and forms a portion of the boundary between the Straits Schist and the Taine Mount ain and Collinsville Formation in this area of the Borough. This small fault runs sout hwest to northeast, eventually joining the Western Border Fault in Southington. Th e Western Border Fault is a large fault extending along the western edge of the Meso zoic Basin and stretches from Milford northwards into Massachusetts. None of these faults are active. At least twice in the late Pleistocene, con tinental ice sheets moved across Connecticut. As a result, surficial geology of the Bor ough 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. Much of the Borough is covered by glacial till. Tills contain an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glaciers as a ground moraine. This area includes nearly all of Naugatuck with the ex ception of the river valleys associated with the Naugatuck River and its tributary streams. Stratified sand and gravel (“stratified drift”) areas are associated with the Na ugatuck River, Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, and Hollow Brook and their tributaries. These deposits accumulated by glacial meltwater streams duri ng the outwash period following the latest glacial recession. T T T SG TT T SG/S T T SG/S SG T TT SG TT T TT TT TT G/S TT SG/S TT A/S T SG SG SG/S SG W A/S SG/S G SG A/S G A/S SW A/SG SG SG A/S SW SG W SG A/SG T SG SG/S SG SG W A/SG A/SG T SG A/S A/SG G G A/SG SG SG SG TT A/SG A/SG Figure 2-5: Naugatuck Surficial Geology 0 0.5 1Mile s COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 Surficial Materials 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 ” )63 ” )68 Till Thick Till Sand and Gravel Alluvium OverlyingSand and Gravel Gravel Overlying Sand Sand and GravelOverlying Sand Alluvium Overlying Sand Water Swamp Gravel A/S A/SG G G/S SG SG/S SW T TT W NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-11 The amount of stratified drift present in the Borough is important for several reasons: ‰ First, thicker sequences of the stratified drift are currently used by the Connecticut Water Company to provide drinking water and fire protection water via wells. ‰ Second, with regard to flooding, areas of stra tified materials are generally coincident with inland floodplains. This is because these materials were deposited at lower elevations by glacial streams, and these valleys later were inherited by the larger of our present-day streams and rivers. However, smaller glacial till watercourses can also cause flooding, though flooding on such watercourses is rare in Naugatuck. ‰ Finally, the amount of stratified drift also has bearing on the relative intensity of earthquakes and the likelihood of soil subsidence in areas of fill. These topics will be discussed in later sections. In terms of soil types, approximately 58% of the Borough falls within the Charlton- Chatfield complex, Paxton and Montauk fine sandy loams, Udorthents-Urban land complex, Hinckley Gravelly sandy loam, Woodbridge fine sandy loam, and Hollis- Chatfield rock outcrop co mplex (Table 2-2). The following soil descriptions are taken in part from the official series descriptions from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) website. ‰ The Charlton-Chatfield complex consists of moderately deep to deep, well-drained, and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in glacial till. They are very nearly level to very steep soils on gl aciated plains, hills, and ridges. The soil is often stony or very stony. Slope ranges from three to fo rty-five percent. Crystalline bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-12 Table 2-2 Soils by Taxonomic Class Soil Type Area (acres) Pct. Charlton-Chatfield complex 2,172 20.6 Paxton and Montauk fine sandy loams 1,400 13.3 Udorthents-Urban land complex 949 9.0 Hinckley gravelly sandy loam 890 8.5 Woodbridge fine sandy loam 684 6.5 Hollis-Chatfield Rock outcrop complex 572 5.4 Canton and Charlton soils 491 4.7 Ridgebury, Leicester, and Whitman soils 426 4.1 Paxton-Urban land complex 330 3.1 Agawam Fine Sandy Loam 268 2.6 Charlton-Urban land complex 238 2.3 Urban land 240 2.3 Urban land-Charlton Chatfield complex 229 2.2 Hinckley-Urban land complex 220 2.1 Sutton fine sandy loam 216 2.0 Water 119 1.1 Other (18 types) 1,076 10.2 Total 10,520 100.0% Source: 2005 Soil Survey Geog raphic (SSURGO) database for the State of Connecticut ‰ The Paxton and Montauk series consists of very deep, well-drained loamy soils formed in lodgment till derived primarily fr om granitic materials. The soils are very deep to bedrock and moderately deep to a de nsic contact. They are nearly level to steep soils on upland till plains, hills, moraines, and drumlins. Slope ranges from 0 to forty-five percent. ‰ The Udorthents-Urban land complex cons ists of moderately well drained to excessively drained soils that have been di sturbed by cuffing or filling, and areas that are covered by buildings and pavement. The ar eas are mostly larger than five acres. The complex is about 70 percent Udorthen ts, 20 percent Urban land, and 10 percent other soils. Udorthents are in areas that have been cut to a depth of two feet or more or are on areas with more than two feet of fill. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-13 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. ‰ Hinckley Gravelly sand loam consists of ve ry deep, excessively drained soils formed in water-sorted material. They are near ly level to very steep soils on terraces, outwash plains, deltas, kames, and eskers. Slope ranges from 0 to 60 percent. ‰ Woodbridge fine sandy loam consists of moderately well drained loamy soils formed in subglacial till. They are very deep to bedrock and moderately deep to a densic contact. They are nearly level to modera tely steep soils on till plains, hills, and drumlins. Slope ranges from 0 to 25 percen t. Depth to bedrock is commonly more than six feet. ‰ The Hollis-Chatfield rock outcrop complex consists of shallow, well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in a thin mantle of till derived mainly from gneiss, schist, and granite. They are nearly level to very steep upland soils on bedrock-controlled hills and ri dges. Slope ranges from three to forty-five percent. Depth to bedrock ranges from ten to 40 inches with outcrops present. The remainder of the Borough has soil types of consisting primarily of various fine to gravelly sandy loams, wetla nd soils, and urban land. 2.4 Climate Naugatuck has an agreeable climate, characterized by moderate but distinct seasons. The average mean temperature is approximately 48 degrees, with summer temperatures in the mid-80s and winter temperatures in the upper 20’s to mid-30s, Fahrenheit. Extreme conditions raise summe r temperatures to near 100 degrees and winter temperatures to below zero. Median snowfall is just over 30 inches per year as NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-14 measured at the Mount Carmel weather station in Hamden (NCDC, 2007). Median annual precipitation is 44 inches, spread evenly over the course of a year. By comparison, average annual st ate-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 in ches per decade since the end of the 19 th century (Miller et. al., 2002; NCDC, 2005). Likewise, total annual precipitation in the Borough has increased over time. 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology The Borough of Naugatuck drains to six major watersheds corresponding to the Naugatuck River, Hop Brook, Long Meadow Pond Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, and Little River. These are described below. Various ponds and streams are found within both the eastern and western se ctions of the Borough, which is divided by the southward-flowing Naugatuck River. All of the watersheds in Naugatuck are part of the regional Naugatuck River basin that ultimat ely discharges into the Housatonic River. The drainage basins are described below, and summarized in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Drainage Basins Drainage Basin Area (sq. mi) Percent of Borough Naugatuck River 5.96 36.2% Long Meadow Pond Brook 3.26 19.9% Fulling Mill Brook 2.96 18.0% Beacon Hill Brook 2.65 16.1% Hop Brook 1.60 9.7% Little River 0.01 0.1% Total 16.44 100.0% Source: Drainage Basins, 2008 CT DEP GIS Data for Connecticut NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-15 Naugatuck River The Naugatuck River originates near the C ity of Torrington and flows south almost 40 miles to meet the Housatonic River in the C ity of Derby, giving it a total basin area of 311 square miles. It is the only major river in Connecticut whose headwaters are within the boundaries of the state. The Naugatuck Ri ver is well-known for its rich industrial history and the many defunct dams a ssociated with these industries. All of the land in Naugatuck eventually drains into the Naugatuck River, but only 5.96 square miles (sq. mi) or 36.2% of the land area drai ns directly into the river. This area is comprised of a north-south corridor that passes through the center of the Borough. The Naugatuck River also makes up a portion of the Borough’s southern boundary. The river is joined by a number of tributaries as it flows through the Borough, including Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, and several unnamed streams. Egypt Brook and L ittle River drain through portions of the Borough before their confluence with the Na ugatuck River downstream of Naugatuck, and Spruce Brook and Beacon Hill Brook join the Naugatuck River at the boundary between Naugatuck and Beacon Falls. Much of the land surrounding the Naugatuck River is urbanized, however there are large areas in the watershed that are undeveloped, such as the area near Spruce Brook which flows through the Naugatuck State Forest in the southwest section of the watershed. Long Meadow Pond Brook Long Meadow Pond Brook drains 3.26 sq. mi. of land in the eastern section of the Borough (19.9% of Naugatuck’s total land area). Its headwaters are located in Lake Elise in western Middlebury. From the lake, Long Meadow Pond Brook flows southward into Long Meadow Pond, a body of water with a su rface area of approximately 100 acres. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-16 Long Meadow Pond Brook continues to meander eastward through the Town of Oxford into Naugatuck, collecting a number of unnamed tributaries before passing underneath a downtown factory and falling into the Naugatuck River. Development in the watershed is concentrated in the lower reaches. Two dams lie along its reach in Naugatuck, impounding the Armory Pond and the Naugatuck Ice Company Pond. Fulling Mill Brook Fulling Mill Brook drains 2.96 s quare miles of land (18.0% of the Borough’s land area) in the northeastern corner of Naugatuck. It ha s its headwaters in central Prospect near Brewster Pond. The Brook begins at the west edge of Brew ster Pond at the Salem Road Pond Dam, and flows westward and northward across Prospect into Beer Pond. After passing through Beer Pond, the brook fl ows westward into Naugatuck. Once entering Naugatuck, the Brook joins an unnamed tributary that drains Schildgen Pond, and Cold Spring Brook in the vicinity of City Hill Road and North Main Street before flowing into the Naugatuck River. In total, the Fulling Mill Brook drainage basin covers 5.38 square miles in Nauga tuck, Prospect, and Waterbury. Beacon Hill Brook Beacon Hill Brook forms the Borough’s south eastern boundary with the Town of Beacon Falls. The brook drains a total of 2.65 square miles of land within Naugatuck (16.1% of the Borough’s land area) in the so utheastern section of the Borough. Beacon Hill Brook has its headwaters near th e Bethany-Prospect Town line along State Route 69. It drains southwest into Betha ny, entering the Long Hill Reservoir. Beacon Hill Brook flows west out of the reservoir through southeastern Naugatuck towards Straitsville. It is joined by Marks Brook west of Horton Hill Road and by Straitsville NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-17 Brook near Beacon Valley Road. The brook then begins to form the boundary between Beacon Falls and Naugatuck, eventually passing under Route 8 and reaching its confluence with the Naugatuck River. In total, Beacon Hill Brook drains 10.22 square miles of land across Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Bethany and Prospect. Hop Brook Hop Brook drains 1.60 square miles of land in the northwestern section of Naugatuck (approximately 9.7% of the Borough’s total land area). It originates in northwestern Middlebury and flows through parts of Watertown and Middlebury before joining the Naugatuck River in Naugatuck near the inters ection of Church Street and Bridge Street. The largest body of water that Hop Brook passes through is Hop Brook Lake, a flood control reservoir located on th e border between Waterbury and Middlebury, just to the north of Naugatuck. In addition to a number of unnamed tribut aries, there are several smaller named tributaries that flow into Hop Brook, including Goat Brook, Long Swamp Brook, and Welton Brook in Middlebury, and Pigeon Brook in Naugatuck. In total, Hop Brook drains 17.40 square miles of land located within the municipalities of Naugatuck, Waterbury, Middlebury, Watertown and Woodbury. Little River A small portion in the southwestern corner of Naugatuck (0.01 sq. mi. or 0.1% of the Borough’s land area) drains to the southwest into the Little River watershed. The Little River originates in western Oxford and flows generally south-southeast towards Seymour. It is joined by se veral unnamed tributaries and larger tributaries including Jacks Brook and Towantic Brook before its confluence with the Naugatuck River near Route 67 in Seymour. In total, the Little River watershed drains 15.50 square miles of land in Seymour, Beacon Falls, Oxford, Middlebury and Naugatuck. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-18 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. Naugatuck has a population density of 374 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 2-4). Table 2-4 Population Density by Municipalit y, 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 Naugatuck is 30 th out of 169 municipalities in Connecticut in terms of population, with an estimated population of 31,872 in 2006. The Borough is the 22 nd most densely populated municipality in the state. The population of Naugatuck increased by 18% between 1960 and 1970, by 15% between 1970 and 1980, and by 16% between 1980 and 1990. These three decades were representative of the last true development surge in recent history., as growth then dropped to 1% from 199 0-2000. Growth from 2000 through 2006 was approximately 3%. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-19 Based on analysis by the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley in its 2008 Regional Plan, population in the region outside of Waterbury is estimated to grow about 10% from 2005 to 2025, while the state of Connecticut is expected to grow about 5% during this same timeframe. The Conn ecticut Office of Policy and Management estimates population growth in Naugatuck fr om 2005 to 2020 to be about 7%. According the Connecticut Economic Resource Center, th e median sales price of owner-occupied housing in the Borough of Naugatuck in 2006 was $233,580, which is sligh tly lower than the statewide median sales price of $275,000. Naugatuck has populations of people who are elderly, linguistically isolated, and/or disabled. These are depicted by the five cen sus blocks in Naugatuck on Figures 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9. The populations with these characteristics have numerous implications for hazard mitigation, as they may require sp ecial assistance or different means of notification before disasters o ccur. These will be addressed as needed in subsequent sections. 2.7 Governmental Structure The Borough of Naugatuck is governed by a Mayor-Council form of government in which legislative responsibilities are the re sponsibility of the Council members (known as Burgesses) and the Mayor serves as the ch ief executive. In addition to the Burgesses, there are boards, commissions and committees providing input and direction to Borough administrators. Also, Borough departments pr ovide municipal services and day-to-day administration. Many of these commissions and departments play a role in hazard mitigation, including the Planning Commission, the Zoning Commission, the Conservation Commission, the Inland Wetland Commission, the Emergency Management Department, the Building Inspector, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the Public Works/Streets Department. 130 165 321 183 148 183 71 288 145 198 169 171 331 270 141 119 396 50 66 88 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 Figure 2-6: Naugatuck Elderly Population 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 % * Numbers on map represent total population aged 65 or older in each block group Source: “Roads”, c 1984 – 2008 Tele A tlas, Rel. 04/08. “T own Bo undary”, DEP “A ge”, “Block Groups”, 20 00 Census 0 9 34 36 8 22 16 7 15 5 18 47 41 19 14 18 16 0 17 20 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 * 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. 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% 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: Naugatuck Linguistically Isolated Households 382 694 638 453 482 883 851 183 505 669 272 543 236 703 136 316 690 207 266 170 Figure 2-8: Naugatuck Disabilities Map 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 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 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 Source: “Roads”, c 1984 – 2008 Tele A tlas, Rel. 04/08. “T own Bo undary”, DEP “Dis ability”, “Bl ock Group s”, 2000 Ce nsus NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-23 The Department of Public Works is the principal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. Complaints related to Borough 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 the individual complaint is concluded. 2.8 Development Trends Naugatuck was settled in 1701 but the Bo rough was not incorporated until 1844. The settlement was agrarian in its origins, but as time passed industry developed using the Naugatuck River as a power source. Initial industries included woolen mills and metal factories. Several landmarks in Naugatuck are representa tive of its prominent historic industry. Naugatuck was the site of the invention of vulcanized rubber by Charles Goodyear in the mid-1800s. As a result, Naugatuck led in th e manufacturing of rubber-soled shoes, tires and other rubber-based products. The Unite d States Rubber Company, later known as Uniroyal, was founded in 1892; the headquarters was relocated in the 1980s. The organization manufactured Keds shoes and the artificial leather known as Naugahyde. Another landmark, the Peter Paul Company, ma nufactured candy bars at a large factory on Route 63 starting in 1922 until the facility was closed in 2007. The Borough has developed zoning and subdivision regulations that have general implications regarding hazard mitigation. For example, cul-de-sacs in new developments are discouraged and connectivity of roads is encouraged. Specifically, the Borough requires a 50-foot right of way for local resi dential streets with a turnaround located at the end of dead end streets. Cul-de-sacs can have no more than 20 homes or can be no longer than 1,000 feet, whichever constraint is more stringent. Subdivisions featuring cul-de-sacs offer a single acces s point for emergency services, lengthening emergency NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-24 response times and rendering those residential areas vulnerable if access is cut off by flooding or downed tree limbs. The Borough of Naugatuck retained a consultant to review Zoning and Subdivision Regulations in 2008. The review was completed in November 2008. Most of the recommendations are related to incorporating elements of low impact development into the regulations, especially with regard to st ormwater management. In some cases, this may result in modifications to roadway and cu l-de-sac widths and dimensions. However, the recommendations provide for emergency service officials to continue reviewing development plans in order to ensure that any reductions in paved surface areas will not impair the ability to respond to emergencies. The Naugatuck Subdivision Regulations require that utilities serving new developments must be installed underground wherever possibl e. Exceptions due to shallow bedrock are granted on a case-by-case basis. Public water supply is available th roughout the majority of Naugatuck and connectivity is recomme nded for new developments. Where public water supply is unavailable, 25,000-gallon cist erns are required for fire protection. Residential Development Conventional subdivision applications have ta pered off since booming in the late 1980’s. In the 1990’s, the average number of housing units approved in Naugatuck was about 95 per year. There are a number of residen tial developments under construction or being planned for the Borough, as follows: ‰ Approved Developments: Ö A 264 home subdivision locat ed near Hunters Mountain with connections to Andrews Mountain Road and Hunters Mountain Road. The stream corridor within the property has an a ssociated 500-year floodplain. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-25 Ö A development of 30 condominiums off Route 63 (New Haven Road) known as “Springbrook.” Ö A development of 30 homes off Maple Hill Road in the eastern part of the Borough. Ö A 95 home development located off of Maple Hill Road, between Mulberry Street and Victoria Lane. The stream corridor within the property has an associated 500-year floodplain. Ö The development of 150 homes between Candee Road and Osborn Road with connections to Candee Road and Osborn Road. Ö 20 single-family units located along R oute 63 (Church Street) near Hop Brook and Mill Street, adjacent to the 500-year floodplain of Pigeon Brook. Ö 15 single-family units situated around Ba rbers Pond off King Street, adjacent to the 500-year floodplain of Pigeon Brook and Barbers Pond. ‰ Potential Developments: Ö A development of 85 single-family units is planned between Andrews Mountain Road and Guntown Road close to Long Meadow Pond Brook. The stream corridors within the property have associated 500-year floodplains. Ö There is a proposed Senior Housing de velopment located near Spring Street. Ö Renaissance Place is a $707 million public/p rivate, transit-oriented development to be located on 60 acres fronting the Na ugatuck River. This is the first development of its kind being designed to have a carbon neutral footprint. Much of this area is within the 500-year flo odplain of the flood-controlled river. Flood control along the Naugatuck River is disc ussed in more detail in Section 3.0. Commercial and Industrial Development and Open Space Based on the Borough’s 2001 Plan of Conser vation and Development, a primary objective in Naugatuck is to protect na tural and physical resources. Specific NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-26 recommendations to achieve this goal include efforts to increase open space acquisition. Nevertheless, the Borough is also interest ed in development and redevelopment as needed to ensure economic growth. Potential industrial or commercial developments in the Borough include the following: ‰ The sprawling Uniroyal industria l property is planned to be redeveloped at some time in the future. ‰ Additional commercial development along R oute 63 (New Haven Road) is planned in the Straitsville section of Naugatuck. ‰ The Peter Paul Company’s candy factory cl osed in 2007, and it is hoped that this property will be redeveloped. 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity The Borough considers its police, fire, govern mental, service and major transportation facilities to be its most important critical f acilities, for these are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of Naugatuck continues. Educational institutions are incl uded in critical facilities as well, as these can be used as shelters. In addition, Borough personnel consider public and private water, sewer, electric, and communication utilities to be critical facilities. A map of critical facilities is shown in Figur e 2-9, and the associated list of critical facilities is provided in Table 2-5. Shelters, transportati on, communications, and utilities are described in more detail below, along with a summary of the potential for these facilities to be impact ed by natural hazards. 