TOWN OF THOMASTON NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING AREA OCTOBER 2008 REVISED DECEMBER 2008 REVISED FEBRUARY 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 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 ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………… 2-1 2.3 Geology ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. …….. 2-4 2.4 Climate ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ……. 2-12 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology ……………………………………………………………… ………… 2-12 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting ……………………………………………………………… …. 2-16 2.7 Governmental Structure ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-17 2.8 Development Trends ……………………………………………………………… ………………………… 2-2 1 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity ………………………………………………………….. 2-23 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 ……………………………………………. 3-9 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 3-13 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 3-17 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 3-26 4.0 HURRICANES 4.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 4-1 4.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 4-1 4.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 4-6 4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 4-9 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 4-10 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 4-11 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 4-13 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 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 …………………………………………… 5-8 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 ……………………………………………. 6-6 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 6-7 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 6-8 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 6-10 7.0 EARTHQUAKES 7.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 7-1 7.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 7-1 7.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 7-3 7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 7-4 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 7-5 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 7-7 8.0 DAM FAILURE 8.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 8-1 8.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 8-1 8.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 8-6 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 8-9 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 8-10 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 8-13 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 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 …………………………………………… 9-4 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 9-5 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 9-8 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Additional Recommendations……………………………………………………………… ……………. 10-1 10.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations …………………………………………………………….. 10-2 10.3 Sources of Funding ……………………………………………………………… ………………………….. 10-8 11.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule ……………………………………………………………… . 11-1 11.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation ……………………………………………………… 11-2 11.3 Updating the Plan……………………………………………………………… …………………………… .. 11-3 11.4 Technical and Financial Resources……………………………………………………………… …….. 11-4 12.0 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………….. 12 -1 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES Table 2-1 Land Use by Area ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 2-4 Table 2-2 Soils by Taxonomic Class……………………………………………………………… ………. 2-10 Table 2-3 Drainage Basins ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-13 Table 2-4 Population Density by Munici pality, Region, and State, 2005 …………………….. 2-16 Table 2-5 Critical Facilities in Thomaston ……………………………………………………………… . 2-25 Table 3-1 FIRM Zone Descriptions ……………………………………………………………… …………. 3-3 Table 4-1 Hurricane Characteristics ……………………………………………………………… …………. 4-5 Table 5-1 Fujita Scale…………………………………………………… ……………………………………… .. 5-2 Table 5-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale ……………………………………………………………… ……………… 5-4 Table 5-3 Tornado Events in Litchfield County Since 1950……………………………………… … 5-7 Table 5-4 NOAA Weather Watches……………………………………………………………… …………. 5-9 Table 5-5 NOAA Weather Warnings ……………………………………………………………… ……… 5-10 Table 6-1 NESIS Categories ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 6-3 Table 8-1 Dams Registered with the DEP Asso ciated with the Town of Thomaston ……… 8-2 Table 8-2 Dams Damaged Due to Fl ooding from October 2005 Storms……………………….. 8-7 FIGURES Figure 2-1 Thomaston Location Map ……………………………………………………………… ………… 2-2 Figure 2-2 Thomaston in the Cent ral Naugatuck Valley Region …………………………………… 2-3 Figure 2-3 Thomaston Ge neralized Land Use …………………………………………………………….. 2-5 Figure 2-4 Thomaston Bedrock Geology ……………………………………………………………… …… 2-7 Figure 2-5 Thomaston Surficial Geology ……………………………………………………………… …… 2-9 Figure 2-6 Thomaston Elderly Population ……………………………………………………………… .. 2-18 Figure 2-7 Thomaston Linguistical ly Isolated Households …………………………………………. 2-19 Figure 2-8 Thomaston Di sabilities Map ……………………………………………………………… …… 2-20 Figure 2-9 Thomaston Critical Facilities ……………………………………………………………… ….. 2-24 Figure 3-1 FEMA Flood Zones in Thomaston ……………………………………………………………. 3-4 Figure 8-1 High Hazard Dams in Thomaston (Thomaston Dam) ………………………………….. 8-3 Figure 8-2 High Hazard Dams in Thomaston (Northfield Brook Dam) …………………………. 8-4 Figure 8-3 High Hazard Dams in Thomaston (Bl ack Rock & Wigwam Reservoir Dams) .. 8-5 Figure 9-1 Thomaston Wildfire Risk Area ……………………………………………………………… …. 9-2 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 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 Record of Municipal Adoption NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Town of Thomaston Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan 1. The primary purpose of a Natural Hazard Pre-Di saster Mitigation Plan 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 identified hazards. Once a community has a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan, the community is then elig ible to apply for Pre-Disaster Mitigation project funds and certain other funds for mitigation activities. 2. The hilly, elevated terrain of Thomaston makes it vulnerable to an array of natural hazards. The terrain inhibits the creation of through streets, limiting emergency response times and increasing the vulnerability for access cut off. 3. Thomaston is drained by four watersheds co rresponding to the Naugatuck River (55% of town’s land area), Branch Brook (25%), No rthfield Brook (18%), and Leadmine Brook (2%). Thomaston also has significant open space (23%). 4. The Highway Department is the principal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. 5. Critical facilities include police, fire, governmental, educational, and major transportation facilities as these are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day to day operation of Thomaston continues. In a ddition, Town personnel consider public and private water, sewer, electric, and communications utilities to be critical facilities. Nearly all these facilities could be impacted by a dam failure. The Communications Building on Chapel Street is located in a wildfire risk area. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 ES-2 6. The Fire Department has an emergency gene rator and is the primary shelter, but has limited overnight space. The High School is the secondary shelter and can hold more evacuees overnight but does not have a genera tor. The Highway Department can serve as an emergency supply distribution center. Thes e facilities should be listed on the Town website. 7. The Police Chief is the primary day-to-day emergency manager in Thomaston. A local evacuation plan exists to ensure timely mi gration of people seeking shelter should be developed. The Town uses the regional evacuation plan developed by the COGCNV. 8. Extensive flood control modifications ha ve been made since 1955 including the construction by the Army Corps of Engineer s of the Thomaston Dam, Northfield Dam and Black Rock Dam. Indirect flooding that occurs in the floodplains adjacent to the rivers and localized nuisance flooding along tr ibutaries is a more common problem as overflow of the river systems are generally limited to river corridors and floodplains. The Town has already a number of measures in place to prevent flood damage including regulations, codes, and ordinance preven ting encroachment and development near floodways which are carried out by the Plan ning and Zoning and the Inland Wetlands Commissions. Most flooding that occurs is due to undersized road culverts. Problem areas include: Bayberry Drive, Carter Road, and Hickory Hill Road, High Street Extension, Hillside Avenue and Gilbert Stre et, Watertown Road, and Reynolds Bridge Road. These may require repair or replacemen t of culverts, the installation of drainage systems, or riprap installations. 9. The Town has a current Stormwater Manageme nt Plan (2006) an annual street sweeping program, and cleans it catch basins at least biannually. 10. The Town should consider joining FEMA’s Co mmunity Rating System to reduce the cost of flood insurance to residents. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 ES-3 11. Planning and Zoning should consider requiri ng developers to build detention and retention facilities where appropriate so th e post-development stormwater does not leave a site at a rate higher than under pre-deve lopment conditions. The use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology can aid in the identification of problem areas. A checklist should be developed to cross-re ference the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention for distri bution to applicants. The Town may also wish to pursue additional open space acquisitions. 12. A moderate Category 2 hurricane (winds 96-110 mph) is expected to strike Connecticut once every ten years. The town is vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding and from any tornadoes accompanying a storm. 13. Thomaston has adopted the Connecticut Buildin g Code as its building code. Effective December 31, 2005, the design wind speed for Thom aston is 95 mph. Wind is a potential issue for the 20-30 unit mobile home part off Waterbury Road. 14. The Town requires all utilitie s in new subdivisions to be underground whenever possible and performs annual tree maintenance near roadways and for property owners who request it. 15. While tornadoes are uncommon, Litchfield C ounty and Hartford County are the areas at the highest risk for tornadoes in Connecticut. 16. Thomaston uses a new notification system, Code RED, as its emergency notification service. Efforts should be made by the to wn to list as many telecommunication devices to this system as possible. 17. In the winter, icing causes difficult driving conditions throughout the hillier sections of Thomaston, including Blakeman Road and th e condominium access road at 143 Pine Hill Road. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 ES-4 18. Dam failure can affect a large area of Th omaston (or downstream of the Town-owned dam in Litchfield). There are four dams in Town with significant or high failure potential. The three with the highest potential (Class C) are all owned and maintained by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Class B dam is owned by the City of Waterbury. All of these dams are believed to be in good to excellent condition. Several critical facilities are located within the dam failure inunda tion areas of the Class C dams. Another Class C dam with poten tial issues for Thomaston is the Plymouth Reservoir dam in Plymouth whose outflow has caused damage to the bridge on Altair Avenue that is currently being repaired. 19. There are smaller dams in Town such as the Leigh Avenue Dam and Southerly Pond Dam that do not have hazard classifications with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 20. Wildfires are considered a likely event in Thomaston each year, but they are generally contained to a small range with limited da mage to non-forested areas. Homeowner education is an effective prevention me thod. The construction of dry hydrants throughout Town would provide additional supplies of firefighting water in areas without public water supply. 21. There are many technical and financial reso urces available through such agencies as FEMA, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Fire Administration, and the Connectic ut Department of Environmental Protection to assist Thomaston in performing mitigation activities. . NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose The term hazard refers to an extreme natural ev ent that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. In the contex t of natural disasters, pre-disaster hazard mitigation is commonly defined as any sustained action that permanently reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people, prope rty, and resources from natural hazards and their effects. The primary purpose of a pre-disaster hazard mitigation plan (HMP) is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken by a community or group of communities to preven t loss of life and reduce property damages associated with the identified hazards. This HMP is prepared specifically to identify hazards in the Town of Thomaston, Connecticut (“Thomaston” or “Town”). The HMP is relevant not only in emergency management situations, but also should be used within the Town of Thomaston’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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 recovery from a disaster. A key purpose of th e HMGP is to ensure that any opportunities NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 1-3 to take critical mitigation measures to protect life and property from future disasters are not “lost” during the recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program The FMA program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goa l of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA provides FMA funds to assist States and communities with implementing measures that reduce or eliminate the long- term risk of flood damage to buildings, hom es, and other structures insurable under the NFIP. The long-term goal of FMA is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through mitigation activities. 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 Thomaston’s development through inter-departmental and inter-municipal coordination. ‰ Improve the mechanisms for pre- and pos t-disaster decision making efforts. This plan emphasizes actions that can be taken now to reduce or prevent future disaster damages. If the actions identified in this plan are implemented, damage from future hazard events can be minimized, thereby eas ing recovery and reducing the cost of repairs and reconstruction. ‰ Improve the ability to implemen t post-disaster recovery projects through development of a list of mitigation alternatives ready to be implemented. ‰ Enhance and preserve natural resource systems. Natural resources, such as wetlands and floodplains, provide protection against disasters such as floods and hurricanes. Proper planning and protection of natural resources can provide hazard mitigation at substantially reduced costs. ‰ Educate residents and policy makers about natural hazard risk and vulnerability. Education is an important tool to ensure that people make informed decisions that complement the Town’s abil ity to implement and maintain mitigation strategies. ‰ Complement future Community Rating System efforts. Implementation of certain mitigation measures may increase a community’s rating, and thus the benefits that it derives from FEMA. The Town of Thom aston has never participated in the Community Rating System. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 1-5 1.3 Identification of Hazard s 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 pot entially affect the Town of Thomaston: ‰ 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 Town of Thomaston, 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 Town. In order to better identify current vulnerabilities and potential mitigation strategies associated with other hazards, each hazard has been individually discussed in a separate chapter. This document begins with a general disc ussion of Thomaston’s community profile, including the physical setting, demographics, development trends, governmental NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 1-6 structure, and sheltering capacity. Next, each chapter of this Plan is broken down into six or seven different parts. These are Setting; Hazard Assessment ; Historic Record ; Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ; Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ; 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 Town of Thomaston is currently undertaking to mitigate the given hazard. These may take the form of ordinanc es and codes, structural measures such as dams, or public ou treach initiatives. ‰ Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment focuses on the specific areas at risk to the hazard. Specific land uses in the given areas are identified. Critical buildings and infrastructure that would be affected by the hazard are identified. ‰ Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives identifies mitigation alternatives, including those that may be th e least cost effective or inappropriate for Thomaston. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 1-7 ‰ Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives provides a summary of the recommended c ourses of action for Thomaston that is included in the STAPLEE an alysis described below. This document concludes with a strategy for implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, including a schedule, a program for monitoring and updating the plan, and a discussion of technical a nd financial resources. 1.4 Discussion of STAPLEE Ranking Method To prioritize recommended mitigation meas ures, it is necessary to determine how effective each measure will be in reducing or preventing damage. A set of criteria commonly used by public administration officials and planners was applied to each proposed strategy. The method, called STAPLEE, stands for the “Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and Environmental” criteria for making planning decisions. The following questions were asked about the proposed mitigation strategies: ‰ Social : Is the proposed strategy socially acceptable to Thomaston? Is there any equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of Thomaston could be treated unfairly? ‰ Technical : Will the proposed strategy work? Will it create more problems than it will solve? ‰ Administrative : Can Thomaston 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 Thomaston authorized to implement the proposed strategy? Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity? NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 1-8 ‰ Economic : What are the costs and benefits of this strategy? Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits? ‰ Environmental : How will the strategy impact the environment? Will the strategy need environmental re gulatory approvals? Each proposed mitigation strategy presented in this plan was evaluated and assigned a score (Good = 3, Average = 2, Poor = 1) based on the above criteria. An evaluation matrix with the total scores from each stra tegy can be found in Appendix A. After each strategy is evaluated using the STAPLEE method, it is possible to prioritize the strategies according to the final score. The highest scoring is determined to be of more importance, economically, socially, environmentally and po litically and, hence, prioritized over those with lower scoring. 1.5 Documentation of the Planning Process The Town of Thomaston is a member of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV), the regional planning body responsible for Thomaston and twelve other member municipalities: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, 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 coor dinated the development of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. The COGCNV applied for the grant from FEMA through the Connecticut Department of Environmental Prot ection (DEP). The adoption of this plan in the Town of Thomaston will also be c oordinated by the COGCNV. In addition, the COGCNV provided Geographic Information Syst em (GIS) base mapping and created the figures presented in this document. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 1-9 The following individuals from the Town of Thomaston provided information, data, studies, reports, and observations; and were involved in the development of the Plan: ‰ Ms. Maura Martin, First Selectwoman ‰ Mr. Paul Pronovost, Highway Superintendent, Thomaston Highway Department ‰ Mr. Eugene Torrence, Jr., Chief of Police ‰ Mr. Rich Tingle, Superintendent, Thomas ton Water Pollution Control Authority ‰ Ms. Mary Barton, Land Use Officer ‰ Mr. Ken Koval, Fire Department ‰ Mr. Marc Beneditto, Fire Department An extensive data collection, evaluation, and outreach program was undertaken to compile information about existing hazards a nd mitigation in the Town, as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized fo r hazard mitigation. The following is a list of meetings that were held to develop this Hazard Mitigation Plan: ‰ Field inspections were performed on February 13, 2008. Observations were made of flooding and problem areas within the To wn after a period of heavy rain falling on frozen ground. ‰ A project meeting with Town o fficials was held February 14, 2008. Necessary documentation was collected, and problem areas within the Town were discussed. ‰ Field inspections were performed on March 5, 2008. Observations were made of flooding and problem areas within the Town. ‰ A public information meeting was held March 24, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. Preliminary findings were presented and public comments solicited. ‰ Additional field inspections we re performed on August 1, 2008. Observations were made of problem areas within the Town. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 1-10 While residents were invited to the public information meeting via newspaper, only one resident attended that was not Town personnel. Similarly, eight municipal agencies and civic organizations were invited via a mailed copy of the press rele ase that announced the public information meeting. These included the following: ‰ Naugatuck River Watershed Association; ‰ Torrington Area Health District; ‰ United Way of Greater Waterbury; ‰ American Red Cross – Waterbury Area; ‰ Thomaston Inland Wetlands Commission; ‰ Thomaston Planning & Zoning Commission; ‰ Thomaston Conservation Commission; and ‰ Thomaston Economic Development Commission; Of these organizations, the American Red Cross was represented at the meeting. Residents were also encouraged to cont act the COG with comments via newspaper articles. As another direct ga uge of public interest, a review of Public Works Department complaint files was undertaken to docu ment problems of public concern. 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 tablet op exercise on biological terrori sm. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 1-11 Additional opportunities for the public to review the Plan will be implemented in advance of the public hearing to a dopt this plan, tentatively scheduled for January 2009, contingent on receiving conditional approval from FEMA. Th e draft that is sent for FEMA review will be posted on the Town we bsite (http://www.thomastonct.org) and the COGCNV website (http://www.cogcnv.org) to provide opportunities for public review and comment. Such comments will be incorpor ated 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 Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-1 2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1 Physical Setting The Town of Thomaston is located in Litchf ield County. It is bordered by Waterbury to the south, Watertown to the south and southwest, Morris to the west, Litchfield to the northwest, Harwinton to the North, and Plymout h to the east. Refer to Figure 2-1 for a location schematic and Figure 2-2 for a location map. Thomaston is located within the western pa rt 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 Town ranges from gently rolling terrain in the river valleys to steep hilly terrain throughout most of the upl and areas. Elevations range from 290 feet above sea level along the Naugatu ck River in the southeastern part of Town to over 1,010 feet above sea level near Lattin Hill in the northern part of Town, based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The hilly, elevated terrain of Thomaston makes it particularly vulnerable to an array of natural hazards. 2.2 Existing Land Use Thomaston’s hills and steep slopes limit deve lopment in much of the Town. A compact commercial district is located in the center of the town at the intersection of East Main Street and Main Street al ongside the Naugatuck River. The commercial center is surrounded by medium density residential areas. Industrial sites are dispersed alongside the Naugatuck River. Additional commercial sites are located in the southwest part of Thomaston near Route 6 and Route 109. Low de nsity residential areas are located in the northwestern areas of Thomaston, interspersed with agricultural and recreational areas. § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦395 ” )2 ” )9 ” )15 ” )15 ” )8 ” )44 Thomaston CONNEC TICU T Figure 2-1: Thomaston 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: Thomaston 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 Thomaston 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 June 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-4 The Town of Thomaston encompasses 12.1 square miles. Table 2-1 provides a summary of land use in Thomaston 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 2,602 33% Residential – Low Density 1,769 23% Recreational 1,509 19% Agricultural 538 7% Residential – Medium Density 348 4% Water 325 4% Utilities/Transportation 222 3% Industrial 167 2% Commercial 120 2% Institutional 79 1% Residential – High Density 51 1% Mining 42 1% Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley, 2000 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 Thom aston. The following discussion highlights Thomaston’s geology at several regional scales . Geologic information discussed in the following section was acquired in GIS from the Connecticut DEP. COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 0 0.5 1Miles ” )8 Figure 2-3: Thomaston Generalized Land Use ² ” )109 ” )254 ” )222 For general planning p urposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DE P “Land Us e”, COGCNV 2000 June 2 008 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads AG Agriculture CF Institutional CM Commercial IN Industrial RC Recreational 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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. The bedrock beneath the Town of Thomaston is part of the Iapetos Terrane, comprised of remnants of the Iapetos Ocean that existed before Pangaea was formed. This terrane formed when Pangaea was consolidated, and its boundaries are coincident with the Eugeosyncline Sequence geolo gic province described above. In terms of North American bedrock geology, the Town of Thomaston 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 Town of Thomaston lies within the Eugeosyncline Sequence. Bedr ock belonging to the Eugeosyncline Sequence are typically deformed, metamorphosed, and in truded by small to large igneous plutons. The Town of Thomaston’s bedrock consists primarily of metasedimentary and metaigneous schists and secondarily of metamorphic granofels. The bedrock alignment trends generally southwest to northeast through the Town. Refer to Figure 2-4 for a depiction of the bedrock geology in the Town of Thomaston. The five primary bedrock formations in th e Town (from north to south) are Ratlum Mountain Schist, The Straits Schist, Collinsvill e Formation, Basal Member of the Straits Schist, and the Taine Mountain Formation: Or Oc DSt DSt Ot DSt DSt Stb Figure 2-4: Thomaston Bedrock Geology 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. Source: “Ro ads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, “B edrock”, DEP June 2008 Legend Bedrock Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads DSt Oc Or Ot Stb Basal Straits Schist Collinsville Formation Taine Mtn Formation Straits Schist Ratlum Mtn Schist Naugatuck River NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-8 ‰ The Ratlum Mountain Schist consists of gray, medium-grained schist and granofels. ‰ The Straits Schist is a silvery to gray, coarse-grained schist. ‰ The Collinsville Formation is a gray and silvery, medium- to coarse-grained schist and dark, fine- to medium-grained amphibolite and hornblende gneiss. ‰ The Basal Member of The Straits Schist is a gray schist with amphibolite, marble, and quartzite. ‰ The Taine Mountain Formation consists of gray, medium-grained, well-laminated granofels. No known faults are mapped in the Town of Thomaston. Bedrock outcrops can be difficult to find in Thomaston due to the fore sted nature of the Town, although outcrops can be found at higher elev ations and on hilltops. At least twice in the late Pleistocene, con tinental ice sheets moved across Connecticut. As a result, surficial geology of the To wn is characteristic of the depositional environments that occurred during glacial a nd postglacial periods. Refer to Figure 2-5 for a depiction of surficial geology. A vast area of the Town is covered by glacial till. Tills contain an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boul ders deposited by glaciers as a ground moraine. This area includes nearly all of Thomaston 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 Nauga tuck River and the lower parts of Branch Brook and Northfield Brook. These deposits acc umulated by glacial meltwater streams during the outwash period following the latest glacial recession. T T TT TT T SG TT SG/S TT SG W SG TT TT SG G G SG/S/F G TT W A/S AF SG SG SG A/S W W W A/SG SG SG A/S SG A/SG A/F A/SG SG/S A/SG SG/S W T SG SG A/SG SG/S W SG W T A/SG A/SG A/SG A/SG A/S A/SG TT A/S A/S A/SG A/SG A/SG A/SG A/SG A/F A/SG A/SG SG A/SG SG Figure 2-5: Thomaston Surficial Geology 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 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 June 2008 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 Till Thick Till Sand and Gravel Overlying Sand Overlying Fines Sand and Gravel Alluvium Overlying Sand and Gravel Gravel Surficial Materials A/F A/S A/SG AF G SG SG/S SG/S/F T TT Sand and Gravel Overlying Sand Alluvium Overlying Fines Alluvium Overlying Sand Artificial Fill Water W Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-10 The amount of stratified drift present in the Town is important for several reasons. First, the stratified drift is curr ently used by the Connecticut Water Company to provide drinking water via pumping wells. Secondly, in regard to inland flooding, areas of stratified materials are generally coincident with inland floodplains. This is because these materials were deposited at lower elev ations by glacial streams, and these valleys later were inherited by the la rger of our present-day streams and rivers. However, smaller glacial till watercourses can also cause flooding, such as those in northern, western, and southern Thomaston. The amount of stratified drift also has bearing on the relative intensity of ear thquakes and the likelihood of soil subsidence in areas of fill. These topics will be discussed in later sections. In terms of soil types, approximately 75% of the Town falls within the Hollis-Chatfield- Rock outcrop complex, Canton and Charlton soils, Charlton-Chatfield complex, Paxton and Montauk fine sandy loam, and Udorthents (Table 2-2). The remainder of the Town has soil types of consisting pr imarily of various fine to gravelly sandy loams, wetland soils, and urban land. The following soil descript ions are taken in part from the official series descriptions from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) website. Table 2-2 Soils by Taxonomic Class Soil Type Area (acres) Pct. Hollis-Chatfield-Rock outcrop complex 1468 18.9% Canton and Charlton Soils 1392 17.9% Charlton-Chatfield complex 1192 15.3% Paxton and Montauk fine sandy loam 958 12.3% Udorthents 832 10.7% Rock outcrop-Hollis complex 326 4.2% Woodbridge fine sandy loam 306 3.9% Merrimac sandy loam 223 2.9% Ridgebury, Leicester, and Whitman soils 217 2.8% Water 186 2.4% Other (20 types) 675 8.7% Total 7775 100.0% Source: 2005 Soil Survey Geog raphic (SSURGO) database for the State of Connecticut NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-11 ‰ 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 Canton and Charlton soils consist of very deep, well- drained soils formed in a loamy mantle underlain by sandy till with stones and boulders often present. The soils are found on nearly level to steep glaciated plains, hills, and ridges. Slope ranges from zero to thirty-five percent. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is high in the solum and high or very high in the substratum. ‰ The Charlton-Chatfield series consists of m oderately deep to deep, well-drained, and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in glacial till. They ar e very nearly level to very steep soils on glaciated plains, hills, and ridges. The soil is often stony or very stony. Slope ranges from three to forty- five percent. Crystalline bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Saturated hydr aulic conductivity is moderately high to high in the mineral soil. ‰ 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. Saturated hydraulic c onductivity is moderately high or high in the solum and low to moderately high in the substratum. ‰ Udorthents are disturbed soils underlying ur ban and built up lands where the original soil type is no longer easily identified. Su ch soils have been excavated or filled at least two feet. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-12 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. 2.4 Climate Thomaston has an agreeable climate, characteri zed by moderate but distinct seasons. The average mean temperature is approximately 48 degrees, with summer temperatures in the mid-80s and winter temperat ures in the upper 20’s to mid-30s, Fahrenheit. Extreme conditions raise summer temperatures to near 100 degrees and winter temperatures to below zero. Median snowfall is just less than 46 inches per year as measured at Wigwam Reservoir weather station in Thomaston (N CDC, 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 inches per decade since the end of the 19 th century (Miller et. al., 2002; NCDC, 2005). Likewise, total annual precipitatio n in the Town has increased over time. 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology The Town of Thomaston is drained by four watersheds corresponding with the Naugatuck River, Branch Brook, Northfie ld Brook, and Leadmine Brook. These subregional drainage basins are all part of the regional Naugatuck River basin that ultimately discharges into the Housatonic Ri ver. The drainage basins are described below, and summarized in Table 2-3. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-13 Table 2-3 Drainage Basins Drainage Basin Area (sq. mi) Percent of Town Naugatuck River 6.61 54.5% Branch Brook 3.08 25.3% Northfield Brook 2.24 18.5% Leadmine Brook 0.21 1.7% Total 12.14 100.0% Source: Drainage Basins, 2008 CT DEP GIS Data for Connecticut Naugatuck River The Naugatuck River originates near the City of Torrington, CT, and winds south almost 40 miles to meet the Housatonic River in the Ci ty of Derby, giving it a total basin area of 311.16 square miles. It is the only major ri ver in Connecticut whose headwaters are within the boundaries of the state. The Naugatuck River is well-known for its many defunct dams associated with its industrial history. The Naugatuck River basin is by far the larg est watershed in Thomaston, covering 54.5% of the Town’s land area. It enters Thomaston in the Town’s northeastern corner, flowing southward within the eastern bo rder before serving as the Town’s southwestern border in the Frost Bridge section of Town. The River is impounded once within Thomaston by a United States Army Corps of Engineers (A COE) flood control dam known as Thomaston Dam. The Naugatuck River is joined by a number of tributaries as it flows through Town. Leadmine Brook enters the river in the northea st end of Town upstream of the Thomaston Dam. An unnamed tributary th at enters the Naugatuck River near Railroad Street drains from Plymouth Reservoir, an impoundment of about 40 acres. The Naugatuck River receives flow from several additional unname d tributaries and from Northfield Brook near the center of Town. The river also has several tributaries in the south end of Town NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-14 near the Mattatuck State Forest, the largest of these being Branch Brook. Further south, Nibbling Brook converges with the Naugatuck River before it enters Waterbury. Branch Brook The Branch Brook watershed is the second la rgest in Thomaston, covering 25.3% of the Town’s total land area. The upper reaches of this drainage basin are located in northeastern Morris a nd Litchfield, where Pitch Br ook, Wigwam Brook, and their tributaries flow southward into Pitch Rese rvoir. In addition to the abovementioned tributaries, the Pitch Reservoir also receive s water from a seven mile long aqueduct built in the 1920s from the Shepaug Reservoir on th e border between the Towns of Litchfield and Warren. In total, the Branch Brook wate rshed drains 22.65 square miles of land in Thomaston, Watertown, Bethlehem, Morris, and Litchfield. The Branch Brook drainage basin is heavily utilized for water supply. Pitch Reservoir is the first of three major impoundments in th e watershed. Downstream are the Morris Reservoir on the Morris-Litchfield b oundary and the Wigwam Reservoir on the Watertown-Thomaston boundary. All of these reservoirs as well as the aqueduct were constructed by the City of Wate rbury in the first half of the twentieth century for water supply purposes. Morris Brook and Moosehorn Brook from th e north and Fen Brook from the south all feed Wigwam Reservoir. Branch Brook be gins as the outlet stream from Wigwam Reservoir and creates the bounda ry between Watertown and Thomaston as it flows east into the Naugatuck River. Several unnamed tributaries flow south from Thomaston into Branch Brook along its reach. The brook is also impounded by the Black Rock Dam, an ACOE dam, in Black Rock State Park. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-15 Northfield Brook The Northfield Brook basin covers 18.5% of the Town. The drainage basin has its uppermost reaches in Litchfield in a sma ll pond near Richards Road Extension. The outflow from this pond is Humaston Brook, whic h drains southward to Northfield Pond. The outlet stream from Northfield Pond is Northfield Brook. Just downstream of Northfield Pond, the brook converges with Turner Brook before entering Thomaston. Once inside Thomaston, Northfield Brook is impounded in Northfield Brook Lake, an ACOE flood control impoundme nt. After leaving the impoundment, Northfield Brook flows to the southeast and enters into the Nauga tuck River near the junction of Northfield Road and South Main Street in Thomaston. In all, the Northfield Brook basin drains 6.62 square miles of land in Thomaston and Litchfield. Leadmine Brook The Leadmine Brook drainage basin is by fa r the smallest in Thomaston, covering 0.21 square miles or 1.75% of the Town’s total land area. This area is located in the northeastern corner of Thomaston, where Leadmine Brook enters Thomaston from Harwinton and flows into the Naugatuck River behind the Thomaston Dam. This short stretch of river receives three unnamed tribut aries flowing westward from Plymouth and Harwinton. Leadmine Brook’s East Branch has its headwate rs in New Hartford and its West Branch has its headwaters in Torring ton. These two branches flow southward and converge in Harwinton, where Leadmine Brook is formed. As it flows to the south, Leadmine Brook is joined by several tribut aries, including Caitlin Br ook, which drains the 40 acre Harwinton Lake, Rock Brook, and Kelly P ond Brook. In total, the Leadmine Brook drainage basin covers 16.11 square mile s across Thomaston, Harwinton, Torrington, Plymouth and New Hartford. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-16 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. Thomaston has a population density of 659 individuals per square mile. By comparison, Waterbury has the highest population density in the region with 3,757 individuals per square mile; and Bethlehem has the lowest population density in the region with 185 individuals per square mile (Table 2-4). Table 2-4 Population Density by Municipality, Region and State, 2005 Municipality Total Population Land Area (square miles) Population Density Beacon Falls 5,700 9.77 583 Bethlehem 3,577 19.36 185 Cheshire 28,833 32.90 876 Middlebury 7,132 17.75 402 Naugatuck 31,872 16.39 1,945 Oxford 12,309 32.88 374 Prospect 9,264 14.32 647 Southbury 19,686 39.05 504 Thomaston 7,916 12.01 659 Waterbury 107,251 28.55 3,757 Watertown 22,329 29.15 766 Wolcott 16,269 20.43 796 Woodbury 9,757 36.46 268 CNV Region 281,895 309.02 912 Connecticut 3,495,753 4844.80 722 Source: United States Census Bureau, 2005 Population Estimates Thomaston is 133 rd out of 169 municipalities in Connecticut in terms of population, with an estimated population of 7,916 in 2006. The town is the 67 th most densely populated municipality in the state. The population of Thomaston increased by 7% between 1960 and 1970, while growth dropped to 1% from 1970-80 and rose again to 11% from 1980- 90. Based on analysis by the Council of G overnments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-17 population growth in the region outside of Waterbury is estimated to be about 10% from 2005 to 2025, while the state of Connecticut is expected to grow about 5% during this same timeframe. According the Connectic ut Economic Resource Center, the median sales price of owner-occupied housing in the Town of Thomaston in 2006 was $219,500, which is lower than the statewide median sales price of $275,000. Thomaston has populations of people who are elderly, linguistically isolated, and/or disabled. These are depicted by the seven census blocks in Thomaston on Figures 2-6, 2- 7, and 2-8. The populations with these charact eristics 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 Town of Thomaston is governed by a Se lectman-Town Meeting form of government in which legislative responsibilities are shared by the Board of Selectmen and the Town Meeting. The First Selectman se rves as the chief executive. In addition to Board of Selectmen and the Town Meeting, there are boards, commissions and committees providing input and direction to Town administrators. Also, Town departments provide municipal services and day-to-day administration. Many of these commissions and departments play a role in hazard mitigation, including the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Zoni ng Board of Appeals, the Fire Department, the Police Department, the Conservation Commission, th e Fire Commission, the Inlands Wetlands and Watercourse Commission, the Building Insp ector and the Public Works and Highway Department. 240 115 100 144 74 100 136 Figure 2-6: Thomaston Elderly Population 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 * Numbers on map represent total population aged 65 or older in each block group Legend Major Roads Percen ta ge o f Pe rs ons Age d 65 or olde r Bloc k Grou p Boun dary Town B oundar y 30.1 – 10 0% 20.1 – 30 .0% 10.1 – 20 .0% 0.0 – 10.0 % For gener al plannin g purpos es only. D elineatio ns may not be ex act. Source: “Roa ds”, c1984 – 2008 T ele Atlas, R el. 04/08. “T own Bound ary”, DEP “A ge”, “Bloc k Groups “, 2000 Cens us June 2008 7 0 0 12 9 0 0 Figure 2-7: Thomaston Linguistically Isolated Households 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 For gener al plannin g purpos es only. D elineatio ns may not be ex act. 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 June 2008 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. * Numbers on map represent total households that are linguistically isolated in each block group 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% 693 465 180 203 211 165 218 Figure 2-8: Thomaston Disabilities Map 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be ex act. Source: “Road s”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DEP “Disability”, “Block G roups”, 2000 Censu s June 2008 Disabilities are categorized as sensory, physical, mental, self-care, go-outside-home, and employment * Numbers on map represent total disabilities tallied for people aged 5 or older in each block group Major Roads Bloc k Grou p Bound ary Town B oundar y Legend Total Disabilities Tallied of People Aged 5 and Older > 600 0 – 200 201 – 400 401 – 600 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-21 The Highway Department is the principal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. Complaints related to Town maintenance issues are routed to the Highway Department. 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 Thomaston was first settled in the early 1700’s and was originally part of the parish of Northbury in Mattatuck along with the adjace nt Town of Plymouth. Thomaston became its own incorporated municipality in 1875. Thomaston, originally known as Plymouth Hollow, is named for Seth Thomas who bega n manufacturing clocks there in the early 1800’s. The waterpower provided by the Nauga tuck River played an important role in the development of the clock industry. In addition, Seth Thomas was instrumental in the routing of the rail line through Plymouth Hollow, creating an important connection with the brass industry in Waterbury. Manufacturing continued into to the 1900’s with the Seth Thomas Clock Company merging under the name General Time Instru ments Corporation in 1930. However, the firm’s success waned through the middle of the 20 th century and in 1979 the General Time Instruments Corporation was bought and the company headquarters were moved out of Thomaston. Residential Development Residential development has slowed in recent years as the available land is characterized by steep topography. Cul-de-sacs in new developments are discouraged and connectivity of roads is encouraged; however, Thomaston is very hilly which sometimes limits the creation of through streets. Cul-de-sacs are lim ited to roads of 1,000 feet or less in total length. Subdivisions featuring cul-de-sacs offer a single access point for emergency NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-22 services, potentially lengthening emergency response times and rendering those residential areas vulnerable if access is cut off by flooding or downed tree limbs. The minimum road width in new developm ents is 24 feet. Utilities are located underground in new developments whenever no t inhibited by shallow depth to bedrock. Hydrants, underground tanks, and fire ponds ar e recommended for new developments but these are not required by any municipal regulations. Recent development trends reflect a demand for age-restricted housing. There are two “Active Adult” 55-and-over developments pla nned for the Town. One is for 38 units off Humiston Circle, and the other is for 47 units off Strawberry Park. An elderly living facility consisting of rental homes is located on Reynolds Bridge Road, and two elderly rental facilities (Green Ma nor and Grove Manor) are located near the Town Center. Commercial and Industrial Development and Open Space An approval exists for a 12-lot Industrial Park off Reynolds Bridge Road. It has yet to be built, and the developer is applying for an extension of the approval. Certain business buildings in Town have redevelopment contr acts. One of these buildings is located on Watertown Road across from the end of the Exit 38 ramp from Route 8 southbound. Also, a major Brownfield site is likely to be redeveloped someday, but no plans for this site are currently in development. This prope rty is north of Route 6 at Route 8 (near Exit 39). Thomaston has 23% protected open space, prim arily due to the three ACOE dams in Town and the Wigwam reservoir lands owned by the City of Waterbury. Plans for the Naugatuck River Greenway are currently befo re the Planning and Zoning Commission to establish a multi-use trail along the Naugatuck River. Town personnel note that the general consensus in Town is that there is an abundance of open space and therefore developments should be allowed. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-23 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity The Town considers its police, fire, government al, and major transportation facilities to be its most important critical facilities, for these are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of Thomaston continues. Elderly housing facilities are included with cr itical facilities, as these house populati ons of individuals that would require special assi stance during an emergency. Educational institutions are included in critical facilities as well, as these can be used as shelters. In addition, Town personnel consider public and pr ivate 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. Shelters Emergency shelters are considered to be an im portant subset of critical facilities, as they are needed in most emergency situations. The Town of Thomaston has designated two emergency shelters, and additional facilities can be used if necessary. The Fire Department is currently the primary shelter, but historically has only been used when power outages have occurred. The Fire Department has an auxiliary generator and can house 50 people temporarily, but has limited bed space for overnight evacuees. Thomaston High School is currently a seconda ry shelter, but will become a primary shelter once funding is secured for a generato r. Both shelters are located on main roadways. The Police and Fire De partments staff the shelters. © 9 k8 9: v n n n a Figure 2-9: Thomaston Critical Facilities 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 V T K J Æ T d Y DOTDistrict 4 HQ 9: ¨ Public Works/Highway Dept Sewage Treatment Thomaston Valley Village CT Water Co.Wellfield Communications Building DOTGarage FireStation Town Hall/Police Station CL&P Thomaston High School/Black Rock Elementary ThomastonCenter School _ TelephoneSwitchingStation 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”, DEP “Facilitie s”, T hom aston June 2 008 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams DOT District 4 HQ Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary Telephone Switching Station CL&P Communications Bldg Elderly Housing Facility CT Water Co. Wellfield Sewage Treatment Plant Highway Dept/Public Works K J 9: ¨ V T Æ T k DOT Garage 89: v _ d Y Schools n Æ T Æ T Grove Manor GreenManor NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-25 Table 2-5 Critical Facilities in Thomaston Type Name Address Located in Floodplain? Elderly Rental Units Thomaston Valley Village 200 Reynolds Bridge Rd No Elderly Rental Units Green Manor 63 Green Manor No Elderly Rental Units Grove Manor 11 Grove Street No Town Hall Thomaston Municipal Building 158 Main St No Police Station Thomaston Police Department 158 Main St No Fire Department Thomaston Fire Department 245 South Main Street No Ambulance Thomaston Ambulance 237 South Main Street No Public Works Thomaston Highway Dept. 32 Reynolds Bridge Rd No Utility – Sewer Sewage Treatment Pl ant Old Waterbury Road 500-year Utility – Water Connecticut Water Company Maple Avenue 500-year Utility – Telephone Telephone Switching Station High Street No Utility – Electric Connecticut Light & Power Electric Avenue No School Center School 1 Thomas Avenue No School Thomaston High School 185 Branch Rd (Rt. 109) No School Black Rock Elementary 57 Branch Rd (Rt. 109) No Communications Communications Building Chapel Street No State DOT District 4 Headquarters South Main Street No State DOT Garage Prospect Street No Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley; Town of Thomaston These buildings have been designated as public shelter facilities by meeting specific American Red Cross guidelines. Amenities and operating costs of the designated shelters including expenses for food, cooking equipm ent, emergency power services, bedding, etc., are the responsibilities of the community and genera lly are not paid for by the American Red Cross. The Town’s other school buildings – Center Sc hool and Black Rock Elementary School – are not considered as shelters , but could be converted to additional shelter space in case of an emergency. Other municipal buildings, such as the Highway Department garage, are not considered to be shelters but can serve as important emergency supply distribution centers. 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 shel ter facilities. Many NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-26 communities only intend to use such facilities on a temporary basis for providing shelter until hazards such as hurricanes diminish. Regionally-located mass care facilities operated and paid for by the American Red Cross may be available during recovery operations when additional sheltering services are necessary. Transportation The Town of Thomaston does not have any hospitals or medical centers. Instead, residents use the nearby facili ties in Torrington, Bristol, or Waterbury. As a means of accessing these facilities, Thomaston has c onvenient access on Route 6 through Plymouth to Bristol or along Route 8 into Waterbur y and Torrington that function as major transportation arteries. Evacuation routes are regionally defined by the Regional Evacuation Plan. No local evacuation plan exists. Route 8, which runs north-south through the eastern part of Thomaston, provides access to Torrington to th e north and Waterbury towards the south. Route 6 runs from Watertown to the s outhwest of Thomaston through the Reynolds Bridge area and then east into Plymouth and Br istol. The center of Town is also the spur for three other routes out of the area: Route 222 runs generally north-northeast into Harwinton; Route 254 runs northwest into Litchfield; and Route 109 runs west into Morris. Although there are no in terstate highways within the town, I-84 can be accessed to the south of Thomaston, via Route 8. Communications The Police Chief is the primary day-to-day emergency manager in Thomaston. For long- term planning, the Town has a Local Emer gency Preparedness Commissioner who forms temporary committees when the Town needs to accomplish a specific task related to emergency planning. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-27 The Town has enhanced 9-1-1 for emergency notification and response. The Town uses the phone lines to enhance their radio communica tions. If phone service is cut off, Town personnel rely on low-band radios and the cellular tower in Town. The Town is looking to upgrade all emergency personnel to high-band radios, and an upgrade to the Town’s radio and communication f acility on Chapel Street, including a generator, is in the long- term plan. The Town has also recently contracted with Emergency Communications Network, Inc. to provide “CodeRED” high-speed telephone emergency notification services. The CodeRED system is capable of telephoning warnings into areas likely to be impacted by a disaster or into the entire Town at a rate of 60,000 calls per minute. It is important to note that effective Janua ry 1, 2008, the Town of Thomaston is now in the southeast portion of Region 5 of the Conn ecticut Emergency Medical Service regions. The Town dispatch center has a high band radio compatible with Region 5, which contains most of the COGCNV municipalities. 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 center of Town a nd the Reynolds Bridge area. The Fire Department uses alternative water supplies to fight fires in the less developed areas of Thomaston. This is discu ssed further in Section 9.0. Sewer service is an often overlooked critical facility. The Town Sewage Treatment Plant is located at the south end of Old Waterbury Road and serves most of the developed area of Thomaston. According to Town personnel, the plant is operating at near capacity and will likely be at capacity when the proposed developments are built in a few years. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 2-28 Other utilities important to the Town include the electric and telephone lines in Town. These lines have substations on Electric Avenue and High Street, respectively. Electricity is important fo r both day-to-day living and emergency usage, and the telephone is used to complement emergency communications in Town. Thus, these two substations are included in the list of critical facilities. Potential Impacts from Natural Hazards Most critical facili ties are not impacted by flooding in the Town of Thomaston. The electric substation on Electric Avenue and the Sewage Treatment Plant on Old Waterbury Road are both located in the mapped 100-year floodplain, but neither has any regular issues with flooding. Route 6 (Watertown Road), a major northeast-southwest thoroughfare has occasional flooding issues north of Route 109. Such flooding could potentially slow emergency response times due to detours around this area. No critical facilities are susceptible to wind, summer storms, winter storms, or earthquakes more than the rest of the Town. However, nearly all of the critical facilities in Town could be impacted by dam failure, and the Communications Building on Chapel Street is located in a wildfire risk area. The following sections will discuss each natural hazard in detail and include a de scription of populations at risk. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-1 3.0 INLAND FLOODING 3.1 Setting According to FEMA, most municipalities in th e United States have at least one clearly recognizable flood-prone area around a river, stream, or large body of water. These areas are outlined as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SF HA) and delineated as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Flood- prone areas are addressed through a combination of floodplain management criteri a, ordinances, and community assistance programs sponsored by the NFIP and individual municipalities. Many communities also have localized floodi ng areas outside the SFHA. These floods tend to be shallower and chronically reoccur in the same area due to a combination of factors. Such factors include ponding, poor drainage, inadequate storm sewers, clogged culverts or catch basins, sheet flow, obstr ucted drainageways, sewer backup, or overbank flooding from small streams. In general, inland flooding affects a small area of Thomaston with moderate to frequent regularity. The Naugatuck River drains th e entire Town, and the Naugatuck River, Northfield Brook, and Branch Brook all have flood control dams maintained by the ACOE. Thus, the areas impacted by overflow of river systems are generally limited to river corridors and floodplains. Indirect flooding that occurs in the floodpl ains adjacent to the rivers and localized nuisance flooding along tributarie s is a more common problem in the Town. This type of flooding occurs particularly along roadways as a result of inadequate drainage and other factors. The frequency of flooding in Thom aston is considered highly likely for any given year, but flooding damage only has a limited effect (refer to Appended Table 2). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 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 Thomaston are delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Studies (FIS). An initial Fl ood Hazard Boundary Map was identified on May 31, 1974. The FIRMs delineate areas within Th omaston that are vulnerable to flooding and were originally published on July 5, 1982. The FIS was originally published on January 5, 1982 and also has not been updated. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of Thomaston susceptible to flooding based on FE MA flood zones. Table 3-1 describes the various zones depicted on the FIRM panels for Thomaston. 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. D An area where there are possible but undete rmined flood hazards. No analysis of flood hazards has been conducted. X An area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. X500 An area inundated by 500-year flooding; an area inundated by 100-year flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or an area protected by levees from 100-year flooding. Figure 3-1: FEMA Flood Zones in Thomaston 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 For general pl anning purpose s only. Delineatio ns may not be ex act. Source: “Roads” , c1984 – 2008 Tel e Atlas , Rel. 04/08. “Town Bou ndary”, “Hydrograp hy”, “Flood Zones”, DEP June 2008 X500 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Water Waterbodies Flood Zone A AE D NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-5 In some areas of Thomaston, 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 redu ce the magnitude of peak flood flows, as occurs on the Naugatuck River, Northfie ld Brook, and Branch Brook in Thomaston. The recurrence interval level of a precipita tion event also generally differs from the recurrence interval level of the associated flood. Another example would be of 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 Beacon Falls. Flood events can also be mitigated or exacerbated by in-channel and soil conditions, such as low or high flows, the pres ence of frozen ground, or a deep or shallow water table, as can be seen in the following historic record. 3.3 Historic Record In every season of the year throughout its r ecorded history, the Town of Thomaston has experienced various degrees of flooding. Melt ing snow combined with early spring rains have caused frequent spring flooding. Numerous flood events have occurred in late summer to early autumn resulting from storms of tropical origin moving northeast along NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-6 the Atlantic coast. Winter floods result from 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. According to the FEMA FIS, major historic floods have occurred in Thomaston in March 1936, September 1938, December 1948, and August and October 1955. In terms of damage to the Town of Thomaston, the most se vere of these was damage associated with the August 1955 hurricane and flood which had a recurrence interval of 300 years. The October 1955 flood had a recurrence interv al of 100 years, and the 1936, 1938, and 1948 floods had recurrence intervals of 50, 50, and 20 years, respectively. All of these floods were the result of high intensity rainfall falling on saturated or frozen ground. The flood of record at the USGS gauge on the Naugatuck River in Thomaston was recorded during Hurricane Diane on August 19, 1955, when the instantaneous discharge reached an estimated 41,600 cubic feet per second (cfs). This value is thirteen times higher than the mean annual flood discharge of 3,200 cfs at the station and was the result of 11 to 12 inches of rainfall in 48 hours on saturated ground. The peak discharge on Branch Brook during this flood was 10,300 cfs, an amount greater than the 100-year flood discharge. The August 1955 flood resulted in the loss of 36 lives and caused over $193 million in physical damages in areas downstream of the Thomaston Dam. According to the NCDC Storm Events Databa se, there have been 58 flooding events and 17 flash flood events in Litchfield County si nce 1993. The following are descriptions of more recent examples of floods in and around th e Town of Thomaston as described in the NCDC Storm Events Database, and based on co rrespondence with municipal officials. ‰ July 28, 1994: A heavy rain storm began in the early morning hours and continued into the afternoon, producing thr ee to five inches of rain in the Route 84 corridor. The storm caused localized street fl ooding in Thomaston and Washington. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-7 ‰ August 21, 1994: A flash flood caused approxima tely $5 million in property damage in Litchfield County. ‰ January 19, 1996: An intense area of low pressure over the Mid-Atlantic region produced unseasonably warm temperatures, resulting in the rapid melting of one to three feet of snow. This snowmelt combined with one to three inches of rainfall to result in flooding across Litchfield County particularly along small streams. This flooding caused approximately $300,000 in property damage. ‰ July 13, 1996: The remnants of Hurricane Bertha tracked northeast over Connecticut, producing three to five inches of rain across Litchfield County. The storm resulted in minimal property damage, but caused flooding in several roads and streams, and the strong winds accompanying the storm caused scattered power outages when water- laden tree branches were downed on wires. ‰ September 16, 1999: Torrential record rain fall preceding the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd caused widespread urban, sma ll stream, and river flooding. Fairfield County was declared a disaster area, along w ith Litchfield and Hartford Counties. Initial cost estimates for damages to the public sector was $1.5 million for those three counties. These estimates do not account fo r damages to the private sector and are based on information provided by the Connecticut Office of Emergency Management. Serious wide-spread flooding of low-lying and poor drainage areas resulted in the closure of many roads and basement flooding across Fairfield, New Haven, and Middlesex Counties. ‰ December 17, 2000: Unseasonably warm and moist air tracked northward from the Gulf of Mexico, bringing a record-breaking rainstorm to Litchfield County. The storm produced two to four inches of rai n, strong winds, and combined with melting snow to produce flooding conditions. The bulk of the rainfall occurred in a short NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-8 interval of time, with some localities receiving an inch per hour. In Torrington, the Naugatuck River washed construction equipm ent downstream, and widespread street flooding was reported in Litchfield. ‰ June 17, 2001: The remnants of Tropical Storm Allison combined with a slow- moving cold front to produce torrential rain fall over much of Litchfield County. Two to six inches of rain fell in a short time in the central and southeastern portions of the county, causing a total of $55,000 in property da mage. Roads were washed out in the Town of Bethlehem, and numerous sma ll streams overflowed and roads flooded in Woodbury. ‰ 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 Thomaston. ‰ April 22-23, 2006: A sustained heavy rainfa ll caused streams to overtop their banks and drainage systems to fail throughout New Haven County. The heavy rainfall caused a surge of water to leave Plymouth Re servoir, resulting in the unnamed stream under Altair Avenue in Thomaston to overtop the road and cause considerable damage to the road structure. ‰ June 2, 2006: Up to eight inches of heavy rainfall caused widespread da mage in Waterbury, Wolcott, and Prospect. The st orm caused slumps and drainage failures throughout Waterbury and several streets were flooded 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 widesp read flooding. The heavy rainfall caused a surge of water to leave Plymouth Reservoir, resu lting in the unnamed stream under Altair NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-9 Avenue to overtop the road by six inches causing additional damage to the road structure. 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Town of Thomaston has in place a numbe r of measures to prevent flood damage. These include regulations, codes, and or dinances preventing encroachment and development near floodways. Regulations, c odes, and ordinances that apply to flood hazard mitigation in conjunction with and in addition to NFIP regulations include: ‰ Lot, Area, Shape and Frontage (Section 5.2 of Thomaston Zoning Regulations). This section notes that “wetlands, watercour ses, or their setback area containing any significant predevelopment slopes in excess of 25% shall not be present within the buildable square.” ‰ Flood Plain District (Section 7 of Thomaston Zoning Regulations). This section defines the boundaries of the flood plain district and states that no building or structure within the boundaries of this district may be constructed, moved, or substantially improved without a Flood Hazard Area Permit in accordance with the “Floodplain Management Ordinance, To wn of Thomaston, Connecticut.” ‰ Floodplain Management Ordinance (Part III, Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Thomaston, Connecticut). This ordina nce establishes the floodplain management regulations in the Town of Thomaston, and includes definitions, general development requirements including anchoring, construc tion materials and methods that minimize flood damage, placement of utilities and bu ildings, and floodproofing. The ordinance also regulates floodways, placement of manufactured homes, alterations to watercourses, changes to existing structures , elevation of buildings, and regulations for streams without established ba se flood elevations or floodways. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-10 ‰ Unsuitable Building Lots (Section 9.4 of Thomaston Subdi vision Regulations). This section notes that a building lot may not be suitable for construction purposes due to adverse or sensitive environmental cond itions, such as flooding, seasonal runoff, excessive slope, exposed ledge or be drock, soil conditions, or wetlands. ‰ Terrain (Section 9.5 of Thomaston Subdivision Regul ations). This section notes that “unless the lot has been specifically approved by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission, each lot shall be able to accommodate primary buildings, driveway access and parking spaces without disturbing wetlands and watercourses.” ‰ Channel Encroachment and Building Lines (Section 11.31 of Thomaston Subdivision Regulations). This section states that channel encroachment/building lines based on sound engineering judgment shall be provided on the site plans for all subdivisions to prevent encroachment upon the natural water channel. The Commission may also require the placement of such lines around natural features, wetlands, and other watercourse areas. ‰ Design Standards for Minimizing Flood Damage (Section 12 of Thomaston Subdivision Regulations). This section notes that “subdivisions shall be designed to control and mitigate potential flood damage…and have drainage facilities and other systems in place to reduce exposure to flood h azards.” Proposals exceeding 50 lots of five acres in size are required to provide base flood elevations. ‰ Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations . This document defines in detail the Town of Thomaston’s regulations regarding development near wetlands, watercourses, and water bodies that are so metimes coincident with the Flood Plain District. Section 2 define s “Significant Activities” cove red by the Regulations. Section 6 states that no person may conduct or maintain a regulated activity without obtaining a permit. Section 6.1 states that the Commission must consider the environmental impact of the proposed action, including the effects on the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-11 watercourse’s natural capacity to prevent flooding, to supply water, to control sediment, and to facilitate drainage; any alternatives; and any measures that would mitigate the impact of the proposed activ ity, such as technical improvements or safeguards to reduce the environmental impact as described above. Section 7 outlines the application requirements 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 Town of Thomaston by the establis hment of standards designed to: ‰ 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 Thomaston for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Since 1955, extensive flood contro l modifications have been made to the Naugatuck River basin, including the cons truction of five flood control dams by the ACOE. Three of these dams are located in the Town of Th omaston: Thomaston Dam, Northfield Dam, and Black Rock Dam. These dams are furthe r described in Section 8.3. Two others are located upstream in Torrington. Together, thes e five dams can store all runoff up to a 100-year storm and provide a controlled rel ease to the channel downstream. According to the FEMA FIS, these flood control reservoirs will decrease the stage of a flood with the same magnitude as that of August 1955 fr om an elevation of 342.0 feet to 323.4 feet NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-12 at the confluence of Branch Brook and the Naugatuck River. In addition, Wigwam Reservoir, located upstream from Black Rock Dam, provides some storage to delay the timing of peak discharge to the Naugatuck River. The Town of Thomaston Land Use Officer serves as the NFIP administrator and oversees the enforcement NFIP regulations. The Town has not completed an update of its flood hazard regulations, and currently has no plans to enroll in the Community Rating System program. The Town of Thomaston uses the 100-year flood lines from the FIRM and FIS delineated by FEMA as the official maps a nd report for determining special flood hazard areas. Ordinances require that all structures in flood hazard areas have their lowest floor be above established base flood elevations. Si te plan standards require that all proposals be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage, that public facilities and utilities be located and constructed to minimize flood damage, and that adequate drainage is provided. The Thomaston Inland Wetlands a nd Watercourses Commission also reviews new developments and existing land uses on and near wetlands and watercourses. The Thomaston Highway Department is in ch arge of the maintenance of the Town’s drainage systems, and performs clearing of br idges and culverts and other maintenance as needed. Drainage complaints are routed to the Highway Department and Zoning and recorded. The Town uses these documents to identify potential problems and plan for maintenance and upgrades. The Town 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 Town of Thomaston has a current Stormwater Management Plan from 2006. There are 919 catch basins in the Town, and they are inspected on an annual basis. Cleaning of all catch basins occurs at least biannuall y, with Litchfield Street, Twin Pond Road, Reynolds Bridge Road, and Hotchkiss Avenue cleaned multiple times per year due to their vicinity to watercourses. The Town al so has a street-sweeping program, with all NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-13 The Town of Thomaston 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. roadways and parking lots sw ept at least once per year. Old Waterbury Road, Jackson Stree t, West Hill Road, Treadwell Avenue, and River Street are swept multiple times per year to reduce loading to the Naugatuck River. 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 wh en parts of the area are either currently flooding, highly likely to flood, or when flooding is imminent. In summary, the Town of Thomaston primar ily 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 Planning and Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses 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 elev ations to determine flood areas. FEMA has commenced its “Map Mod” program to revise the FIRMs for each County in Connecticut, but it will be several years before this program begins for Litchfield County. This program will create a single FIRM for Litchfield County. Many municipalities with revised FIRMs from the Map Mod program are finding that more properties are in floodplains than originally believed. 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment This section discusses specific areas at risk to flooding with in the Town. Major land use classes and critical f acilities within these ar eas are identified. According to the FEMA NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-14 FIRMs, 574 acres of land in Thomaston are located within the 100-year flood boundary. In addition, indirect and nui sance flooding occurs near streams and rivers throughout Thomaston due to inadequate drainage and other factors. Based on correspondence with the State of Connecticut NFIP Coordinator, zero repetitive loss properties are located in the Town of Thomaston (Appendix B). The primary waterway in the Town is the Naugatuck River which flows north to sou th through the Town. The secondary waterway in Thomaston is Branch Brook, which forms much of Thomaston’s southwestern boundary. The remaining waterways in Thomaston are mostly small streams and brooks significant for water supply and conservation purposes, but are not recreationa l resources. Recall from Figure 3-1 that floodplains with elevations are delineated for the Naugatu ck River and Branch Brook, while several smaller brooks and stream s, including the major water bodies, have 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, there is little wide-scale flooding in Thomas ton. Specific areas susceptible to flooding were identified by Town personnel and observed by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. staff during field inspections as desc ribed in Section 1.5. Most flooding occurs due to large amounts of rainfall falling in conjunction w ith snowmelt and occurs due to undersized road culverts, as noted below. ‰ Bayberry Drive – Bayberry drive is the only m eans of egress into a 40-unit subdivision. An unnamed trib utary to Branch Brook crosses under the entranceway. The upstream side has an aluminum flared e nd section that is loose, allowing water to bypass the pipe under the road. Some evidence of spalling above the upstream embankment of the pipe was evid ent during 2008 field inspections. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-15 ‰ Black Rock Condominiums – There are beavers on Bran ch Brook that have built dams as recently as 2004 that almost fl ooded the condos. Town staff slowly took down the dams to prevent flooding of the units. ‰ Brownfield Sites – Some of these properties are located in the floodplain of the Naugatuck River. These properties may be eligible for funding that will convert them to permanent open space. ‰ Carter Road – The culvert carrying Nibbling Broo k under the road is undersized. An 18-inch metal culvert replaced a larger c oncrete culvert that failed. The road regularly overtops, and the dr iveway of the house downstream often floods. A nearby culvert also clogs regularl y, contributing to the roadway flooding. According to the Department of Public Works, this area may be eligible for funding through the Connecticut Department of Tr ansportation Bridge Program. ‰ Hickory Hill Road – This road is a Federal High way Administration (FHWA) road based on its status as a c onnector road between Route 254 and Route 109. As such, FEMA could not provide disaster funding when the road washed out in April 2007 because the funding would duplicate another federal program, and the FHWA denied funding because the road has too little traffic. The problem is that two streams cross the road at a low point known as “Peck Hollow”. Wetland areas are near the road level and the two culverts running undernea th the road are undersized. The major culvert at the west end of Peck Hollo w was washed out during the April 2007 nor’easter partially because of a poorly located side drain that eroded the endwall. Poor drainage along the roadside also contributes to flooding in this area. ‰ High Street Extension – A stream exits a culvert near Hi gh Street and runs parallel to road. The discharge is causing bank erosion on both sides of the stream, with the east bank only a few feet from the side of the road. The embankment is fairly steep to the streambed. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-16 ‰ Hillside Avenue and Gilbert Street – This area has no storm drainage systems and all nearby basements run their sump pumps to the street. ‰ Leigh Avenue – The end of the road is private and the residents experience drainage problems due to the nearby pond and wetlands. ‰ Park Street at Main Street – This intersection floo ded during the April 2006 nor’easter due to the cloggi ng of a culvert at a bend beneath a manhole access that had been previously paved over by the State Department of Transportation. The Town found the manhole and unclogged the pipe. ‰ Railroad Street at Altair Avenue – Bridge #140-001 is in disrepair, with the upstream wing walls deteriorated and the top of th e bridge structure cracking through the pavement. The unnamed tributary to the Naugatuck River flowing under the bridge receives outflow from Plymouth Reservoir to the east. The bridge overtopped by six inches during the April 2007 nor’easter. According to the bridge report prepared by Maguire Group, Inc. in April 2006, this cro ssing is overtopped by less than the 20- year flood event. This area is particular ly a problem regarding emergency response, because there is reportedly a three-mile de tour for emergency vehicles to access the other end of this road. Repairs began July 28, 2008 and are on schedule to be completed by the end of the year. ‰ Reynolds Bridge Road – Portions of this road do not have drainage systems, a situation could exacerbate flooding in the P ond View Active Adult community that is under construction. ‰ Watertown Road (Route 6) – Water backs up at an undersized culvert on the upstream side of Route 6. The drainage swale lead ing to the culvert is heavily vegetated. When this intersection floods, the water almost reaches nearby businesses. The water NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-17 flows over Route 6, but doesn’t generally impact the residences downstream along Stumpf Avenue. Critical Facilities and Emergency Services Critical facilities are not regularly impacted by flooding in the Town of Thomaston. The electric substation on Electric Avenue and the Sewage Treatment Plant on Old Waterbury Road are both located in the mapped 100-year floodplain, but neither has any regular issues with flooding. Route 6 (Watertown Road), a major northeast-southwest thoroughfare has occasional flooding issues north of Route 109. Such flooding could potentially slow emergency response times due to detours around this area. 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 recommendations discussed in the subsections below are reprinted in a bulleted list in Section 3.7. 3.6.1 Prevention Prevention of damage from flood losses ofte n takes the form of floodplain regulations and redevelopment policies. These are usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and/or code enfor cement offices through capital improvement programs and through zoning, subdivision, and wetland ordinances. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-18 It is important to promote coordination among the various departments that are responsible for different aspects of flood 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 regulat e development in flood hazard areas. Flood hazard areas should reflect a bala nce of development and natural areas. In addition, Aquifer Protection Areas (APA) are often located near floodplains and can indirectly provide a level of protection ag ainst the development of certain commercial and industrial properties. The Connecticut Water Company operates a public water supply wellfield along Branch Brook that lies within the delineated floodpl ain. The wellfield has a preliminary APA that extends into non-floodpl ain areas of Thomaston. After formal APA mapping has been developed by The Connecticut Water Company, the Town of Thomason will be required to develop APA regulations to contro l land use and development in the affected part of Town. The Thomaston Planning a nd Zoning Commission has been designated the official Aquifer Protection Agency and will be developing the APA Regulations. Floodplain Development Regulations : Development regulations encompass subdivision regulations, building codes, a nd floodplain ordinances. Site plan and new subdivision regulations should include the following: ‰ Requirements that every lot have a bu ildable area above the flood level; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-19 ‰ Construction and location standards for th e infrastructure built by the developer, including roads, sidewalks, utility lines , storm sewers, and drainage ways; and ‰ A requirement that developers dedicate open space and flood flow, drainage, and maintenance easements. Building codes should ensure that the foundatio n of structures will withstand flood forces and that all portions of the bu ilding subject to damage are above or otherwise protected from flooding. Floodplain ordinances should at minimum follow the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program for 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 Town should consider joining FEMA’s Co mmunity Rating System to reduce the cost of flood insurance for its residents, and shoul d consider using Town topographic maps to develop a more accurate regulatory flood-h azard map using the published FEMA flood elevations. According to the FEMA, commun ities are encouraged to use different, more accurate base maps to expand upon the FIRMs published by FEMA. This is because many FIRMs were originally created using Un ited States Geological Survey quadrangle maps with 10-foot contour intervals, but most municipalities today have contour maps of one or two-foot intervals that show more recently constructed roads, bridges, and other anthropologic features. Another approach is to record high-water marks and establish those areas inundated by a recent severe flood to be the new regulatory floodplain. Adoption of a different floodplain map is allo wed under NFIP regulations as long as the new map covers a larger floodplain than th e FIRM. 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 regulate floodplain areas. The FEMA Region I office has more information on this topic; contact information can be found in Section 11. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-20 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) has been submitted under the LOMC program for the Town of Th omaston, so such updates are considered rare for the Town. 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, Thomaston 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 stormwater at specific sites in regards to the position of each project site in the surrounding watershed. Drainage System Maintenance : An effective drainage system must be continually maintained to ensure efficiency and functiona lity. Maintenance, as laid out in the 2006 Stormwater Management Plan, should include programs to clean out blockages caused by NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-21 overgrowth and debris. Culverts should be monitored, and repaired and improved when necessary. The use of Geographic Informati on System (GIS) technology can greatly aid the identification 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 Town of Thomaston Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission (IWC) administers the wetland regulations and the Thomaston Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) administers the Zoning and Subdivision regulations. The regulations simultaneously restrict development in floodplains, wetlands, and other flood prone areas. The Land Use Officer and the Wetla nd Enforcement Officer are charged with ensuring that development follows the fl oodplain management regulations and inland wetlands regulations. Based on the above guidelines and the existing roles of the IWC, the PZC, and the Zoning Enforcement Officer, one final preventive mitigation measure is recommended. A checklist should be developed that cross-references the by laws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed project. This will streamline the permitting process and en sure maximum education of a developer or applicant. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Town department. A sample checklist for the Town of Thomaston is included as Appended Table 3. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-22 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. 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 barrier s, 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 Sec tion 3.6.6 below. For dry floodproofing, walls may be coated with compound or plastic sheathi ng. Openings such as windows and vents should be either permanently closed or cove red with removable shields. Flood protection should only be two to three feet above the top of the foundation because building walls and floors cannot withstand the pr essure of deeper water. Wet floodproofing should only be used as a la st resort. Furniture and electrical appliances should be moved away from advancing floodwaters. All of the above property protection mitigation measures may be useful for Town of Thomaston residents to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. The Building Inspector should consider ou treach and education in these areas. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-23 3.6.3 Emergency Services A natural hazard pre-disaster mitigation plan addresses actions that can be taken before a disaster event. In this context, emergency services that would be appropriate mitigation measures for inland flooding include: ‰ Forecasting systems to provide information on the time of occurrence and magnitude of flooding; ‰ A system to issue flood warnings to the co mmunity and responsible officials; and ‰ 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. ‰ 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. These mitigation measures are already in pr actice in the Town of Thomaston. Based on the above guidelines, a number of specific proposals for improved emergency services area 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. 3.6.4 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-24 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. 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 planni ng, these objectives can be achieved at substantially reduced overall costs. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-25 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 and/or more recent planning studies and documents. ‰ Continue to regulate development in prot ected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. ‰ Pursue plans to redevelop Brownfield sites, or to remediate them and convert them to open space. 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. Based on the above guidelines, the following specific structural mitigation measures are recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding: ‰ Repair the Bayberry Drive culvert or re place with a properly sized box culvert. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-26 ‰ Replace the undersized culvert on Carter Road with a properly sized culvert, and tie in nearby storm sewers. ‰ Install drainage systems on Hillside Avenue and Gilbert Street. ‰ Finish repair of Altair Avenue bridge and culvert. ‰ Install riprap along stream banks for unnamed stream parallel to High Street Extension to protect the roadway and the private property above. ‰ Pursue funding to install drainage systems on Reynolds Bridge Road. ‰ Investigate alternatives to facilitate the proper completion of the Valley View drainage system such that it functions as approved. ‰ Coordinate with the State Department of Transportation regarding maintenance of debris and vegetation in the swale upstr eam of the culvert that drains under Watertown Road (Route 6) towards Stumpf Avenue. Encourage the State DOT to enlarge the culvert under the road. 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives While many potential mitigation activiti es were addressed in Section 3.6, the recommended mitigation strategies for addressing inland flooding problems in the Town of Thomaston are listed below. Prevention ‰ Streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cro ss-references the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention th at may be applicable to the proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Town department. A sample checklist for the Town of Thom aston is included as Appended Table 3. ‰ Consider performing a Town-wide inventory of drainage pipes as part of the next Stormwater Management Plan update to he lp identify undersized and failing portions of the drainage system. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-27 ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System. ‰ Continue to require Flood Hazard Area Permits 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. ‰ Assist with the Map Mod program to en sure an appropriate update to the Flood Insurance Study, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. ‰ 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. ‰ Adopt an aquifer protection area overlay zone to regulate development after Connecticut Water Company has complete d their final mapping of the Aquifer Protection Area for their wellfield along Branch Brook. Ensure that the aquifer protection area regulations are consistent with principles for regulating floodplains where the area intersects floodplains. 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. ‰ Pursue plans to redevelop Brownfield sites, or to remediate them and convert them to open space. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-28 Structural Projects ‰ Repair the Bayberry Drive culvert or re place with a properly sized box culvert. ‰ Replace the undersized culvert on Carter Road with a properly sized culvert, and tie in nearby storm sewers. ‰ Install drainage systems on Hillside Avenue and Gilbert Street. ‰ Finish repair of Altair Avenue bridge and culvert. ‰ Install riprap along stream banks for unnamed stream parallel to High Street Extension to protect the roadway and the private property above. ‰ Pursue funding to install drainage systems on Reynolds Bridge Road. ‰ Investigate alternatives to facilitate the proper completion of the Valley View drainage system such that it is as designed and approved. ‰ Coordinate with the State Department of Transportation regarding maintenance of debris and vegetation in the swale upstr eam of the culvert that drains under Watertown Road (Route 6) towards Stumpf Avenue. Encourage the State DOT to enlarge the culvert under the road. In addition, mitigation strategies important to all hazards are included in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-1 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 Thomaston are susceptible to flooding damage caused by hurricanes, wind damage can occur anywhere in the Town. Hurricanes therefore have the potential to aff ect any area within the Town of Thomaston. A hurricane striking Thomaston is considered a possible event each year that could cause critical damage to the Town and its in frastructure (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 th at develop over tropical or subtropical water and have definite organized circulations. Tropical cyclones are categorized based on the speed of the sustaine d (1-minute average) surface wind near the center of the storm. These categories are: Tropical Depression (winds less than 39 mph), Tropical Storm (winds 39-74 mph, inclusive) and Hurricanes (winds at least 74 mph). The geographic areas affected by tropical cy clones are called tropical cyclone basins. The Atlantic tropical cyclone ba sin is one of six in the world and includes much of the North Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and th e Gulf of Mexico. The official Atlantic hurricane season begins on June 1 and ex tends through November 30 of each year, although occasionally hurricanes 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-2 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. 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 sustained surface winds (1-minute average) near the center of the system to clas sify hurricanes into one of five categories. The Saffir / Simpson scale is provided below. ‰ Category 1: Winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119- 153 km/hr). Storm surge generally 4-5 ft above normal. No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and tree s. Some damage to poorly constructed signs, coastal road flooding, and minor pier damage. Ö Hurricane Diane was a Category 1 hurrica ne when it made landfall in North Carolina in 1955, and weakened to a tropical storm before reaching the Connecticut shoreline. Ö Hurricane Agnes of 1971 was a Category 1 hurricane when it hit Connecticut. Ö Hurricanes Allison of 1995 and Danny of 1997 were Category 1 hurricanes at peak intensity. ‰ Category 2: Winds 96-110 mph (83-95 kt or 154-177 km/hr). Storm surge generally 6-8 feet above normal. Some roofing material, door, and window damage of buildings. Considerable damage to shrubbe ry and trees with some trees blown down. Considerable damage to mobile homes, poorly constructed signs, and piers. Coastal NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-3 and low-lying escape routes flood two to four 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-4 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-5 ‰ 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. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-6 The Saffir / Simpson Hurricane Scale assumes an average, uniform coastline for the continental United States and was intended as a general guide for use by public safety officials during hurricane emergencies. It does not reflect the effects of varying localized bathymetry, coastline configuration, astronomical tides, barriers or other factors that may modify storm surge heights at the local leve l during a single hurricane event. For inland communities such as the Town of Thomaston, the coastline assumption is not applicable. According to Connecticut’s 2007 Natural H azard Mitigation Plan Update, a moderate Category 2 hurricane is expect ed to strike Connecticut once every ten years, whereas a Category 3 or Category 4 hurricane is expect ed before the year 2040. These frequencies are based partly on the historic reco rd, described in the next section. 4.3 Historic Record Through research efforts by NOAA’s National Climate Center in cooperation with the National Hurricane Center, records of tropica l cyclone occurrences within the Atlantic Cyclone Basin have been compiled from 1851 to present. These re cords are compiled in NOAA’s Hurricane database (HURDAT), which contains historical data in the process of being reanalyzed to current sc ientific standards, as well as the most current hurricane data. During HURDAT’s period of record, 29 hurricanes and 67 tropical storms have passed within a 150-mile radius of Newport, Rhode Island. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-7 hurricane. Dubbed the “Long Island Express 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. Another Category 3 hurricane, Hurricane Caro l, struck in August of 1954 shortly after high tide and produced storm surges of 10 to 15 feet in southeastern Connecticut. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-8 storm when it hit Connecticut in August of 1955, producing hea vy rainfall of four to six inches across the state. The saturated soil conditions exacerba ted the flooding caused by Diane five days later, a Category 1 hurricane and the wett est tropical cyclone on record for the Northeast. Diane produced 14 inch es of rain in a 30-hour period, causing destructive flooding conditions along nearly every major river system in the state. The Mad and Still Rivers in Winsted, the Na ugatuck, 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. As a result of the 1955 flooding, the ACOE installed flood control dams in the Na ugatuck 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 rain in some areas and heavy winds which da maged 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-9 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 structures 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 a ddition of split zones for some towns. For example, for towns along the Merritt Park way such as Fairfield and Trumbull, wind speed criteria are different north and south of the Parkway in relation to the distance from the shoreline. Effective December 31, 2005, the design wind speed for Thomaston is 95 miles per hour. Thomaston has adopted the Connecticut Building Code as its building code. Parts or all of tall and older trees may fall during heavy wind events, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and ve hicles. The Town performs annual tree maintenance, both near roadways and for pr operty owners who request it. The Town does not cable trees to keep them standing; they cut any that are dead or are in danger of falling. According to Town personnel, many dangerous trees have been removed. CL&P also performs tree maintenance, but landowne rs are primarily responsible for conducting tree maintenance on private property. The To wn 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 must be locat ed underground whenever possible in order to mitigate storm-related damages. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-10 During emergencies, the Town of Thomaston has space designated to use as shelter for evacuees (Section 2.9). Thomaston Fire Depart ment is currently the primary shelter with a generator, while the secondary shelter (Thomaston High School) features a cafeteria with substantial food supply avai lable. Other schools in Town can be made available that for additional shelter space if the need arose. 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. The Town relies on radio and television to spread information on the location and availability of shelters. During a disaster , the Town will notify residents of emergency information on a neighborhood basis using its CodeRED emergency notification service, but this feature is still relatively new in Thomaston. Prior to severe storm events, the Town ensures that warning/notification systems and communication equipment is working properly, and prepares for the possible evacuation of impacted areas. 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment It is generally believed that New England is long overdue for another major hurricane strike. Recall that according to the 2007 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, a moderate Category 2 storm is expected to strike the state once per decade. The Town of Thomaston is less vulnerable to hurricane damage than coastal towns in Connecticut because it does not need to deal with the effects of storm surge. The Town of Thomaston is vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding, and from any tornadoes accompanying the storm. Areas of known and potential flooding problems are discussed in Section 3, 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-11 residents. Streets may be flooded or blocked by fallen branches, poles, or trees, preventing egress. Downed power lines from heavy winds can also start fires, so adequate fire protection is important. As the residents and businesses of the State of Connecticut become more dependent on the internet and mobile communications, the impact of 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 Town of Thomaston is not affected by storm surge, hurricane sheltering needs have not been calculated by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Town. The Town of Thomaston determines sheltering need base d upon areas damaged within the Town. Under limited emergency conditions, a high percen tage of evacuees will seek shelter with friends or relatives rather than go to es tablished shelters. During extended power outages, it is believed that only 10% to 20% of the affected population of Thomaston will relocate. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-12 4.6.1 Prevention Although hurricanes and tropical storms cannot be prevented, a number of methods are available to continue preventing damage from the storms, and perhaps to mitigate damage. The following actions have been id entified as potential preventive measures: ‰ Continue Town-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines in diminished. ‰ Continue location of utiliti es underground in new developments or as related to redevelopment. ‰ Continue to review the currently enacted Emergency Operations Plan for the Town 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 to developers during the permitti ng 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-13 4.6.4 Emergency Services The Emergency Operation Plan of the Town of Thomaston includes guidelines and specifications for communication of hurricane wa rnings and watches, as well as for a call for evacuation. The public needs to be made aware in advance of a hurricane event of evacuation routes and the locations of public shelters, which could be accomplished by placing this information on the Town website and by creating informational displays in local municipal buildings. In addition, Thomaston should identify and prepare additional facilities for evacuation and sheltering needs. The Town should also review its mutual aid agreements and update as necessary 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 Town of Thomaston are listed below. ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspect ions, especially along Route 6, Route 109, Route 254, and other evacuation routes. In crease inspections of trees on private property near power lines and Town right-of-ways. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas, and ‰ Review potential evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Thomaston, and pos t evacuation and shelter information on the Town website and in municipal buildings. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 4-14 ‰ Provide for the Building Department to have literature available regarding appropriate design standards for wind. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-1 5.0 SUMMER STORMS & TORNADOES 5.1 Setting Like hurricanes and winter st orms, summer storms and tornad oes have the potential to affect any area within the To wn of Thomaston. Furthermore, because these types of storms and the hazards that result (flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) might have limited geographic extent, it is possible for a su mmer storm to harm one area within the Town without harming another. The entire Town of Thomaston is therefore susceptible to summer storms (including heavy rain, flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) and tornadoes. Based on the historic record, it is consider ed highly likely that a summer storm that includes lightning will impact the Town of Thomaston 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 Litchfield County each year that coul d 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-2 Tornadoes Tornadoes are spawned by certain thunders torms. 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-3 Table 5-1 (Continued) Fujita Scale F-Scale Number Intensity Wind Speed Type of Damage Done F3 Severe tornado 158-206 mph Roof and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted F4 Devastating tornado 207-260 mph Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated F5 Incredible tornado 261-318 mph Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel re- enforced concrete structures badly damaged. F6 Inconceivable tornado 319-379 mph These winds are very unlikely. The small area of damage they might produce would probably not be recognizable along with the mess produced by F4 and F5 winds that would surround the F6 winds. Missiles, such as cars and refrigerators, would do serious secondary damage that could not be directly identified as F6 damage. If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might only be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it may never be identifiable through engineering studies. According to NOAA, weak tornadoes (F0 a nd F1) account for approximately 69% of all tornadoes. Strong tornadoes (F2 and F3) account for approximately 29% of all tornadoes. Violent tornadoe s (F4 and above) are rare but extremely destructive, and account for only 2% of all tornadoes. The Enhanced Fujita Scale was released by NOAA for implementation on February 1, 2007. According to the NOAA web site, the En hanced Fujita Scale was developed in response to a number of weaknesse s to the Fujita Scale that were apparent over the years, including the subjectivity of the original scale based on damage, the use of the worst damage to classify the tornado, the fact th at structures have different construction depending on location within the United States, and an overestimation of wind speeds for F3 and greater. The Enhanced F-scale is still a set of wind estimates based on damage. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-4 Its uses three-second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of eight levels of damage to 28 specific indicators. Table 5-2 relates the Fujita and enhanced Fujita scales. Table 5-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale Fujita Scale Derived EF Scale Operational EF Scale F Number Fastest 1/4- mile (mph) 3 Second Gust (mph) EF 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 tornadoe s is discussed in Section 5.3. The pattern of occurrence in Connecticut is expected to remain uncha nged according to the Connecticut Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2007). The highest relative risk fo r tornadoes in the state 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 Litchfield County, the Town of Thomaston is therefore at a relatively higher risk of tornadoes compared to the rest of the state. Lightning Lightning is a circuit of electricity that o ccurs between the positive and negative charges within the atmosphere or between the atmosphe re and the ground. In the initial stages of development, air acts as an insulator be tween the positive and negative charges. However, when the potential between the positive and negative charges becomes too great, a discharge of electr icity (lightning) occurs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 Hamonassett 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 is 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 Thomaston area is very high during any given thunderstorm, although no one area of the Town is at higher risk of lightning strikes. Downbursts A downburst is a severe localized wind blas ting down from a thunderstorm. They are more common than tornadoes in Connecticut. These “straight line” winds are NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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. It is difficult to find statistic al data regarding frequency of downburst activity. However, downburst activity is, on occasion, mistaken for tornado activity in Connecticut, indicating that it is a rela tively uncommon yet persistent hazard. The risk to the Town of Thomaston 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 Thomaston is moderate in any given year. 5.3 Historic Record The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) lis ts 22 tornado events in Litchfield County since 1950. This includes nine F2 rated torn adoes, 11 F1 rated tornadoes, and two F0 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-7 rated tornadoes. Property damages from tornados in the County totaled approximately 51 million dollars. Table 5-3 lists the tornado events for Litchfield County. Table 5-3 Tornado Events in Litchfield County Since 1950 Date Fujita Tornado Scale Property Damage Wind Speed August 21, 1951 F2 $250,000 113 – 157 mph August 21, 1958 F1 $0 73 – 112 mph May 12, 1959 F2 $2,500 113 – 157 mph June 18, 1962 F2 $25,000 113 – 157 mph August 11, 1966 F2 $25,000 113 – 157 mph August 20, 1968 F1 $2,500 73 – 112 mph August 7, 1972 F1 $250,000 73 – 112 mph August 9, 1972 F1 $25,000 73 – 112 mph June 12, 1973 F2 $0 113 – 157 mph June 29, 1973 F1 $2,500 73 – 112 mph July 3, 1974 F1 $2,500 73 – 112 mph June 19, 1975 F1 $0 73 – 112 mph July 20, 1975 F1 $2,500 73 – 112 mph June 30, 1976 F2 $25,000 113 – 157 mph July 10, 1989 2:45 P.M. F2 $25,000,000 113 – 157 mph July 10, 1989 3:15 P.M. F2 $25,000,000 113 – 157 mph May 31, 1998 F1 $4,000 73 – 112 mph June 23, 2001 1:00 P.M. F1 $150,000 73 – 112 mph June 23, 2001 1:50 P.M. F2 $250,000 113 – 157 mph July 1, 2001 F0 $75,000 40 – 74 mph June 5, 2002 F1 $40,000 73 – 112 mph June 16, 2002 F0 $10,000 40 – 74 mph A limited selection of summer storm damage in and around Thomaston, taken from the NCDC Storm Events database, is listed below: ‰ July 10, 1989 – A particularly powerful thunderstorm produced 80 mile per hour winds and spawned two tornadoes that cut a path from Salisbury to New Haven. Two people were killed and 67 homes were dest royed. One of the fatalities occurred in Black Rock State Park in nearby Watert own. Damages from the storm totaled $125 million (1989 dollars), and a Presidential Disaster Declaration was issued. ‰ June 27, 1994 – Thunderstorm winds brought down trees and power lines in Litchfield, with a few hundred cust omers losing electric service. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-8 ‰ May 21, 1996 – Severe thunderstorms produced damage across parts of Litchfield County and caused approximately $5,000 in property damage. ‰ July 9, 1997 – Severe thunderstorms pr oduced flooding and damaging winds that downed trees throughout Litchfield C ounty, causing approximately $5,000 in damage. The wind downed trees and a power pole in Thomaston. ‰ October 1, 1998 – Gusty winds knocked down large limbs, trees, and power lines during the middle of the day throughout L itchfield County, resulting in as many as 7,800 electric customers being without power and bringing commerce to a halt. Approximately $100,000 in property damage was reported. ‰ July 6, 1999 – Powerful thunderstorms brought down trees in Litchfield and Bethlehem, causing $2,000 in damage. ‰ 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 Litchfield County, causing widespread downing of trees and power lines. Up to 5,000 were left without power, and a pproximately $100,000 in wind damage was reported. ‰ November 2, 1999 – A storm produced high wi nd across the higher elevations of Litchfield County, bringing down some trees and a few power lines. Scattered power outages and approximately $11,000 in damages were reported. ‰ May 31, 2002 – Severe weather in Litchfield County produced hail up to two inches in diameter in Thomaston, blew down trees, and caused 37,000 power outages and $10,000 in damages across the county. ‰ July 15, 2007 – Strong thunderstorm winds blew a large tree onto a house in Thomaston, causing structural damage. ‰ July 19, 2007 – Trees were reported down in Thomaston due to strong thunderstorm winds that gusted up to 50 miles per hour. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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. 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-10 Table 5-5 NOAA Weather Warnings Weather Condition Meaning Actions Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms are occurring or are imminent in your area. Notify personnel and watch for severe conditions or damage (i.e. downed power lines and trees. Take appropriate actions listed in town emergency plans. Tornado Tornadoes are occurring or are imminent in your area. Notify personnel, watch for severe weather and ensure personnel are protected. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans. Flash Flood Flash flooding is occurring or imminent in your area. Watch local rivers and streams. Be prepared to evacuate low- lying areas. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans. Aside from warnings, several other methods of mitigation for wind damage are employed in Thomaston. Continued location of util ities 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 Town of Thomaston, the local utilitie s are responsible for tree branch removal and maintenance above and near their lines. In addition, all new developments in Thomaston must place utilities underground wherever pos sible. The Highway Department also performs annual tree maintenance on munici pal right of ways, and also approaches residents on a case-by-case basis when tr ees and branches on their property look hazardous. The Highway Department will al so perform tree maintenance for private homeowners who request it. Municipal responsibilities relative to torn ado mitigation and preparedness include: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-11 ‰ 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. Thomaston 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 Thomaston are detected quickly and any associated fires are quickly extinguished. However, it is important to have adequate water supply for fire protection to ensure this level of safety is maintained. According to Town personnel, the most susceptible area of Town to wind damage is the 20-30 unit mobile home park locat ed near the Naugatuck River off Waterbury Road near Carter Road. Other areas of Town are more susceptible to damage from falling branches and trees than from actual wind damage. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-12 More information is available at: FEMA – http://www.fema.gov/library/ NOAA – http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/NWSTornado/ 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 emergency notification system in Thomaston is beneficial for warning re sidents of an impending torna do. The Police Department has a page on its website (http://www.thomast onpolice.com/) 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 fact was evidenced most recently by the severe storm that struck Lake County, Florida on February 2, 2007. This powerful storm that NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-13 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 ‰ Require compliance with the amended Conn ecticut Building Code for wind speeds. ‰ Provide for the Building Department to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards. 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives While many potential mitigation activiti es were addressed in Section 5.6, the recommended mitigation strategies for mitigating wind, hail, tornadoes, and downbursts in the Town of Thomaston are listed below. ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspect ions, especially in the downtown areas ‰ Continue outreach regarding dangerous trees on private property. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 5-14 ‰ 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. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 Town of Thomaston. However, un like summer storms, winter events and the hazards that result (wind, snow, and ice) ha ve more widespread geographic extent. The entire Town of Thomaston is susceptible 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 Town (refer Appended Tables 1 and 2). 6.2 Hazard Assessment This section focuses on those effects commonl y associated with winter storms, including those from blizzards, ice storms, heavy snow, freezing rain and extreme cold. Most deaths from winter storms ar e 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 large amount of precipitation. Severe winter storms can produce an array of hazardous NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 6-2 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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. The most damaging winter storms are not always nor’easters. A ccording 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 winter storm event that qualified as a bliz zard was Winter Storm Ginger in January of 1996. These events were recorded for va rious counties throughout the state. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 6-4 Catastrophic ice storms are less frequent in Connecticut than the rest of New England due to the close proximity of the warmer waters 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 Litchfield County, taken from the NCDC database, include: ‰ January 13, 1993 – Six inches of snowfall beginning during the morning rush hour created slippery roads and resulted in numerous accidents. ‰ February 12, 1993 – Five to seven inches of snow was reported in Litchfield County, followed by freezing rain and drizzle. This storm caused up to 10,000 power outages throughout the state. ‰ March 13 to 14, 1993 – A powerful storm caused blizzard conditions and up to 21 inches of snow in Litchfield Count y, with 40,000 power outages and $550,000 in property damage reported throughout Connecticut. ‰ December 26, 1993 – Heavy arctic winds broug ht 40 to 60 mph gusts to the State. ‰ February 11, 1994 – A major storm produced eight to 13 inches of snow across 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. ‰ December 19, 1995 – A winter storm produced six to eight inches of snow in Litchfield County. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 6-5 ‰ January 2, 1996 – A winter storm originating ne ar the Gulf of Mexico produced ten to 12 inches of snow across Litchfield County. ‰ January 7, 1996 – An intense winter stor m caused heavy snow throughout Litchfield County, causing many power outages, several roofs to collapse, and approximately $80,000 in damages. Reported snowfall totals included 24 inches in New Hartford and 22 inches in Harwinton. ‰ January 19, 1996 – An intense area of low pressure created damaging winds throughout Litchfield County, causing $10,000 in property damage. Many downed trees, limbs, and power lines were reported. ‰ March 7, 1996 – A large winter storm cau sed heavy snow throughout Litchfield County, including eight inches in Thomaston. ‰ February 22, 1997 – High winds downed tree s and wires across Litchfield County, resulting in approximately $6,000 in property damage. ‰ March 14, 1997 – A storm brought heavy snow, sleet, and freezing rain to Litchfield County, producing two to four inches of snow, treacherous driving conditions, and downed trees and power lines. ‰ March 31, 1997 – A late season storm produced rain and wet snow across Litchfield County, with 12 inches of snow reported in Litchfield. This storm caused over one million dollars in property damage to the County. ‰ January 25, 2000 – A winter storm produced snow, sleet, and freezing rain in Litchfield County with accumulations of six to ten inches. $25,000 in property damage was reported. ‰ April 9, 2000 – A late-season snowstorm produced snowfall rates of more than an inch per hour, with blizzard conditions re ported at times. Four to eight inches accumulated throughout Litchfield County, with $35,000 in property damage reported. ‰ December 25, 2002 – Six to 12 inches of snow fell throughout Litchfield County, with six inches reported at the Thomaston Dam. ‰ March 6, 2003 – A winter storm produced ni ne inches of snow at the Thomaston Dam. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 6-6 ‰ March 16, 2007 – A winter storm beginning during the Friday afternoon rush hour produced eight to 12 inches of snow throughout Litchfield County, including 7.5 inches in Thomaston. The storm caused treach erous travel conditions that resulted in many accidents. 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing programs applicable to inland floodi ng and wind are the same as those discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. Programs that are spec ific 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 fiscal resources towards snow management. The Town ensures that all warning/notification and communications systems are ready before a storm, and ensures that appropriate equipm ent and supplies, especially snow removal equipment, are in place and in good working order. The Town also prepares for the possible evacuation and sheltering of some populations which could be impacted by the upcoming storm (especially the elderly and special needs persons). The Town of Thomaston primarily uses Town staff for plowing operations. The Highway Department utilizes seven plow tr ucks to clear and treat all Town-owned roadways, properties, and sidewalks. Privat e contractors perform snow removal at the schools. The Connecticut Department of Transportation plows Routes 6, 8, 109, 222, and 254. Snow removal practices are posted on the Thomaston Police Department website at http://www.thomastonpolice.com. During emerge ncies, a plow vehicle can be dispatched ahead of an emergency vehicle. Town roads are sanded and/or plowed in the following order of importance: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 6-7 1) Emergency locations, including Fire, Ambulance, and accident locations; 2) School bus routes; 3) Through roads; and 4) Cul-de-sacs and other areas. As there is over 500 feet in elevation difference between th e high point and low point in Town, Thomaston can experience snow in the h ills while it rains in the downtown area. The Town uses Meteorlogix Weather Se rvice’s MxVision WeatherSentry Online ® Transportation Edition with Roadcast ® software, which provides radar, weather and pavement temperature forecasts, to prio ritize plowing and sanding operations. As additional mitigation, the Town website has a page dedicated to winter driving tips at http://www.thomastonct.org/Cont ent/Winter_Driving_Tips.asp. 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment As mentioned for summer storms, the heav ily treed landscape in close proximity to densely populated residential areas in the Town of Thomaston poses problems in relation to blizzard condition damage. Tree limbs and so me building structures may not be suited to withstand high wind and snow loads. Ice can damage or collapse power lines, render steep gradients impassable for motorists, undermine foundations, and cause “flood” damage from 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 6-8 death from exposure during a blizzard. After 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. A few areas in the Town of Thomaston have been identified by Town personnel as having problems with ice duri ng the winter months. Icing causes difficult driving conditions throughout the hillier sections of Thomaston, including Blakeman Road and the condominium access road at 143 Pine Hill Road. In some places, such at road cuts on Route 254 north of the center of Town, blocks of ice fall on the side of the roadway from the rocks above. Drifting snow is not as large a problem in Thomaston as other areas, but it still occurs. This problem is mitigated thr ough municipal plowing efforts. Ice jams are not a problem along the Naugatu ck River in Thomaston. Recall from Figure 2-7, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-9 that elderly, linguistically isolated, and disabled populations reside in the Town of Thomaston. It is possible that several hundred of the population impacted by a severe winter storm could consist of the elderly, a few could consist of linguistically isolat ed households, and several hundred could be disabled. Thus, it is important for Thomast on’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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 6-9 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 Thomaston should continue to be placed underground where possible. This can occur in connection with new deve lopment and also in connection with redevelopment work. Underg round utilities cannot be damaged by heavy snow, ice, and winter winds. 6.6.2 Property Protection Property can be protected duri ng winter storms through the use of shutters, storm doors, and storm windows. Where flat roofs are used on structures, snow removal is important as the heavy load from collecting snow may exceed the bearing capacity of the structure. Heating coils may be used to remove snow fr om 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 6-10 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 Town of Thomaston has established plowin g routes that prioritize access to and from critical facilities. Residents are made aware of the plow routes in order to plan how to best access critical facilities via posting of the general routes on the Town website. Such routes should also be posted other municipa l buildings, such as the library and the post office. It is recognized that plowing critical facilities ma y not be a priority to all residents, as people typically e xpect 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. Finally, mutual aid agr eements with surrounding municipalities should be reviewed and updated as necessary to en sure 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 6-11 addressed in Section 6.6, the recommended mitigation strategies for mitigating wind, snow, and ice in the Town of Thomaston 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 Thomaston. ‰ Post a list of Town sheltering facilities in the Town Hall and on the Town’s website so residents can best plan how to access to critical facilities during a winter storm event. Post the snow plowing prioritization in Town buildings each winter to increase public awareness, and continue to post the information on the Town’s police website. ‰ Provide educational materials to property ow ners regarding the use of shutters, storm windows, pipe insulators, and re moving snow from flat roofs. ‰ Provide educational materials with safety tips and reminders regarding cold weather. ‰ 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 7-1 7.0 EARTHQUAKES 7.1 Setting The entire Town of Thomaston is suscepti ble to earthquakes. However, even though earthquakes have the potential to occur anywhere both in the Town and in the northeastern United States, the effects may be felt differently in some areas based on the type of geology. In general, ear thquakes are considered a hazard that is possible to occur, but that may cause significant effects to a large area of the Town (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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 7-2 The magnitude of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of recorded waves. Being logarithmic, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured strength. Earthquakes with a magnitude of about 2.0 or less are usually called micro-earthquakes, and are generally only recorded locally. Earthquakes with magnitudes of 4.5 or greater are strong enough to be recorded by seismographs all over the world. The effect of an earthquake on the Earth’s surface is called the intensity. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale consists of a series of key responses such as people awakening, movement of furniture, damage to chimneys, and total destruction. This scale, composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals. It is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects. Unlike seismic activity in California, earthquak es in Connecticut are not associated with specific known faults. Instead, earthquakes with epicenters in Connecticut are referred to 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 a municipality, as adopted by the Building Officials and C ode Administrators (BOCA). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 7-5 These include the seismic coefficients for building design in the Town of Thomaston. The Town has adopted these codes for new construction and they are enforced by the Town Building Inspector. Due to the infrequent nature of damaging earthquakes, land use policies in the Town of Thomaston do not address earthquake hazards. The Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Thomaston (Section 11.16) restricts the angle of slopes beyond the sidewalk area to no more than one f oot of rise or fall for each three feet of horizontal distance. The Town reserves the right to impose more stringent regulations on a site to maintain the stab ility of the bank under the proposed conditions. 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 earthquake impacting the Town of Thomaston 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 7-6 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. 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. 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. According to the previous Connecticut Natu ral Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004), the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Ma nagement notes the chance that a damaging earthquake of magnitude 5.0 or greater will occu r within the state in any one year is 5%, and that the odds of an earthquake of ma gnitude 6.0 are about one in 300 each year. Therefore, the Town of Thomaston is unlik ely to experience a damaging earthquake in any given year. This belief is reinforced by the timeline and damages recorded in the historical 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 the potential for liquefac tion. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases, re ducing the ability of soil to support building foundations or bridges is redu ced. Increased shaking and liquefaction can cause greater damage to buildings and structures , and a greater loss of life. As explained in Section 2.3, several areas in the Town of Thomaston are underlain by sand and gravel. Figure 2-5 depicts surficial ma terials in the Town. Structures in these NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 7-7 areas are at increased risk from earthquakes due to amplification of seismic energy and/or collapse. The best mitigation for future de velopment in areas of sandy material may be application of the most stri ngent building codes, or po ssibly the prohibition of new construction. The areas that are not at increased risk during an earthquake due to unstable soils are the areas in Figur e 2-5 underlain by glacial till. Areas of steep slopes can collapse during an earthquake, creating landslides. Seismic activity can also break utility lines, such as water mains, electric and telephone lines, and stormwater management systems. Damage to u tility lines can lead to fires, especially in electric 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. 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives As earthquakes are difficult to predict and can affect the entire Town of Thomaston, potential mitigation can only include adherence to building code s, education of residents, and adequate planning. The following poten tial mitigation measures have been identified: ‰ Consider preventing new residential deve lopment in areas prone to collapse. ‰ Continue requiring proposed grading to be no more than a 33% slope beyond the sidewalk, and consider decreasing th is limit to a maximum slope of 30%. ‰ Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-1 8.0 DAM FAILURE 8.1 Setting Dam failures can be triggered suddenly, with little or no warning, from other natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes. Dam failures often occur during flooding when the dam breaks under the additional force of fl oodwaters. In addition, a dam failure can cause a chain reaction where the sudden re lease of floodwaters causes the next dam downstream to fail. With 10 registered dams and potentially several other minor dams in the Town, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in Thomaston. In addition, the Town maintains a dam in Litchfield. While flooding from a dam failure generally has a medium geographic extent, the effects are pot entially 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. ‰ 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, NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-2 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 11 DEP-registered dams within or managed by the Town of Thomaston, of which three are Class A, one is Class BB, one is Class B, three are Class C, and three are 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 Associated with the Town of Thomaston Number Name Class 7402 Nystrom Pond Dam (In Litchfield) BB 14001 Thomaston Dam C 14002 Wigwam Reservoir Dam B 14003 Hychko Pond Dam – 14004 Stevens Dam A 14005 Westside Dam A 14006 Morton Pond Dam A 14007 Black Rock Dam C 14008 Northfield Brook Dam C 14009 Northerly Pond Dam – 14010 Southerly Pond Dam – This section discusses only the 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 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 include the Thomaston Dam, Black Ro ck Dam, and Northfield Brook Dam, each owned and maintained by the ACOE. The Class B dam is Wigwam Reservoir Dam, which is owned and operated by the City of Waterbury. Because the hazard areas overlap, these dams and their failure inundation areas are shown in Figures 8-1 to 8-3. © 9 k8 9: v & & & & n n n a Figure 8-1: High Hazard Dams in Thomaston 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 V T K J Æ T d Y 9: ¨ _ Thomaston Dam NorthfieldBrook Dam Black Rock Dam 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams DOT District 4 HQ Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary Communications Bldg Elderly Housing Facility CT Water Co. Wellfield Sewage Treatment Plant Highway Dept/Public Works K J 9: ¨ V T Æ T k DOT Garage 89: v Y Schools n Telephone Switching Station _ CL&P d Wigwam Reservoir Dam Dam Inundation Area Black Rock Dam Northfield Brook Dam Thomaston Dam Wigwam Reservoir Dam Dam Hazard Class & C & B Note: Each file is delineated based on the level of a dam breach at full height. These maps are to be treated as sensitive information and should not be released as stand alone information. If you have any questions regarding the use or disposition of these maps please call ACOE Security Officer at (978) 318-8007 For ge neral p lannin g purp oses o nly. D elinea tions m ay no t be ex act. J uly 20 08. Source : “Roads” , c1984 – 2 008 T ele A tlas, Re l. 04/0 8. “T own B ounda ry”, “Dams”, DEP “Facilitie s”, T hom aston “Inundat ion Area”, Army Corps of Eng ineers Æ T Æ T Plymouth Reservoir Dam © 9 k8 9: v & & & & n n n a Figure 8-2: High Hazard Dams in Thomaston 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 V T K J Æ T d Y 9: ¨ _ Thomaston Dam Northfield Brook Dam Black Rock Dam 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams DOT District 4 HQ Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary Communications Bldg Elderly Housing Facility CT Water Co. Wellfield Sewage Treatment Plant Highway Dept/Public Works K J 9: ¨ V T Æ T k DOT Garage 89: v Y Schools n Telephone Switching Station _ CL&P d Wigwam Reservoir Dam Note: Each file is delineated based on the level of a dam breach at full height. These maps are to be treated as sensitive information and should not be released as stand alone information. If you have any questions regarding the use or disposition of these maps please call ACOE Security Officer at (978) 318-8007 For ge neral p lannin g purp oses o nly. D elinea tions m ay no t be ex act. J uly 20 08. Source : “Roads” , c1984 – 2 008 T ele A tlas, Re l. 04/0 8. “T own B ounda ry”, “Dams”, DEP “Facilitie s”, T hom aston “Inundat ion Area”, Army Corps of Eng ineers Æ T Æ T Dam Inundation Area Black Rock Dam Northfield Brook Dam Thomaston Dam Wigwam Reservoir Dam Dam Hazard Class & C & B Plymouth Reservoir Dam © 9 k8 9: v & & & n n n a Figure 8-3: High Hazard Dams in Thomaston 0 0.25 0.5Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )8 V T K J Æ T 9: ¨ Black Rock Dam 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams DOT District 4 HQ Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary Communications Bldg Elderly Housing Facility CT Water Co. Wellfield Sewage Treatment Plant Highway Dept/Public Works K J 9: ¨ V T Æ T k DOT Garage 89: v Y Schools n Telephone Switching Station _ CL&P d Wigwam Reservoir Dam Note: Each file is delineated based on the level of a dam breach at full height. These maps are to be treated as sensitive information and should not be released as stand alone information. If you have any questions regarding the use or disposition of these maps please call ACOE Security Officer at (978) 318-8007 For ge neral p lannin g purp oses o nly. D elinea tions m ay no t be ex act. J uly 20 08. Source : “Roads” , c1984 – 2 008 T ele A tlas, Re l. 04/0 8. “T own B ounda ry”, “Dams”, DEP “Facilitie s”, T hom aston “Inundat ion Area”, Army Corps of Eng ineers Y Northfield Brook Dam d _ ” )254 ” )222 Æ T Æ T Dam Inundation Area Black Rock Dam Northfield Brook Dam Thomaston Dam Wigwam Reservoir Dam Dam Hazard Class & C & B Plymouth Reservoir Dam NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-6 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: ‰ 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 8-2: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-7 Table 8-2 Dams Damaged Due to Flooding from October 2005 Storms Number Name Location Class Damage Type Ownership —– Somerville Pond Dam Somers — Partial Breach DEP 4701 Windsorville Dam East Windsor BB Minor Damage Private 10503 Mile Creek Dam Old Lyme B Full Breach Private —– Staffordville Reservoir #3 Union — Partial Breach CT Water Co. 8003 Hanover Pond Dam Meriden C Partial Breach Meriden —– ABB Pond Dam Bloomfield — Minor Damage Private 4905 Springborn Dam Enfield BB Minor Damage DEP 13904 Cains Pond Dam Suffield A Full Breach Private 13906 Schwartz Pond Dam Suffield BB Partial Breach Private 14519 Sessions Meadow Dam Union BB Minor Damage DEP No major dam failures have occurred in the Town of Thomaston. According to Town personnel, the dams throughout Town are in va rying stages of condition, with the dams maintained by the ACOE and the City of Wa terbury being in good to excellent condition. The ACOE dams are flood control dams as described in Section 3.4, whereas Wigwam Reservoir Dam is used primarily for wate r supply purposes. All four dams provide storage for flood control. The following para graphs provide a description and highlight the general condition of each Class C & B dam based on information in the FEMA FIS and information available at the Connecticut DEP: ‰ 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-8 ‰ 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. ‰ Wigwam Reservoir Dam – This dam is owned by the City of Waterbury. It consists of a masonry dam with a gate house to control the lower outlet and a concrete spillway on the north side of the dam by Rout e 109 as the upper outlet. An EOP is on file with the Connecticut DEP as of September 1989. It is believed that the dam is in good to excellent condition. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-9 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. The net result of the above flood control reservoirs in the Naugatuck River basin, including those upstream in To rrington, CT, is to reduce the peak flood elevation in the Naugatuck River as described in Section 3.4. 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. Dam Inspection Regulations require that over 600 dams in Connecticut be in spected annually. The DEP currently prioritizes inspections of those dams which pose the greatest potential threat to downstream persons and properties. Dams found to be unsafe under the inspection program mu st be repaired by the owner. Depending on the se verity of the identified deficiency, an owner is allowed reasonable time to make the required repairs or remove the dam. If a dam owner fails to make necessary repairs to the subject structure, the DEP may issue an administrative order requiring the owner to restore the structur e to a safe condition and may refer noncompliance with such an order to the Attorney General’s Office for en forcement. As a means of last resort, the DEP Commissioner is empowered by statute to remove or correct, at the expense of the owner, any unsafe structures which present a clear and present danger to public safety. Owners of Class C dams are required to ma intain emergency operations plans. The ACOE is responsible for maintaining the plan for the Thomaston Dam, Northfield Dam, and Black Rock Dam. The City of Waterbur y also has an emergency operation plan for NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-10 Wigwam Reservoir Dam. The Town of Thomaston maintains the Class BB dam on Nystrom Pond in Litchfield as part of its maintenance of its Town Park. 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The dam failure inundation areas described belo w for the three ACOE Class C dams were redrawn from inundation maps provided by th e ACOE. Thus, the dam failure inundation areas shown in Figures 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3 are for planning purposes only and do not replace the official ACOE ma ps. As these inundation areas are considered sensitive information by the ACOE, Figure 8-1, Figure 8-2, and Figure 8-3 in this Plan may not be reprinted as stand-alone inform ation; they may only be disseminated within the confines of this Plan. For any questions regarding the use or disposition of these maps please contact the ACOE Security O fficer at (978) 318-8007. Simila rly, the inundation area for the Plymouth Reservoir Dam is redrawn fr om inundation maps provided by CWC and is for planning purposes only. By definition, failure of Class C dams may cause catastrophic loss of life and property. Of the three Class C dams in the Town of Thomaston, the failure of Thomaston Dam would likely have the highest impact on the re sidents and infrastructure of the Town. However, the failure of any of these dams would have significant impacts both within and downstream of Thomaston. These impacts ar e described in general detail below. 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 Thomaston to the area of Thomaston High School would experience some degree of floodi ng, including most of the critical facilities in Town NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-11 (Figure 8-1). Such a failure would cause backwater conditions along B ranch Brook and Northfield Brook, and flooding along Waterbury Road. A breach at full height would cause flooding greater than the mapped 500-year flood event for Thomaston. Northfield Brook Dam Northfield Brook Dam is owned by the ACOE and provides flood control along Northfield Brook. Based on dam failure i nundation maps provided by the ACOE, a dam failure at full pool height would cause flooding along Northfield Brook and the Naugatuck River corridors all the way to Naugatuck. The Town Fire Department and the State Department of Transpor tation District Four Headquart ers are critical facilities located within the i nundation area (Figure 8-2). Furt her downstream, the inundation area would primarily be confined to the Nauga tuck River floodplain, although some additional low-lying areas would also be affected. The Thomaston Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) may also be affect ed by flooding from the failure of Northfield Brook Dam. 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 Beacon Falls. Thomaston High School, the Thomaston WWTP and the Connecticut Wate r Company wellfield are the critical facilities that would be aff ected (Figure 8-3). Further downstream, the inundation area would primarily be inside the Naugatuck River floodplain, although some inland areas would also be affected. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-12 Wigwam Reservoir Dam Wigwam Reservoir is owned by the City of Waterbury. It covers a surface area of approximately 96.3 acres, with mu ch of this area outside the Town of Thomaston. The reservoir receives its inflow from Morri s Reservoir, Moosehorn Brook, Fenn Brook, and several unnamed tributaries. The outflow from this reservoir is the headwaters of Branch Brook. The downstream corridor is predom inately undeveloped, with an aqueduct running parallel to the brook through Black Rock State Park before it enters Watertown. As shown on Figure 8.3, the dam failure inundation area extends along Route 109 to Black Rock Dam. Few houses are in the da m failure inundation area, with no critical facilities with the exception of Route 109. The largest danger from a dam failure of this Class B dam is the damage it could cause to Black Rock Dam. If the pool behind Black Rock Dam was near capacity, the failure of Wigwam Reservoir dam could cause Black Rock Dam to fail. Other Dams There are additional dams that could affect the residents of Thomaston. A Class C dam in Plymouth has a dam failure inundation area passing through Thomaston into the Naugatuck River. In addition, two other sm aller impoundments in Thomaston have been noted by Town personnel as having the potenti al for problems. These are discussed briefly below. ‰ Plymouth Reservoir Dam : This Class C dam is owned and operated by Connecticut Water Company and is located in the west part of Plymouth. The outflow from this 36.5 acre reservoir is an unnamed stream that enters Thomaston near Altair Avenue and passes under Railroad Street and Sanderson Lane before passing into the Naugatuck River. As noted in Section 3, this stream has recently caused damage to the bridge on Altair Avenue that is bei ng repaired. The dam failure inundation area NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-13 for this dam (Figure 8-1) extends throughout the residential area in the vicinity of Railroad Street and downstream to the Naugatuck River. ‰ Leigh Avenue Dam : This private dam is located in a remote rural area above Leigh Avenue. The dam is not registered with th e DEP. According to Town personnel, the dam is an earthen dam with a pipe through the dam to act as a spillway. The dam impounds approximately 1.8 acres. While a form al dam failure analysis has not been performed, Town personnel are concerned that a dam failure could impact five homes on Edgewood Avenue and Leigh Avenue and potentially Route 6 if it failed suddenly. ‰ Southerly Pond Dam : This dam is registered with the DEP but was not assigned a hazard classification as of 1996. The da m impounds approximately 2.4 acres. The pond is primarily used for stormwater mana gement and receives inflow from storm sewers on the surrounding roads. Accordi ng to Town personnel, the pond has been slowly filling over the past 14 years since Twin Pond Road was installed, resulting in a loss of available storage for the mitigati on of peak stormwater. If the dam should fail, it could affect as many as four houses downstream on Smith Road and cause considerable damage to an underground culvert under Smith Road that conveys the outflow from the pond. 