9 a © © ª 9: ¨ nn n n n n n n n n n Figure 2-9: Naugatuck Critical Facilities 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 City Hill Middle School Maple HillSchool Central Avenue School Cross StSchool Andrew Avenue School Naugatuck High School Western School Salem School Prospect Street School Hillside Middle School Public Works/Ambulance Services Fire Dept Town Hall Police Dept Hop Brook School For gen eral pla nning purpos es only . Delin eations may n ot be e xact. Source : “R oads”, c198 4 – 200 8 Tele Atlas, R el. 04/ 08. “To wn Bou ndary”, DE P “Fa cilities”, Na ugatuc k Octobe r 2008 Z CL&P Substation 374 Senior Center Æ V Food Bank Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary Eastside Fire Station Algonquin Gas Pipeline 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams Schools n Public Works 9: ¨ ª Ambulance Services Z CL&P Substation 374Æ V Senior Center Ecumenical Food Bank Gas Pipeline NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-28 Table 2-5 Critical Facilities in Naugatuck Type Name Address Located in Floodplain? Municipal Offices Borough of Naugatuck Offices 229 Church Street 500-year Police Station Borough of Naugatuck Police Department 211 Spring Street No Fire Department Naugatuck Fire Headquarters 41 Maple Street 500-year Fire Department Eastside Fire Station Intersection of May Street & Osborn Road No EMT – Ambulance Borough of Naugatuck Ambulance Services 246 Rubber Avenue No Public Works Borough of Naugatuck Public Works Department 246 Rubber Avenue No Utility – Sewer Wastewater Treatment Plant 500 Cherry Street 500-year Utility – Water Connecticut Water Company (Infrastructure) Some Utility – Phone Southern New England Telephone (Infrastructure) Some Utility – Electric Connecticut Light & Power South Naugatuck Substation Cherry Street 500-year Utility – Gas Algonquin Gas Pipeline Northern Naugatuck Some Senior Center Naugatuck Senior Center 300 Meadow Street No Food Bank Ecumenical Food Bank 75 Spring Street 500-year School Borough of Naugatuck High School 543 Rubber Avenue No School City Hill Middle School 441 City Hill Street No School Hillside Middle School 51 Hillside Avenue No School Cross Street Intermediate School 120 Cross Street No School Hop Brook Intermediate Sc hool 75 Crown Street 500-year School Andrew Avenue Elementary School 140 Andrew Avenue No School Central Avenue Elementary School 28 Central Avenue No School Maple Hill Elementary School 641 Maple Hill Road No School Prospect Elementary School 100 Prospect Street No School Salem Elementary School 124 Meadow Street No School Western Elementary School 100 Pine Street No Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley; Borough of Naugatuck Shelters Emergency shelters are considered to be an im portant subset of critical facilities, as they are needed in most emergency situations. The Borough of Naugatuck has designated the local schools as shelters, but none of the st ructures have emergency generators. Hop NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-29 Brook Intermediate School is the only designated shelter located in the 500-year floodplain, and therefore could not be used in the event of an extreme flood. City Hill School and Naugatuck High School are curre ntly designated as emergency supply distribution points. The specific location(s) used as shelters during an event depends on the nature and extent of the incident. The Borough currently does not have the capacity to shelter 10% of its population due to lack of trained staff to operate shelters. The Borough currently recommends that people shelter in place unless relocation is necessary due to an imminent threat, such as severe flooding. If there is a single sh elter open for a local event, the Borough would rely on volunteers from the American Red Cross to staff the shelter. Some of the local emergency volunteers have received shelter training. If th e event requires several shelters, especially if the affected area extends beyond Naugatu ck, the Borough would not have enough staff on hand to maintain the shelters. Regiona lly-located mass care facilities operated and paid for by the American Red Cross may be available during recovery operations when additional sheltering services are necessary. The Naugatuck Emergency Management Advisory Council plans on addressing sheltering issues in 2009. In case of a power outag e, it is anticipated that 10-20% of the population would relocate, although not all of those relocating would necessarily utilize the shelte r facilities. While the Borough has no elderly housing facilities , The Borough Emergency Operations Plan includes a list of addresses of special needs persons that would require special assistance during an emergency. In addition, the Borough realizes that the influx of active adult housing in Borough is increasing the amount of population that requires more assistance during emergencies, and plan s to account for these populatio ns in its emergency plan updates. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-30 Transportation The Borough of Naugatuck does not have any hospitals or medical centers. Instead, residents use the nearby facilities in Der by and Waterbury. As a means of accessing these facilities, Naugatuck has convenient access on Route 8 that functions as the major transportation artery. Naugatuck’s full-ti me ambulance corps staffs the ambulance service to these hospitals. If paramedics are needed, they are called in from Waterbury. Evacuation routes are regionally defined by the Regional Evacuation Plan. No formal local evacuation plan exists. Route 8, whic h runs north-south through central Naugatuck, provides access to Waterbury and Interstate 84 to the north and Bridgeport and Route 15 and Interstate 95 to the south. State Route 68 also runs from Prospect in the east and merges with State Route 63 in the center of the Borough. South Main Street (Route 63) is also an evacuation route into the Town of Bethany. Communications The primary answering point for emergency calls is the Police Department on Spring Street. The Borough also uses enhanced 9-1-1 service through the Northwest Connecticut Public Safety Co mmunication Center, Inc. to facilitate ambulance dispatch. Borough personnel supplement 9-1-1 service w ith radios. The Borough uses phone lines to enhance their radio communi cations. If phone service is cut off, Borough personnel rely on low-band radios and cellular communi cations. The Borough has also recently contracted with Emergency Communications Network, Inc. to provide “CodeRED” high- speed telephone emergency notif ication services. The CodeRED system is capable of telephoning warnings into areas likely to be impacted by a disaster, or into the entire Borough, at a rate of 60,000 calls per minute. The Borough of Naugatuck is in the southeas t portion of Region 5 of the Connecticut Emergency Medical Service regions. The Bo rough dispatch center has a high band radio NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-31 compatible with Region 5, which contains most of the COGCNV municipalities. Thus, it is important that Naugatuck maintain emergency notification systems compatible with those of Region 5, which contains most of the COGCNV municipalities. The Borough’s enhanced 9-1-1 service is alre ady compatible with much of Region 5, and Region 2 to the south. As development continues in the eastern portion of Borough, it is also important for Naugatuck ‘s system to be compatible with Prospect’s (also Region 2) to the east. The Borough also has mutual aid agreemen ts with all neighboring communities. 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. The Connecticut Water Comp any provides potable and fire fighting water to the majority of the Borough. The Fire De partment uses alternative water supplies to fight fires in the less developed areas of Naugatuck, including fire ponds and underground water tanks, and brings as much water in its tankers as possible to these fires. This is discus sed further in Section 9.0. Sewer service is an often overlooked critic al facility. The Naugatuck Wastewater Treatment Plant is located at the south end of Cherry Street and serves most of the developed area of Naugatuck. Other utilities important enough to be considered critical facilities include the electric substation on Cherry Street, the Algonquin Gas Pipeline that traverses northern Naugatuck, and the electr ic and telephone lines in the Borough. Gas and electricity are important for both day-to -day living and emergency usage, and the telephone is used to complement em ergency communications in the Borough. Potential Impacts from Natural Hazards Critical facilities are not regularly impacted by flooding in the Borough of Naugatuck, despite several critical facilities being located in the 500-year floodplain. Major NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-32 transportation arteries, such as State roads, are largely unaffected by flooding, and the emphasis on creating through streets has provided multiple modes of egress to the majority of neighborhoods in Naugatuck. No critical facilities are pa rticularly susceptible to wind, summer storms, winter storms, or earthquakes more than the rest of the Borough. However, the Public Works Department, Ambulance Services, Fire Depa rtment, Borough Offices, South Naugatuck CL&P Substation, and Hop Brook School are all located within a mapped dam failure inundation area, and Maple Hill School is locat ed on the edge of a wildfire risk area. Subsequent sections will discu ss each natural hazard in detail and include a description of populations at-risk. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 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 of SFHAs. 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. In general, flooding affects small areas within of Naugatuck with moderate to frequent regularity. Areas impacted by overflow of the Naugatuck River and major watercourses are generally limited to river corridors and fl oodplains. Indirect flooding that occurs in the floodplains adjacent to the rivers and lo calized nuisance flooding along tributaries is a more common problem in the Borough. This type of flooding occurs particularly along roadways as a result of inadequate drainage and other factors. The frequency of flooding in Naugatuck is considered highly likely for any given year, but flooding damage only has a limited geographic effect (refer to Appended Table 2). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-2 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. 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 significant. 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 floodpl ain management and to determine the need for insurance. This flood has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. The risk of having a flood of this magnitude or greater increases when periods longer than one year are considered. For example, FEMA notes that a structure loca ted within a 100-year flood zone has a 26% change of suffering 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 emergency and commercial egress by blocking streets, deteriorate municipal drainage systems, and divert municipal staff and resources. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-3 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, build ing components, and furniture. SFHAs in Naugatuck are delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Studies (FIS). An initial Fl ood Hazard Boundary Map was identified on June 28, 1974. The FIRM delineates areas within Naugatuck that are vulnerable to flooding and was published on August 15, 1979. The FIS was originally published in February 1979, and neither the FIS nor the FIRMs have b een updated. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of Naugatuck susceptible to flooding based on FEMA flood zones. Table 3-1 describes the various zones depicted on the FIRM panels for Naugatuck. 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. 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 Figure 3-1: FEMA Flood Zones in Naugatuck X500 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Water Waterbodies Flood Zone A AE Source: “Roads” , c1984 – 2008 Tel e Atlas , Rel. 04/08. “Town Bou ndary”, “Hydrograp hy”, “Flood Zones”, DEP NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-5 In some areas of Naugatuck, flooding occurs with a much higher frequency than those mapped by FEMA. This nuisance flooding occurs from heavy rains with a much higher frequency than those used to calculate th e 100-year and 500-year flood events, and often in different areas than thos e 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 maintena nce 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. Such dams are located on the Naugatuck River upstream of the Borough of Naugatuck, in Thomaston and Torrington. The recurrence interval level of a precipitat ion event also generally differs from the recurrence interval level of the associated flood. An example would be Tropical Storm Floyd in 1999, which caused rainfall on the order of a 250-year event while flood frequencies were slightly greater than a 10-year event on the Naugatuck River in the adjacent Town of Beacon Falls, immediately downstream of Naugatuck. 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 recorded history, the Borough of Naugatuck has experienced various degrees of flooding. Melting snow combined with early spring NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-6 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 fr om the occasional thaw, particularly during years of heavy snow, or periods of rainfa ll on frozen ground. Other flood events have been caused by excessive rainfalls upon satu rated soils, yielding greater than normal runoff. Notable historic floods have occurred al ong the Naugatuck River in Naugatuck in November 1927, March 1936, September 1938, January 1949, and August and Octob er 1955. All of these floods were the result of hi gh intensity rainfall falling on saturated or frozen ground. In terms of damage to the Borough of Naugatu ck, the most severe of these was due to Hurricane Diane in August 1955. Peak dail y flows along the Naugatuck River were gauged by the USGS to be 53,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) in Thomaston and 106,000 cfs in Beacon Falls, equivalent of a greater than 500-year flood event on the Naugatuck River. This hurricane is the storm of record for both stations. The August 1955 flood resulted in the loss of 36 lives and caused over $193 million dollars in physical damages in areas downstream of the Thomaston Dam. Flood heights related to the August 1955 storm we re estimated to have a return period of 250 years in Naugatuck. The October 1955 flood had a recurrence interval of just over 100 years, and the 1936, 1938, and 1948 floods had recurrence intervals greater than 50, greater than 50, and approximately 100 years, respectively as measured in Beacon Falls. According to the National Climatic Data Ce nter (NCDC) Storm Events Database, there have been 28 flooding events and 20 flas h flood events in New Haven County since 1993. The following are descriptions of more recent examples of floods in and around the Borough of Naugatuck as described in the NCDC Storm Events Database, and based on correspondence with municipal officials. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-7 ‰ April 16, 1996: A low pressure system produced heavy rainfall in New Ha ven and Middlesex Counties, with 12-hour rainfa ll amounts in New Haven County ranging from 2.8 to 6.1 inches. The storm caused th ree dams in Middletown and one dam in Wallingford to breach and resulted in un-insured flood damages of approximately $1.5 million. ‰ March 9, 1998: Two low pressure system s formed over the southeastern United States that brought thunderstorms and hea vy rainfall to New Haven County, resulting in widespread urban and small stream fl ooding. Water inundated several basements in Naugatuck. The storm produced wind gus ts up to 55 miles per hour (mph) that contributed to scattered power outages. Ra infall amounts ranged from two and a half to four inches. ‰ January 15, 1999: A combination of hea vy rain falling on frozen ground, snow and ice melting, and partially clogge d storm drains caused widespread flash flooding of low-lying and poor drainage areas acro ss Fairfield and New Haven Counties. Waterbury experienced significant widespread street and basement flooding. ‰ September 16, 1999: Torrential record rain fall preceding the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd caused widespread urban, sma ll stream, and river flooding. A total of 6.18 inches of rain was recorded in the nearby Town of Ansonia, and wind gusts peaked at up to 60 mph. Fairfield County was declared a disaster area, along with Litchfield and Hartford Counties. Initial cost estimates for damages to the public sector was $1.5 million for those three count ies. These estimates do not account for damages to the private sector and are based on information provided by the Connecticut Office of Emergency Manageme nt. Serious wide-spread flooding of low-lying and poor drainage ar eas resulted in the closure of many roads and basement flooding across Fairfield, New Have n, and Middlesex Counties. ‰ April 21, 2000: A series of intense thunderstorms accompanied by two to four inches of rainfall produced lightning strikes and widespread flooding of small streams, brooks, rivers, and low-lying and poor dr ainage areas. Hockanum Brook in the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-8 adjacent Town of Beacon Falls was about two feet over its banks as a result of this storm. ‰ October 2005: Although the c onsistent rainfall of October 7-15, 2005 caused flooding and dam failures in most of Connecticut (m ost severely in northern Connecticut), the precipitation intensity and duration was such that only minor flooding occurred in Naugatuck. The Naugatuck River at B eacon Falls and Waterbury experienced significant rises within its banks. ‰ April 22-23, 2006: A sustained heavy rainfa ll caused streams to overtop their banks and drainage systems to fail through out New Haven County. Rainfall amounts ranged from three to six inches across the region, including 4.34 inches in Naugatuck. ‰ June 2, 2006: An isolated severe thunders torm produced up to eight inches of heavy rainfall that caused widespread damage in Waterbury, Wolcott, and Prospect. The storm caused slumps and drainage failures throughout the adjacent City of Waterbury, and several streets were flooded and damaged in all three municipalities. ‰ April 15-16, 2007: A spring nor’easter dropped ov er six inches of rain in the Greater Waterbury area, causing widespread flooding. ‰ July 19, 2007: Route 8 in the adjacent Town of Beacon Falls was closed due to flash flooding. 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Regulations and Other Methods of Prevention The Borough of Naugatuck has in place a number of measures to prevent flood damage. These include regulations and plans that co ntrol encroachment and development in and near floodplains and floodways. Regulations, codes, and ordinances that apply to flood hazard mitigation in conjunction with and in addition to NFIP regulations include: ‰ Floodplains (Section 29 of the Naugatuck Zoning Regulations). This section recognizes areas of special flood hazards w ithin the Borough as a zoning overlay and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-9 establishes minimum standards and review procedures over the use of the land in order to reduce flooding hazard to human life and health, reduce flood damages to public and private property, minimize disruptions of commerce and governmental services, protect values, maintain the natural drainage system’s capacity to safely store and transport flood water and mi nimize damaging flood erosion and any increases in downstream flood pot ential. It establishes the FIRMs and the FIS as the official maps for delineating areas of special flood hazard. Ö Section 29.5.1 requires new construction and substantial improvements to be anchored and resistant to flood damage. Ö Section 29.5.3.1 requires that no new constr uction be permitted in A zones with established flood elevations if the base flood elevation would be increased by more than one foot. Ö Section 29.6.1 requires that new construction and substantial improvements of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least two f eet above the base flood. Ö Section 29.6.2 requires that new construction and substantial improvements of any nonresidential structure shall have th e lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least two feet above the base flood, or flood proofed. Ö Section 29.6.3 provides additional requi rements for mobile home parks. Ö Sections 29.6.4 and 29.7 control encroachment into floodways. Ö Section 29.6.8 requires floodplain compensati on for development that reduces the holding capacity of floodplains. An application for approval of a developm ent in a flood plain must be submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and be approved before construction can begin. ‰ Open Space Subdivision Plans (Section 35 of the Naugatuck Zoning Regulations). This sections allows for the proposal and permitting of an “open space subdivision” to NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-10 preserve land as unsubdivided and undeveloped; for parks; for conserving natural resources; and to protect streams, rivers and ponds to avoid “flooding” and “erosion.” ‰ The Naugatuck Subdivision Regulations contain numerous provisions relative to flood hazard mitigation: Ö Section 3.2.4 requires that an Engineering Report be submitted with all applications, and that it shall address im pacts on floodplains, aquifers, watersheds, greenways and natural featur es. This report shall also include summaries of stormwater drainage designs. Ö Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2 require that existing and proposed watercourses, wetlands, ponds, swamps, shorelines, fl oodplain or flood boundaries be shown on site plans. Ö Section 4.7.7 requires delineation of floodplain or flood boundaries and base flood elevation data within the subdivision. Ö Section 5.2 requires that any lot which is “found to be unsuitable for occupancy and buildings by reason of water or flooding conditions, unsuitable soil, topography, ledge, rock or other conditions shall be combined with another contiguous lot that is suitable.…” Ö Section 5.8 guides stormwater management and drainage system design to ensure peak flow attenuation or other mitigation. Ö Section 5.9 guides stormwater conveyance and stipulates the storm frequencies that must be conveyed by bridges, culverts, catch basins, etc. ‰ Flood Hazard Standards (Section 5.12 of the Subdivision Regulations) requires that: Ö 5.12.1 – Proposed subdivisions shall be cons istent with the need to minimize flood damage Ö 5.12.2 – Public utilities, in cluding adequate storm drainage, shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize flood damage. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-11 Ö 5.12.3 – Adequate storm drainage shall be provided to reduce exposure to flood damage. Ö 5.12.4 – Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all land proposed to be subdivided, whether or not it is available from FEMA. ‰ Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Section 4.6 of the Naugatuck Subdivison Regulations and Section 36 of the Naugatuck Zoning Regulations). These sections require the submittal of a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with any application in which the disturbed area of such development is cumulatively more than one-half acre. ‰ Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations . These regulations define in detail the Borough of Naugatuck’s requirements regarding development near wetlands, watercourses, and water bodies. Section 2 defines “Regulated Activities” covered by the Regulations. Section 4 states that no person may conduct or maintain a regulated activity without obtaining a permit. Section 7 outlines the application requirements, and requires the delineation of the boundaries of all wetlands and watercourses on the plans for Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission submittals. In particular: Ö Section 7.5.9 requires delineation of “fl oodplain limits and elevations,… drainage systems and channels….” Ö Section 7.6.7 requires additional information regarding measures that “prevent flooding,… erosion and sedimentation and obstruction of drainage….” Ö Section 8.6 requires providing a hydrologi c analysis of runoff and peak flow. Ö Section 10.2.1 states that the Commissi on must consider the environmental impact of the proposed action, including the effects on the watercourse’s natural capacity to support fish a nd wildlife, to prevent flooding, to supply and protect surface and ground waters, to control sediment , to facilitate drainage, to control pollution, to support recreationa l activities, and to promote public health safety and welfare. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-12 Ö Section 10.2.7 requires evaluation of the impact of the activity on upstream and downstream wetlands and watercourses as well as impacts on the overall watershed. Ö Section 10.2.9 requires evaluation of stormwater management. Ö Section 10.2.10 requires cons ideration of, among other things, management of open spaces and detention basins. ‰ Aquifer Protection Regulations . These regulations replaced Section 28 of the Zoning Regulations subsequent to the State’s adoption of the model aquifer protection ordinance. The regulations apply to the two aquifer protection zones in the Borough, located around the Indian Field groundwater su pply in nearby Prospect (with the zone extending into Naugatuck) and the Marks Br ook groundwater supply in southeastern Naugatuck. Although the regulations primarily address land uses that involve use, storage, or transfer of hazardous materials or chemicals within the aquifer protection zones, they provide an additional level of protection in the floodplains within each zone. Although the Indian Field wells are located in a floodplain in Prospect, the Marks Brook aquifer protection zone incl udes portions of the Marks Brook and Beacon Hill Brook floodplains in Naugatuck. ‰ Plan of Conservation & Development. This document from 2001 noted that about 3,028 acres of open space exists within the Borough, with approximately 1,468 acres (14%) of open space under public/private ownership and 1,560 acres (15%) of open space including lands that are not perman ently protected. Section 3.C.2 identifies priority conservation areas (watercourses, water bodies, wetlands, slopes in excess of 15%, and ridgelines) and important cons ervation areas (public water supply watersheds, and aquifers and recharge area s, and unique or special habitat areas). The intent of these regulations is to promot e the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas of the Borough of Naugatuck by the establishment of standards designed to: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-13 ‰ Protect human life a nd public health; ‰ Minimize expenditure of money for costly flood control projects; ‰ Minimize the need for rescue and reli ef efforts associated with flooding; ‰ Ensure that purchasers of property ar e notified of special flood hazards; ‰ Ensure that all land approved for subdivision shall have proper provisions for water, drainage, and sewerage and in areas conti guous to brooks, rivers, or other bodies of water subject to flooding, and that proper provisions be made for protective flood control measures; ‰ Ensure that property owners ar e responsible for their actions; ‰ Ensure the continued eligibility of owners of property in Naugatuck for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Borough of Naugatuck retained a consultant to review Zoning and Subdivision Regulations in 2008. The review was completed in November 2008. Most of the recommendations are related to incorporating elements of low impact development into the regulations, especially with regard to stormwater management. In no case did a recommendation reduce any requirements relate d to flood hazard mitigation, and in fact, the recommendations will provide for enha nced peak flow management in new developments, if implemented. The proce ss also resulted in a new checklist for developers, entitled “Subdivision/Site Plan Checklist for Drainage Designs” (with revision date November 2008). A copy can be found in Appendix C. The Borough of Naugatuck Zoning Enforcement O fficer serves as the NFIP administrator and oversees the enforcement NFIP regulat ions under the authority of the Zoning Commission. The Borough has not completed an update of its flood hazard regulations, and currently has no plans to enroll in th e Community Rating System program. The Borough of Naugatuck uses the 100-year flood lines from the FIRM and FIS delineated by FEMA as the official maps and report for determining special flood hazard NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-14 areas. FEMA has commenced its “Map Mod” program to revise the FIRMs for each County in Connecticut, and this program has been completed for parts of New Haven County. This program will create a si ngle FIRM for New Haven County. Many municipalities with revised FIRMs from th e Map Mod program are finding that more properties are in floodplains than originally believed. Zoning and subdivision regulations require that all structures in flood hazard areas have their lowest floor (including basement) be two feet above es tablished base flood elevations. Standards require that all proposals be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage, that public facili ties and utilities be located and constructed to minimize flood damage, and that adequate drainage is provided. Wet floodproofing is required for buildings that include a fully enclosed sp ace below the base flood elevation formed by foundation or other exterior walls. No encr oachment on floodways is allowed that will raise the level of base flood elevation. The Naugatuck Inla nd Wetlands Commission also reviews new developments and existi ng land uses on and near wetlands and watercourses. Flood Control Projects Subsequent to the devastati ng floods of 1955, extensive flood control modifications have been made to the Naugatuck River basin, incl uding the construction of five flood control dams by the ACOE. Three of these dams are located upstream of Naugatuck in the Town of Thomaston, and two others are located fu rther upstream in Torrington. These dams are further described in Section 8.3. Accord ing to the FEMA FIS for Thomaston, these five dams can store all runoff up to a 100-year storm and provide a controlled release to the channel downstream. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-15 The Borough of Naugatuck 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. Emergency Services The Naugatuck Department of Public Works is in charge of the maintenance of the Borough’s drainage systems, and performs clearing of bridges and culverts and other maintenance as needed. Drainage complaints are routed to the department and recorded. The Borough uses these documents to iden tify potential problems and plan for maintenance and upgrades. The Borough can also access the Automated Flood Warning System to monitor precipitation totals. Th e Connecticut DEP installed the Automated Flood Warning System in 1982 to monitor rain fall 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 the area are favorable for a flood or flash flood, respectively. 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 flooding, highly likely to flood, or when flooding is imminent. In summary, the Borough of Naugatuck prim arily attempts to mitigate flood damage and flood hazards by restricting building activities in side flood-prone areas. This process is carried out through both the Zoning Commission and the In land Wetlands Commission. All watercourses are to be encroached minimally or not at all to maintain the existing flood carrying capacity. These regulations rely primarily on the FEMA-defined 100-year flood elevations to determine flood areas. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-16 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment This section discusses specific areas at risk to flooding w ithin the Borough. Major land use classes and critical facil ities within these areas are identified. According to the FEMA FIRMs, approximately 219 acres of land in Naugatuck are located within the 100- year flood boundary and 575 acres of land are located within the 500-year flood boundary. In addition, indirect and nuisance flooding occurs near streams and rivers throughout Naugatuck due to inadequate drainage and other factors. The primary waterway in the Borough is the Naugatuck River, which flows north to south through the Borough. The remaining waterways in Naugatuck are mostly small streams and brooks significant for water s upply and conservation purposes, with only Hop Brook noted as recreational resource. R ecall from Figure 3-1 that floodplains with defined elevations are delineated for th e Naugatuck River, Hop Brook, Long Meadow Pond Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, and Beacon Hill Brook. These watercourses, along with several additional smaller streams, have 500-year floodplains delineated by approximate methods. All of these delineated floodplains are generally limited to the areas adjacent to the streams. Due to the large amount of buffer capacity provided by the ACOE flood control dams upstream, there is little wide-scale flooding in Naugatuck. Specific areas susceptible to flooding were identified by Borough personnel and observed by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. staff during field inspec tions as described in Section 1.5. Most flooding occurs due to large amounts of rainfall, sometimes falli ng in conjunction with snowmelt, and it often occurs due to undersized road cu lverts and drainage problems. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-17 Priority Areas of Concern ‰ Spencer Street Corridor/Cherry Street/Pleasant Avenue – This area was cited as a significant flood-prone area during the data collection meeting, although severe damage does not occur and nuisance flooding appears to be the problem; repetitive loss properties are not located in this area. A review of historical topographic maps reveals that an unnamed stream was former ly located in this area in 1947, flowing from west to east, but it has been locate d in a culvert underground since at least 1954. Refer to Figure 3-2 for a depiction of the watercourse in 1947, Figure 3-3 for a depiction of the area in 1954, and Figure 3- 4 for a depiction at the present time. Figure 3-2 – View of 1947 Topogra phic Map, Spencer Street Corridor NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-18 Figure 3-3 – View of 1954 Topogra phic Map, Spencer Street Corridor Currently, there is a deten tion pond near this area with an adjacent swale from a hillside; and a stream daylights to the west of Lewis Street. Streets and homes can flood within the development during periods of heavy rainfall. Stormwater systems tied to this watercourse are also affected. It has been reported that water levels can rise so rapidly that a “geyser” forms in the storm drainage system when water gets backed up following periods of high rainfall . In fact, the historic Grant House on Cherry Street Extension was damaged due to pressures within the stormwater system. 2004 CLEAR, CT DEP H:Figure3-4S pencer. mxd 2937- 02 Na uga tuck Pre-Disa ste r Na tural Ha zard Mi tiga tion Plan Naugat uc k, CT Spenc er Street/C herry St reet/ Pl eas ant Avenue St udy Ar ea Figur e 3-4 LOCATION : Date: Ja n. 2009 Sca le: 1″ = 500′ 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-20 ‰ Long Meadow Pond Brook – The corridor of this stream and its tributary (depicted on Figure 3-5) were noted by Borough personnel as experiencing flooding during heavy rainfall. The specific area of concern is located adjacent to the Long Meadow Pond Brook and its tributary near Rubber Avenue and Harlow Court, near Mountview Plaza and north of the Baummer Dam. The flooding at this site is partly associated with water entering from the vicinity of Webb Road. There have been approximately four residential or commercial sites that have been flooded in this location, though repetitive loss properties are not located in this area. ‰ Arch Street – The lower portion of Arch Street at Long Meadow Pond Brook receives three feet of standing water during large rain fall events. A storm drain near a vacant building is sometimes clogged, causing storm water to back up and build in the street during these storms. On one account, the st anding water caused a dumpster to float. ‰ Beacon Valley Road – Flooding has been reported along Beacon Valley Road near Beacon Falls. This neighborhood becomes inundated with water from Beacon Hill Brook after heavy rains. See Figure 3-6 for a vicinity map. Other Areas of Concern ‰ Cold Spring Brook – Although not mentioned at the data collection kick-off meeting, this corridor was investigated. The brook is very close to Brook Street and flooding could affect homes and acce ss to Cold Spring Circle. ‰ Crown Spring Bridge – This bridge over Hop Brook on Bridge Street has recurring problems with flooding after periods of heavy rainfall. 2004 CLEAR, CT DEP H:Figure3-3Lon g.mxd 2937- 02 Na uga tuck Natural Ha zard Pre- Di saste r Mi tiga tion Plan Naugat uc k, CT Long Meadow Pond B rook St udy Ar ea Figur e 3-5 LOCATION : Date: Ja n. 2009 Sca le: 1″ = 600′ SHEET : 99 R ealt y D rive Cheshire, Connecticut 0 6410 (203 ) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272 -9733 www .milonean dm acbroom .com BEACON V ALLEY R OA D STUD Y AR EA NAT UR AL HA ZARD PRE-DISASTER MI TIGA TION PL AN BOR OU GH OF NA UGA TUC K, C ONN ECTIC UT SJB SJB DM 1″ = 600’ JANUARY 2009 2937-02 H:Figure3-2Beacon.mxd FIGURE 3-6 99 Rea lty Dr ive Cheshire, Con necticut 06410 (203) 271-177 3 Fax (203 ) 272-9733 www. milonea ndma cbroom.com REVISIONS DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED SCALE: DATE: PROJECT NO: MXD N AME: SHEET NO. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-23 ‰ East Waterbury Road – The portion of East Water bury Road below the Union Ice Company Dam now becomes flooded after h eavy rains. As a result of the pond losing storage due to sedimentation, th is problem may be worsening. During substantial rain events, the dam overtops and water spills onto East Waterbury Road. The water runs down the road and eventually re-enters the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook. Under certain conditions, water can enter homes. ‰ Fulling Mill Brook along Route 68 – Flooding of Route 68 has been known to occur during periods of heavy rain. The channel is near street level in some areas, and when water is overbank, it causes minor flooding. ‰ Highland Street near Galpin Street – This area was reporte d to have flooding issues after substantial rain events. The area was inspected but the alleged drainage problems were not apparent. Problems may occur under more significant events. ‰ May Street – The nearby unnamed stream may have the tendency to jump the culvert at the intersection with Bird Road an d cause washouts in a resident’s yard. ‰ Nichols Garage (Irving Gas Station) – This site marks the point at which Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. There is a pond adjacent to the garage at this site that may have mitigated flooding problems in the past, but it has become filled with silt. ‰ Maple Street – A sinkhole approximately 100 feet long formed in July 2008 near the Naugatuck Fire Headquarters. The sinkhole wa s the result of the failure of an old storm drain. Correspondence with the State of Connecticut NFIP Coordinator revealed that there is one Repetitive Loss Property listed for the Borough of Naugatuck. The property had one NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-24 reported flood claim in 1982 and one in 1985. It is believed that this property may be listed in error for several reasons: ‰ First, the NFIP Repetitive Loss Update Wo rksheet lists the “NFIP Community Name” as being Ottawa County, and the “Comm unity ID#” as being 390432, placing the property in Ohio. ‰ Second, the “Current Property Address” is listed as being 67 Meadow Lart Road in Naugatuck, Connecticut. No “Meadow La rt” Road or “Meadow Lark” road was found on Google Maps for Ottawa County, Ohio. However, the Meadow Lark Road in Naugatuck does not have a number 67. ‰ Finally, the Meadow Lark Road in Naugatu ck is on a hill away from streams and floodplains, making it unlikely that there is a chronic flooding problem in the area. The fact that the last flood claim for this a ddress occurred in 1985 supports this belief. Critical Facilities and Emergency Services Critical facilities are not regularly impacted by flooding in the Borough of Naugatuck, despite several critical facil ities (listed in Table 2-5) ha ving locations in the 500-year floodplain. Major transportation arteries, such as State roads, are largely unaffected by flooding, and the emphasis on creating through streets has provided multiple modes of egress to the majority of neighborhoods in Naugatuck. 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 categories of prevention, property protection , structural projects, public education and awareness, natural resource protection , and emergency services. All of the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-25 recommendations discussed in the subsections below are reprinted in a bulleted list in Section 3.7. 3.6.1 Prevention Floodplain regulations and rede velopment policies are the most common form of flood damage prevention. These are usually admi nistered by building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement offices through capital improvement programs and through zoning, 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. In addition, delineated Aquifer Protection Areas (APA) in Connecticut are often located near floodplains and can indirectly provide a level of protection against the development of certain commercial an d industrial properties. Floodplain Development Regulations : Development regulations encompass subdivision regulations, building codes, a nd floodplain ordinances. Site plan and new subdivision regulations should include the following: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-26 ‰ Requirements that every lot have a bu ildable area above the flood level; ‰ 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 subdivi sion and building codes. These could be included in the ordinances for zoning and bu ilding codes, or could be addressed in a separate ordinance. The Borough should consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce the cost of flood insurance for its residents, and should consider using Borough topographic maps to develop a more accurate regulatory flood-hazard map using the published FEMA flood elevations. According to the FEMA, communities are encouraged to use different, more accurate base maps to expand upon the FIRMs published by FEMA. This is because many FIRMs were originally create d using United States Geological Survey quadrangle maps with 10-foot contour interv als, but most municipalities today have contour maps of one or two-foot intervals th at show more recently constructed roads, bridges, and other anthropologic features. Another approach is to record high-water marks and establish those areas inundate d 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. It should be noted that the community’s map will not affect the current FIRM or alter the SFHA used for setting insurance rates or making map determinations; it can only be used by the community to NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-27 regulate floodplain areas. The FEMA Region I office has more information on this topic; contact information can be found in Section 11. Reductions in floodplain area or revisions of a mapped floodplain can only be accomplished through revised FEMA-sponsored engineering studies or Letters of Map Change (LOMC). To date, one Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) and no Letters of Map Revision (LOMR) have been issued under the LOMC program for the Borough of Naugatuck, so such updates are c onsidered rare for the Borough. 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 during any given storm event. Due to its topography, Naugatuck is situated in the upper and lower parts of several watersheds. Developers should be required to demonstrate whether detention or retention will be the best management practice for stormw ater at specific sites in regards to the position of each project site in the surrounding watershed. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-28 Drainage System Maintenance : An effective drainage system must be continually maintained to ensure efficiency and functi onality. Maintenance 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 iden tification 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 officials. Technical assistance for local offi cials, 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 Borough of Naugatuck Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) administers the wetland regulations and the Naugatuck Zoning Co mmissions administer the Zoning and Subdivision regulations. The regulations simultaneously restrict development in floodplains, wetlands, and other flood prone ar eas. The Zoning Enforcement Officer and the IWC (or its agents) are charged with ensuring that development follows the floodplain management regulations and inland wetlands regulations. Based on the above guidelines and the existing roles of the IWC, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Comm ission, and the Zoning Enforcement Officer, one preventive mitigation measure is recommended. A checklist should be developed that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, a nd codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed projec t. This will streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant, just as the “Subdivision/Site Plan Checklist for Drainage Designs” (re vision date November 2008) attempts to accomplish. This checklist could be provided to a land use or development applicant at NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-29 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. several Borough departments. A sample checklist for the Borough of Naugatuck 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. Structural flood protection techniques applicable to property protection include the construction of barri ers, 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 Borough of Naugatuck residents to prevent damage fr om inland and nuisance flooding. The Borough NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-30 may wish to work with property owners along Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, and Fulling Mill Brook 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 el evation of any given structure is most appropriate. 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 th e 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 floodwater 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. Many of the above mitigation measures are al ready in practice to some degree in the Borough of Naugatuck. Based on the above gui delines, a number of specific proposals for improved emergency services area recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. These are common to all haza rds in this plan, and are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-31 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 focused on resource protection; ‰ Information and education for both community and individual decision-makers; and ‰ Review of community programs to identify opportunities for floodplain preservation. 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 public education 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 floodwaters, open space and recreation, water quality protection, erosion control, and preservation of natural habitats. Retaining the natural resources and functions of floodplains can not only reduce the frequency and consequences of flooding, but also minimize stormwater management and non-point pollution problems. Through natural resource planning, these objectives can be achieved at substantially reduced overall costs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-32 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 pol icies focused on resource restoration and review of community programs to identify opportunities for floodplain restoration. Based on the above guidelines, the following specific natural resource protection mitigation measures are recommended to help prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding: ‰ Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-33 Based on the above guidelines, the following specific structural mitigation measures are recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding: ‰ Consider performing a Borough-wide analysis to help identify undersized and failing portions of the stormwater and drainage sy stems. Prioritize repairs as needed. Incorporate anecdotal information where ap propriate, such as observation described in this plan regarding the nui sance flooding at May Street. ‰ Upgrade the drainage systems in downtown Naugatuck where necessary to enhance drainage. ‰ Increase maintenance of the storm drainage system near the building on Arch Street near Long Meadow Pond Brook to pr event flooding of this area. ‰ If necessary, increase the conveyance cap acity of Crown Spring Bridge over Hop Brook at Bridge Street. ‰ Assess dredging options for the sediment laden Union Ice Company Pond to potentially increase its potential for flood mitigation. ‰ Increase the conveyance capacity of the culv ert for the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook under East Waterbury Road downstream of the Union Ice Company Pond. ‰ Upgrade the drainage system on Highland Avenue near Galpin Street to mitigate future nuisance flooding. ‰ Evaluate flood mitigation options, such as dredging of the silted pond adjacent to Nichols Garage/Irvin Gas Station, where Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. ‰ Pursue flood mitigation along the unnamed str eam associated with the Spencer Street corridor, including increased conveyance capac ity of the culverted portions of the stream, channel restoration or maintenance of the un-culverted section of the stream, and/or siting of detention systems. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-34 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Many potential mitigation concepts and activit ies were presented above in Section 3.6. The recommended mitigation strategies for addressing flooding problems in the Borough of Naugatuck are listed below. Prevention ‰ Streamline the permitting process and work toward the highest possible education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to the proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Borough department. A sample checklist for the Borough of Naugatuck is included as Appended Table 3. ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System. ‰ Continue to require applications for appr oval of a development in a floodplain for activities within SFHAs. ‰ Consider requiring buildings constructed in floodprone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level, regardle ss of being within a defined SFHA. ‰ Ensure new buildings be designed and grad ed to shunt drainage away from the building. ‰ 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-35 Property & Natural Resource Protection ‰ Pursue the acquisition of additional muni cipal open space properties inside SFHAs and set it aside as greenways, 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 property owners along Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, Fulling Mill Bro ok, and their tributaries 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 any given structure is most appropriate. Structural Projects ‰ Consider performing a Borough-wide analysis to help identify undersized and failing portions of the stormwater and drainage sy stems. Prioritize repairs as needed. Incorporate anecdotal information where ap propriate, such as observation described in this plan regarding the nui sance flooding at May Street. ‰ Upgrade the drainage systems in downtown Naugatuck where necessary to enhance drainage. ‰ Increase maintenance of the storm drainage system near the building on Arch Street near Long Meadow Pond Brook to pr event flooding of this area. ‰ If necessary, increase the conveyance cap acity of Crown Spring Bridge over Hop Brook at Bridge Street. ‰ Assess dredging options for the sediment laden Union Ice Company Pond to potentially increase its potential for flood mitigation. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-36 ‰ Increase the conveyance capacity of the culv ert for the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook under East Waterbury Road downstream of the Union Ice Company Pond. ‰ Upgrade the drainage system on Highland Avenue near Galpin Street to mitigate future nuisance flooding. ‰ Evaluate flood mitigation options, such as dredging of the silted pond adjacent to Nichols Garage/Irving Gas Station, wher e Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. ‰ Pursue flood mitigation along the unnamed str eam associated with the Spencer Street corridor, including increased conveyance capac ity of the culverted portions of the stream, channel restoration or maintenance of the un-culverted section of the stream, and/or siting of detention systems. In addition, mitigation strategies important to all hazards are included in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-1 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 when the dangerous effect s of a hurricane are expected in the area within 24 hours. 4.0 HURRICANES 4.1 Setting Hazards associated with tropical storms and hurricanes include winds, heavy rains, and inland flooding. While only some of the areas of Naugatuck are susceptible to flooding damage caused by hurricanes, wind damage can occur anywhere in the Borough. Hurricanes therefore have the potential to affect any area within the Borough of Naugatuck. A hurricane striki ng the Borough of Naugatuck is considered a possible event each year that could cause critical da mage to the Borough and its infrastructure (refer to Appended Table 1). 4.2 Hazard Assessment Hurricanes are a class of tropical cyclones that are defined by the National Weather Service as non- frontal, low-pressure 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 sustained (1-minute average) su rface wind near the center of the storm. These categories are: Tropical Depression (w inds less than 39 mph), Tropical Storm (winds 39-74 mph, inclusive) and Hurri canes (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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-2 hurricane season begins on June 1 and extends through November 30 of each year, although occasionally hurricanes oc cur 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 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. The Saffir / Simpson Scale The Saffir / Simpson Hurricane Scale, which has been adopted by the National Hurricane Center, categorizes hurricanes based upon their intensity, and relates this intensity to damage potential. The Scale uses the sust ained surface winds (1-minute average) near the center of the system to classify hurricane s 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-3 ‰ 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 unprotected 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 F lorida Keys and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Ö Hurricane Bob was a Category 2 hurricane wh en it m ade 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. Ö The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 was a Category 3 hurricane when it hit New York and southern New England. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-4 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 Mexico and in North Carolina, respectively. Ö Hurricane Katrina of August 2005 was a Category 3 hurricane when it stru ck Louisiana and Mississipp i. Ö Hurricane Rita of September 2005 reached Category 3 as 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). 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-5 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 Borough of Nauga tuck, 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-7 data. During HURDAT’s period of record, 29 hurricanes and 67 tropical storms have passed within a 150-mile radius of Newport, Rhode Island. 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 130 mile per hour winds flattened forests, destr oyed nearly 5,000 cottages, farms, and homes, and damaged an estimated 15,000 more th roughout New York and southern New England. Overall, the storm left an estimat ed 700 dead 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-8 Another Category 3 hurricane, Hurricane Carol, struck in August of 1954 shortly after high tide and produced storm surges of 10 to 15 feet in southeastern Connecticut. Rainfall amounts of six inches were recorded in New London, and wind gusts peaked at over 100 mph. Near the coast, the combinati on 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 ev ery major river system in the state. The Mad and Still Rivers in Winsted, the Naugatuck, the Farmington, and the Quinebaug River in northeastern Connectic ut caused the most damage. The floodwaters resulted in over 100 deaths, left 86,000 unemployed, and caused 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. A description of damage caused by the storm in the Borough of Naugatuck was included in Section 3.3. As a result o f the 1955 flooding, the ACOE installed flood control dams in the Naugatuck River watershed, as detailed in Section 3 and Section 8. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-9 rain in some areas and heavy winds which damaged structures and uprooted trees. Over 500,000 people suffered significant power outages. Hurricane Bob, a Category 2 hurricane that made 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 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. These include ordinances, codes, and regulations that have been enacted to minimize flood damage. In addition, various st ructures exist to protect certain areas, including dams and riprap. 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 addi tion of split zones for some municipalities. For example, for municipalities along the Merritt Parkway such as Fairfield and Trumbull, wind speed criteria are different no rth and south of the Parkway in relation to the distance from the shoreline. Effectiv e December 31, 2005, the design wind speed for Naugatuck is 100 miles per hour. Naugatuck has adopted the Connecticut Building Code as its building code. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-10 Parts or all of tall and older trees may fall during heavy wind events, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and ve hicles. Currently tree maintenance is coordinated by the Borough Engine ering Department and the Tree Warden, who is part of the Department of Public Works. Naugatu ck residents can request a review of any hazardous trees that they believe belongs to the Borough and is creating a hazardous condition. The Engineering Depart ment will dispatch a crew to determine if the tree is on Borough property and Naugatuck’s Tree Warden will determine if the tree must be trimmed or removed. The Borough will only rem ove or trim trees that are determined to be hazardous, dead, or obstructing vision for ve hicular traffic. CL&P also performs tree maintenance, but landowners are primarily responsible for conducting tree maintenance on private property away from Borough propert y. The Borough attempts to close roads at convenient intersections rather than at the location of the downed tree or branch. In addition, all utilities in new subdivisions mu st be located underground whenever possible in order to mitigate storm-related damages. As explained in Section 2.9, the Borough of Naug atuck has buildings that can be used as shelters for evacuees. However, as none of these buildings have generators, and as the Borough has limited staffing available, the Bo rough generally has residents shelter in place unless there is an immediate need for ev acuation. As hurricanes generally pass an area within a day’s time, additional shelters can be set up after the storm as needed for long-term evacuees, or regional mass care fac ilities operated by the American Red Cross could be utilized. The Borough relies on radio and television to spread information on the location and availability of shelters. During a disaster , the Borough will notify residents of emergency information on a neighborhood basis using its CodeRED emergency notification service. Prior to severe storm events, the Borough en sures that warning/notification systems and communication equipment is working properly, and prepares for the possible evacuation of impacted areas. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-11 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 II storm is expected to strike the state once per decade. The Borough of Naugatuck is less vulnerable to hu rricane damage than coastal municipalities in Connecticut because it does not need to deal with the effects of storm surge. The Borough of Naugatuck is vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding, and from any tornadoes accompanying the stor m. Areas of known and potential flooding problems are discussed in Section 3, and tornadoes will be discussed in Section 5. 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 from heavy winds can also start fires, so adequate fire protection is important. There are five mobile home parks in the Borough of Naugatuck that are considered to be at increased risk of being da maged by high winds associated with tropical storm systems: ‰ Idleview Mobile Home Park on Lewis Hill off Duncan Avenue in the northwestern section of Naugatuck; ‰ Riverview Mobile Home Estates on Thunde rbird Drive in the northern part of Naugatuck overlooking the Naugatuck River; ‰ The Davis Mobile Home Park at 117 Lewis Street; ‰ The Weber Mobile Home Park at 137 Lewis Street; and ‰ Gendron’s Valley Mobile Home Park at 108 Clark Hill Road. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-12 As the residents and businesses of the State of Connecticut become more dependent on the internet and mobile communications, the impact of hurrica nes on commerce will continue to increase. A major hurricane has the potential of causing complete disruption of power and communications for up severa l weeks, rendering electronic devices and those that rely on utility towers and lines inoperative. According to the Connecticut DEP, this is a significant risk that cannot be quantitatively estimated. As the Borough of Naugatuck is not affected by storm surge, hurricane sheltering needs have not been calculated by the Army Corp s of Engineers for the Borough. The Borough of Naugatuck determines sheltering need based upon areas damaged within the Borough. 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 Naugatuck will relocate, though many of this number will again stay with friends or relatives rather than go to established shelters. 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Many potential mitigation measures for hurricanes include those appropriate for inland 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 emphasized 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: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-13 ‰ Continue Borough-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines is diminished. ‰ Continue location of utiliti es underground in new developments or as related to redevelopment. ‰ As required by law, continue to review th e currently enacted Emergency Operations Plan for the Borough and update when necessary. 4.6.2 Property Protection Potential mitigation measures include designs for hazard-resistant construction and retrofitting techniques. These may take the form of increased wind and flood resistance, as well as the use of storm shutters over exposed glass and the inclusion of hurricane straps to hold roofs to buildings. Complia nce with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds is necessary. Literature should be made available by the Building Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 Bor ough of Naugatuck includes guidelines and specifications for communication of hurricane wa rnings and watches, as well as for a call NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-14 for evacuation. The public needs to be made aware in advance of a hurricane event of evacuation routes and the locations of public shelters, which could be accomplished by placing this information on the Borough website and by creating informational displays in local municipal buildings. In addi tion, Naugatuck should identify and prepare additional facilities for evacuation and shelte ring needs. The Borough should also review its mutual aid agreements and update as necessa ry to ensure help is available as needed. 4.6.5 Structural Projects Structural projects for wind damage mitigation are not possible. 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives While many potential mitigation activiti es were addressed in Section 4.6, the recommended mitigation strategies for mitigating hurricane and tropical storm winds in the Borough of Naugatu ck are listed below. ‰ Continue Borough-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines is diminished. ‰ Focus tree limb maintenance and inspectio ns along Route 63, Route 68, Spring Street, Union City Road, and other evacuation r outes. Increase inspections of trees on private property near power lines and Borough right-of-ways. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them undergr ound in existing developed areas. ‰ Review potential evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Naugatuck, and pos t evacuation and shelter information on the Borough website and in municipal buildings. ‰ Provide for the Building Department to have literature available regarding appropriate design standards for wind. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-15 In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, 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 Bo rough of Naugatuck. 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 Borough without harming another. The en tire Borough of Naugatuck 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 Borough of Naugatuck 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 w ith summer storms. Inland flooding and flash flooding caused by heavy rainfall was covered in Section 3.0 of this plan and will not be discussed in detail here. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, 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 F5, 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-3 Table 5-1 (Continued) Fujita Scale F-Scale Number Intensity Wind Speed Type of Damage Done F4 Devastating tornado 207-260 mph Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated F3 Severe tornado 158-206 mph Roof and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-4 The Enhanced F-scale is still a set of wind estimates based on damage. It 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 Number 3 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 tornadoes is discusse d 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 is Litchfield and Hartford Counties, followe d by New Haven, Fairfield, Tolland, Middlesex, Windham, and finally New London County. By virtue of its location in New Haven County, the Borough of Naugatuck is therefore at a relatively higher risk of tornadoes compared to most 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 inju ries 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 occurring 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 and eastern parts. Although lightning is usually associated with thunderstorms, it can occur on almost any day. The likelihood of lightning strikes in the Naugatuck area is very high during any given thunderstorm, although no one area of the Borough 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-6 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). distinguishable from tornad ic activity by the pattern of destruction and debris. Depending on the size and location of these even ts, the destruction to property may be significant. Downbursts may be categorized as microbursts (affecting an area less than 2.5 miles in diameter) or macrobursts (affecti ng an area at least 2.5 miles in diameter). 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 Borough of Naugatuck 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 hailstorm occurring in Naugatuck 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-7 rated tornadoes, three F1 rated tornadoes, two F0 rated tornadoes, and two undefined tornadoes. Property damages from torna dos 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 Naugatuck, taken from the NCDC Storm Events database, is listed below: ‰ September 9, 1994 – Lightning strikes were reported from Milford to Naugatuck. ‰ April 4, 1995 – A roof was blown off of one house and two other homes were damaged by thunderstorm winds in Naugatuck. ‰ May 29, 1995: Severe thunderstorm winds were reported in the vicinity of Seymour and Naugatuck. ‰ August 2, 1995 – Severe thunderstorms were reported between Oxford and Naugatuck. The storm downed several tr ees and power lines as it moved across Connecticut. ‰ October 21, 1995 – A squall line generated thunderstorms that downed several trees and power lines. Several vehicles were damaged by the falling trees. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-8 ‰ July 15, 1997: Clusters of slow-movi ng severe thunderstorms produced high winds (50 miles per hour), hail, and heavy rain across New Haven County. Lightning struck four hilltop houses in eastern Naugatuck, causing minor damage. ‰ June 30, 1998: Two rounds of thunderstorm s affected New Haven County, producing frequent lightning and heavy rain. Light ning struck a house in the Ridge Subdivision of Naugatuck, causing damage to a bedroom wall in the morning. In the afternoon, severe thunderstorms produced high winds, large hail, a nd frequent lightning that downed many trees in New Haven County. ‰ August 11, 1998: An isolated severe thunders torm produced a wet microburst of high winds and heavy rain over Naugatuck. The 61 mph winds caused a three-quarter of a mile wide area of widespread tree damage from Highland Avenue to Woodland Street (about one to one and a half miles in lengt h). Two people were injured when a large tree fell on their second fl oor porch on High Street. ‰ January 18, 1999: Thunderstorms produced a brief period of high winds, lightning, and torrential rain. Lightning struck a house on Osborn Road in Naugatuck, and struck a house on Keefe Street in Waterbur y. The rainfall caused minor flooding of low-lying and poor drainage areas including streets and basements. ‰ 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, causing widespr ead downing of trees and power lines. Significant power outages were reported. ‰ May 18, 2000: A line of severe thunderst orms produced damaging wind gusts up to 70 mph, primarily small hail, heavy rain, and lightning. Spotters reported downed trees, tree limbs, and wires in Waterbury, and one-half inch diameter hail was reported in Naugatuck. ‰ June 11, 2001: Locally severe thunderstorms produced high winds that downed trees and power lines across portions of southern Connecticut, and heavy rains that caused areas of flooding on roadways and in low-lying areas. 50 mph winds were reported in Naugatuck. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-9 A severe thunderstorm watch is issued by the National Weather Service when the weather conditions are such that a severe thunderstorm (winds greater than 58 miles per hour, or hail three-fourths of an inch or greater) is likely to develop. A severe thunderstorm warning is issued when a severe thunderstorm has been sighted or indicated by weather radar. ‰ June 16, 2002 – A severe thunderstorm produced large hail and damaging wind gusts as it moved east across Connecticut. Spotte rs reported 0.75-inch diameter hail in Waterbury, and high winds dow ned trees in Naugatuck. ‰ August 21, 2004 – Trees were downed in Beaco n Falls and Southbury 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 stat e, including in nearby Beacon Falls. ‰ June 5, 2007: Severe thunderstorms pr oduced large hail (up to 1.75 inches in diameter) that accumulated up to one inch in depth along the Interstate 84 corridor. The storms also produced damaging winds and two to three inches of heavy rainfall that caused flash flooding throughout the ar ea. The flash flooding resulted in lane closures on Prospect Street in Naugatuck. ‰ July 28, 2007: Thunderstorms produced torrential rain and high winds and flash flooding in parts of New Have n and Middlesex Counties. Old Firehouse Road in Naugatuck was closed due to flooding. 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 list the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Watches and Warnings, respectively, as pertaining to actions to be taken by emergency management personnel in connection with summer storms and tornadoes. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-10 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 local 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 Naugatuck. Continued location of utilities underground is an important method of reducing wind damage to utilities and the re sulting loss of services. The Connecticut Building Codes include guidelines for Wind Lo ad Criteria that are specific to each municipality, as explained in Section 4.0. In addition, specific mitigation measures address debris removal and tree trimming. In the Borough of Naugatuck, the local utilities are responsible for tree branch removal and maintenance above and near their lines. In addition, all new developments in NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-11 Naugatuck must place utilities underground wherever possible. The Public Works Department also performs annual tree ma intenance on municipal right of ways. Municipal responsibilities relative to torn ado mitigation and preparedness include: ‰ Developing and disseminating emergency public information and instructions concerning tornado safety, especially gui dance regarding in-home protection and evacuation procedures, and lo cations 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. 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. Naugatuck is particularly susceptible to damage from high winds due to its high el evation 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 power lines in Naugatuck are detected quickly and any associated fires are quickly extinguished. Ho wever, it is important to have adequate water supply for fire protection to ensure this level of safety is maintained. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-12 More information is available at: FEMA – http://www.fema.gov/library/ NOAA – http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/NWSTornado/ According to Borough personnel, the most su sceptible areas of Borough to wind damage are the mobile home parks listed in Section 4.5. Other areas of Borough are more susceptible to damage from falling branch es and trees than from actual wind damage. 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Both the FEMA and the NOAA websites contain valuable information regarding preparing for a protecting oneself during a tornado, as well as inform ation on a number of other natural hazards. Available information from FEMA includes: ‰ Design and construction guidance for creati ng and identifying community shelters; ‰ Recommendations to better protect your business, community, and home from tornado damage, including construction and design guidelines for structures; ‰ Ways to better protect property from wind damage; ‰ Ways to protect property from flooding damage; and ‰ Construction of safe rooms within homes. NOAA information includes a discussion of fa mily 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. The recent implementation of the CodeRED em ergency notification system in Naugatuck is beneficial for warni ng residents of an impending tornado. The Emergency Management Department has a page on its website NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-13 (http://www.naugatuck-ct.gov/Emergency_Management.htm) to encourage residents to become part of the CodeRED database. A community warning system that relies on radios and television is less effective at warning residents during the night when the majority of the community is asleep. This f act was evidenced most recently by the severe storm that struck Lake County, Florida on February 2, 2007. This powerful storm that included several tornadoes stuck at about 3: 15 AM. According to National Public Radio, local broadcast stations had difficultly warni ng residents due to the lack of listeners and viewers and encouraged those awake to tele phone 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. Property protection ‰ Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut 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: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-14 ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspect ions, especially in the downtown areas. ‰ Perform 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 ‰ Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds. ‰ Provide for the Building Department or the Planning and Zoning Commission to make literature available during the permitting 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-1 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 in the home. 6.0 WINTER STORMS 6.1 Setting Similar to summer storms and tornadoes, winter storms have the potential to affect any area of the Borough of Naugatuck. However, unlike summer storms, winter events and the hazards that result (wind, snow, and ice) have more widespread geographic extent. The entire Borough of Naugatuck is susceptibl e to winter 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 large area of the Borough (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 fr om winter storms are indirectly related to the storm, such as from traffic accidents on icy roads 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, 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, flooding, heavy winds, and extreme cold. The National Weather Service defines a blizzard as having winds over 35 mph with snow with 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 va rious 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 mill ion 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 power lines 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-5 snow to cause power lines and trees to fall. Nine inches of snow was reported in Beacon Falls. ‰ 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 Ansonia and 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 power lines. Several road s 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 power lin es 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 inches in neighboring Beacon Falls and seven inches in neighboring 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, power lines, and streets and causing signifi cant property damage and power outages in Naugatuck and Waterbury. ‰ December 30, 2000: A winter storm produced six to 12 inches of snow across northern New Haven County. There were numerous reports of thunder and lightning along with high winds that caused near-blizz ard conditions. Twelve inches of snow was reported in 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 power lines, power outages, and caused many traffic accidents. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-6 ‰ November 27, 2002 – Bands of heavy snow passed over northern New Haven County, producing seven inches of snow in neighboring Beacon Falls and nine inches in neighboring Waterbury. ‰ December 5, 2003 – A winter storm produced occasionally heavy snow with accumulations of up to 13 inches in Oxford. Wind gusts of at least 35 mph combined with the snow to create “white-out” conditions that caused major widespread impacts to mass transit acro ss the entire region. ‰ January 28, 2004: A winter storm produced six to 11 inches of snow across Connecticut, and produced six inches of snow in Naugatuck and eight in Waterbury. ‰ February 25, 2005 – A winter storm produced snow amounts of five to 10 inches across the state. ‰ 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 totaling nine in ches at rates in excess of two inches per hour as measured in neighboring Beacon Falls. ‰ March 24, 2005 – A late winter storm produ ced six inches of snow in neighboring Beacon Falls. ‰ December 9, 2005 – A winter storm produced six to 12 inches of snow across Connecticut. ‰ January 9, 2008 – Gusty winter winds cause d a partial collapse of a building under construction in neighboring Oxford. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-7 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. As it is almost guaranteed that winter storms will occur annually in Connecticut, it is important for municipalities to budget for and then allocate fiscal resources for snow management. The Borough ensures that al l 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 Borough also prepares for the possible evacuation and sheltering of some populations which could be impacted by the upcoming stor m (especially the elderly and special needs persons). The Borough of Naugatuck’s streets are plow ed with a combination of Borough trucks and private contractors. Each section of the Borough has a crew assigned to it. Plow trucks are first dispatched to the areas of Nauga tuck with higher elevations as it begins to snow. During emergencies, a plow vehicle can be dispatched ahead of an emergency vehicle. 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment As mentioned for summer storms, the heav ily treed landscape in close proximity to densely populated residentia l areas in the Borough of Naugatuck poses problems in relation to blizzard condition damage. Tree limbs and some building structures may not be suited to withstand high wind and snow loads. Ice can damage or collapse power NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-8 lines, render steep gradients impassable for motorists, undermine foundations, and cause “flood” damage from 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 and traffic jams during heavy snow and even light icing events. Roads may become impassable, inhibiting the ability of emergency equipment to reach trouble spots and the accessibility to medical and shelter facilities. Stranded motorists, especially senior and/or handi capped citizens, are at particul arly high risk of injury or death from exposure during a blizzard. Afte r a storm, snow piled on the sides of roadways can inhibit line of sight and re flect a blinding amount of sunlight, making driving difficult. When coupled with slippery road conditions, poor sightlines and heavy glare create dangerous driving conditions. As there is over 720 feet in elevation difference between th e high point and low point in the Borough, Naugatuck can experience snow in the hills while it rains in the downtown area. The Borough relies on its personnel to report areas receiving snow in the higher elevations, as there are many hills in Naugatu ck which can make driving difficult in icy weather. As for other winter hazards, dr ifting snow is not as large a problem in Naugatuck as in other areas, but it can still occur. This pr oblem is mitigated through municipal plowing efforts. Ice jams are not a problem in Naugatuck. Recall from Figure 2-7, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-9 that elderly, linguistically isolated, and disabled populations resi de in the Borough of Naugatuck. It is possible that significant populations impacted by a severe winter storm could consist of the elderly, linguistically isolated households, and people with disabilities. Thus, it is important for NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-9 Naugatuck’s emergency personnel to be prepared to assist these special populations during emergencies such as winter storms. 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Potential mitigation measures for flooding caused by nor’easters include those appropriate for flooding. These were presented in Section 3.6. Winter storm mitigation measures must also address blizzard, snow , and ice hazards. These are emphasized below. Note that structural projects are ge nerally not applicable to hazard mitigation for wind, blizzard, snow, and ice hazards. 6.6.1 Prevention Cold air, wind, snow, and ice can not be prev ented from impacting any particular area. Thus, mitigation should be focused on prope rty protection and emergency services (discussed below) and prevention of damage as 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 Naugatuck 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-10 Heating coils may be used to remove snow from flat roofs. Pipes should be adequately insulated to protect against fr eezing and bursting. All of these recommendations should apply to new construction, although they may al so be applied to existing buildings during renovations. Finally, as recommended in previous sections, compliance with the amended Connecticut Building 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 in to neighborhoods. The Borough of Naugatuck has established plowi ng routes that prioritize access to and from critical facilities. Residents should be made aware of the plow routes in order to plan how to best access crit ical facilities during storms, perhaps by posting the general routes on the Borough website. Such routes should also be posted other municipal buildings, such as the library and the post office. It is rec ognized that plowing critical NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-11 facilities may not be a priority to all residents, as people typically expect their own roads to be cleared as soon as possible. Available shelters shou ld also be advertised and their locations known to the public prior to a storm event. Local schools, which are designated as shelters, should be equipped with emergency generators to provide backup power. Finally, mutual aid agreements 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 for mitigating flooding are suitable for mitigation of flooding caused by winter storms. These are not repeated in this subsection. While many potential mitigation activities for the remaining winter storm hazards were addressed in Section 6.6, the recommended mitigation strategies for mitigating wind, snow, and ice in the Borough of Naugatuck are listed below. ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspect ions, especially in the downtown areas. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas ‰ Review and post evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Naugatuck. ‰ Post a list of Borough sheltering facilities and snow plowing prioritization in the municipal offices and on the Borough’s webs ite so residents can best plan how to access to critical faci lities 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-1 7.0 EARTHQUAKES 7.1 Setting The entire Borough of Naugatuck is suscepti ble to earthquakes. However, even though earthquakes have the potential to occur anywhere both in the Borough 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 significan t effects to a large area of the Borough (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 telephone 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 Califor nia, earthquakes in Connecticut are not associated with specific known faults. Instead, earthquakes with epicenters in Connecticut are referred to The following is a 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 person s 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 specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. 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. Rails 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-3 as intra-plate activity. Bedrock in Connecticut and New England in general is 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 m iles 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-5 These include the seismic coefficients for building design in the Borough of Naugatuck. The Borough has adopted these codes for new construction and they are enforced by the Borough Building Inspector. Due to the infr equent nature of damaging earthquakes, land use policies in the Borough of Naugatuck do not directly address earthquake hazards. The Zoning Regulations of the Borough of Naugatuck (Section 24.10) states no more than 25 percent of the Minimum Buildable Area shall contain slopes in excess of 25 percent. Section 36.1 of the Zoning Regulatio ns requires a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan be submitted when the disturbed area of a site is greater than one-half acre. The Plan of Conservation and Development suggests that areas of greater than 15% slopes be defined as un-buildable area. In particular, Goal #3 item #4 of the Plan of Conservation and Development states “Establish devel opment standards for single-family housing on slopes.” 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 values of ground shaking are expres sed 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-6 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. 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. earthquake impacting the Borough of Naugatuck 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 Connectic ut 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 Naugatuck. According to the previous C onnecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004), the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management noted the chance that a damaging earthqu ake of magnitude 5.0 or greater will occur within the State in any one year is 5% , and that the odds of an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 are about one in 300 each year. Therefore, the Borough of Naugatuck is unlikely to experience a damaging earthquake in any given year. This belief is reinforced by the timeline and damages recorded in the histor ical record 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, ar tificial fill material has NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-7 the potential for liquefaction. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases, reducing the ability of soil to support building foundations or bridges is reduced. Increased shaking a nd liquefaction can cause greater damage to buildings and structures, and a grea ter loss of life. As explained in Section 2.3, several areas in the Borough of Naugatuck are underlain by sand and gravel. Figure 2-5 depicts surficia l materials in the Borough. Structures in these areas are at increased risk from earthqu akes 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 bui lding codes, or possibly the prohibition of certain types of vulnerable construction in thes e areas. The areas that are not at increased risk during an earthquake due to unstable so ils are the areas in Figure 2-5 underlain by glacial till. One inactive fault is located in Naugatuck in the far southeast corner of the Borough. Even though this fault is inactive, the best mitigation for future development in the area of this fault would be to preserve or conve rt the fault area into municipal open space. Much of the fault area lies within the Naugatuck State Forest and the area is already set aside as rural. 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 and gas mains. Dam failure can also pose a significant threat to developed areas during an earthquake. For this Plan, dam failure has been addressed separately in Section 9.0. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-8 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives As earthquakes are difficult to predict and can affect the entire Borough of Naugatuck, 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: ‰ Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ Preserve or convert areas of inactive faults to municipal open space. ‰ Consider preventing certain types of developm ent, such as residential development, in areas prone to collapse. ‰ Ensure that future implementation of Goal #3 item #4 of the Plan of Conservation and Development (“Establish development standards for single-family housing on slopes”) considers earthquake risks. ‰ Continue regulating development of slopes gr eater than 20%, and consider setting a prohibition on development of steep slopes. ‰ Ensure that municipal departments have ade quate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 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 16 registered dams and potentially se veral other minor dams in the Borough, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in Nauga tuck. In addition, parts of the Borough lie within inundation areas for several Class C dams. While flooding from a dam failure generally has a small geographic extent, th e effects are potentially catastrophic. Fortunately, a major dam failure is considered only a possible natural hazard event in any given year (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 and stru ctures, 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 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 16 DEP-registered dams within the Borough of Naugatuck, of which three are Class A, five are Class BB, f our are Class B, three are Class C and one is undefined. The list of Class B and C dams was updated by the DEP in 2007. These are listed in Table 8-1. Table 8-1 Dams Registered with the DEP in the Borough of Naugatuck Number Name Class 8801 Candee Reservoir Dam BB 8802 Thurston Pond Dam C 8803 May Street Pond South Dam B 8804 May Street Pond North Dam B 8805 Mulberry Reservoir Dam C 8806 Union Ice Company Pond Dam BB 8807 Schildgen Pond Dam BB * 8808 Baummer Dam A 8809 Armory Pond Dam A 8810 Uniroyal Diversion Dam – 8811 Straitsville Pond Dam A 8812 Union City Dam BB 8813 Straitsville Reservoir Dam B 8814 Hop Brook Dam C 8815 Ridge Lower Pond Dam BB 8816 Ridge Upper Pond Dam BB *Rated a Class B dam in 1996, but was no longer rated Class B in 2007. This section discusses only th e possible effects of failure of significant and high hazard (Class B & C) dams. Failure of a Class C dam has the potential for loss of life and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-3 property damage totaling millions of dollars. Failure of a Class B dam has the potential for loss of life and minor damage to property and critical facilities. The three Class C dams located in the Bor ough of Naugatuck include the Thurston Pond Dam, the Mulberry Reservoir Dam, and the H op Brook Dam. In addition, there are four other Class C dams upstream of Naugatu ck whose failure would impact Borough residents, as listed in Table 8-2 below. B ecause the hazard areas overlap, these Class B and C dams, along with their dam failure i nundation areas are shown in Figures 8-1 and 8-2. Table 8-2 Class C Dams Upstream of the Borough of Naugatuck Number Name Watercourse in Naugatuck Municipality 803 Long Hill Reservoir Da m Beacon Hill Brook Bethany 14001 Thomaston Dam Naugatuck River Thomaston 14007 Black Rock Dam Naugatuck River Thomaston 14008 Northfield Brook Dam Naugatuck River Thomaston Note that the Black Rock Dam, Hop Brook Dam, and Thomaston Dam have progressively larger inundation areas depicted on Figur e 8-1. For example, the Thomaston Dam inundation area (purple) is only visible at the edges of the Black Rock Dam inundation area (yellow) although it completely underlies (is wider than) the Black Rock Dam inundation area. 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 is a listing of some of the more ca tastrophic dam failures in Connecticut’s recent history: 9 a © % % % ª 9: ¨ nn n n n n n n n n n Figure 8-1: High Hazard Dams in Naugatuck 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 Thurston Pond Dam Mulberry Reservoir Dam Hop Brook Dam % C Dam Hazard Class For ge neral p lannin g purp oses o nly. D elinea tions m ay no t be ex act. Source : “Roads” , c1984 – 2 008 T ele A tlas, Re l. 04/0 8. “T own B ounda ry”, “Dams”, DEP “Facilitie s”, Naugat uck Octobe r 2008 Dam Inundation Area Hop Brook Dam Black Rock Dam Northfield Brook Dam Thomaston Dam Z 374 Æ V Legend Town Boundary Local Roads Major Roads © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams Schools n Public Works 9: ¨ ª AmbulanceServices Z CL&P Substation 374Æ V Senior Center EcumenicalFood Bank 9 Town Offices 9 a © % % % ª 9: ¨ nn n n n n n n n n n Figure 8-2: High Hazard Dams in Naugatuck 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 Thurston Pond Dam Mulberry Reservoir Dam Hop Brook Dam % C Dam Hazard Class For ge neral p lannin g purp oses o nly. D elinea tions m ay no t be ex act. Source : “Roads” , c1984 – 2 008 T ele A tlas, Re l. 04/0 8. “T own B ounda ry”, “Dams”, DEP “Facilitie s”, Naugat uck Octobe r 2008 Z 374 Æ V Legend Town Boundary Local Roads Major Roads © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams Schools n Public Works 9: ¨ ª AmbulanceServices Z CL&P Substation 374Æ V Senior Center EcumenicalFood Bank 9 Town Offices Dam Inundation Area Thurston Pond Dam Mulberry Reservoir Dam Moody Reservoir Dam Long Hill Reservoir Dam NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-6 ‰ 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. ‰ 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, and 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 8-3: Table 8-3 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 Borough of Naugatuck. According t o Borough personnel, the dams throughout Borough are in varying stages of condition, with NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-7 the Class C Hop Brook Dam (maintained by the ACOE) believed to be in good to excellent condition. The upstream flood contro l dams described in Section 3.4 are also reportedly in good to excellent condition. The following paragraphs provide a description and highlight the general condition of each Class C & B dam based on information available at the Connecticut DEP. Class C Dams Located within the Borough of Naugatuck ‰ Thurston Pond Dam – This dam, also known as the New Dam, is owned by Chemtura Corporation. Thurston pond is loca ted on Long Meadow Pond Brook at the southwest corner of the in tersection of Rubber Avenue and Melbourne Street and covers a surface area of approximately 4.5 acr es. It consists of an of an earth embankment with a stone masonry overflow spillway located at the right end of the dam, and outlet works located at the right abutment. The total length of the dam, including the spillway section, is 510 feet. The ma ximum height is 20 feet. The stone masonry overflow spillway section ha s an upstream earth embankment of unknown section, a concrete cap and a batter of six inches per vertical foot on the downstream face. The outlet wo rks consist of a concrete intake structure with inlet and outlet gates which can discharge wate r through a 24-inch concrete pipe to downstream locations or through an 18-inch co ncrete pipe into the stream below the dam. The spillway capacity is 2,500 cfs, or 37% of the Test Flood Outflow. The dam is believed to be in good condition. ‰ Mulberry Reservoir Dam – The Mulberry Reservoir is owned by the Connecticut Water Company and is used for public water supply. The reservoir covers a surface area of approximately 8.3 acres and it receives its inflow from a 2.4 acre wetland located approximately 1,040 feet upstream on an unnamed tributary. The dam consists of an earth embankment, constructe d of impervious materials with a pervious zone and toe drain on the downstream side. The dam is 580 feet in length with a top width of 20 feet, a maximum height of 66 feet, and upstream and downstream slopes NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-8 of two feet horizontal to one foot vertical. A 40-foot long concrete spillway with discharge chute and stil ling basin is located near the ri ght end of the dam. The outlet works located near the center of the dam c onsist of a 12-inch cast iron blowoff and a 12-inch cast iron supply main through the da m, both controlled by manually operated gates located in an upstream gatehouse. The dam is considered to be in good condition. ACOE hydraulic analyses indi cate that the capacity of the existing spillway is 1,600 cfs with the reservoir at elevation 574.78 (at top of dam). The calculations show the spillw ay is capable of passing 400% of the probable maximum flood without overtopping the dam. ‰ Hop Brook Dam – This ACOE flood control dam is located on Hop Brook at the Waterbury and Naugatuck corporate boundary. It consists of a rolled-earth fill with rock slope 520 feet long with a maximum height of 97 feet above the river bed. Outlet works include a three foot by five f oot concrete rectangular conduit founded in rock. The dam is maintained by the ACOE and is believed to be in excellent condition. Class C Dams Located Upstream of the Borough of Naugatuck ‰ Thomaston Dam – This ACOE flood control dam is located on the Naugatuck River in northeastern Thomaston and consists of an earth and rock-fill dam that was completed in 1970. The dam is 142 feet high and 2,000 feet long. Outlet works are founded on bedrock under the dam, and there is a side channel spillway 450 feet long on the left abutment. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 42,000 acre-feet. At spillway height, a 950 acre pool would extend about 6.5 miles upstream. The ACOE owns all the land behind the dam that woul d be affected by the backwater conditions up to 465 feet, and has flood easements in th is area up to an elevation of 499 feet, which is 5 feet above the spillway. The dam is maintained by the ACOE and is believed to be in excellent condition. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-9 ‰ Black Rock Dam – This ACOE flood control da m is located on Branch Brook downstream of Wigwam Dam along the T homaston-Watertown boundary in Black Rock State Park. It consists of an eart h-fill dam 933 feet long and 154 feet high and was completed in 1970. Outlet works include a gated four-foot by five-foot concrete conduit in the right abutment of the dam, and a chute spillway with a 140-foot long crest adjacent to the right abutment. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 8,700 acre-feet. At spillway height, a 190 acre pool would extend approximately 1.8 miles upstream. The ACOE owns all the land behi nd the dam that would be affected by the backwater conditions and has easements up to the spillway crest elevation. The dam is maintained by the ACOE and is believed to be in excellent condition. ‰ Northfield Brook Dam – This ACOE flood control da m is located on Northfield Brook approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the Naugatuck River in the Town of Thomaston. It consists of an earth-fill dam 810 feet long and 118 feet high and was completed in 1966. Outlet works include a chut e spillway with an ogee weir that is 72 feet long, and a three-by-three-foot ga te controlling discharged into a 36-inch conduit founded on rock in the right abutment. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 2,430 acre-feet. At spillway height, a 67 acre pool would extend approximately 1.25 miles upstream. The dam is maintained by the ACOE and is believed to be in excellent condition. Class B Dams Located within the Borough of Naugatuck ‰ May Street Pond North Dam – The May Street Pond Nort h Dam (Vanasse’s Pond) is owned by James, John and Robert Vanasse. The pond covers a surface area of approximately 2.5 acres and receives its in flow from an unnamed brook that drains a private pond located approximately 600 f eet upstream and approximately 260 feet west of Gabriel Drive. The dam is an ear then dam with a concrete spillway at the southwestern portion of the dam, and is believed to be in good condition. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-10 ‰ May Street Pond South Dam – The May Street Pond South (Griesbach’s Pond) Dam is owned by Dr. Hans Griesbach, a resident of May Street in Naugatuck. The pond covers a surface area of approximately 2.06 acr es and receives its inflow primarily from groundwater. The dam is an earthen dam with a concrete spillway at the southeastern portion of the dam, and is believed to be in good condition. ‰ Long Hill Reservoir Dam – The Long Hill Reservoir, also known as the New Naugatuck Reservoir, is owned by the C onnecticut Water Company and used for water supply. The reservoir covers a surface area of approximately 87.4 acres in the Towns of Bethany and Prospect, and the reservoir receives its inflow from Beacon Hill Brook and several unnamed tributaries. The dam is an earthen dam with a rock fill slope with a concrete spillway in the s outheastern portion of the dam. The dam is maintained by the Connecticut Water Comp any and believed to be in good to excellent condition. ‰ Straitsville Reservoir Dam – The Straitsville Reservoir is owned by the Connecticut Water Company and is used for water suppl y. The reservoir covers a surface area of approximately 2.07 acres in Naugatuck and Prospect, and the reservoir receives its inflow from Marks Brook. The dam is an ea rthen dam with a rock fill slopes with a spillway at the southeastern portion of the dam, and is believed to be in good to excellent condition. 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The dam safety statutes are codified in S ection 22a-401 through 22a-411 inclusive of the Connecticut General Statutes. Sections 22a-409-1 and 22a-4 09-2 of the Regulations of Connecticut 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-11 Dams regulated by the DEP must be 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. Inundation areas are considered by the ACOE to be sensitive information. Figure 8- 1 in this Plan may not be reprinted as stand- alone information; it may only be disseminated within the c onfines of this Plan. For any questions regarding the use or disposition of this map please contact the ACOE Security Officer at (978) 318-8007. Dam Inspection Regulations require that ove r 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 maintain emergency operations plans. The ACOE is responsible for maintaining the plans for the Thomaston Dam, Hop Brook Dam, Northfield Brook Dam, and Black Rock Dam. The Connecticut Water Company maintains the plans for the Long Hill Reservoir Dam and the Mulberry Reservoir Dam. Chemtura Corporation is responsible for maintaining such a plan for the Thurston Pond Dam. 