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 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-14 Funding is limited by the state bond commission. The Town of Thomaston established a Flood and Erosion Control Board in 1956 to oversee local flooding and erosion problems and municipal dams under CGS section 25-84, and this Board is comprised of the Board of Selectmen. The Town of Thomaston shoul d pursue funding through this program for flooding and erosion control pr ojects and to repair municipal dams as needed. The Town of Thomaston should work with the ACOE, the City of Waterbury, the Connecticut Water Company, and the Connec ticut DEP to stay up to date on the evolution of Emergency Operations Plans a nd Dam Failure Analyses for the significant and high hazard dams in and around Thomaston. When possible, copies of these documents should be made available at the Town Hall for reference and public viewing. With regard to Nystrom Pond Dam, the Town of Thomaston should review and update the Emergency Operations Plan, and coordinate with the Town of Litchfield to prepare or update the dam failure analysis in order to minimize Town liability and maximize Town emergency preparedness should the dam ever fail. The Town should continue its ongoing program of inspection and main tenance. In addition, all Class C & B dams in the Town should continue to be regularly inspected by their respective owners, with maintenance performed as required to keep the dams in safe and functional order. The Town should also consider implementing occasional Town inspections of Class A, AA, and unranked dams. The Town of Thomaston should consider in cluding 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008, REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 8-15 The Town should consider assigning of creating a new shelter facility outside of the dam failure inundation areas of Cla ss C dams. Dam failure is a potentially catastrophic event that can displace large portions of Thom aston’s population, and a dam failure that damages the Town’s shelters would greatly hi nder emergency response and assistance to affected populations. The Town should encourage the DEP to investig ate the hazard potential of the dam above Leigh Avenue, require registration, and en sure that proper maintenance is being performed to keep the dam in safe and func tional working order. The Town should also install a sediment trap in Southerly pond to prevent the further filling, and consider dredging the pond to restore available head for stormwater management. 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 9-1 9.0 WILDFIRES 9.1 Setting The ensuing discussion about wildfires is focused on the undeveloped woo ded and shrubby areas of Thomaston, along with low-dens ity suburban type development found at the margins of these areas known as the wild land interface. Structural fires in higher density areas of the To wn are not considered. The Town of Thomaston is considered a low -risk area for wildfires. Wildfires are of particular concern in wooded areas and other areas with poor access for fire-fighting equipment. Figure 9-1 presents the wildfire risk areas for the Town of Thomaston. 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. ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ © 9 k 8 9: v n n n a Figure 9-1: Thomaston Wildfire Risk Area 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 ” )109 ” )254 ” )8 ” )222 V T K J Æ T d Y 9: ¨ _ For general planning purposes on ly. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 T ele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DEP “Facilities”, Thomaston “Wildfire Area”, COGCNV June 2008 Æ T Æ T ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼Wildfire Risk Area 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams Schools DOT District 4 HQ Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary Telephone Switching Station CL&P Communications Bldg Elderly Housing Facility CT Water Co. Wellfield Sewage Treatment Plant Highway Dept/Public Works K J 9: ¨ V T Æ T k DOT Garage 89: v _ d Y n NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 network of fire lookout to wers 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 USDA Forest Service Annual Wildfire Summary Report for 1994 through 2003, an average of 600 acres per year in Connecticut was burned by wildfires. In general, the fires are small and detected quickly, with most wildfires being contained to less than 10 acres in size. The number one cause of wildfires is arson, with about half of all wildfires being intentionally set. 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 occu rred in Oxford at the south end of the Central Naugatuck Valley region on April 19, 2008. Much of Thomaston is protected open space, and fires have occurred throughout the Town. Specifically, Town personnel noted that fires have occurred in the south eastern part of Town off Waterbury Road. 9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing mitigation for wildland fire control is typically focused on Fire Department training and maintaining an adequate s upply of equipment. The Town of NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 9-5 Thomaston Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations also have special use standards regarding fire prot ection for commercial and municipal facilities, and the creation of fire ponds for new s ubdivisions outside the range of public water service. In addition, new roads and subdivi sions are required to allow for fire truck access. Unlike wildfires on the west coast of the Unite d States where the fires are allowed to burn toward development and then stopped, the Thom aston Fire Department goes to the fires. This proactive approach is beli eved to be effective for controlling wildfires. The fire department has some water storage capabil ity, but primarily relies on the Connecticut Water Company’s water service to fight fire s in the central part of Town. In the remainder of Town, the fire department relie s heavily on the use of local water bodies to supply fire fighting water. The Thomaston Fire Department is often the first responder for fires that happen in the Mattatuck State Forest in Watertown, and coordinates with the Watertown Fire Department to control these forest fires. While the Thomaston Fire Department does not have a four-wheel drive brus h truck, it does have a tanker tr uck capable of carrying water to remote locations. The Town 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 Town of Thomaston 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 9-6 areas, structures and subdivisions are built abutting forest borders, creating areas of particular vulnerability. Wildfires are more common in rural areas than in developed areas, as most fires in populated areas are quickly noticed and contained. The likelihood of a severe wildfire developi ng is lessened by the vast networ k of water features in the state, which create natural breaks likely to stop the spread of a fire. During long periods of drought, these natural features may dry up, in creasing the vulnerability of the state to wildfires. According to the Connecticut DEP, the actual fo rest fire risk in Connecticut is low due to several factors. First, the overall incidence of forest fires is very low. Secondly, as the wildfire/forest fire prone areas become frag mented due to development, the local fire departments have increased access to those neighborhoods for 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. 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 to the two most extreme wildfire s recorded since 1986 that burned 300 acres each. Given the availability of fire-fighting water in the Town, including the use of nearby water bodies, and long-standing mutual ai d assurances the Town Fire Department has with neighboring communities, it is believe d that these average and severe values are applicable to the Town as well. The wildfire risk areas presented in Figure 9-1 were defined as being contiguous wooded areas greater than 50 acres in size that have limited access in areas near public water service, and contiguous wooded ar eas greater than 30 acres in size with limited access in the remainder of the Town. These areas ar e generally associated with wooded water company lands, federally owned forests associ ated with the flood control dams, land trust NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 9-7 property, and Town-owned open space. As each area borders residential sections of the Town, residents on the outskirts of these risk areas are the most vulnerable to fire, heat, and smoke effects of wildfires. Despite having a large amount of forest/urban interface, the overall risk of wildfires occurring in the Town of Thomaston is also considered to be low. Such fires fail to spread far due speed of detection and strong fire response. As most of the Town has fire- fighting water available nearby, a large amount of water can be made readily available for fire fighting equipment. The Town also has the support of the local water companies to provide access to their extensive wate rshed lands in case of a wildfire. Recall from Figure 2-7, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-9 that elderly, linguistically isolated, and disabled populations reside in the Town of Thomaston. In comparing these figures with the wildfire risk areas presented in Fi gure 9-1, it is possible that several hundred of the population impacted by a wildfire could cons ist of the elderly, a few could consist of linguistically isolated households, and several hundred with disabilitie s could reside near wildfire impact areas. Thus, it is important for the Thomaston Fire Department to be prepared to assist these special populations during emergencies, including wildfire. In summary, fragmented forest areas in the southern part of Town near new development are considered most at risk from wildfires. In addition, there is concern about fires in the wooded eastern, northern, and southern sections of Town. While fires are less frequent in these areas, they can often be difficult to access. The Town has the support of the owners of the tracts of open space to provide access to their 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 9-8 would likely be more impacted by heat and smoke than by structure fires due to the strong fire response in the Town. 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: ‰ 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 Town of Thomaston should consider the construction of dry hydrants throughout the Town to provide a more reliable suppl y of firefighting water in areas without public water supply. 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; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 9-9 ‰ Continue reviewing subdivision applic ations to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to a llow access of emergency vehicles; ‰ 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 Town-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires; ‰ Enforce regulations and permits for open burning; and ‰ Continue to place utilities underground. In addition, specific recommendati ons that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 reco mmendations is applicable to all hazards, because it includes recommendations for im proving public safety and planning for emergency response. Instead of repeating th ese recommendations in section after section of this Plan, these are described herein. Informing and educating the public about how to protect themselves and their property from natural hazards is essential to any su ccessful hazard mitigation strategy. The Local Emergency Planning Commission or Fire Depa rtment should be charged with creating and disseminating informational pamphlets and guides to public locations such as the library, post office, senior center, and town hall. In particular, additional guides are recommended regarding 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 Administration and includes recommendations for dealing with heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, flooding, fire, and wi nter 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-2 In addition, the Town should consider adding pages to its website dedicated to citizen education and preparation 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 Thomaston. 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 Town 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 sect ion lists specific 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 Town website (http://www. thomastonct.org) dedicated to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events. ‰ Continue implementation of the CodeRED system, including encour aging residents to contribute their phone numbers to the database. ‰ Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radios with alarm features. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-3 ‰ Continue to review and update the Town Emergency Operations Plan at least once annually. Inland Flooding Prevention ‰ Streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cro ss-references the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention th at may be applicable to the proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Town department. See Appended Table 3 for a sample check list for the Town of Thomaston. ‰ Consider performing a Town-wide inventory of drainage pipes as part of the next Stormwater Management Plan update to he lp identify undersized and failing portions of the drainage system. ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System. ‰ Continue to require Flood Hazard Area Permits for activities within SFHAs. ‰ Consider requiring buildings constructed in flood prone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level, regardle ss of being within a defined SFHA. ‰ Ensure new buildings be designed and grad ed to shunt drainage away from the building. ‰ Assist with the Map Mod program to en sure an appropriate update to the Flood Insurance Study, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. ‰ 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-4 ‰ Adopt an aquifer protection area overlay zone to regulate development after Connecticut Water Company has complete d their final mapping of the Aquifer Protection Area for their wellfield along Branch Brook. 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. ‰ Pursue plans to redevelop Brownfield sites, or to remediate them and convert them to open space. Structural Projects ‰ Repair the Bayberry Drive culvert or re place with a properly sized box culvert. ‰ Replace the undersized culvert on Carter Road with a properly sized culvert, and tie in nearby storm sewers. ‰ Install drainage systems on Hillside Avenue and Gilbert Street. ‰ Finish repair of Altair Avenue bridge and culvert. ‰ Install riprap along stream banks for unnamed stream parallel to High Street Extension to protect the roadway and the private property above. ‰ Pursue funding to install drainage systems on Reynolds Bridge Road. ‰ Investigate alternatives to facilitate the proper completion of the Valley View drainage system such that it is as designed and approved. ‰ Coordinate with the State Department of Transportation regarding maintenance of debris and vegetation in the swale upstr eam of the culvert that drains under NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-5 Watertown Road (Route 6) towards Stumpf Avenue. Encourage the State DOT to enlarge the culvert under the road. Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, and Winter Storms ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspect ions, especially along Route 6, Route 109, Route 254, and other evacuation routes. In crease inspections of trees on private property near power lines and Town right-of-ways. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas, and ‰ Review potential evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Thomaston. ‰ Provide for the Building Department to have literature available regarding appropriate design standards for wind. ‰ Continue outreach regarding dangerous trees on private property. ‰ Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds. Winter Storms ‰ Review and post evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Thomaston. ‰ Post a list of Town sheltering facilities in the Town Hall and on the Town’s website so residents can best plan how to access to critical facilities during a winter storm event. Post the snow plowing prioritization in Town buildings each winter to increase public awareness, and continue to post the information on the Town’s police website. ‰ Provide educational materials to property ow ners regarding the use of shutters, storm windows, pipe insulators, and re moving snow from flat roofs. ‰ Provide educational materials with safety tips and reminders regarding cold weather. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-6 ‰ Continue to encourage two modes of eg ress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. Earthquakes ‰ Consider preventing new residential deve lopment in areas prone to collapse. ‰ Continue requiring proposed grading to be no more than a 33% slope beyond the sidewalk, and consider decreasing th is limit to a maximum slope of 30%. ‰ Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ Ensure that municipal departments have ad equate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs. Dam Failure ‰ Stay current on the evoluti on of EOPs and Dam Failure Analyses for Class C and Class B dams whose failure could impact areas of Thomaston. ‰ Continue maintenance and inspections of Nystrom Pond dam, and review and update the EOP for the dam as necessary. ‰ Consider implementing Town inspections of Class AA, A, and unranked dams. ‰ Include dam failure areas in the CodeRED database. ‰ When possible, have copies of the Class C dam EOPs and Dam Failure Analyses on file in the Town hall for public viewing. ‰ Create or assign a new shelter facility outsi de of dam failure inundation areas of Class C dams. ‰ Petition the DEP to inspect the dam above Leigh Avenue, investigate its hazard potential, and have the property owner register the dam. ‰ Install a sediment trap in Southerly pond and consider dr edging to restore available storage. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-7 ‰ Continue using the Town Flood and Erosion Control Board to oversee municipal dam maintenance and problems with flooding and erosion, and to pursue funding for projects and municipal dam repairs. 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 Town of Thomaston should consider the construction of dry hydrants throughout the Town to provide a more reliable suppl y of firefighting water in areas without public water supply. ‰ 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 reviewing subdivision applic ations to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to a llow access of emergency vehicles; ‰ 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 Town-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires; ‰ Enforce regulations and permits for open burning; and ‰ Continue to place utilities underground. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-8 10.3 Sources of Funding The following sources of funding and technical assistance may be available for the priority projects listed above. This in formation comes from the FEMA website (http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/index.s htm). Funding requirements and contact information is provided in Section 11.4. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Ag ency) Grants and Assistance Programs Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bzpp/index.shtm This grant provides security and risk management capabilit ies at State and local level for Tier I and II critical infrastructure sites that are considered high-risk/high- consequence facilities. Each State with a BZPP site is eligible to submit applications for its local communities to participate in and receive funding under the program. The funding for this grand is based on the number, type, and character of the site. Citizen Corps Program National Emergency Technology Guard (NET Guard) Pilot Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/netguard/index.shtm The purpose of this grant, under the Homela nd Security Act of 2002, is to re-establish a communication network in the event that the current information systems is attacked and rendered inoperable. A to tal of $80,000 may be available to each applicant provided they ar e a locality that meets the required criteria. Community Disaster Loan Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/fs_cdl.shtm This program provides funds to any eligible jurisdiction in a designated disaster area that has suffered a substantial loss of tax and other revenue. The assistance is in the form of loans not to exceed 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-9 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-10 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-11 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-12 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). 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 10-13 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. 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-1 11.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule The Council of Governments of the Central Naug atuck Valley is authorized to update this hazard mitigation plan as needed, coordinate its adoption with the Town of Thomaston, and guide it through the FEMA approval process. The Thomaston Board of Selectmen is the governing body that will formally adopt the plan subsequent to conditional approval from FEMA. The individual recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan must be implemented by the municipal departments that oversee these ac tivities. The Office of the First Selectman and the Highway Department in the Town of Thomaston will primarily be responsible for developing and implementing selected pr ojects. Appendix A incorporates an implementation strategy and schedule, de tailing the responsible department and anticipated time frame for the specific recomm endations listed throughout this document. Upon adoption, the Plan will be made available to all Town departments and agencies as a planning tool to be used in conjunction with existing documents. It is expected that revisions to other Town plans and regulati ons, such as the Plan of Conservation and Development, department annual budgets, and the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, will reference this plan and its updates. The Office of the First Selectman will be responsible for ensuring that th e actions identified in this plan are incorporated into ongoing Town planning activities, and that the information and requirements of this plan are incorporated into existi ng planning documents within five years from the date of adoption or when other plans ar e updated, whichever is sooner. The Office of the First Selectman will be responsible for assigning appropriate Town officials to update the Plan of Conser vation and Development, Zoning Regulations, NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-2 Subdivision Regulations, Wetlands Regulations, and Emergency Operations Plan to include the provisions in this plan. Should a general revision be too cumbersome or cost prohibitive, simple addendums to these doc uments will be added that include the provisions of this plan. The Plan of Cons ervation and Development and the Emergency Operations Plan are the two documents most likely to benefit from the inclusion of the Plan in the Town’s library of planning documents. Finally, information and projects in this plan ning document will be included in the annual budget and capital improvement plans as part of implementing the projects recommended in this plan. This will primarily include the annual budget and capital improvement projects lists maintained and update d by the Town Highway Department. 11.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation The Office of the First Selectman will be the party responsible for monitoring the successful implementation of the Plan as 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 review and evaluation of the plan. Participants in this review may incl ude, but need not be limited to, representatives of the departments lis ted in Section 11.1. Matters to be reviewed will in clude the goals and objectives of the original plan, hazards or disasters that occurred during the preceding period, mitigation activities that have been accomplished to date, a discussion of reasons that implementation may be behind schedule, and recommendations for new projects and revised activities. The meeting will be conducted in August or September, at leas t two months before the annual application cycle for pre-disaster grants (applications ar e typically due to DEP in November of any given year). This will enable a list of po ssible projects to be circulated for Town Departments to review, with sufficien t time for developing an application. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-3 Continued public involvement will be sought regarding the monitoring, evaluating, and updating of the Plan. Public input may be solicited through community meetings and input to web-based information gathering tools. Public comment on changes to the Plan may be sought through posting of public notices, and notifications posted to the website of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, as well as of the Town of Thomaston. 11.3 Updating the Plan The Council of Governments of the Centra l Naugatuck Valley will update the hazard mitigation plan if a consensus to do so is reached by the Board of Selectmen of Thomaston and a request is presented to the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, or at least once every five years. A committee will be formed consisting of representatives of many of the same departments solicited for input to this plan. In addition, local business leaders, community and neighborhood group leaders, relevant private and non-pro fit interest groups, and the six neighboring municipalities will be solicited for represen tation, 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 Harwinton Public Works De partment and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Morris Public Works Department and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Watertown Public Works De partment and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Litchfield Public Works Department and Land Use Department; ‰ Town of Plymouth Public Works Depa rtment and Land Use Department; and ‰ City of Waterbury Public Works Departme nt, Fire Department, and Mayor’s Office. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-4 Updates may include deleting recommendations 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. 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; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-5 ‰ 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. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-6 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-7 Computer Sciences Corporation New England Regional Insurance Manager Bureau and Statistical Office (781) 848-1908 Corporate Headquarters 3170 Fairview Park Drive Falls Church, VA 22042 (703) 876-1000 http://www.csc.com/ A private company contracted by the Federa l Insurance Adm inistration as the National Flood Insurance Program Bureau and Statistical Agent, CSC provides information and assistance on flood insurance, including ha ndling policy and claims questions, and providing workshops to leaders, in surance agents, and communities. Small Business Administration Region I 10 Causeway Street, Suite 812 Boston, MA 02222-1093 (617) 565-8416 http://www.sba.gov/ SBA has the authority to “declare” disaster areas following disasters that affect a significant number of homes and businesses, but that would not need additional assistance through FEMA. (SBA is triggered by a FEMA declaration, however.) SBA can provide additional low-interest funds (up to 20% above what an eligible applicant would “normally” qualify for) to install mitig ation measures. They can also loan the cost of bringing a damaged property up to st ate or local code requirements. These loans can be used in combination with the new “mitigation insurance” under the NFIP, or in lieu of that coverage. Environmental Protection Agency Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 (888) 372-7341 Provides grants for restoration and repair , and educational activities, including: ‰ 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-8 ‰ 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 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-9 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 projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Funds are available for projects focusing on protecting, restoring, and/or enhancing critical habitat. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-10 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 11-12 preparing flood warning plans. This service has helped the public respond much faster in flooding condition. ‰ Flood & Erosion Control Board Program : Provides assistance to municipalities to solve flooding, beach erosion and dam repair problems. Have the power to construct and repair flood and erosio n management systems. Certain non- structural measures that mitigate flood da mages are also eligible. Funding is provided to communities that apply fo r assistance through a Flood & Erosion Control Board on a non-competitive basis. ‰ Stream Channel Encroachment Line Program : Similar to the NFIP, this state regulatory program places restrictions on the development of floodplains along certain major rivers. This program draw s in environmental concerns in addition to public safety issues when permitting projects. ‰ Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Management Program : Provides training, technical and planning assistance to lo cal Inland Wetlands Commissions, reviews and approves municipal regulations fo r localities. Also controls flood management and natural disaster mitigations. ‰ Dam Safety Program : Charged with the responsi bility for administration and enforcement of Connecticut’s dam safety laws. Regulates the operation and maintenance of dams in the state. Permits the construction, repair or alteration of dams, dikes or similar structures and ma intains a registration database of all known dams statewide. This program also operates a statewide inspection program. ‰ Rivers Restoration Grant Program : Administers funding and grants under the Clean Water Act involving river restorat ion, and reviews and provides assistance with such projects. Bureau of Water Management – Planning and Standards Division – Administers the Clean Water Fund and many other programs dir ectly and indirectly related to hazard mitigation including the Section 319 non-point source pollution reduction grants and municipal facilities progra m which deals with mitigating pollution from wastewater treatment plants. Office of Long Island Sound Programs (OLISP) – Administers the Coastal Area Management Act (CAM) program and L ong Island Sound License Plate Program. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 Economic Resource Center. 2008. Thomaston Town Profile. Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee. 1955. Report of the Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, November 3, 1955. Connecticut State Library. http://www.cslib.org/floodrecov.pdf Council of Governments of the Ce ntral Naugatuck Valley. 2008. Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. Environmental Defense. 2004. Bracing for Climate Change in the Constitution State: What Connecticut Could Face. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 12-2 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. ___. 2005. Reducing Damage from Localiz ed Flooding: A Guide for Communities. FEMA document 511. ___. 1987. Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials . The Association of State Floodplain Managers. ___. 1982. Flood Insurance Study, Town of Thomas ton, Connecticut, Litchfield 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. 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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 Maguire Group, Inc. 2005. Stormwater Management Plan – Thomaston, Connecticut. 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 THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 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/ ___. 2008. Lightning Deaths by State, 1998 to 2007. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/ stats/98-07_deaths_by_state.pdf ___. 2001. Winter Storms: The Deceptive Killers – A Preparedness Guide. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/winte r/resources/winterstorm.pdf ___. 1995. A Preparedness Guide . ___. Weekend Snowstorm in Northeast Corridor Classified as a Category 3 “Major” Storm . http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2580.htm ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Extreme Weather and Climate Events. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2007. Monthly and Seasonal Total Snowfall Amount, Wigwam Reservoir, Connecticut. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USS CAppController?action=snowfall_ms&state=06&sta tion=WIGWAMRESERVOIR&coopid=069568 ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2006. The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cli mate/research/snow-nesis/ ___. National W eather Service. National Hu rricane Center Tropical Prediction Center. NHC/TPC Archive of Past Hurricane Seasons . http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml 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 Open-File Report 03-225, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-225/ NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 12-5 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/soils/te chnical/classification/scfile/index.html [Accessed 10 February 2004]. USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE. South Western Regional Planning Agency. 2005. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Strategy Document, Connecticut’s South Western Region. Squires, M. F. and J. H. Lawrimore. 2006: Development of an Operational Snowfall Impact Scale. 22 nd IIPS, Atlanta, GA. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ research/snow-nesis/squires.pdf Staubach, Suzanne. 1998. Connecticut: Driving Through History . Covered Bridge Press: North Attleborough, Massachusetts. Tornado Project Online. h ttp://www.tornadoproject.com/ Town of Thomaston, Connecticut. Code of the Town of Thomaston, Connecticut (Litchfield County). Updated 9/15/2007. http://www.e- codes.generalcode.com/codebook_frame set. asp?t=tc&p=2253280htm&cn=402 &n=[1][401]. Last Accessed 10/7/2008. ___. 2006. Zoning Regulations. ___. 2005. Plan of Conservation & Development. ___. 2002. Subdivision Regulations. ___. 1997. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations. Town of East Haven, Connecticut. 2001. Town of East Haven Hazard Mitigation Plan . Town of Stratford, Connecticut. 2001. Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. United States Census Bureau. 2005 Popul ation Estimates. http://www.census.gov/ ___. American Factfinder. http://factfinder.census.gov/ NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2008 12-6 United States Department of Transportation. 2002. The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation . The DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Workshop, October 1-2, 2002. Summary and Discussion Papers. United States Geological Survey. USGS Water Data for Connecticut . http://nwis.waterdata .usgs.gov/ct/nwis/nwis United States Geological Surve y, Earthquake Hazards Program. Connecticut Earthquake History. Abridged from Earthquake Information Bulletin, January – February 1971. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/ connecticut/history.php. Assessed 7/17/2008. ___. 2008. Seismic Hazard Map of Connecticut. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/ connecticut/hazards.php. Assessed 7/17/2008. ___. 2004. The Severity of an Earthquake . http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/s everitygip.html Assessed 7/17/2008. 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 Lot, Area, Shape and Frontage 5.2 Wetlands, watercourses, or their setback area containing any significan t predevelopment slopes in excess of 25% shall not be present within the buildable square. Flood Plain District 7 No building or structure within the boundaries of this district may b e constructed, moved, or substantially improved without a Flood Hazard Area Permit. Anchoring 280-10 All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure Construction material and methods 280-11 All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage and by using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Building Location and Floor Location 280-13 No new construction or substantial improvement of buildings and other structures for human occupancy shall be located in any special flood hazard area. Any new construction or substantial improvement of buildings and other structures for other than human occupancy shall eithe r have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the base flood elevation or shall, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, conform to the following: A. Be floodproofed so that up to one foot above the base flood elevation the structure is watertight with wal ls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; B. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamics loads an d the effects of buoyancy; and C. Be certified by a registered professiona l engineer or architect that the above standards are satisfied, which certifications shall be provided to the Building Official. Appended Table 3 Zoning Regulations Flood Plain Management Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetland Regulations Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3 Zoning Regulations Flood Plain Management Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetland Regulations Floodways 280-14Floodways are extreme ly hazar dous areas due to t he ve locity o floodwaters which cause erosion and carry debris and potential projectiles. In areas where floodways have been designated or determined the following additional standards are applicable: A. Encroachment. There shall be no encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development, unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstratin g that encroachments will not result in any increase in flood levels durin g the occurrence of the base flood discharge. B. If the requirement of Subsection A is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all other applicable standards of this article. Manufactured Homes 280-15 No manufactured homes shall be located in a special flood hazard are a Alteration of Watercourse 280-16 In any portion of a watercourse which is altered or relocated the flood- carrying capacity shall be maintained Changes to Existing Structures 280-17 A structure already in compliance with the provisions of this regulatio n shall not be made noncompliant by any alteration, repair, reconstruction o improvement to the structure Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3 Zoning Regulations Flood Plain Management Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetland Regulations Elevated Buildings 280-18 New construction or substantial improvements of elevated buildings that include fully enclosed areas formed by foundation and other exterior wal ls below the base flood elevation shall be designed to preclude finished living space and designed to allow for the entry and exit of floodwaters to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls. A. Designs for complying with this requirement must either be certified by a professional engineer or architect or meet the following minimum criteri a: (1) A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to floodi ng shall be provided; (2) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher t han one foot above grade; and (3) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic flow of floodwaters in both directions. B. Electrical, plumbing and other utility connections are prohibited bel ow the base flood elevation. C. Access to the enclosed area shall be the minimum necessary to allow f o D. The interior portion of such enclosed area shall not be partitioned o r fi n Streams without established BFEs or floodways 280-19 Located within the areas of special flood hazard established in § 280 -2 where small streams exist but no base flood data has been provided or where no floodways have been provided, the following provisions apply: (1) In A Zones where base flood elevations have been determined, but before a floodway is designated, no new construction, substantial improvement, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted which would increase base flood elevations more than one foot at any point along the watercourse when all anticipated development is considered cumulatively with the proposed development. (2) New construction or substantial improvements of structures shall b e elevated or floodproofed to elevations established in accordance with § 280-13. Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3 Zoning Regulations Flood Plain Management Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetland Regulations Unsuitable Building Lots 9.4 A building lot may not be suitable for construction purposes due t o adverse or sensitive environmental conditions, such as flooding, seasona l runoff, excessive slope, exposed ledge or bedrock, soil conditions, or wetlands. Terrain 9.5 Unless the lot has been specifically approved by the Inland Wetlands an d Watercourses Commission, each lot shall be able to accommodate primary buildings, driveway access and parking spaces without disturbin g wetlands and watercourses. Access 10.4 (b) Proposed streets shall be constructed to the required width and hav e suitable travelway, grade and alignment to provide safe access for polic e, fire, ambulance, emergency vehicles… Deadend or No Outlet Streets / Cul-de-sacs 11.1 Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed 1,000 feet in length. Permanent dead-end streets shall be avoided unless connecting streets are impracticable. A 100-foot turn around shall be provided at the closed end… Width of Pavement 11.2 Streets shall be designed with a 26-foot width of pavemen t Channel Encroachment and Building Lines 11.31 Channel encroachment/building lines based on sound engineering judgment shall be provided on the site plans for all subdivisions to prevent encroachment upon the natural water channel. Design Standards for Minimizing Flood Damage 12 Subdivisions shall be designed to control and mitigate potential floo d damage…and have drainage facilities and other systems in place to reduce exposure to flood hazards Standards and Criteria for Decision – Environmental Impact 10.3 (a) Consider the environmental impact, including effects of the activity on th e natural capacity to… prevent flooding… to control sediment, to fac ilitate drainage, and to promote public health and safety Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3 Zoning Regulations Flood Plain Management Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetland Regulations Standards and Criteria for Decision – Public Health, Safety, and Use 10.3 (e) Recognition of potential damage from erosion… danger of floodin g Standards and Criteria for Decision – On-Site Mitigation Measures 10.3 (g) Consider actions which would protect the natural capacity of the area to accomplish the following: prevent flooding and facilitate drainage, cont ro sedimentation and erosion, promote public health and safet y APPENDIX A STAPLEE MATRIX CategorySTAPLEE Criteria 1. Prevention Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing 2. Property Protection B. 2008-2013 3. Natural Resource Prot. C. 2013-2018 4. Structural Projects D. 2018-2023 5. Public Information ALL HAZARDS Dissemination of informational pamphlets regarding natural hazards to pu blic locations LEPC A x xxxxxx1,2,53333333 21 Add pages to Town website dedicated to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events LEPC B x x xxxxx1,2,53323333 20 Continue implementation of CodeRED emergency notification system LEPC A x xxxxxx1,2,53333331 19 Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radio with an alarm feature LEPC B x xxxxxx 2,5 332332117 Continue to review and update Emergency Operations Plan, at least once a nnually LEPC A x xxxxxx 1 333333119 INLAND FLOODING Prevention Streamline the permitting process to ensure maximum education of develop er or applicant PZC/ZEO B x x x x x x 1322333319 Perform a Town-wide drainage study and continue to update every five yea rs DPW B,C,D x x x x x 1332332117 Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System First Selectman B x x x x 2332332117 Continue to require Flood Hazard Area permits for activities within SFHA s PZC A xxxx 1 2323332 18 Require new buildings constructed in flood prone areas to be protected t o the highest recorded flood level regardless of SFHA PZ C B xxxx 1,2 222223114 Require that new buildings be designed and graded to shunt drainage away from the building PZC B xxxx 1,2 2233331 17 Assist with the MapMod Program to ensure an appropriate update to the FI S, FIRM, and Flood Boundary & Floodway Maps for the Town First Selectman, DPWB, Cx x x x 13323321 17 After the MapMod Program, use the Town two-foot contour maps to develop more exact regulatory flood maps using FEMA flood elevations DPWC, Dx x x x 1,22222231 14 Adopt an aquifer protection overlay zone once Connecticut Water Company finalizes its aquifer protection area PZCBx x x x 12333323 19 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 First SelectmanAx x x x x 2,33223333 19 Selectively pursue conservation objectives listed in the Plan of Conserv ation & Development First SelectmanAx x x x 33223323 18 Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, inclu ding steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains PZC, IWCAx xxxxxx 3 233232318 Pursue plans to redevelop Brownfield sites, or remediate them and conver t to open space First SelectmanBx x x x x 2,32223323 17 Structural Projects Repair the Bayberry Drive culvert or replace with a properly sized box c ulvert DPW B xxxx 2,4 3333321 18 Replace undersized culvert on Carter Road with larger culvert and tie in to nearby storm sewers DPW B x x x x 4 323332117 Install drainage systems on Hillside Avenue and Gilbert Street DPW C xxxx 4 3223321 16 Finish repair of Altair Avenue bridge and culvert DPW A xxxx x 4 3333322 19 Install riprap along unnamed stream parallel to High Street Extension to protect roadway and adjancent property DPW B x x x x 2,4 332333219 Install drainage system on Reynolds Bridge Road DPW C xxxx 4 3223331 17 Investigate alternatives to facilitate proper completion of Valley View development’s drainage system as approved DPW B x x x x 4 212221212 Coordinate with the State DOT regarding maintenance of vegetated swale n ear culvert under Route 6 upstream of Stumpf Avenue DPW B xxxx 2,4 322332217 WIND DAMAGE RELATED TO HURRICANES, SUMMER STORMS, AND WINTER STORMS Increase tree limb inspections and maintenance, especially along evacuat ion routes, and ensure minimum potential for downed power lines DPWBx x x x 1,23213321 15 Increase inspections of trees on private property near power lines and T own right-of-ways DPWBxxxx 1,2 3213321 15 Continue outreach regarding dangerous trees on private property DPWAxxxx 1 3223331 17 Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developm ents and pursue funding to move them underground in existing areas PZC, First SelectmanA, Cx x x x x x 1,23223331 17 Continue to require compliance with the Connecticut Building Code for Wi nd Speeds PZC/ZEOAx x x 13333331 19 Provide for the Building Department to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards PZC/ZEOBx x x 13333331 19 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? Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Thomaston Associated Report Sections Inland Flooding Hurricanes Summer Storms and Tornadoes Winter Storms Earthquakes Dam Failure Wildfires Page 1 CategorySTAPLEE Criteria 1. Prevention Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing 2. Property Protection B. 2008-2013 3. Natural Resource Prot. C. 2013-2018 4. Structural Projects D. 2018-2023 5. Public Information 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? Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Thomaston Associated Report Sections Inland Flooding Hurricanes Summer Storms and Tornadoes Winter Storms Earthquakes Dam Failure Wildfires WINTER STORMS Post a list of Town sheltering facilities in the Town Hall and on the To wn’s website LEPC B x xxxxxx 5 333333119 Complete and disseminate evacuation plan to ensure timely evacuation of shelterees from all areas of Town LEPC B x x xxxxx 5333333119 Post the snow-plowing prioritization in Town buildings each winter, and continue to post on Town’s police website DPW, LEPC A, B x 5 233333118 Provide educational materials to property owners regarding using shutter s, storm windows, pipe insulators, and removing snow from flat roofs LEPCBx x x 2,53333331 19 Provide educational materials with safety tips and reminders regarding c old weather LEPCB x 1,53333331 19 Encourage two modes of egress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets PZCA xxxxxxx 1 323332117 EARTHQUAKES Consider preventing residential development in areas prone to collapse, such as below steep slopes PZCB x12332322 17 Continue restricting grading to 33% slope, and consider decreasing this restriction to 30% PZCA, B x1 2332323 18 Continue to require adherence to the state building codes PZCAxxxx 1 2333331 18 Ensure that municipal departments have adequate backup facilities (powe r generation, heat, water, etc.) in case earthquake damage occurs First SelectmanBxxxxx 12222321 14 DAM FAILURE Stay current on the evolution of EOPs and Dam Failure Analyses for Class C and B dams that can impact Thomaston First SelectmanAx xx 2 3333333 21 Continue performing maintenance, and review and update the EOP for Nystr om Pond dam as necessary DPWA x x2,43333322 19 Consider implementing Town inspections of Class A, AA, and unranked dams DPWB x xx2 2312132 14 Include dam failure innundation areas in the CodeRED database LEPCBx x x 13333331 19 Have copies of the Class C dam EOPs and Dam Failure Analyses on file at the Town Hall for public viewing First SelectmanB x53233211 15 Create or assign a new shelter facility outside of dam failure inundatio n areas of Class C dams LEPCBx xxxxxx 1,4,52223331 16 Petition the DEP to investigate the hazard potential of the dam above Le igh Avenue and require registration First SelectmanB x x22333331 18 Install sediment trap in Southerly Pond and consider dredging to restore available storage DPWC xxxxxx 2,33223231 16 Use the Town Flood and Erosion Control Board to pursue funding for munic pal dam maintenance and flood/erosion projects First SelectmanBx x x x x 1,2,3,43333332 20 WILDFIRES Continue to have the Connecticut Water Company extend/upgrade the public water supply systems into areas requiring water for fire protection PZCA xx2,4 3233332 19 Install dry hydtrants to provide a more reliable supply of fire fighting water outside of public water supply areas DPW, Fire Dept. B xx 1 3233331 18 Continue to promote inter-municipal cooperation in fire-fighting efforts Fire Dept.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 Fire Dept.A x5 3333333 21 Continue reviewing subdivision applications to ensure proper access for emergency vehicles PZCA xxxxxxx 1 332332218 Provide outreach programs that include tips on how to properly manage bu rning and campfires on private property Fire Dept.B x5 3 3 3 3333 21 Patrol Town-owned open space and parks to prevent campfires Police Dept.B x3 2223323 17 Enforce regulations and permits for open burning Police Dept. Ax1,3 2223333 18 1Notes LEPC = Local Emergency Planning Commissioner PZC = Planning & Zoning Commission ZEO = Zoning Enforcement Officer DPW = Department of Public Works / Highway Department IWC = Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission 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 mitigation in the Town of Thomaston as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized for h azard mitigation. Documentation of this process is provided within the following sets of meeting minutes and field reports. COGCNV field notes Field inspection on February 13, 2008. Notes typed February 14, 2008 Scott Bighinatti Connecticut experienced a period of heavy rains on frozen ground on February 13, 2008. Precipitation measured 1.35 inch es over approximately 9 hours in nearby Litchfield and 1.62 inches in Waterbury. On February 13, 2008 David Murphy and Vince McDermott outlined areas of potential flooding in the Towns of Thomaston and Bethlehem. These sites were visited on February 13, 2008 and problematic areas were ph otographed. These problematic areas primarily included areas of potential poor dr ainage due to the snow cover. The sequence of photography is listed below: Camera #1: 1. North end of Reynolds Bridge Road, Thomaston 2. Northern part of Munger Lane, Bethlehem (facing north) 3. Northern part of Munger Lane, Bethlehem (facing south) 4. North end of Westshore drive, Bethlehem (facing south) 5. North end of West shore drive, Bethlehem (facing west) Many areas of both Towns were subject to minor sheet flow. Other areas had deeper puddles due to snow inhibiting inflow to the storm sewers. No major tree falls were noted, although there were areas with small branches that had fallen into or next to the streets. Thomaston: a) Waterbury Road (Route 262) (South) – Nibbling Brook appears to bend around a factory, but the channel appeared well developed. The st ream was flowing hard, but the water did not contain much sediment. There is a low area on th e south side of the road that is in the 100- year flood plain, but appeared to be used for storage. It was not flooded at the time of inspection. b) Waterbury Road (Route 262) (South) – At the bend in Rt. 262 where Jericho Brook enters the Naugatuck River from the west, and th ere was a large puddle over the northbound lane about five inches deep. This curve is south of the Stevens business. No problems were noted near the Stevens business. c) Waterbury Road (Route 262) (South) – A factory on the west side of the road had no problems with flooding, but the east side of the road was not draining. Two to three inches of water was present in the northbound lane. d) Naugatuck River – The Naugatuck River was high, but not close to being over bank, during field inspections in Thomaston. All the bri dges over the Naugatuck River are very high and in no danger of being ove rtopped by normal floods. e) Reynolds Bridge Road – The north end of this road near the Route 8 northbound off-ramp had a deep puddle (approximately eight inches in the middle). This puddle is likely due to a clogged culvert in the low spot, but this was not verified. See Picture #1. f) Unnamed Tributary near Route 6 – An unnamed tributary to the Naugatuck River is channelized starting from Watertown Road (Route 6) and running under Sumpf Avenue, Warner Lane, and Route 262. No floodi ng was noted upstream of the culvert. g) Northfield Brook – No flooding was noted along Northf ield Road (Route 254). Despite several crossings under Northfield Road, the culverts appear well sized to handle the discharge along Northfield Brook that outlets fr om Northfield Pond Dam, which is managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. h) Unnamed Stream along High Street Extension – A stream drains from a small pond along the west side of the street. While it is unlikely that the stream will be high enough to overtop the road, several driveway crossings exist over the stream, indicating the potential for residents to be trapped if the crossings back up. i) Smith Road – No flooding problems were noted here on this unnamed stream that outlets from Southerly Pond Dam. The stream is a tributary to the Naugatuck River. The new development to the northeast has a larg e detention basin providing storage. j) Unnamed stream under Atwood Road – This stream takes a sharp bend and may have been redirected around a nearby field. It was fl owing under Atwood road with no problems. k) Branch Brook – No problems were noted along Branch Brook, but access was limited due to the snow, the steep grade, and the closed recreation areas. l) Wigwam Reservoir – The area around Wigwam Reservoir is undeveloped. The reservoir was low compared to Route 109. Bethlehem: m) Kasson Road (Route 132) (East) – While the wetlands along East Spring Brook appeared to be near the road level, no flooding was present at the time of inspection. However, this road would certainly be overtopped should e ither of the upstream dams fail. n) Kasson Avenue (private road) – Long Meadow Pond is well downgradient of the houses along the lake, and the lake would overtop R oute 132 at the south end of the pond before coming close to any of the houses. The we tlands nearby the south end of the lake on Bellamy Lane were high, but the road was not flooded. o) Munger Lane (South and Middle) – No flooding was observed along these section of Munger Lane despite the nearby agricu ltural fields. The unnamed tributary to the Weekeepeemee River that drains from Long Meadow P ond and Benjamin Pond was not flooding Munger Lane, but some ponding was occurring at the crossing due to the snow pack. Page 3 p) Munger Lane (North) – The large plot of agricultural fi elds halfway to Gros Road were producing a significant amount of runoff, leading to ponding in the roadway up to four inches in places. The storm drains on this street may be too far apart, but the snow is definitely a factor contributing to the depths of ponding. See Photos #2 and #3. q) Lake Road – The outlet channel was flowing regula rly and the road was not flooded during the inspection. r) Westshore Drive – An unnamed tributary to Long Mea dow Pond flows under the northern section of Westshore Drive. The crossing was backed up and the street was flooded. A storm drain was noted above the crossing, but was completely filled with water. See Photos #4 and #5. s) East Street – The unnamed tributaries along East Sp ring Brook appeared to be flowing normally. No flooding was present. Ponded wa ter was present on Harrison Road near the Elementary School, but this appeared primarily due to snow pack. t) East Spring Brook at Nonnewaug Road – East Spring Brook was fl owing rapidly here, and contained a lot of sediment. There are seve ral agricultural operations upstream on Maddox Road that could have contribu ted to the sediment levels. u) Nonnewaug Road at Hickory Lane – East Spring Brook is still flowing hard, but is not overbank before its confluence with the Nonnewaug River. v) Unnamed Pond off Hickory Lane – A small pond on the west side of Hickory Lane was overflowing, but erosion was not present along the south end. w) Town Line Highway South – No erosion was noted along the dirt road sections of Hickory Lane and Town Line Highway South. Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR THOMASTON Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Initial Data Collection Meeting February 14, 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) ‰ Scott Bighinatti, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Virginia Mason, Council of Governme nts Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV) ‰ Maura Martin, Thomaston First Selectwoman ‰ Mary Barton, Thomaston Land Use Officer ‰ Paul Pronovost, Highway Superintende nt, Thomaston Highway Department ‰ Eugene Torrence, Jr., Thomaston Chief of Police ‰ Ken Koval, Thomaston Fire Department ‰ Marc Beneditto, Thomaston Fire Department ‰ Rich Tingle, Superintendent, Thomas ton Water Pollution Control Authority 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. Thomaston is responsible for a 1/8 cost share through in-kind services. III. Project Scope and Schedule The project scope was described, including pr oject initiation and data collection, the vulnerability assessment, public meetings, development of recommendations, and the FEMA Review and Plan adoption. A 14-month schedule was presented. First Selectwoman Martin as signed Paul Pronovost and Gene Torrence to be the main points of contact, and Debbie B ournival of her office as the point of contact person for billing. The Board of Selectman will be the governing body to eventually approve the Plan. IV. Hazards to Address The Thomaston plan will likely address fl ooding, hurricanes and tropical storms, winter storms and nor’easters, summer storms and tornadoes, earthquakes, dam failure, and wildfires. February 14, 2008 Page 2 V. Discussion of Hazard Mitigation Procedures in Effect & Problem Areas ‰ While Scott Bighinatti of MMI saw little flooding in Thomaston during the storm on February 13, 2008, Paul Pronovost said that th ere are several out of the way areas in Town that flood due to proximal wetlands or undersized culverts. Scott is going to schedule a ride-along with Paul to photograph and note problem areas. ‰ The FEMA FIS is in need of updating, but L itchfield is a low priority in the MapMod program. ‰ The informational public meeting was sc heduled for the last Monday in March (March 24 th) at 7:00 PM in the Lena Morton Room in the Town Hall. Emergency Response Capabili ties & Evacuation Routes ‰ The Town has enhanced 9-1-1 for emerge ncy notification and response. They currently rely on a phone line to enhance their radio communications. If phone service is cut off, they rely on standard radios and the cell tower in Town. The Town currently uses a low band for radio and fire frequencies, but is looking to upgrade to a high band system. The cell tower in Town is surrounded by several cellular company maintenance buildings and while the Town fac ilities are supposed to move into one of these buildings, it hasn’t occurred yet. The Town’s “Radio Hut” is not climate controlled and does not have a generator. It is located at the end of Chapel Street. ‰ The Police Chief is the main emergency person. There is a one-person LEPC in Town, but generally the Town forms tem porary committees when they need to accomplish a specific task related to emergency planning. ‰ Evacuation routes are regionally defined by the Regional Evacuation Plan. No local evacuation plan exists. The Emergency Operations Plan is curre ntly being redrafted. ‰ The Fire Department is the primary shelter, but has only been used when power outages have occurred. The Fire Depart ment can take 50 people temporarily, but overnight sheltering is an issue. The High School is currently a secondary shelter, but will become a primary shelter once f unding is secured for a generator. Critical Facilities ‰ There are two town-owned elderly housing f acilities, but no assisted living facilities in Town. One facility is on Reynolds Bridge Road. ‰ Town Hall (also contains PD) – 158 Main Street ‰ Fire Department – 245 South Main Street February 14, 2008 Page 3 ‰ Highway Department / Public Works Gara ge on Reynolds Bridge Road near Maple Avenue ‰ Sewage Treatment Plant. According to Ri ch Tingle, it is currently operating near capacity, and will likely be operating at capacity once proposed developments are built. It is located on Old Waterbury Road. The Town Transfer Station is also on Old Waterbury Road next to the STP. ‰ Connecticut Water Company wellfie ld off Reynolds Bridge Road ‰ Thomaston Valley Village (elderly rental units) ‰ Telephone switching station on High Street ‰ Connecticut Light & Power S ubstation on Electric Avenue ‰ Center School (mid-level) is located on Th omas Avenue / Clay Street. Thomaston High School is located on Route 109. Black Rock Elementary is also located on Route 109 near the High School. Zoning, Subdivision, Inland Wetlands Regulations ‰ Regulations will be collected by Scott when he returns to Thomaston for the ride along. ‰ Hydrants, underground tanks, and fire ponds are recommended for new developments but these are not in the regulations. ‰ Virginia has PDF copies of all the mappi ng performed in the Plan of Conservation and Development. Noted Flooding and/or Dr ainage Problem Areas ‰ Carter Road – an 18” metal culvert replaced a larger concrete culvert that failed and it is undersized. ‰ Hickory Hill Road – wetlands overtop the road in “Peck Hollow”. The culvert here is undersized. There is also one house on Hi ckory west of Turner Road that is floodprone (Nystroms?). ‰ Hillside Avenue and Gilbert Street – No storm drainage systems, and all nearby basements run their sump pumps to the street . The buildings were designed that way in the 1920’s. February 14, 2008 Page 4 ‰ Leigh Avenue – The end of the road is pr ivate and they have drainage problems due to the nearby lake and wetlands ‰ Route 6 – Water backs up at an undersized culvert at Watertown Road upstream of Stumpf Avenue. The water flows over R oute 6, but doesn’t generally impact the residences downstream. ‰ Black Rock Condominiums – There are b eavers on Branch Brook that have built dams which almost flooded the condos. The condo maintenance staff has slowly taken down the dams to prevent flooding of the units. ‰ The Town has 919 catch basins. Catch basins are an annual schedule for maintenance, but end up being cleaned bia nnually. Some catch basins are cleaned more often as per the Stormwater Management Plan. ‰ Railroad Street at Altair Av enue– Bridge #140-001 is collapsing. It overtopped by 6” during April ’07 Nor’easter. Repairs are pla nned, but putting it in the plan will help. Scott will download the hydrologic report from the Town website. This unnamed tributary to the Naugatuck River receives outflow from Plymouth Reservoir to the east. Problem Areas for Wind Damage ‰ There is a 20-30 unit mobile home park located off Waterbury Road in the southeastern section of Town near Carter road that is susceptible to damage from tornadoes and high winds. The park is lo cated near the 100-year floodplain of the Naugatuck River. ‰ Tornadoes have not touched down in Thomaston in recent memory, but they have occurred nearby. A tornado struck Black Ro ck State Park in 1989 and killed a Girl Scout in her tent. ‰ The Town performs annual tree maintenance, both near roadways and for private property owners who request it. Paul said the Town does not cable trees. “If it’s brown, it’s down.” Problems Due to Snow and Ice ‰ There are many hills in Thomaston whic h can sometimes make driving difficult during icy weather. ‰ Icing is a problem on Blakeman Road. February 14, 2008 Page 5 ‰ Icing is also a problem on the Condominiu m access road at 143 Pine Hill Road. ‰ Ice jams are not an issue along the Naugatuck River in Thomaston. Dams ‰ The US Army Corps of Engineers maintains three dams in Town, the City of Waterbury maintains one, and several other pr ivate dams exist. The Town also owns a Dam in the Town of Litchfield. ‰ The Town does not currently perform inspections of lower hazard dams, only the dam it manages in Litchfield. Wildfires and Fire Protection ‰ Fires often occur in the nearby Mattatuck State Forest in Thomaston and Watertown. A large fire happened in Watertown in 1986 that burned 300 acres (this is already in our other plans). Thomaston often gets the first call for fires that occur in the forest and responds with Watertown. The State won’t come out unless the fire is really large. Most fires only burn a few acres before they are extinguished. ‰ Thomaston does not have a four-wheel dr ive brush truck, but they have a tanker capable of carrying water to remote locations. ‰ The Town does not have dry hydrants at fi re ponds, but will throw a line into a pond if they need water at a remote fire. ‰ The Town has mutual aid agreements with all its neighbors. ‰ Fires also have occurr ed off Waterbury Road. Development Trends ‰ There are two “Active Adult” 55-and-over developments planned for the Town. One is for 38 units off Humiston Circle, and th e other has 47 units (planned to go in off Strawberry Park. There is also an elderl y living facility consisting of rental homes located on Reynolds Bridge Road. ‰ The minimum road width in new developmen ts is 24’. Cul-de-sacs are limited to 1000’ in total length. Ut ilities are located underground in new developments whenever not inhibited by shallow depth to bedrock. Connectivity is encouraged when possible, but Thomaston is very hilly which sometimes limits through streets. ‰ A Brownfield property is likely to be rede veloped someday, but has been talked about for about 20 years. This property is nor th of Route 6 at Route 8 (Exit 39). Meeting Minutes February 14, 2008 Page 6 ‰ There is an existing approval for a 12 lot Industrial Park off Reynolds Bridge Road. It has yet to be built, but th e developer is applying for an extension of the approval. ‰ There are redevelopment contracts in Town for certain business buildings. One of these buildings is located on Watertown Road across from the end of the Exit 38 ramp from Route 8 southbound. ‰ The Naugatuck River Greenway is currently under the Planning and Zoning Commission. ‰ Thomaston already has 23% protected open space, primarily due to the three US Army Corps of Engineers dams in Town, and the Wigwam reservoir lands owned by the City of Waterbury. General consensus in Town is that there is enough open space and that developments should be allowed. VI. Acquisitions None COGCNV field notes Field inspection on March 5, 2008 Notes typed March 5 2008 Scott Bighinatti Paul Pronovost, Superintendent of the Thomaston Highway Department, escorted Scott Bighinatti of Milone & MacBroom, Inc. during field inspections of several problematic crossings in Thomaston. Approximately one inch of ra in fell in the 24-hours prior to inspections. a) Reynolds Bridge Road – Paul mentioned that Reynolds Bridge Road was declared a “low- income” area and eligible for a grant to put drai nage on the street. More details are to be available after his grant meeting on March 7 th. The area in question is from Route 8 to just past Pond View, an active adult co mmunity that is under construction. b) Carter Road (Nibbling Brook) – The culvert under Carter Ro ad is undersized. When the culvert is blocked or overwhelmed, water floods the road. The culvert was nearly full after one inch of rain the previous day (see photo). The house on the downs tream side is not affected, but his lower driveway is cut off by the floodwaters. The FEMA representative who inspected Thomaston after the nor’easter of April 2007 stated that this replacement may be eligible for PDM grant funds, but was too small a project for disaster relief funds. A nearby catch basin was clogged and full of water. Paul said this culvert is overwhelmed constantly. Upstream face of Carter Road culvert c) Altair Avenue – An unnamed tributary to the Naugatuck River crosses Altair Avenue. The stream has its headwaters in Plymouth Reservoir. This bridge is in bad shape. The wingwalls on the upstream side are heavily deteri orated, and the remainder of the structure is also deteriorating. The top of the bridge concrete has cracked through the pavement (see photo). The Town is currently waiting on a diversion permit from DEP to begin putting the bridge work out to bid. Altair Avenue (bridge concrete peeking through pavement) d) Park Street at Main Street – This intersection flooded two years ago (likely late spring 2006). The DOT had buried a manhole access on Main Street for a culvert running under Park Street, and it had become clogged. The Town found the manhole (from 1902 maps) and unclogged the pipe. They have had no problems since. e) Waterman Road (Route 6) – The unnamed tributary to the Nauga tuck River is culverted at Stumpf Avenue, but the box culvert is large e nough such that the Town has not had problems with flooding in this neighborhood. The problem is at Route 6, where th e culvert appears undersized and the channel is h eavily vegetated (see photo). When this intersection floods, the water almost reaches nearby businesses. This would be a DOT project. DOT culvert under Waterman Road (Route 6) f) Black Rock Condominiums – This condo complex off Old Branch Road had flooding problems due to beavers damming up Branch Brook. They haven’t had problems in almost four years. It’s a private road in the condominiums, and Paul was unsure if they used to pull down the beaver dams as a favor to the reside nts or if the Town had actual jurisdiction. g) Old Northfield Road – An unnamed tributary to Branch Br ook runs parallel to this road for a while, and also crosses it once. The culvert under this bridge was extended once and patched recently. It will eventually need to be replaced (currently has an eight-t on limit). It is a steep grade into the tributary where the stream parallels the road. h) Hickory Lane (Part 1) – This road is a Federal Hi ghway Administration (FHWA) road based on its status as a “connector road” between Route 254 and Route 109. As such, FEMA would not provide disaster funding when it washed out in April 2007 because it would duplicate another federal program. FHWA refu sed to provide funding because the road had too little traffic, so the Town performed repairs. Two streams cross the road at a low point. The first is the same unnamed tributary discus sed in part g. The corrugated metal pipe was damaged on the downstream side during April 2007 partially because of a side drain from the street. The Town put a black corrugated pipe on the end of the side drain and ran a new black pipe most of the wa y under the road (see photo). Unnamed Tributary to Branch Brook at Hickory Lane, downstream side i) Hickory Lane (Part 2) – This stream is an unnamed tri butary to the unnamed tributary to Branch Brook discussed in parts g and h. The cr ossing pipe here is undersized (see photo) and is additionally overwhelmed when overflow from the stream at part h makes its way down the road. This pipe was last replaced in the early 2000’s and was not properly sized. Drainage from the street and nearby properties also is eroding the road side. Unnamed tributary to unnamed tributary to Branch Brook at Hickory Lane, upstream j) Bayberry Drive – This road crosses a different unname d tributary to Branch Brook and is the only egress to a 40 unit subdivision. The upstream side has an aluminum flared end section that has come loose at the pipe (see photo). Paul is worried that the collapsed flared end section is allowing water to bypass the pipe unde r the road, which will eventually lead to structural problems. There is a gully on the top of the inlet side of the pipe that at first glance could be caused by erosion from road runoff, but there is a functional storm drain just above it. The gully may have occurred from sp alling caused by the stream bypassing the pipe. Bayberry Drive culvert, upstream k) Town Center – There is a box culvert (maximum dimensions are 8’x8’) that runs from behind the Town Hall and throughout the center of Town past Elm Street. It carries an unnamed tributary to the Naugatuck River that has its headwaters in a small impoundment near Humiston Hill Road. Part of this culvert runs underneath the corner of the Library and several commercial buildings, so proper maintenance of this culvert is important. l) South Main Street – Thomaston has many high ledges that have been cut to make room for roads and highways. South Main Street (Route 254) has a corner just south of Strawberry Park where the ledge is next to the road. C hunks of ice fell onto the road while inspections were underway. Paul says this is a comm on problem that is dealt with every year. Page 5 Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR THOMASTON Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Public Information Meeting March 24, 2008 I. Welcome & Introductions Several individuals attended the public meeting: ‰ David Murphy, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI) ‰ Virginia Mason, Council of Governme nts Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV) ‰ Maura Martin, First Selectwoman ‰ Mary Barton, Land Use Officer ‰ ___, American Red Cross 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, Thomaston, Connecticut” Mr. Murphy and Mr. Eisenbeiser pr esented the power point slideshow. III. Questions, Comments, and Discussion ‰ A 2.6-magnitude earthquake in New York last week was felt in Bridgeport. ‰ Altair Avenue above Railroad Street is a pot ential problem. If cut off, the route to one house would reportedl y be three miles. ‰ Gilbert Street suffers from a l ack of storm drainage systems. ‰ Private dams are a concern. A failure of the Leigh Avenue private dam could affect five homes and Route 6. This dam needs to be included in the plan. The nearby unpaved road is now acting as a watercourse. ‰ Detention basins are an important issue. The Town may want to do a study or broad- scale maintenance project. The plan s hould address this. Northfield Brook area detention basins should be discussed. ‰ It was asked if flooding due to developm ents would be addressed in the plan. Meeting Minutes March 24, 2008 Page 2 ‰ At least one drainage system was not insta lled correctly; this could be Hickory Hill, installed in the 1980s. Someone needs to check/verify. ‰ The Wetlands Commission recently updated their regulations using the DEP model regulations. ‰ Would this program and the plan provide funding for the Naugatuck River greenway? It is not likely. Would it provide fundi ng for tearing down brownfields? Their brownfields are in the floodpl ain and need to be redeveloped. If there is a way to address this in the plan, we should. ‰ Does the plan address adjacent towns? They are all uphill from Thomaston and should be discussed. Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Thomaston, Connecticut Presented by : David Murphy, P.E. – Associate Milone & MacBroom, Inc. March 24, 2008 • Authority – Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (amendments to Stafford Act of 1988) • Goal of Disaster Mitigation Act – Encourage disaster preparedness – Encourage hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses of life and property History of Hazard Mitigation Plans M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Local municipalities must have a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place to receive federal grant funds for hazard mitigation projects ƒNaugatuck ƒ Southbury ƒ Thomaston ƒ Beacon Falls ƒ Bethlehem ƒ Middlebury Municipalities Currently Involved in the Regional Mitigation Planning Process M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. 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. • An extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, and resources What is a Natural Hazard ? M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Pre-disaster actions that reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people, property, and resources from natural hazards and their effects What is Hazard Mitigation? M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Reduce loss / damage to life, property, and infrastructure • Reduce the cost to residents and businesses • Educate residents and policy-makers about natural hazard risk and vulnerability • Connect hazard mitigation planning to other community planning efforts • Enhance and preserve natural resource systems in the community Long-Term Goals of Hazard Mitigation M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Terrorism and Sabotage • Disaster Response and Recovery • Human Induced Emergencies (some fires, hazardous spills and contamination, disease, etc.) What a Hazard Mitigation Plan Does Not Address M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Identify natural hazards that could occur in Thomaston • Evaluate the vulnerability of structures and populations and identify critical facilities and areas of concern • Assess adequacy of mitigation measures currently in place • Evaluate potential mitigation measures that could be undertaken to reduce the risk and vulnerability • Develop recommendations for future mitigation actions Components of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Emergency Services – Police Department, Fire Department (Primary Shelter), Ambulance • Municipal Facilities – Town Hall, Department of Public Works • High School – Secondary Shelter Thomaston High School Thomaston Fire Department Thomaston’s Critical Facilities M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Health Care and Assisted Living • Utilities – Water Tanks, Pumping Stations, Electric Substations, Communications Towers • Wastewater Utilities – Pumping Stations and Treatment Plants Thomaston’s Critical Facilities M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. CWC Wellfield Thomaston Wastewater Treatment Plant Potential Mitigation Categories M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Public Education Prevention Structural Projects Natural Resource Protection Property Protection Emergency Services • Utilization of 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 Potential Mitigation Measures M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Inland flooding • Winter storms, nor’easters, heavy snow, blizzards, ice storms • Hurricanes • Summer storms, tornadoes, thunderstorms, lightning, hail • Dam failure • Wildfires • Earthquakes Partially Blocked Culverts Pose Threats During Heavy Rain Storms Primary Natural Hazards Facing Thomaston M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Winds • Heavy rain / flooding Church Street & Park Place in Naugatuck Church Street Road Damage in Naugatuck Hurricanes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Plume & Atwood ManufacturingWaterbury, CT • Heavy wind / tornadoes / downbursts • Lightning • Heavy rain • Hail Lightning over Boston Flooding in MN Tornado in KS Summer Storms and Tornadoes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Blizzards and nor’easters • Heavy snow and drifts • Freezing rain / ice Blizzard of 1978 – CT CT River April 2007 Winter Storms M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Severe rains or earthquakes can cause failure • Possibility of loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage ACOE Northfield Pond Dam Dam Failure M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Nystrom Pond Dam, Litchfield(owned by Thomaston) • Thomaston has low to moderate risk of wildfires • Fire • Heat • Smoke Photo courtesy of FEMA Wildfires M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Thomaston is in an area of minor seismic activity • Chester, CT experienced a small, 2.0 magnitude earthquake on March 11, 2008 • Can cause dam failure Š Shaking Š Liquefaction Š Secondary (Slides/Slumps) Photos courtesy of FEMA Earthquakes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Watertown Road (Route 6) • Carter Road • Hickory Hill Road • Hillside Avenue / Gilbert Street • Altair Avenue • Bayberry Drive Area-Specific Flooding Problems M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Tributaries to the Naugatuck River Flooding M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Watertown Road Carter Road • Unnamed tributary to the Naugatuck River at Hickory Hill Road (FHWA Connector Road) Flooding M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Hickory Hill Road Downstream Stream Draining Nearby Wetlands Wetlands and Brook Overflow Area • Atlair Avenue Corridor: ŠOvertopped during April 07 nor’easter Š Currently in permitting phase Flooding M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Altair Avenue Upstream Altair Avenue Downstream • Other Streams and Localized Problems: – Hillside Avenue / Gilbert Street – No drainage systems; basements pump out into street – Bayberry Drive – Stream crosses only entrance to subdivision Flooding M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Bayberry Drive Upstream • Incorporate input from residents • Rank hazard vulnerability • Develop a response strategy • Prepare the draft plan with recommendations for review by the Town and the public • Adopt and implement the plan Next Steps M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Questions and Additions M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. COGCNV field notes Field inspection on August 1, 2008 Notes typed August 1, 2008 Scott Bighinatti Paul Pronovost, Superintendent of the Thomaston Highway Department, escorted Scott Bighinatti of Milone & MacBroom, Inc. duri ng a second round of field inspections of problematic areas in Thomaston. Valley View Road Development – This area was previously mentioned as having issues with poor drainage that affects nearby prope rty owners. The drainage was not properly installed in that one of the major catch basins drains into an unnamed tributary that drains south eventually into Branch Brook. This tr ibutary is in a valley approximately 100’ below the level of the road. Supposedly, this catch basin was supposed to be installed further down the road, where another catch basin also carries water to a “silt pond” behind a house on Hickory Hill Road. The ou tlet of the silt pond eventually meets up with the unnamed tributary above th e personal pond of this house. Supposedly, the property owner of this house began having trouble with too much silt in the “silt pond” not after the Valley View development went in, but when a development west of the unnamed tributary was started. There are several odd things about this complaint: 1) The “silt pond” is not hydraulically conn ected to the new development, so silt should not be affecting it, though it could affect the homeowner’s front yard pond 2) The drainage pipe that the homeowner is complaining about does not drain to the silt pond 3) The Town of Thomaston does not use sa nd on the roads in the winter, so sand isn’t coming from the roadways from either pipe 4) The stream has a lot of en ergy, particularly downstream of Hickory Hill Road, so small, unregistered private dams may be the real issue causing siltation in the ponds. 5) Rainfall has been up this year, so erosion is likely more prevalent upstream of the homeowner’s property The Highway Department and the Inland We tlands Officer went to investigate the complaint, but found nothing wrong with the work ings of the drainage system other than the fact it was improperly located. Paul feels there is little the Town can do at this point and Scott agreed that this area would not be suitable for a FEMA grant-funded project. Twin Pond Road: Two small ponds exist below the properties off the east side of this road. Both ponds have DEP-registered dams with undetermined hazard ratings. Paul says that the south pond (known in the DEP da tabase as Southerly Pond) is used as a stormwater detention basin for the Twin P ond Road development and potentially other roads as well. However, the pond has begun to fill in over the past 14 years, and it needs dredging to reacquire lost storage. Paul woul d like a project that installs a sediment trap Page 1 Page 2 or filtration system on the outlet of the stormwater system , and dredges the pond back to its normal depth. If the pond continues to fill , eventually a large storm will cause water to overtop the dam, which could lead to a fa ilure. At least three houses downstream on Smith Road could be affected, especially because the outlet stream is culverted underground past Smith Road. Discharge beyon d this point flows through forest before passing under Route 8, Main Street, and th en into the Naugatuck River. These downstream areas will like ly not be affected. High Street Extension: A stream exits an underground cu lvert near High Street and runs parallel along the west side of the road. The stream is causing bank erosion on both sides of the stream. Soil conditions appear sandy which exacerbates the problem. Paul is concerned about the scour eventually cutting to the road that is only three feet away. Rip rap is likely the best solution here. Leigh Avenue private dam : Discussion continued regardi ng Leigh Avenue dam. This dam is a private, unregistered dam upstream from Leigh Avenue and thus does not appear in the DEP database. It is not the Stevens Da m as Scott thought. The area is very rural and the dam is only accessible on foot or by quad. Paul says that it is an earthen dam with a pipe through it for a spillway. The best course of action is likely to ask the DEP to come out and inspect it to determine what hazard it may cause. Grant to put drainage on Reynolds Bridge Road : Paul says the grant funding he pursued in March did not come through. However, he mentioned that the Town replaced the catch basin that I saw clogged back during fiel d inspections in February, so we can take that area out of our recommendations. 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 From: Ifkovic, Diane [Diane.Ifkovic@ct.gov] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:54 AM To: Jfdwk@aol.com; mmartin@thomastonct.org; susanacable@aol.com Cc: Christian, Art; Virginia Mason; Shaw n Goulet; Dave Murphy; Scott Bighinatti Subject: No RLPs for Bethlehem, Beacon Falls or Thomaston Importance: Low Hi all, According to FEMA’s Repetitive Loss Property (RLP) database, there are NO RLPs in Bethlehem, Beacon Falls or Thomaston. If you need any data, such as list of propertie s in town with flood insurance, please give a call or email. diane Diane S. Ifkovic State NFIP Coordinator/E nvironmental Analyst III Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Protection & Land Reuse Inland Water Resources Division Flood Management Program 79 Elm Street, 3rd floor Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Phone: (860) 424-3537 Fax: (860) 424-4075 Email: diane.ifkovic@ct.gov APPENDIX C RECORD OF MUNICIPAL ADOPTION ERRATA TO BE PRESENTED FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Town of Thomaston, Connecticut Section 8 Page 8-10: Added a line clarifying that the dam failure i nundation areas for the Plymouth Reservoir Dam that were received from Connec ticut Water Company are redrawn from other maps and are for planning purposes only.