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The dam failure inundation areas described below for the four ACOE Class C dams were redrawn from inundation maps provided by the ACOE. Thus, the dam failure inundation areas shown in Figure 8-1 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-12 are for planning purposes only and do not replace the official ACOE maps. Similarly, the dam failure inundation areas for Long Hill Reservoir Dam, Mulberry Reservoir Dam, and Moody Reservoir Dam was redrawn from mappi ng provided by the Connecticut Water Company, and is for planning purposes only. By definition, failure of Class C dams may cause catastrophic loss of life and property. Of the seven Class C dams whose failure would be likely to impact the Borough of Naugatuck, the failure of Hop Brook Dam or Thomaston Dam would likely have the highest impact on the reside nts and infrastructure of the Borough of Naugatuck. However, the failure of any of these dams would have significan t impacts within the Borough. These impacts are descri bed in general detail below. Black Rock Dam Black Rock Dam is owned by the ACOE and provides flood control along Branch Brook in Black Rock State Park. Based on dam failure inundation maps provided by the ACOE, a dam failure at full pool height would cause flooding along the Branch Brook and Naugatuck River corridors all the way to downtown Beacon Falls. Flood heights would be outside the 500-year fl oodplain in the center of the Borough, though flood heights would be less than a failure of Hop Brook Dam. As with a Hop Brook Dam failure, several critical facilities in th e downtown area would be flooded. Hop Brook Dam Hop Brook Dam is owned by the ACOE and provides flood control along Hop Brook. Based on dam failure inundation maps provided by the ACOE, a dam failure at full pool height would cause flooding along Hop Brook a nd the Naugatuck River corridors all the way to Derby. The most concentrated damage would likely occur along the Route 63 corridor, and many of the cri tical facilities in the downtown area would be flooded. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-13 Long Hill Reservoir Dam Long Hill Reservoir is owned by the Conn ecticut Water Company. The downstream corridor is developed with many residentia l and some commercial and industrial properties. The dam failure inundation ar ea extends along Route 63 and Beacon Valley Road. Critical facilities in th e Borough of Naugatuck are not in the inundation area, but many residential structures south of Route 63 in the southeast section of the Borough would be flooded if the dam failed. A dam fa ilure could trap residents in the Cotton Hollow Road area as well if the bridge were undermined. Mulberry Reservoir Dam Mulberry Reservoir is owned by the Conn ecticut Water Company. The downstream corridor is undeveloped forested land for a pproximately 650 feet, after which there is a large area of residential developments. The dam failure inundation area follows the unnamed tributary to the Naugatuck River and would not appear to directly affect the residential developments south and southeast of the dam. The inundation area becomes wider after the unnamed tributary passes unde r Route 63, encompassing a large portion of Grove and St. James Cemeteries. Critical f acilities in the Borough of Naugatuck are not located in the inundation area. Northfield Brook Dam The Northfield Book impoundment is containe d by the ACOE-owned flood control dam. The downstream corridor is developed with ma ny residential properties. Based on dam failure inundation maps provided by the ACOE , a dam failure at full pool height would cause flooding along Northfield Brook and the Naugatuck River all the way into central Naugatuck. The inundation area is nearly coincidental with that of the Black Rock Dam failure inundation area. Flood heights would be less than the 500-year floodplain in the center of the Borough, however many of the critical facilities in the downtown area would be flooded. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-14 Thomaston Dam Thomaston Dam is owned by the ACOE and is designed to impound floodwaters from the Naugatuck River and Leadmine Brook. Based on dam failure inundation maps provided by the ACOE, a dam failure at full pool height (worst-case scenario) would cause flooding along the Naugatuck River corridor all the way to the Housatonic River in Derby. Much of downtown Naugatuck w ould experience some degree of flooding, including many of the critical fa cilities in the Borough (Figure 8-1). Such a failure would cause backwater conditions along Beacon Hill Brook and past St. James Cemetery up to the western end of Beacon Valley Road. A br each at full height would cause flooding greater than the mapped 500-year flood event for Naugatuck. Thurston Pond Dam Thurston pond is owned by Chemtura Corpor ation. The downstream corridor is a mixture of medium density residential development and commercial and industrial developments. Based on dam failure inundati on maps in the Emergency Operations Plan on file at the DEP, a dam failure at fu ll pool height would cause flooding along Long Meadow Brook all the way to the central portion of the Borough along the Naugatuck River. Critical facilities such as Publ ic Works and Ambulance Services would be affected by this flooding. The dam is believed to be in good condition. Other Dams There are other dams within and around Naugatu ck that could impact on the residents or infrastructure of the Borough if they failed. Some are Class B (significant hazard) dams, while the others are lower hazard or minor dams with problems have been brought to the attention of the Borough. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-15 ‰ May Street Pond North (Vanasse’s Pond) Dam : Should this Class B dam fail, 10-15 houses along June Street, Bird Road, Spruce Drive, and Homestead Avenue could experience flooding. ‰ May Street Pond South (Griesbach’s Pond) Dam : Should this Class B dam fail, a few houses along the dead-end streets of Hickory Road and Woodland Street would likely experience flooding, and a few homes on High Street could also be flooded. ‰ Straitsville Reservoir Dam : Should this Class B dam fa il, the initial impact area would be the condominium development along Ho rton Road. It is anticipated that the peak outflow of 6,200 cfs would raise the water elevation downstream between one foot and six feet, with a ma ximum of three to four feet of flooding expected within the condominiums. It is expected that the condominiums would flood within minutes and hit maximum flood level in ten to fifteen minutes. Flooding in this area would be exacerbated if the failure of Moody Reservoir Dam (a Class B dam located upstream in Prospect) triggered the failure of Straitsville Reservoir Dam. In this scenario, the dam failure inundation area would be simila r to the inundation area shown for Moody Reservoir Dam on Figure 8-2. ‰ Ridge Lower Pond Dam : This Class BB dam impounds a retention pond located at the end of Warren Avenue below the Ridge Development. It was noted by Borough personnel as needing repair at the data co llection meeting. The insufficiency of the dam poses a threat to buildings on Warre n Avenue and (to a lesser extent) on New Haven Road. ‰ Donovan Road Dam : This unregistered dam on the pond labeled as “Water Company Pond No. 1” on USGS Topographic Maps wa s mentioned at the data collection meeting as having the pote ntial to cause flooding. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-16 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. The Borough of Naugatuck should work with C onnecticut DEP to stay up to date on the evolution of Emergency Operations Plans and Dam Failure Analyses for the Class C ACOE dams and Connecticut Water Company dams in Thomaston, Naugatuck, Prospect and Bethany, as well as the three Class C dams within the Borough. When possible, copies of these documents should be made av ailable at the Borough Offices for reference and public viewing. Regarding lower hazard dams, the Borough should assess the condition and performance of the Donovan Road Dam and upgrade as necessary, and upgrade and repair the Ridge Lower Pond Dam located along Warren Avenue. The latter project should be coordinated with the DEP. The Borough shoul d also consider implementing occasional Borough inspections of lower hazard dams in the Borough. The Connecticut DEP also administers th e Flood and Erosion Control Board program, which can provide non-competitive state funding fo r repair of municipality-owned dams. Funding is limited by the state bond commission. State statute Section 25-84 allows municipalities to form Flood and Erosion Cont rol Boards, but municipalities must take action to create the board with in the context of the local government, such as by revising the municipal charter. The Borough of Naugatuck may wish to establish such a Flood and Erosion Control Board to oversee loca l flooding and erosion problems and municipal dams. More information regarding the Flood and Erosion Control Board program can be found at http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water_inland/ flood_mgmt/fecb_program.pdf. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-17 The Borough of Naugatuck should consider including dam failure areas in its CodeRED emergency notification system. This sy stem combines database and GIS mapping technologies to deliver outbound emergency noti fications to geographic areas or specific groups of people such as emergency responde r teams at a rate of up to 60,000 calls per hour. This technology should be used to wa rn downstream residents of an impending dam failure and facilitate evacuation. In addition, there are several suggested potential mitigation strategies which are applicable to all hazards in this plan . These are outlined in the Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 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 Naugatuck, along with low-de nsity and medium density suburban type development found at the margins of thes e areas known as the wildland interface. Structural fires in higher density areas are not considered. The Borough of Naugatuck is considered a low-ri sk area for wildfires. Wildfires are of particular concern in wooded areas and other areas with poor access for fire-fighting equipment. Figure 9-1 presents the wildfire risk areas for the Borough of Naugatuck. Hazards associated with wildfires include prop erty damage and loss of habitat. Wildfires are considered a likely event each year, but when one occurs it is generally contained to a small range with limited damage to non-forested areas. 9.2 Hazard Assessment The current Connecticut Hazard Mitigation Plan does not specifically define wildfires separate from forest fires, but wildfires are well-defined by the Massachusetts Hazard Mitigation Plan as being “hi ghly destructive, uncontrollable fires.” Although the term brings to mind images of tall trees engulfed in flames, wildfires can occur as brush and shrub fires, especially under dry conditi ons. 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. ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ 9 a © © ª 9: ¨ n n n n n n n n n n n Figure 9-1: Naugatuck Wildfire Risk Area 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 Z 374 Æ V Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams Schools n Public Works 9: ¨ ª Ambulance Services Z CL&P Substation 374 Æ V Senior Center Ecumenical Food Bank ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ Wildfire Risk Area For gen eral pla nning purpos es only . Delin eations may n ot be e xact. Source : “R oads”, c198 4 – 200 8 Tele Atlas, R el. 04/ 08. “To wn Bou ndary”, DE P “Fa cilities”, Na ugatuc k “W ildfire”, COG CNV Octobe r 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 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 azards 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 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 number 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 for Connecticut in the past decade occurred during the extremely hot and dry summer of 1999. Over 1733 acres of Connecticut burned in 345 separate wildfires, an averag e of about five acres per fire. Only one wildfire occurred between 1994 and 2003 that bu rned over 300 acres, and a wildfire in 1986 in the Mattatuck State Forest in the nearby Town of Watertown, CT burned 300 acres. More recently, a 30-acre wildfire occurred in Oxford on April 19, 2008. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-5 Up to 14% of the land area of Naugatuck is publicly protected open space with an additional 15% being privately held open spa ce, and fires have occurred in wildlands throughout the Borough. Specifically, personne l from the Borough of Naugatuck noted that fires have occurred in the Huntington H ill section of the Naugatuck State Forest in Naugatuck. Such fires are usually caused by ar son or from campfires that spread out of control. Fires that start in Naugatuck in th is area are sometimes allowed to burn due to the topography, and the fires can spread to other parts of the forest near the urban/wildland interface or south into Beacon Falls. 9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing mitigation for wildland fire contro l is typically focused on the Borough of Naugatuck Fire Department (NFD) training and maintaining an adequate supply of equipment. The Borough of Naugatuck Zoning Regulations and S ubdivision Regulations require that the Fire Marshal review a ll plans for subdivisions and commercial developments to ensure that the requirements fo r fire safety are met. The Fire Marshal’s Office is also responsible for the enforcemen t of the State of Connecticut Life Safety Code, investigation of fire safety complain ts, fire investigation and fire prevention programs. Unlike wildfires on the west coast of the Unite d States where the fires are allowed to burn toward development and then stopped, the NFD goes to the fires whenever possible. This proactive approach is believed to be eff ective for controlling wildfires. The Fire Department has some water storage capabil ity, but primarily relies on Connecticut Water Company’s water service to fight fires in the central part of Borough. In the remainder of the Borough, the NFD relies on the use of lo cal water bodies and its tanker trucks to supply fire fighting water, and water cist erns installed in more recent outlying subdivisions. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-6 The NFD is often a first responder for fires that happen in the Naugatuck State Forest, and coordinates with the Beacon Falls, Oxfor d, and Bethany Fire Departments to control these forest fires. The Fire Department has two fire station s in the Borough; one station is located on Maple Avenue in the downtown area, and the other is located on May Street on the east side of the Naugatuck River. The Fire Department has two Class A pump trucks, a 105-foot rear mount ladder truck with a fire pump, and a rescue truck. The NFD is equipped for structure fires, confined space entry, trench rescue, motor vehicle rescue, basic hazardous materials response, and surf ace water/ice rescue. The NFD also has two spare Class A pump trucks, a nd the Borough also has mutual aid agreements with all of its neighbors. Finally, the DEP Forestry Division uses th e rainfall data recorded by the Automated Flood Warning system (see Section 3.4) to compile forest fire probability forecasts. This allows the Division and the Borough of Naugatuck to monitor the drier areas of the state in an effort to reduce forest fire risk. 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The most common causes of wildfires are ars on, lightning strikes, and fires started from downed trees hitting electrical lines. Thus, wildfires have the potential to occur anywhere and at any time in both undeveloped and lightly developed areas. The extensive forests and fields c overing the state are prime locati ons for a wildfire. In many 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-7 According to the Connecticut DEP, the actual forest 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 fire fighting 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. The 2001 Plan of Conservation and Development indicated that there are several streets in the Borough which are inaccessible to fire trucks due to either steep grades or the narrowness of the road. These include Ae tna Place, Bosco Drive, Highland Circle, Hughes Street, Joseph Road, Mitchell Street and Theresa Street. Although this document is primarily concerned with the Borough’s ability to address wildfires versus structural fires, the existing problem is indicative of issues with current development standards. Thus it is essential that any fu ture development on steep slopes be reviewed with an extra level of attention to ensure that new devel opments are not burdened by the same type of problems. 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 Borough (including the use of nearby water bodies), the proactive stance regarding fires, and long-standing mutual aid assurances the NFD has with neighboring comm unities, it is believed that the low end of this acreage is possible in Naugatuck 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-8 service, and contiguous wooded areas greater than 20 acres in size with limited access in the remainder of the Borough. These areas ar e generally associated with wooded water company lands, state owned forests, and Bor ough-owned and privately held open space. As each area borders residential sections of the Borough, residents on the outskirts of these risk areas are the most vulnerable to fire, heat, and smoke effects of wildfires. The 2001 Plan of Conservation and Developm ent also indicated that the NFD has expressed concerns regarding response times to developments in the northwest and southeast portions of the Borough. Additionally, the water pressure in some areas, particularly around the perimeter of the Bo rough, has been identified as a problem. These areas exhibit low-pressure situations wh ich may inhibit the department’s ability to deal with fires. The Borough requires that new developments provide adequate water for fire protection, either by water mains from the Connecticut Water Company or underground cisterns at a minimum size of 25,000 gallons. Subsequent to the Plan of Conservation and Development publication in 2001, additional water lines have been extended up May Street towards the Eastsi de Fire Station and on Wooster Street. Despite having a large amount of forest/urban interface, the overall risk of wildfires occurring in the Borough of Naugatuck is also considered to be low. Such fires fail to spread far due speed of detection and strong fire response. As most of the Borough has fire-fighting water available nearby, a larg e amount of water can be made readily available for fire fighting equipment, and ta nkers from other towns can provide additional fire support for outlying fires. Recall from Figure 2-6, Figure 2-7, and Figure 2-8 that elderly, linguistically isolated, and disabled populations reside in the Borough of Naugatuck. In comparing these figures with the wildfire risk areas presented in Fi gure 9-1, it is possible that up to a thousand of the population impacted by a wildfire could c onsist of the elderly, several tens could consist of linguistically isol ated households, and many residents with disabilities could NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-9 reside near wildfire impact areas. Thus, it is important for the Borough of Naugatuck to be prepared to assist these special populati ons during emergencies, including wildfires. In summary, limited access forest areas in the outskirts of the Borough near new development are considered most at risk from wildfires, primarily as a result of limited supplies of fire-fighting water and emergency vehicle access. In addition, there is special concern about fires in the Naugatuck State Fo rest in the southern part of the Borough. Fires in these areas are particularly difficult to access due to topography can spread to or from nearby municipalities. The Borough has th e support of the owners of the tracts of open space to provide access to thei r lands in case of a wildfire. Should a wildfire occur, it seems reasonable to estimate that the average area to burn would be five acres, consistent with the state average during long period of drought. In the case of an extreme wildfire during a l ong drought on forested lands, it is estimated that up to 300 acres could burn before c ontainment due to the limited access of those lands. Residential areas borde ring such lands would also be vulnerable to wildfire, but would likely be more impacted by heat and smoke than by structure fires due to the strong fire response in the Borough and its mutual aid agreements. 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Potential mitigation measures for wildfires include a mixture of prevention, education, and emergency planning. Although educational materials are available through the Fire Department, they should be made available at other municipal offices as well. Education of homeowners on methods of protecting their ho mes is far more effective than trying to steer growth away from potential wildfire area s, especially given that the available land that is environmentally appropriate for development may be forested. Water system improvements are an important class of potential mitigation for wildfires. The following recommendations could be implemented to mitigate forest fire risk: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-10 ‰ The Connecticut Water Company should cont inue to extend the public water supply systems into areas that requi re water for fire protection. ‰ The Connecticut Water Company should c ontinue to identify and upgrade those portions of the public water supply systems that are substandard from the standpoint of adequate pressure and vol ume for fire-fighting purposes. ‰ The Borough of Naugatuck should consid er the construction of dry hydrants throughout the Borough to provide a more re liable supply of firefighting water in areas without public water supply. ‰ The Borough should also continue to require fire protection tanks for subdivisions away from public water service. Other potential mitigation strategies for preventing wildfires include: ‰ Continue to promote inter-municipal c ooperation in fire fighting efforts; ‰ Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use comm on fire fighting equipment; ‰ Continue having the Fire Marshal review subdivision applications to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to allow access of emergency vehicles and have proper m eans for fire protection; ‰ Provide outreach programs on how to pr operly 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 Borough-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 NAUGATUCK, 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 successful hazard mitigation strategy. The Naugatuck Office of Emergency Manageme nt & Homeland Security (NEMHS) should be charged with creating and disseminating in formational pamphlets and guides to public locations such as the librar y, post office, senior center, and Borough offices. In particular, additional guides are recommended re garding fire protection, fire safety, and the importance of prevention. Such pamphlets include “Are you ready? A Guide to Citizen Preparedness” co-published by the American Red Cross, FEMA, and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administ ration and includes recommendations for dealing with heat waves, hurricanes, torna does, 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 NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-2 In addition, the Borough should consider adding additional pages to its website dedicated to citizen education and prepar ation for natural hazard events. 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 is a boon for emergency response in Naugatuck. Databases should be set up as best possible for hazards with a specific geographic extent, particularly dam failure. Residents should also be encouraged to purchase a NOAA weather radio containing an alarm feature. In addition, the Borough Emergency Operations Plan should continue to be reviewed and updated at least once annually. 10.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations Recommendations have been pr esented throughout this document in individual sections as related to each natural hazard. This s ection lists all recommendations of the Plan without any priority ranking. Recommenda tions 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. All Hazards ‰ Disseminate informational pamphlets regard ing natural hazards to public locations. ‰ Add pages to the Borough website (h ttp://www.naugatuck-ct.gov/index.htm) dedicated to citizen education and pr eparation for natural hazard events. ‰ Continue implementation of the Code RED emergency notification system. ‰ Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radios with alarm features. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-3 ‰ As required by law, continue to annually review and update the Borough Emergency Operations Plan. ‰ Continue reviewing subdivision applic ations to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to a llow access of emergency vehicles. ‰ Upgrade at least one secondary shelter that is unlikely to be impacted by natural hazards into a primary shelter facility. Attempt to acquire the resources necessary to be able to shelter 10% of the population of Naugatuck. ‰ Continue to encourage two modes of eg ress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. Flooding Prevention ‰ Streamline the permitting process and work toward the highest possible education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to the proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Borough department. A sample checklist for the Borough of Naugatuck is included as Appended Table 3. ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System. ‰ Continue to require applications for appr oval of a development in a floodplain for activities within SFHAs. ‰ Consider requiring buildings constructed in floodprone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level, regardle ss of being within a defined SFHA. ‰ Ensure new buildings be designed and grad ed to shunt drainage away from the building. ‰ 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-4 techniques, including using more accurate contour information to map flood elevations provided with the FIRM. Property & Natural Resource Protection ‰ Pursue the acquisition of additional muni cipal open space properties inside SFHAs and set it aside as greenways, 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 property owners along Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, Fulling Mill Bro ok, and their tributaries 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 any given structure is most appropriate. Structural Projects ‰ Consider performing a Borough-wide analysis to help identify undersized and failing portions of the stormwater and drainage sy stems. Prioritize repairs as needed. Incorporate anecdotal information where ap propriate, such as observations described in this plan regarding the nui sance flooding at May Street. ‰ Upgrade the drainage systems in downtown Naugatuck where necessary to enhance drainage. ‰ Increase maintenance of the storm drainage system near the building on Arch Street near Long Meadow Pond Brook to pr event flooding of this area. ‰ If necessary, increase the conveyance cap acity of Crown Spring Bridge over Hop Brook at Bridge Street. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-5 ‰ Assess dredging options for the sediment laden Union Ice Company Pond to potentially increase its potential for flood mitigation. ‰ Increase the conveyance capacity of the culv ert for the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook under East Waterbury Road downstream of the Union Ice Company Pond. ‰ Upgrade the drainage system on Highland Avenue near Galpin Street to mitigate future nuisance flooding. ‰ Evaluate flood mitigation options, such as dredging of the silted pond adjacent to Nichols Garage/Irving Gas Station, wher e Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. ‰ Pursue flood mitigation along the unnamed str eam associated with the Spencer Street corridor, including increased conveyance capac ity of the culverted portions of the stream, channel restoration or maintenance of the un-culverted section of the stream, and/or siting of detention systems. Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, and Winter Storms ‰ Continue Borough-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines is diminished. ‰ Focus tree limb maintenance and inspectio ns along Route 63, Route 68, Spring Street, Union City Road, and other evacuation r outes. Increase inspections of trees on private property near power lines and Borough right-of-ways. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them undergr ound in existing developed areas. ‰ Review potential evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Naugatuck, and pos t evacuation and shelter information on the Borough website and in municipal buildings. ‰ Provide for the Building Department to have literature available regarding appropriate design standards for wind. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-6 Winter Storms ‰ Post a list of Borough sheltering facilities and snow plowing prioritization in the municipal offices and on the Borough’s webs ite so residents can best plan how to access to critical faci lities during a winter storm event. Earthquakes ‰ Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ Preserve or convert areas of inactive faults to municipal open space. ‰ Consider preventing certain types of developm ent, such as residential development, in areas prone to collapse. ‰ Ensure that future implementation of Goal #3 item #4 of the Plan of Conservation and Development (“Establish development standards for single-family housing on slopes”) considers earthquake risks. ‰ Continue regulating development of slopes gr eater than 20%, and consider setting a prohibition on development of steep slopes. ‰ Ensure that municipal departments have ad equate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs. Dam Failure ‰ Work with Connecticut DEP to stay up to date on revisions and updates to the Emergency Operations Plans and Dam Failure Analyses for the Class C ACOE dams and the Connecticut Water Company dams in Thomaston, Naugatuck, Prospect and Bethany, as well as the three Class C dams within the Borough. ‰ Consider including dam failure areas in th e CodeRED emergency notification system. This technology should be used to warn downstream residents of a potential or impending dam failure and facilitate evacuation. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-7 ‰ The Borough should assess the condition and performance of the Donovan Road Dam and upgrade as necessary, and upgrade and repair the Ridge Lower Pond Dam located along Warren Avenue. The latter project s hould be coordinated with the DEP. ‰ The Borough should also consider implementing occasional Borough inspections of lower hazard dams in the Borough. Wildfires ‰ The Connecticut Water Company should cont inue to extend the public water supply systems into areas that requi re water for fire protection. ‰ The Connecticut Water Company should c ontinue to identify and upgrade those portions of the public water supply systems that are substandard from the standpoint of adequate pressure and vol ume for fire-fighting purposes. ‰ The Borough of Naugatuck should consid er the construction of dry hydrants throughout the Borough to provide a more re liable supply of firefighting water in areas without public water supply. ‰ The Borough should also continue to require fire protection tanks for subdivisions away from public water service. ‰ Continue to promote inter-municipal c ooperation in fire fighting efforts. ‰ Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use common fire fighting equipment. ‰ Provide outreach programs on how to pr operly manage burning and campfires on private property. ‰ Patrol Borough-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires; and ‰ Enforce regulations and permits for open burning. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-8 (http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/index.shtm). 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 total 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 twenty-five percent of the local government’s annual operating budget for the fiscal year in wh ich 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 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-9 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 mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. This grant program is administered through the DEP. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-10 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 Emerge ncy 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, communities, and universities, which, in turn, provide sub-grants to local governments. PDM grants are awarded on a co mpetitive basis. This grant program is administered through the DEP. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-11 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 only, and eligible project activities include acquisition and demolition or relocation of the structure with conversion of the propert y to open space, elevation, minor localized flood reduction projects, and dry flood pr oofing (historic properties only). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-12 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 HMP as needed, coordinate its adoption with the Borough of Naugatuck, 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 Mayor and the Department of Public Works in the Borough of Naugatuck will primarily be responsible for developing and implementing selected pr ojects, those some projects will also be implemented by other departments. Appendix A incorporates an implementation strategy and schedule, detailing the res ponsible department and anticipated time frame for the specific recommendations listed throughout this document. Upon adoption, the Plan will be made availabl e to all Borough departments and agencies as a planning tool to be used in conjunction with existing documents. It is expected that revisions to other Borough 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 Mayor will be responsible for ensuring that the actions identified in th is plan are incorporated into ongoing Borough planning activities, and that the information and require ments of this plan are incorporated into existing planning documents within five years from the date of adoption or when other plans are updated, whichever is sooner. The Office of the Mayor will be responsible for assigning appropriate Borough officials to update the Plan of Conservation and De velopment, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, Wetlands Regulations, and Emergency Operations Pl an to include the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-2 provisions in this plan. Should a general revision be too cumbersome or cost prohibitive, simple addendums to these documents will be added that include the provisions of this plan. The Plan of Conservation and Devel opment and the Emergency Operations Plan are the two documents most likely to benefit from the inclusion of this Plan into the Borough’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 Mayor will be the party responsible for monitoring the successful implementation of the Plan as part of its 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 ma y include, but need not be lim ited to, representatives of the departments listed in Section 11.1. Matters to be reviewed will include 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 circulat ed for Borough Departments to review, with sufficient time for developing an application. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, 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 Centra l Naugatuck Valley, as well as of the Borough of Naugatuck. 11.3 Updating the Plan The Borough of Naugatuck plans to formally update the plan at least once every five years. The COGCNV will remind the Borough 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 Mayor and Burgesses. The COGCNV will update the plan for the Borough if the Borough of Naugatuck s ubmits a request to the COGCNV and secures funding enabling the COGCNV to do so. To develop the plan update, 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; ‰ Naugatuck River Watershed Association; ‰ Key organizations from the list presented on Page 1-10; ‰ Town of Beacon Falls Public Works De partment and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Bethany Public Works De partment and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Middlebury Public Works Department and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Oxford Public Works Depa rtment and Planning Department; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-4 ‰ Town of Prospect Public Works Depa rtment and Planning Department; and ‰ 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 effects arise, or modifying hazard vulnerabilities as land use changes. In addition, the list of shelte rs 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-5 FEMA Programs administered by the Risk Analysis Branch include: ‰ 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 Program and the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program are also administered by this division. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, 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 Admi nistration 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 restorati on, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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 NAUGATUCK, 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-15 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 NAFSMA is an organization of public agencies who strive to prot ect lives, property, and economic activity from the adverse impacts 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-16 New England Flood and Stormwater Managers 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. 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 NAUGATUCK, 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. Cape Cod Commission. 2004. Natural Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan . Barnstable County, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. 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 Flood Recovery Committee. 1955. Report of the Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, November 3, 1955. Connecticut State Library. http://www.cslib.org/floodrecov.pdf 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. ___. 2007. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. March 2004, Revised November 2006 and June 2007. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-2 ___. 2005. Reducing Damage from Localized 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. ___. 1982. Flood Insurance Study, Town of Thomas ton, Connecticut, Litchfield County. ___. 1979. Flood Insurance Study, Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut, New Haven County. ___. 1978. Flood Insurance Study, Town of Be acon Falls, Connecticut, New Haven County. ___. 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. Flint, R. F. 1978. The Surficial Geology of the Naugatuck Quadrangle . State Geological and Natural History Survey of C onnecticut, Quadrangle Report No. 35. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-3 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-4 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 National Oceanic and Atmosphe ric 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, Mount Carmel, Connecticut. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USS CAppController?action=snowfall_ms&state=06&sta tion=MOUNTCARMEL&coopid=065077 ___. 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 New Hamps hire Office of Emergency Management. 2000. State of New Hampshire Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan . Concord, New Hampshire. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-5 Open-File Report 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: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classificatio n/osd/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/ Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut. 2005 . Zoning Regulations. ___. 2002. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations. ___. 2001. Plan of Conservation & Development. ___. 1999. Subdivision 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-6 United States Geological Survey, 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. 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 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 Flooding from Dam Failure 2147 Thunderstorm Winds 2226 Tornado Winds 2136 Shaking 3126 Inland Flooding 1315 Flooding from Poor Drainage 1315 Lightning 1315 Falling Trees/Branches 1315 Hail 1214 Fire/Heat 1214 Smoke 1214 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 Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Aquifer Protection Zone 28 Defines protection zones over the primary and secondary recharge areas o the Indian Well Field and the Marks Brook Well Field. Restricts uses in the zone and requires that an Aquifer Protection Zone permit be obtained before any building permit can be issued for developmen t Flood Plains 29 Recognizes areas of special flood hazards within the Borough and establishes minimum standards and review procedures over the use of the land. Establishes the FIRMs and the FIS as the official maps for delineating areas of special flood hazard. Restricts uses in the floodpl ain, requires flood protection for structures, controls the alterations of fl ood plains, and authorizes the Zoning Commission to administer and enforce the provisions of the regulations. Prohibits encroachments, fill, and substantial improvements unless certification is provided showing that such improvements will result in no increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 364.6 Requires the submittal of a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan wit h any application in which the disturbed area of such development is cumulatively more than one-half acr e General Design Standards 3.2.4 Requires that an Engineering Report be submitted with all applications that addresses impacts on floodplains, aquifers, watersheds, greenways and natural features. The report shall also include summaries on stormwater drainage designs and means to provide sanitary sewer disposa l and wate r supp ly. Suitable Developable Land 5.2 Restricts development on unsuitable land based on water or flooding conditoins, unsuitable soil, topography, ledge, rock or other conditions Appended Table 3. Zoning Regulations Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetland Regulations Plan of Conservation & Developmen t (2001) Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3. Zoning Regulations Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetland Regulations Plan of Conservation & Developmen t (2001) Flood Contro l 5.12 Proposed subdivisions shall be consistent with the need to minimize floo d damage and public utilities, including adequate storm drainage, shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all land proposed to be subdivide d Environmental Impact 10.2 The Commission must consider the environmental impact of the proposed action, including the effects on the watercourse’s natural capacity to support fish and wildlife, to prevent flooding, to supply and protect surface and ground waters, to control sediment, to facilitate drainage, to control pollution, to support recreational activities, and to promote pu blic health safety and welfare; any alternatives, and any measures that would mitigate the impact of the proposed activity, such as technical improvements or safeguards to reduce the environmental impacts. Priority Conservation Areas 3.C.2 Identifies priority conservation areas (watercourses, water bodies, wetlands, slopes in excess of 15%, and ridgelines) and important conservation areas (public water supply watersheds, and aquifers and rechar ge areas , and uni que or s pecial habitat areas ). APPENDIX A STAPLEE MATRIX CategorySTAPLEE Criteria 1. Prevention Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing 2. Property Protection B. 2009-2013 3. Natural Resource Prot. C. 2014-2018 4. Structural Projects D. 2019-2023 5. Public Information ALL HAZARDS Dissemination of informational pamphlets regarding natural hazards to pu blic locations Emergency Mgmt. A xxxxxxx1,2,53333333 21 Add pages to the Borough website dedicated to citizen education and prep aration for natural hazard events Emergency Mgmt. B xxxxxxx1,2,53333322 19 Continue implementation of CodeRED emergency notification system Mayor Axxxxxxx 1,5 332333219 Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radios with alarm f eatures Emergency Mgmt. Bxxxxxxx 1,5 333332219 Continue to review and update Emergency Operations Plan at least once an nually Emergency Mgmt. Axxxxxxx 1 333333321 Continue reviewing subdivision applications to ensure new neighborhoods are sized to accommodate emergency vehicles Emergency Mg mt. A xxxxxxx 2332333219 Upgrade at least one secondary shelter to a primary shelter, and attempt to have the resources to shelter 10% of population Emergency Mgmt. Bxxxxxxx 1, 4 332232217 Continue to encourage two modes of access into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets PZCAxxxxxxx 1 223332116 INLAND FLOODING Prevention Streamline the permitting process and develop a checklist to ensure maxi mum education of developer or applicant PZC/ZEOBxxxxx x 1 322333319 Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System MayorBxxxx 12323321 16 Continue to require application approval for activities within SFHAs PZCA xxxx x 1, 32332333 19 Consider requiring new buildings constructed in flood prone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level PZCBxxxx 1,22222331 15 Ensure that new buildings be designed and graded to shunt drainage away from the building PZCB xxxx 1,22233331 17 After the MapMod Program, use Borough two-foot contour maps to develop m ore exact regulatory flood maps using FEMA flood elevations EngineeringCxxxx 12322231 15 Property and Natural Resource Protection Acquire open space properties within SFHAs and set aside as greenways, p arks, or other non-residential, non-commercial, or non-industrial use MayorB,C,Dxxxx x 2,33223333 19 Selectively pursue conservation objectives listed in the Plan of Conserv ation & Development MayorB,C,Dxxxx 33223323 18 Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, inclu ding steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains PZCAxxxxxxx 3 233232318 Consider local floodproofing or elevation options for floodprone homes a long various watercourses in Naugatuck EngineeringB,Cx x x x x 2,4 3223222 16 Structural Projects Consider a Borough-wide analysis to identify undersized and failing port ions of drainage systems, and prioritize repairs as needed Engineering, DPWBxxxx x 2,43323331 18 Upgrade the drainage systems in downtown areas to enhance drainage Engineering, DPWBxxxx 2,43223331 17 Increase maintenance of drainage systems on Arch Street near Long Meadow Pond Brook DPWB, C, D xxxx x 2,43333331 19 If necessary, increase conveyance of Crown Spring Bridge over Hop Brook at Bridge Street Engineering, DPWBxxxx x 42223321 15 Assess dredging options for Union Ice Company Pond to potentially increa se its potential for flood mitigation EngineeringBxxxx 42223322 16 Increase conveyance capacity of culvert under East Waterbury Road downst ream of Union Ice Company Pond Engineering, DPWBxxxx x 42223321 15 Evaluate flood mitigation options near underground culvert along Pigeon Brook EngineeringBxxxx 2,43323321 17 Pursue flood mitigation options along unnamed stream in Spencer Street c orridor Engineering, DPWBxxxx 2,43323321 17 WIND DAMAGE RELATED TO HURRICANES, SUMMER STORMS, AND WINTER STORMS Continue Borough-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance to diminish p otential for downed power lines DPWAxxxx x 1,2,33333322 19 Focus tree limb maintenance and inspections along Route 63 & 68, Spring Street, Union City Road, and other evacuation routes DPWB, C, D xxxx x 1,2 322333218 Increase inspections of trees on private property near power lines and B orough right-of-ways DPWB, C, D xxxx 13223332 18 Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developm ents and pursue funding to move them underground in existing areas PZC, MayorAxxxx xx 2 322333218 Review and disseminate evacuation plans to ensure timely evacuation of s helterees from all areas of Town Emergency Mgmt.B, C, D xxxxxxx 1,5 333333119 Provide for the Building Department to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards PZC/ZEOBx x x 13333331 19 Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Naugatuck Associated Report Sections Inland Flooding Hurricanes Summer Storms and Tornadoes Winter Storms Earthquakes Dam Failure Wildfires Environmentally beneficial? STAPLEE Sum of Scores Responsible Department 1 Schedule Socially acceptable? Technically feasible? Administratively workable? Politically acceptable? Can it be legally implemented? Economically beneficial? Page 1 CategorySTAPLEE Criteria 1. Prevention Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing 2. Property Protection B. 2009-2013 3. Natural Resource Prot. C. 2014-2018 4. Structural Projects D. 2019-2023 5. Public Information Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Naugatuck Associated Report Sections Inland Flooding Hurricanes Summer Storms and Tornadoes Winter Storms Earthquakes Dam Failure Wildfires Environmentally beneficial? STAPLEE Sum of Scores Responsible Department 1 Schedule Socially acceptable? Technically feasible? Administratively workable? Politically acceptable? Can it be legally implemented? Economically beneficial? WINTER STORMS Compile and post a final list of plowing routes, prioritizing egress to shelters and critical facilities DPW B x 5 332332117 EARTHQUAKES Continue to require adherence to the state building codes PZC A xxxx 1233333118 Preserve or convert areas of inactive faults to municipal open space Mayor B x 2,3222222315 Consider preventing residential development in areas prone to collapse, such as on or below steep slopes PZC B x 1 233232217 Ensure that future implementation of Goal #3 Item #4 of the Plan of Cons ervation and Development considers earthquake risks PZC B x 1,2 332332218 Consider regulating development in areas on or below steep slopes (slop es exceeding 20%) PZC B x 2,3 2333333 20 Ensure that municipal departments have adequate backup facilities (powe r generation, heat, water, etc.) in case earthquake damage occurs Emergency Mgmt.Bxxxx 13223221 15 DAM FAILURE Stay current on the development of EOPs and Dam Failure Analyses for Cla ss C and B dams whose failure could impact Naugatuck EngineeringA x23333332 20 Include dam failure inundation areas in the CodeRED contact database Emergency Mgmt.Bx x1,23333332 20 Assess the condition and performance of the Donovan Road dam and upgrade as necessary Engineering, DPWBx x1,2,3,43323332 19 Upgrade and repair the Ridge Lower Pond Dam along Warren Avenue Engineering, DPWBx x1,2,3,43323332 19 Consider implementing Borough inspections of lower hazard dams EngineeringBx x22322132 15 WILDFIRES Continue to have CTWC extend/upgrade the public water supply systems int o areas requiring water for fire protection EngineeringAxx2,3,4 3233332 19 Encourage CTWC to identify and upgrade those portions of the water syste m that are substandard for fire protection Emergency Mgmt. A xx 2,3 3223331 17 Consider constructing dry hydrants to provide an additional supply of fi refighting water in areas without water service Emergency Mgmt.Bxx2,3,4 3223232 17 Continue to require storage tanks in subdivisions away from water servic e Emergency Mgmt.Axx2,3,4 3333331 19 Continue to promote inter-municipal cooperation in fire-fighting efforts Emergency Mgmt.Axx1 3333333 21 Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of fo rest fire danger and how to use common fire fighting equipment Emergency Mgmt.A x5 3333333 21 Provide outreach programs on how to properly manage burning and campfire s on private property Emergency Mgmt.B x2,3,5 3323323 19 Patrol Borough-owned open space and parks to prevent campfires Police Dept.B x3 2223323 17 Enforce regulations and permits for open burning Police Dept.A x1,3 2223333 18 1Notes PZC = Planning Commission and Zoning Commission ZEO = Zoning Enforcement Officer DPW = Department of Public Works Page 2 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 mitigatio n in the Borough of Naugatuck 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. Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR N AUGATUCK Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Initial Data Collection Meeting January 23, 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) ‰ Virginia Mason, Council of Governme nts Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV) ‰ Mike Bronko, Naugatuck Mayor ‰ Al Pistarelli, Naugatuck Mayoral Aide ‰ Fran Dambowsky, Naugatuck Emergency Management & Homeland Security ‰ Ken Hanks, Naugatuck Deputy Fire Chief ‰ James R. Stewart, Naugatuck Engineer ‰ Keith Rosenfeld, Naugatuck Town Planner/Wetlands Enforcement Officer ‰ Hank Witkoski, Jr., Superintende nt of Public Works/Streets II. Description and Need for Hazard Mitigation Plans / Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Virginia and David described the basis for th e natural hazard planning process and possible outcomes. Naugatuck is responsible for a 1/8 cost share through in -kind services. Mayor Bronko assigned Fran as the point of contact person for the project. Copies of the Waterbury and New Haven plans were passed around. 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 14-month schedule was presented. IV. Hazards to Address The Naugatuck plan will likely address floodi ng, 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 January 23, 2008 Page 2 It was mentioned that utilities must be located underground and that connectivity needs to be encouraged throughout the Borough. Keith said that an updated Plan of Conservation and Development Plan will likely be put into the budget for next year. New development in the Borough deals with flooding largely by avoiding crossings and using setbacks. The FEMA study is from 1979 and is in need of updating. Lastly, there was mention that someone from the Borough will investigate any filings with FEMA from residents of the Borough regarding flooding and any associated damage(s) to their properties. The informational public meeting was scheduled for the first Monday in March (March 3 rd) at 6:00 PM before the Burgesses. An example of a prior press release will be sent to all attendees. A. Emergency Response Capabili ties & Evacuation Routes The Borough has implemented the CodeRED Emergency Notification System for emergency notifications. Evacuation routes are regionally defined by the Regional Evacuation Plan. No local evacuation plan ex ists. Ken stated that he would forward a copy of the Emergency Operations Plan to those attendees who wished to review it. Zoning and Subdivision Regulations Keith mentioned that all pertinent re gulations are on the Borough website ( Borough of Naugatuck, CT-Zoning Regulations ) and if there are any questions or problems regarding their downloa d to contact him. B. Noted Flooding and/or Dr ainage Problem Areas Complaints associated with flooding and/or drainage problems eventually reach the Borough’s Engineering Department. ‰ Due to its high density of residential hous ing, the location of Spencer Street/Cherry Street/Pleasant Avenue was determined, af ter discussion, to be the highest rated flooding problem area in the Borough. A re view of historical topographic maps reveals that a stream was located in this area in 1947 but not in 1954. Currently, there is a detention pond near this area with an adjacent swale from the hillside; and a stream to the west of Lewis Street. The result of these modifications is the flooding of streets within the development, and with the right scenario, homes. Water levels can rise so rapidly that a “g eyser” has formed when water gets backed up in the storm drainage system following periods of high rainfall. The Grant House on Cherry Street Extension was damaged due to pressures within the stormwater system. January 23, 2008 Page 3 ‰ Determined as the second area of floodi ng is the location adjacent to the upper Meadow Pond Brook and its tributary near Rubber Avenue and Harlow Court. This is north of the Baummer Dam. There have been approximately four residential or commercial sites that have been floode d in this location. The road becomes inundated with water following heavy rain fall. The flooding at this site is associated with water entering from Webb Road. ‰ The site of Nichols Garage (Irving Ga s Station) is where Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. There is a silted pond adjacent to the garage at this site. There may be flooding problems at this location. ‰ The portion of East Waterbury Road be low the Union Ice Company Pond Dam becomes flooded after heavy rains as a resu lt of the pond being filled with sediment. During substantial rain even ts, the dam and pond overtop a nd water spills onto East Waterbury Road. The water runs down the road and eventually re-enters the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook. With the right elements, water does enter homes. ‰ The Ridge Lower Pond dam located along Warren Avenue is in need of repair. The dam’s insufficiency poses a threat to the re sidents of the Ridge Development. There was some discussion of possible DEP involvement in the repair. ‰ Repeated flooding has taken place along B eacon Valley Road (near Beacon Falls) which becomes inundated with water from Beacon Hill Brook after heavy rains. ‰ The Crown Spring Bridge located on Bri dge Street has recurring issues with flooding after periods of heavy rainfall. ‰ Highland Avenue near Galpin Street beco mes flooded after substantial rain events. ‰ The bottom of Arch Street receives three f eet of standing water during large rainfall events. A storm drain near a vacant bu ilding is not normally cleaned, causing storm water to back-up and build in the street during these storms. On one account, the standing water caused a dumpster to float. ‰ Last July a sinkhole of approximately 100 f eet formed along Maple Street near the Fire Department. The sinkhole was the resu lt of the failure of an old storm drain. ‰ The Donovan Road Dam was listed as a pl ace of potential flooding, but may not need to be addressed for this project. C. Approved Developments The following housing developments have been approved or are underway: Meeting Minutes January 23, 2008 Page 4 ‰ A 264 home subdivision locat ed near Hunters Mountain. This subdivision has connections to Andrews Mountain Ro ad and Hunters Mountain Road. ‰ A development of 30 condominiums (“Springbrook”). ‰ A development of 30 homes at Maple Hill Road and Salem Road near Fulling Mill Brook. ‰ A 95 home development located off of Maple Hill Road, between Mulberry Street and Victoria Lane. ‰ The development of 150 homes situated between Candee Road and Osborn Road. This development has connections to Candee Road and Osborn Road. ‰ 20 single-family units are located along Rt. 63 (Church Street) near Hop Brook and Mill Street. ‰ 15 single-family units are situated around Barbers Pond off of King Street. D. Potential Developments ‰ A development of 85 single-family units is planned between Andrews Mountain Road and Guntown Road close to Long Meadow Pond Brook. ‰ There is a proposed Senior Housing de velopment located near School Street. ‰ Renaissance Place is proposed to lie al ong Water Street and adjacent to the Naugatuck River. ‰ Uniroyal is planned to be redevel oped at some time in the future. ‰ Additional commercial development along Rt . 63 (New Haven Road) is planned in the Straitsville section of Naugatuck. ‰ The Peter Paul factory will eventually be redeveloped. VI. Acquisitions ‰ A Profile of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2007 (CGCNV) COGCNV field notes Field inspection on February 13, 2008 Notes typed February 18, 2008 David Murphy Background 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. Areas of potential floodi ng compiled during the initial data collection meeting (in Naugatuck) and areas near mapped floodplains and watercourses (in Beacon Falls) were targeted for inspections. The data colle ction meeting in Beacon Falls (scheduled for February 19, 2008) will help identify potential flood areas for subsequent inspections. Photographs Naugatuck 1. East Waterbury Road, downstream of road 2. East Waterbury Road, upstream of road 3. East Waterbury Road 4. Brook Street at Cold Spring Circle 5. May Street at Bird Road (view of drainage where it jumped the curb and washed out a yard) 6. Arch Street 7. Harlow Court at Field Street (facing southeast from Field) 8. Northwest fork of brook at Webb Road 9. Northeast fork of brook at Webb Road 10. Brook at Webb Road (downstream) 11. Dam at propane facility 12. Dam at propane facility 13. Downstream (east) from Lewis Street near Spencer Street 14. Same brook at Sharon Avenue Beacon Falls 15. Stream at Skokorat Road 16. Stream at Skokorat Road 17. Stream junction at Skokorat Road & Bethany Road 18. Hockanum Brook at Blackberry Hill Road 19. Hockanum Brook at intersection 20. Along south side of Bl ackberry Hill Road 21. Along east side of Skokorat Road 22. Hockanum Brook along Bethany Road 23. Trailer park along Naugatuck River 24. Trailer park drainage swale 25. Swamp Brook at Lancaster Drive 26. Low spot along Lopus Road 27. Along Beacon Valley Road on south side of Beacon Hill Brook Naugatuck again 28. Along Little River Drive Naugatuck Discussion Downstream of Union Ice Company Pond – Photos 1-3 depict this area along East Waterbury Road. The stream was high but it was flowing through the culvert under the road and had not jumped the road. However, a large amount of stormwater was running down th e road. 1 2 3 Cold Spring Brook – Although not mentioned at the data collection kick-off meeting, this corridor was investigated. The brook is very cl ose to Brook Street and could affect homes and access to Cold Spring Circle. 4 Unnamed Stream along May Street – This stream may have jumped the culvert at the intersection with Bird Road. Photo 5 shows a washout in a resident’s yard. 5 Unnamed stream along Hickory & Woodland Streets – This area was inspected but the brook was not visible and drainage problems were not apparent. Highland Street near Galpin Street – This area was inspected but the alleged drainage problems were not apparent. Long Meadow Pond Brook – This stream corridor and its tributary were noted as floodprone during the data collectio n meeting. Photos 6-12 correspond to this area. Photo 6 shows the commercial property that floods when stormwater can’t enter the brook, which is adjacent to the property. Photos 7-10 show the unnamed brook th at flows under Webb Road from the north, beneath Harlow Court, and then joins Long Me adow Pond Brook at Rubber Avenue & Neumann Stream. Photo 7 shows the proximity to the homes and yards, whereas Photos 8-10 show the low level of the road in relation to th e two forks of the tributary stream. 6 7 8 9 10 Photos 11 and 12 show the dam immediately adj acent to the fuel facility at New Dam Pond. 11 12 Spencer Street Corridor – This area was cited as a ma jor floodprone area during the data collection meeting. A review of historical topographic maps revealed that a stream was formerly located in this area, but it has b een mainly buried in a culvert. Photos 13 and 14 show the stream where it is not underground, although it is apparent that the channel has been modified. 13 14 Beacon Hill Brook Corridor – This area was mentioned in the data collection meeting. Photo 28 shows the elevation of Little River Road (a d ead-end street along the floodplain) in relation to Beacon Hill Brook. 28 Beacon Falls Discussion Stream along Burton Road – Problems were not observed along this stream. Hockanum Brook Corridor – This brook flows from east to west, generally along Route 42 (Bethany Road). A number of streams converge at the Blackberry Hill Road and Munson Road intersection, creating a po tential flood situation. All photos show areas that are in 100 and 500- year floodplains. Photos 15, 16, 17, and 21 show the unnamed stream that flows down along Skokorat Road. Photo 18 is Hockanum Brook befo re the tributary joins it, and Photo 19 shows the combined stream. Photo 20 is the other tributary along Blackberry Hill Road, and Photo 22 is Hockanum Brook further downstream along Route 42. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Naugatuck River – Old Turnpike Road abuts the rive r and homes along the north end (Shasta Terrace) are in the 500-year floodplain. Likewi se, homes along Nancy & Hubbell Avenues and Railroad Avenue are in the floodplain. However, pr oblems were not noted in these areas for this storm event. The industries south of Railroad Avenue are visible acro ss the river from South Main Street, and the potential for flooding was appa rent, with the river already in the trees for this storm event. The elevations of the warehous es are not much higher than the river, and the warehouses are in the 500-year floodplain. River Trailer Parks – The trailer parks near the Seymour town line are partly located in the 100- year floodplain and entirely located in the 500-ye ar floodplain. Photo 23 shows the edge of the park at the river, and photo 24 shows an internal drainage swal e. Although the river was high, it was not in danger of flooding the trailer park. 23 24 Swamp Brook Corridor – Problems were not evident at the large industrial building on Route 42 located in the floodplain, but a beaver dam and high pond level (near the road) were observed downstream at Lancaster Road. It is possi ble that the impoundment can flood the road. 25 Lopus Road – A low point in the road was observed with evidence of strong drain age to both sides. This area crosses a small stream. 26 Beacon Hill Brook Corridor – This area was mentioned in the Naugatuck data collection meeting. Photo 27 shows the elevation of Beacon Valley Road in relation to Beacon Hill Brook. Parts of the road lie along the margin of the floodplain. 27 Natural Hazard Pre-DisasterMitigation Plan Naugatuck, Connecticut Presented by : David Murphy, P.E. – Associate Milone & MacBroom, Inc.Sam Eisenbeiser, AICP Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. March 3, 2008 History of Hazard Mitigation Plans •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 M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Municipalities Currently Involved in the Regional Mitigation Planning Process ƒ Beacon Falls ƒ Bethlehem ƒ Middlebury ƒNaugatuck ƒ Southbury ƒ Thomaston Local municipalities must have a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place to receive federal grant funds for hazard mitigation projects M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Selection of FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants: 2003-2006 List does not include seismic, wind retrof it, home acquisit ion, and planning projects StateDescription Grant Co lo ra d o Det e n t io n p o n d $3,000,000 Oregon Water conduit replacement $3,000,000 Wa s h in g t o n Ro a d e le v at io n $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 Ore g o n Ic e s t o rm ret ro fit $1,570,836 No rt h Dako t a Po we r t ra n s mis s io n rep lac eme n t $1,511,250 Texas Ho me ele v at io n s $1,507,005 Flo rid a St o rm s e we r p u mp s t at io n $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 Ne w Ha mp s h ire Bo x c u lv e rt p ro je c t $102, 000 Mis s o u ri Ban k s t ab ilizat io n $48,750 Tennessee Utility protection $40,564 Wis co n s in Wat erway s t ab ilizat io n $12,909 M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. What is a Natural Hazard ? •An extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, and resources M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. What is Hazard Mitigation? •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 M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Long-Term Goals of Hazard Mitigation •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 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. Components of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process •Identify natural hazards that could occur in Naugatuck • 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 M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Naugatuck’s Critical Facilities •Emergency Services – Police, Fire, Ambulance • Municipal Facilities – Borough Hall, Municipal Buildings, Department of Public Works • High Schools – Used as Shelters Western School Naugatuck Fire Department M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Naugatuck’s Critical Facilities •Health Care and Assisted Living • Water Utilities – Tanks, Pumping Stations • Wastewater Utilities – Pumping Stations and Treatment Plants M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Potential Mitigation Measures •Utilization of CodeRED Emergency Notification System • Adopt local legislation that limits or regulates development in vulnerable areas • Public education programs – disseminat ion of public safety information • Construction of structural measures • Allocate technical and financial resources for mitigation programs • Preserve critical land areas and natural systems • Research and / or technical assistance for local officials M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Primary Natural Hazards Facing Naugatuck •Inland flooding • Winter storms, nor’easters, heavy snow, blizzards, ice storms • Hurricanes • Summer storms, tornadoes, thunderstorms, lightning, hail • Dam failure • Wildfires • Earthquakes Modified Channels Pose Threats During Heavy Rain Storms M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Winds •Heavy rain / flooding 1955 Flooding Church Street & Park Place Church Street Road Damage Hurricanes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Summer Storms and Tornadoes •Heavy wind / tornadoes / downbursts •Lightning • Heavy rain • Hail Lightning over Boston Flooding in MN Tornado in KS M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Winter Storms •Blizzards and nor’easters • Heavy snow and drifts • Freezing rain / ice Blizzard of 1978 – CT CT River April 2007 M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Dam Failure •Severe rains or earthquakes can cause failure • Possibility of loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage Dam Adjacent to the Fuel Facil ity off Rubber Avenue M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Wildfires •Naugatuck has low to moderate risk of wildfires • Fire • Heat • Smoke Photo courtesy of FEMA M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Earthquakes •Naugatuck is in an area of minor seismic activity • Can cause dam failure ŠShaking Š Liquefaction Š Secondary (Slides/Slumps) Photos courtesy of FEMA M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Area-Specific Problems •Roadway and property flooding at rivers and streams ŠLong Meadow Pond Brook Š Spencer Street Area Š Downstream of Union Ice Company Pond Š Along Beacon Hill Brook Š Other Streams and Localized Problems • Flooding caused by poor drainage M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Long Meadow Pond Brooks and its tributaries Flooding at Rivers and Streams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Webb Road Arch Street Harlow Court at Field Street Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Spencer Street Corridor: ŠIn close proximity to homes and streets within the Spencer Street neighborhood Š Portions of stream are in culverts Lewis Street Sharon Avenue M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams The Spencer Street area that experiences flooding, in 1947 By 1954, the stream was gone and development had increased M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Downstream of Union Ice Company Pond: East Waterbury Road M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Along Beacon Hill Brook: Little River Drive at Beacon Hill Brook M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Other Streams and Localized Problems: Brook Street near Cold Spring Circle M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding Caused by Poor Drainage •Locations Damaged During February 13, 2008 Storm: ŠUnnamed Stream along May Street may have jumped the culvert at the intersection with Bird Road A wash out along May Street M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Next Steps •Incorporate input from residents • Rank hazard vulnerability • Develop a response strategy • Prepare the draft plan with recommendations for review by the Borough and the public • Adopt and implement the plan 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 N AUGATUCK Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Public Information Meeting March 3, 2008 I. Welcome & Introductions The following individuals attended the public meeting: ‰ David Murphy, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Shawn Goulet, MMI ‰ Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI) ‰ Virginia Mason, Council of Governme nts Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV) ‰ Ken Hanks, Naugatuck FD ‰ James Ricci, Jr., Naugatuck FD 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, Bethlehem, Connecticut” Because nobody from the public was in attendance, Mr. Murphy presented the power point slideshow using the handouts. III. Questions, Comments, and Discussion ‰ Fulling Mill Brook along Route 68 should be described in the plan, as flooding can occur. ‰ Hop Brook Dam is Class C but cons idered to be in good condition. From: KNadeau@ctwater.com Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:25 AM To: Scott Bighinatti Subject: Re: Hazard Mitigation Planning in CTWC service areas Scott, I will scan the inundation maps that I have and email them to you, and then see what we have or think for expanded service area. Keith From: “Scott Bighinatti” To: Cc: Sent: 08/13/2008 03:18 PM Subject: Hazard Mitigation Planni ng in CTWC service areas Hi Keith, As you may be aware, David Murphy and I are writing Natural Haza rd Mitigation Plans for the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley. These plans will cover several natural hazards that could cause damages and/or loss of life due to flooding, wildfires, dam failure, hurricanes, etc. Muni cipalities that have these plans in place will be able to apply for funding for hazard mitig ation projects through various FEMA grant programs before and after a disaster event. Would you be willing to assist us in this project by providing us the following information? 1. A brief description of any plans Connecticut Water Company has to expand or upgrade water service for fire prot ection in Thomaston, Middlebury, and Naugatuck (plans to expand water servi ce will be included in the “Wildfires” section of the associated plans to show where the existing wildfire risk area will be reduced in the near future); 2. A copy of the Dam Failure Inundation Ma ps from the EOPs for the following Connecticut Water Company dams (suc h mapping has been requested by FEMA for these plans for Class C and B dams which may impact infrastructure and critical facilities): a. New Naugatuck Reservoir Dam in Bethany (Beacon Hill Brook which flows into Beacon Falls) b. Mulberry Reservoir Dam in Naugatuck c. Straitsville Reservoir Dam in Naugatuck d. Plymouth Reservoir in Plymouth (outflows into Thomaston) In the case of the dam failure inundation maps, the figures in each plan will not replace those within the EOP for the respective dam. These figures will instead show a general inundation area in relation to critical facilities. A pdf copy of these maps would be perfect. Please let myself or David Murphy know if you can assist us in this important project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Thanks for your help, Scott ———————————————— Scott J. Bighinatti Environmental Scientist Milone & MacBroom, Inc. 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 (203) 271-1773 Phone (203) 272-9733 Fax scottb@miloneandmacbroom.com APPENDIX C SUBDIVISION/SITE PLAN CHECKLIST FOR DRAINAGE DESIGNS (NOV. 2008) The Borough of Naugatuck Engineering Department Subdivision/Site Plan Checkli st for Drainage Designs November 2008 The following items shall be submitted with al l Subdivision and Site Plan applications: General Information Item Yes No Comments 1. Site Map 2. Location Map 3. Boring or Test Pit Data 4. Infiltration test results if infiltration is proposed. Hydrology / Detention Evaluation Item Yes No Comments 1. Watershed Map including off-site areas that drain onto site, common analysis point(s) and drainage paths for both pre- and post-development conditions 2. Subwatershed maps with NRCS soil types (pre- and post-development) 3. Curve Number (CN) computations 4. Time of Concentration (Tc) computations 5. Model input for 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100-year storms 6. Table presenting model output for each analysis point for the 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year storms, including: ƒ Peak flows for pre-development ƒ Post-development without detention ƒ Post-development with detention 7. Detention basin design information including, but not limited to: ƒ Storage volume based on contour areas ƒ Detail(s) of outlet structure(s) ƒ Stormwater routings through outlet structures(s) ƒ Infiltration test results ƒ Planting plan by certified Landscape Architect or Created Wetlands Planting Plan by certified Wetland Biologist 2 8. If increasing flows to an existing system, a capacity analysis of the existing system. 9. Water Quality Volume (WQV), Water Quality Flow (WQF), and Stream Channel Protection Criteria, as appropriate. Drainage Design (10-year storm) Item Yes No Comments 1. Watershed map to each inlet structure. 2. Pipe sizing computations 3. Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) computations. 4. Gutter flow analysis. 5. Stormwater Quality 6. Swale sizing computations 7. Outlet protection sizing Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Item Yes No Comments 1. Proposed measures per 2002 Plan. 2. Notes on implementation. 3. Description of maintenance schedule Reports Item Yes No Comments 1. Report on groundwater impacts for proposed infiltration structures. 2. Reports on wetlands and other surface waters. 3. Report on water quality impacts to receiving waters. 4. Report on impacts on biological populations/ecological communities including fish, wildlife (vertebrate and invertebrates), and vegetation. 5. Flood study/calculations APPENDIX D RECORD OF MUNICIPAL ADOPTION ERRATA TO BE PRESENTED APRIL 7, 2009 Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut The following errata sheet denotes changes to the Borough of Naugatuck Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan from the one conditionally approved by FEMA in March 2009. The pagination in the Table of Contents was updated to reflect these changes as necessary. Section 2 – Community Profile Page 2-27, 2-28, and 2-31 Added the Algonquin Gas Pipeline to Table 2-5, Figure 2-9, and to the Utilities discussion in Section 2.9 (Critical Facilities).